GRAFFITI CONTROL (MISCELLANEOUS) AMENDMENT BILL
29/05/2012
The Hon. K.L. VINCENT (16:45): I wish to place on the record my rather vehement opposition to this bill. Indeed, whilst I can to some extent appreciate the premise on which this bill has been created, I must say that I find the bill itself far too prescriptive in nature and too simplistic and far-reaching in its scope.
I would like to begin by stating that I am particularly affronted by the bill’s tendency to overwhelmingly correlate graffiti with young people. I am not amenable to the condescending, generalist and reproachful attitude toward the youth of our society which this bill perpetuates. It may or may not be the case that the majority of graffiti is created by young people. Regardless, I do object to the overall tone of this bill, which would seemingly have you believe that all our state’s young people are out on the streets late into the night creating havoc and blanketing our buildings, bus stops, railway stations and the like with senseless scribblings.
I believe that the blanket approach to all graffiti and young people which this bill seeks to instate is most highlighted in the section of the bill which would flatly prohibit the sale of spray paint to persons under the age of 18 years. To me, this says, ‘Young people are more likely to engage in graffiti than other people. It is possible that not all of them do, but we had better make it unavailable to all of them, just in case.’ To me, this seems quite ridiculous. I oppose most of the bill on similar grounds.
I also take issue with the suggestion that, where a court finds a person guilty of creating graffiti for a second time, it must prohibit that person from obtaining or using a driver’s licence for a period of one to six months. I find this absurd for many reasons, not the least of which is the fact that this is, once again, a measure which is seemingly focused on young people for insultingly generalist reasons.
There is, of course, no direct correlation between graffiti and a person’s ability to drive a car, particularly drive a car safely. Therefore, I assume that the government has put forward this idea with a view to punishing young people specifically, as we all know that often when a young person obtains a driver’s licence it can be a great door opener for them, something which gives them a lot of liberty and autonomy which they may not have had previously. Therefore, taking that away from them as a young person is sometimes seen as an effective way to punish them.
I also think it is ridiculous, as the government is suggesting that everyone has a licence, like it is something that all young people have. I am able to report to you that I do not have a driver’s licence but could theoretically still mark graffiti around the place—but, of course, Mr President, I am quick to assure you that I do not plan on doing that at any time soon. How, then, would you penalise someone like me for an offence?
There is no connection between driving a car and graffiti. If someone drives a car dangerously or while over the legal alcohol limit, we do not remove their job as a surgeon, for example. This is because there is no connection between the crime and the punishment, and this is perfectly logical legislating.
Indeed, I think it would be fair to say that this technique of licence removal is often employed by parents to punish their own children, and I suppose that as parents that is their right. However, I think most honourable members would agree with me that there is and should be a line between the role of parliamentarians in this state protecting its young people and having too much control over them. It is my belief that this section of the bill oversteps that line all too much and that there should be only room in our statute books for punitive measures which directly relate to the offence committed.
Finally, I place on record my concern about an issue which does not relate to this bill per se but rather to the current Graffiti Control Act itself. As I am sure the members are aware, the current act does not actually give a definition of what exactly does constitute graffiti, therefore I am concerned that if this act is amended in the way that is proposed by this bill we would not only limit the opportunities for young people to create what I would define as harmful graffiti, we would also limit their opportunities to create what I would consider real graffiti.
Because of the blanket approach this bill takes, it is possible that we may also limit the opportunity to create what we may call legitimate street art—murals and the like—which can be seen on many of our beloved Adelaide buildings and streets. While I understand that street art may not be everyone’s cup of tea, I think we can all agree that it does add some colour to our city and is in no way harmful.
As we all know, the arts industry is highly competitive and difficult to break into in the first place, so I think it would be a great shame if we were to further limit the opportunities available to the artists of our state to add colour, vibrancy and perspective to our lives through their work. In fact, an Adelaidenow article from 1 June 2011, if my memory serves me, has shown us that this has already occurred: the Stepney council painted over a legitimate mural on a gallery wall after mistaking it for graffiti.
As I said, I am concerned that the lack of definition of graffiti in the current act, in addition to the narrow-minded blanket approach to the issue of graffiti taken by the government in the form of this bill, will take away unnecessarily from the civil liberties and opportunities of the people both young and old of South Australia and, therefore, I am quite unable to support it.
Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. J.M. Gazzola.
