Page 1813 - Week 06 - Wednesday, 4 May 2005
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
The minister was wondering why we were not comparing Canberra to other larger cities such as Sydney, Melbourne, New York, London, et cetera. That is a fair comment in one respect. You would have to say that the sort of graffiti problems cities of that calibre around the First World have had have been serious problems. It would seem to me that those problems have remained fairly constant over the years with the exception of New York, where inroads have been made. But we are talking about Canberra, where we have seen a dramatic deterioration in standards in 20 years. You are comparing apples with oranges if you take that approach.
The Greens wondered why I have been describing Third World cities, countries and villages. Clearly the Greens did not listen to what I said. I said that, in travelling through developing countries, there is a lot of graffiti; but I also said that there are many proud communities in the Third World that do not have graffiti. They compare and relate quite favourably to what we see here in Canberra.
The minister was bemoaning the fact that the Canberra Times had only selectively photographed graffiti in the city and photographed what he described as the “dirty graffiti” on the back of city buildings, but had failed to photograph the nice graffiti—somehow to develop some sort of balanced picture of what we are seeing in the city. It does not matter, because the issue was that business owners in the city centre were concerned at the level of dirty graffiti on the backs of their buildings. That was the issue and, understandably, that is what the Canberra Times was focusing on.
By the way, a lot of people do not particularly like so-called nice graffiti or art graffiti adorning buildings. A lot of people in Canberra, whether they like the architecture or not—and there is a lot of criticism about that—would prefer to see buildings left as they are, not covered in graffiti murals and the like. Maybe there is a place for that, but it is not necessarily out in the public square or in the public street.
There is surely an outlet for those who want to exercise their graffiti art tendencies and talents but perhaps it is somewhere out of sight and out of mind, where it does not impact on the community, when the community does not feel particularly supportive about that sort of activity.
Dr Foskey’s ebullient, poetic descriptions of graffiti and her lame excuse for the graffiti problem simply do not help the problem. No graffiti is good in public places. Taking the poetic approach that, “Oh well, we let these young things exercise their artistic talents and express themselves in some way” is not the answer to tackling the problems we have in Canberra, which is simply rundown, looking dirty and covered in graffiti.
We would hope to see the Greens join with us here in this place to take a more responsible and proactive approach to trying to lift the standards of the city, to take a more accountable approach towards trying to head off at the pass this growing graffiti problem, rather than worrying about various artistic talents. That is not the answer; and, besides, the greater community does not really care, as I was saying, for this so-called graffiti art. I think it is the responsibility of all of us in this place to be concerned about the greater good, not simply always what concerns certain interest groups in the community.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .