graffiti and the criminal law amendment bill 1996 · the 1996 bill repeals the criminal code 1995...

ELECTRONIC VERSION

GRAFFITI AND THE CRIMINAL LAWAMENDMENT BILL 1996

LEGISLATION BULLETIN NO 1/97

KAREN SAMPFORD

QUEENSLAND PARLIAMENTARY LIBRARYPublications and Resources Section

BRISBANEMarch 1997

ISSN 1324-860XISBN 0 7242 7355 7

This Legislation Bulletin was prepared to assist Members in their consideration of theBill in the Queensland Legislative Assembly. It should not be considered as a completeguide to the legislation and does not constitute legal advice.

The Bulletin reflects the legislation as introduced. The Queensland LegislationAnnotations, prepared by the Office of the Queensland Parliamentary Counsel, or theBills Update, produced by the Table Office of the Queensland Parliament, should beconsulted to determine whether the Bill has been enacted and if so, whether thelegislation as enacted reflects amendments in Committee. Readers are also directed tothe relevant Alert Digest of the Scrutiny of Legislation Committee of the QueenslandParliament.© Queensland Parliamentary Library, 1997

Copyright protects this publication. Except for purposes permitted by the CopyrightAct 1968, reproduction by whatever means is prohibited, other than by Members ofthe Queensland Parliament in the course of their official duties, without the priorwritten permission of the Parliamentary Librarian, Queensland Parliamentary Library

Inquiries should be addressed to: Director, Publications & Resources, QueenslandParliamentary Library, Parliament House, George Street, Brisbane.Director: Ms Mary Seefried. (Tel: 3406 7116)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1

2. ORIGINS AND HISTORY OF GRAFFITI ................................................... 2

2.1 THE COST OF GRAFFITI.................................................................................. 4

3. LEGISLATIVE RESPONSES TO GRAFFITI IN AUSTRALIA ................. 6

3.1 NEW SOUTH WALES ...................................................................................... 6

3.2 VICTORIA...................................................................................................... 8

3.3 SOUTH AUSTRALIA...................................................................................... 11

3.4 WESTERN AUSTRALIA ................................................................................. 12

3.5 TASMANIA .................................................................................................. 13

3.6 AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY .............................................................. 13

4. QUEENSLAND: CURRENT AND PROPOSED LEGISLATION ............. 15

4.1 THE CURRENT POSITION.............................................................................. 15

4.2 THE QUEENSLAND NATIONAL LIBERAL COALITION POLICY ON GRAFFITI AND

VANDALISM...................................................................................................... 16

4.3 THE GOSS GOVERNMENT’S 1995 ELECTION POLICY.................................... 17

4.4 THE REPORT OF THE CRIMINAL CODE ADVISORY WORKING GROUP TO THE

ATTORNEY-GENERAL........................................................................................ 18

4.5 THE CRIMINAL LAW AMENDMENT BILL 1996 .............................................. 18

5. NON-LEGISLATIVE RESPONSES TO THE GRAFFITI PROBLEM..... 21

5.1 LEGAL GRAFFITI ART .................................................................................. 22

5.2 A VOLUNTARY CODE OF PRACTICE FOR RETAILERS..................................... 25

BIBLIOGRAPHY ............................................................................................. 26

APPENDIX A .................................................................................................... 30

Graffiti and the Criminal Law Amendment Bill 1996 Page 1

1. INTRODUCTION

On 4 December 1996, the Criminal Law Amendment Bill was introduced into theQueensland Legislative Assembly by Hon D E Beanland MLA. The 1996 Billrepeals the Criminal Code 1995 (Qld) 1, which has not yet been proclaimed, andsubstitutes wide-ranging amendments to the current Criminal Code.2 Among theproposed changes is the creation of aggravated offences of wilful damage involving:

• graffiti: Criminal Code s 469, proposed new subsection (9), and

• damage to the property of an educational institution: s 469, proposed newsubsection (10).

The Criminal Law Amendment Bill 1996 also proposes that the Vagrants, Gamingand Other Offences Act 1931 (Qld) be amended by inserting a new offence to coverthe possession of graffiti instruments: proposed new s 37C.

This Legislation Bulletin discusses only those proposed changes outlined above.Certain other proposed amendments made by the Criminal Law Amendment Bill1996 are discussed in Legislation Bulletins 2/97 and 3/97.

Section 2 of this Bulletin outlines the origins and history of graffiti, and describeshow modern-day graffiti artists operate. The rationale behind graffitists’ actions isexplored and differing viewpoints about graffiti are presented. The costs, monetaryand non-monetary, associated with graffiti are listed and some estimates from avariety of contexts are given. Section 3 describes existing legislative responses tograffiti here in Australia to date. In Section 4, the background to the proposedQueensland amendments is discussed, and the proposed changes are outlined.Section 5 examines other ways in which the graffiti problem has been sought to beaddressed, such as the establishment of legal graffiti or street art sites and theadoption of voluntary codes of practice for retailers of spray paint cans.

Appendix A to this Bulletin contains a cross-section of print media views on graffitiin society, and the proposed legislative changes as reported over the last fewmonths. Relevant Ministerial Media statements are also included.

1 Clause 121.

2 Clause 5.

Graffiti and the Criminal Law Amendment Bill 1996

2. ORIGINS AND HISTORY OF GRAFFITI

The word graffiti is originally derived from the Greek graphein, meaning to draw orwrite. Its first recorded use in the English language, to refer to crude drawings orinscriptions on a wall or fence, has been traced to 1877, although graffiti itself datesback to ancient times.3 As Morwood and Walsh note:

The urge to leave ... personal marks for posterity appears to be a basic humantrait. In fact, studies have shown that this was one of the motivating factors whenAustralian Aborigines decorated the walls of rock shelters. Aboriginals artistsare known to have used hand stencils at a site to record a visit, and such“signatures” could serve as a memorial to be mourned over after the artist’sdeath.

Writing on walls also has a long history. For instance, archaeologists have foundmany inscriptions on the walls of the city of Pompeii, which was buried by avolcanic eruption in 79AD. In some cases these graffiti were names. Othersexpressed sentiments like “Romula tarried here with Staphylus”. They present areal insight into ancient Roman life, values and humour.4

Modern-day graffiti is likewise believed to be motivated by a desire for self-expression. According to Geason and Wilson, in their book, Preventing Graffitiand Vandalism, the New South Wales Transport Police consider that young peopledo graffiti to achieve fame and recognition.5 A former convicted graffitist, whoseviews were reported in the Sydney Morning Herald, has expressed the opinion thatgraffiti is motivated by “ a fundamental urge to be recognised”.6

While one point of view sees modern-day graffiti as an eye-sore and graffitists asvandals, others, including graffitists themselves, view graffiti as an art form orpropaganda tool. As Geason and Wilson point out: “If beauty is indeed in the eye ofthe beholder, nowhere is this more evident than in the response to graffiti”.7

3 Robert K Barnhart (ed), The Barnhart Dictionary of Etymology, H W Wilson Company, 1988,p 444.

4 Mike Morwood and Grahame Walsh, ‘A mark in time’, Australian Natural History, 24(6),Spring 1993, pp 40-45.

5 as reported in Susan Geason and Paul R Wilson, Preventing Graffiti and Vandalism,Australian Institute of Criminology, Canberra, 1990, p 8.

6 as reported in Sydney Morning Herald, 15 September 1988, quoted in Geason and Wilson, p9.

7 Geason and Wilson, p 1.


According to Monaghan, graffitists are regarded as petty criminals by the NewSouth Wales Police and by Telecom’s Special Vandalism Investigation Squad.8

Others see the streets as public space and graffiti as legitimate self-expression. Forexample, a Melbourne graffitist, quoted in Jill Posener’s book, Louder than Words,a collection of photographs of graffiti taken in Australia and the United Kingdom,says:

The streets are public places. Graffiti is an expression of the experiences andideas of people who live on those streets. Graffiti creates solidarity between allthose people. It isn’t academic, it’s immediate, and doesn’t require money.9

Luna, in a radical critique of graffiti versus commercial advertising, views theprohibition on graffiti in public spaces as a manifestation of capitalist ideology. Hesays:

When we are in an urban environment, our spaces are largely defined by walls,whether they are the inside walls of our private dwellings or the outside walls thatdelimit and divide our public space. Before they are painted on by graffiti artistsor claimed by commercial advertising, these walls are blank canvasses, typicallywhite, ready for images to be created by those who dwell within or around them.Once marked with images and the meanings they suggest, these walls are“consumed” by a population that interprets them. The craft of interiordecorating, for example, is practised by all of us to an extent when we put posters,photographs, and paintings upon our bedrooms and living room walls. Weexercise our ability to arrange images and create meanings on the walls of ourprivate dwellings. Outside, however, we are denied this privilege. Although weare as much creatures of the public realm as the private realm, we find ourselvessilenced whenever and wherever we might create meaning to share with others.10

According to Luna, this is because:

Our public spaces are tightly controlled by the interests of capital and thecapitalist state. The stifling of our ability to adorn our surroundings is a primeexample of the depravity of our common condition under late capitalism. Unlessa person has a lot of money, access to public walls is blocked. And if by somechance someone does have the money required, she or he is usually obligated to

8 David Monaghan, ‘The vandal wars’, Good Weekend, Sydney Morning Herald, 7-8 November1986, cited in Geason and Wilson, p 8.

9 quoted in Fay Sweet, ‘Posener rules OK’, Portfolio, March 1987, p 47.

10 Jeremiah Luna, ‘Eradicating the stain: graffiti and advertising in our public spaces’, BadSubjects, No 20, April 1995, p 1.


produce more capital with the images that adorn those public walls by sellingsomething. In other words, by advertising.11

Those opposed to commercial advertising, especially advertising considered sexistor racist or otherwise offensive, often graffiti billboards as a statement of protest,often with widespread support. As Geason and Wilson point out:

Many anti-smokers, critics of the consumer society - and even judges - aresupportive of the efforts of BUGA UP (Billboard-Utilising Graffitists AgainstUnhealthy Promotions) in defacing billboard advertising for what they considerto be harmful products.12

2.1 THE COST OF GRAFFITI

Graffiti is widely viewed as imposing substantial costs on society, including:

• monetary costs to clean graffiti from buildings, trains, walls etc

• loss of services, and

• danger to human lives.13

According to Geason and Wilson, in 1986, it cost $5 million per annum for theNSW State Rail Authority to remove graffiti from trains.14 According to figurescited during debate on Victoria’s Transport (Anti-Graffiti Bill) 1990, the cost ofremedial and preventive measures to combat graffiti and vandalism on railway trainsand stations totalled approximately $17 million in 1989-90.15

Hidden costs of graffiti which cannot easily be quantified include, for example:

• costs associated with withdrawing a train from service to remove graffiti

• loss of railway revenue due to reduced patronage;

11 Luna, p1.




15 Transport (Anti-Graffiti) Bill 1990 (Vic), Second Reading Speech, Legislative Assembly, MrSpyker, Victorian Parliamentary Debates, 1 November 1990, pp 1751-1752.


• reduced operational life for trains as a result of repeated removal of grafffitiby chemical compounds.16

The cost in human terms of graffiti activities can also be substantial. According tofigures compiled by Wilson, and reported in Geason and Wilson, by 1988, six youngpeople had been killed while painting graffiti on New South Wales trains.17 Otherless obvious but significant costs include:

• the reduction in comfort and security suffered by those who must travel onpublic transport defaced by graffiti18,

• the distress suffered by teachers and students whose school buildings arevandalised19, and

• a loss of confidence and pride in public property and public transportsystems.20

In Queensland, according to figures released by the Attorney-General and Ministerfor Justice, Hon D E Beanland MLA, it cost Queensland Rail $813,000 in 1994-95to clean up graffiti. Graffiti is estimated to cost Brisbane City Council ratepayersapproximately $1 million per annum.21

16 Transport (Anti-Graffiti) Bill 1990 (Vic), Second Reading Speech, Legislative Assembly, MrSpyker, Victorian Parliamentary Debates, 1 November 1990, p 1752.

17 Paul Wilson, ‘Preventing vandalism and graffiti’, American Journal of SecurityAdministration, 11(2), 1988, cited in Geason and Wilson, p 7.


19 Hon R J Quinn MLA, Minister for Education, ‘ Quinn welcomes tough penalties for schoolvandalism’, Ministerial Media Statements for the Period 1 December 1996 to 7 December1996, p 34.


21 Hon D E Beanland MLA, Attorney-General and Minister for Justice, ‘Writing “on the wall”for graffiti vandals’, 16 June 1996, Media Information Summary for the Period 15 June 1996to 21 June 1996, p 13.


3. LEGISLATIVE RESPONSES TO GRAFFITI IN AUSTRALIA

3.1 NEW SOUTH WALES

In New South Wales, specific graffiti offences were inserted into the SummaryOffences Act 1988 by virtue of the Summary Offences and Other Legislation(Graffiti) Amendment Act 1994. Section 10A of the Summary Offences Act makesit an offence to, without reasonable excuse, use spray paint to damage or defaceproperty22, while under s 10B it is an offence to possess spray paint with theintention that it should be used to damage or deface property. In introducing theSummary Offences and Other Legislation (Graffiti) Amendment Bill 1994 to theNSW Legislative Assembly, Mr Fahey, the then Premier and Minister for EconomicDevelopment, stated:

The Government wants to make it plain that graffiti is considered so serious thatthe extra provisions focused specifically on graffiti artists are necessary to protectthe community interests.23

3.1.1 Penalties

Under the NSW legislation, damaging or defacing property with spray paint carriesa maximum penalty of 20 penalty units (ie $2000) or 6 months imprisonment.24

Under the legislation as originally introduced, the offence created by s 10A carried amaximum penalty of 20 penalty units or imprisonment of 12 months. However, anamendment was successfully moved at the Committee stage to reduce the term ofimprisonment from a maximum of 12 to six months.25 In introducing the proposedamendment, Mr Amery argued:

We believe that a penalty of 12 months imprisonment for spray-painting offencesis too severe; it is over the top. Some people have spray-painted billboards as a

22 Under the NSW legislation, the person claiming to have a reasonable excuse bears the burdenof proving this.

23 Summary Offences and Other Legislation (Graffiti) Amendment Bill 1994, Second ReadingSpeech, Legislative Assembly, Mr Fahey, New South Wales Parliamentary Debates, 24November 1994, p 5821.

24 s 10A(1) of the Summary Offences Act 1988 (NSW) and Interpretation Act 1987 (NSW), s 56.

25 Summary Offences and Other Legislation (Graffiti) Amendment Bill 1994, LegislativeAssembly, Committee stage, New South Wales Parliamentary Debates, 24 November 1994, pp6146-48.


protest against cigarette and sexist advertising. Opposition members are veryconcerned - this matter has been discussed in the party room - about the fact thatprison sentences can be imposed for these types of offences. A sentence of sixmonths is more than sufficient for the offences that are described in thislegislation.26

Possession of spray paint with the intention of damaging or defacing propertycarries a maximum penalty of 10 penalty units (ie $1000) or three monthsimprisonment.27

However, a person may not be sentenced to prison for either of the above offencesunless the person has previously been convicted of damaging and defacing propertywith spray paint, or of possessing spray paint “on so many occasions that the courtis satisfied that the person is a serious and persistent offender and is likely tocommit such an offence again”.28

As an alternative to a prison sentence or fine, the NSW legislation provides thatpersons convicted of the offences created by ss 10A and 10B may instead beordered to do community service work in the form of removing graffiti andrestoring premises from which graffiti has been removed.29

Finally, where a person is convicted of possessing spray paint with the intention ofusing it to damage property, the court may order that the spray paint be forfeited.This is in addition to any other penalty that may be imposed.30

3.1.2 The Graffiti Control (Spray Paint Can Display) Bill 1995 (NSW)

In 1995, a Private Member’s Bill was introduced into the NSW Parliament by Mr MJ Richardson MP. Known as the Graffiti Control (Spray Paint Can Display) Bill1995, its purpose was to prohibit retailers of spray paint cans from displaying fullspray paint cans to the public unless the cans were secured against theft. Inintroducing the Bill, Mr Richardson argued :

26 Summary Offences and Other Legislation (Graffiti) Amendment Bill 1994, LegislativeAssembly, Committee stage, Mr Amery, New South Wales Parliamentary Debates, 1December 1994, p 6147.

27 Summary Offences Act 1988 (NSW), s 10B(1) and Interpretation Act 1987 (NSW), s 56.

28 Summary Offences Act 1988 (NSW), s 10A(3) and s 10B(3).

29 Summary Offences Act 1988 (NSW), s 10A(2) and s 10B(2).

30 Summary Offences Act 1988 (NSW), s 10B(4).


Making it more difficult to steal spray-paint cans must by definition reduce thevolume of graffiti. ... There have been suggestions that spray-paint cans should bebanned altogether but that would be unreasonable and unfair to both themanufacturers and the users of a legitimate product. ...

A better option - given that most cans used by graffiti vandals are stolen - isclearly to take the cans off open display, and this is precisely what the bill seeks toachieve. Currently it is common practice to display spray-paint cans in largeopen racks. Frequently, in the large discount stores such as Kmart and Big W,more than 1,000 cans are on display at the one time. Security measures in theaerosol paint section of most stores are poor; there is a greater concentration onsmaller, more highly priced items which can be slipped into a thief’s pocket. Thebill makes it an offence for any retail business to place a full spray-paint can onopen public display where it could be shoplifted. One thousand cans could still bedisplayed in store but they would have to be secured in a locked cage or cabinet.31

Although the Bill was defeated when put to the vote,32 voluntary codes of practicefor spray-paint can retailers have been implemented in other jurisdictions. Thesevoluntary codes of practice are discussed in more detail in Section 5.2 of thisBulletin.

3.2 VICTORIA

In Victoria, specific graffiti offences were inserted into the Victorian Transport Act1983 by the Transport (Anti-Graffiti) Act 1990.

Prior to the introduction of this legislation, graffitists could be prosecuted underprovisions contained in the Summary Offences Act 1966 (s 9) or the Crimes Act1958 (s 197). These provisions remain in force, and the penalties currently attachedto them are outlined in Section 3.2.5. However, as explained by the then Ministerfor Transport in his Second Reading Speech to introduce the Transport (Anti-Graffiti) Bill to the Victorian Legislative Assembly:

In pursuing graffiti offenders through the courts it has been clearly establishedthat existing offences are either inadequate or inappropriate. For example, theoffence of wilful damage under the Summary Offences Act is restricted to caseswhere damage is less than $500. It does not require extensive graffiti damage on,say, a carriage for this figure to be exceeded. Conversely, the offence of criminal

31 Graffiti Control (Spray Paint Can Display) Bill 1995 (NSW), Second Reading Speech,Legislative Assembly, Mr Richardson MP, NSW Parliamentary Debates, 19 October 1995, p2067.

32 Graffiti Control (Spray Paint Can Display) Bill 1995 (NSW), Second Reading Speech,Legislative Assembly, NSW Parliamentary Debates, 16 May 1996, p 1128.


damage under the Crimes Act 1958 applies to any graffiti damage, includingdamage in excess of $500.

Criminal damage is a serious indictable offence which, except in the more seriousgraffiti cases, is inappropriate for the graffiti problem, particularly as the vastmajority of offenders are aged between thirteen and seventeen years of age.Under these circumstances a charge of criminal damage is often unsuitable.

Wilful damage and criminal damage are old general catch-all offences and theywould have been drafted long before the modern phenomenon of graffiti emerged.

The Bill introduces a new offence known as marking graffiti by injuring,damaging or defacing property of the Public Transport Corporation. The offencewill apply where the market cost of repairing or making good the property is lessthan $5000. This limit should ensure that this offence applies to most offenders,leaving, as indicated previously, only the worst offenders to be charged withcriminal damage.33

3.2.1 Marking graffiti

Section 223B(1) of the Victorian Transport Act makes it an offence to injure,damage or deface property belonging to the Public Transport Corporation, oradjacent property, by marking the property with graffiti. Where an offence is foundto have been committed, the offender is liable to a penalty of 25 penalty units (ie$250034) or six months imprisonment.

An offence will not be committed if the person has a lawful excuse for his or heracts. As explained in the Second Reading Speech to introduce the Transport (Anti-Graffiti) Bill:

Although the act of unlawfully marking graffiti will normally be self-evident, aswhen an offender is caught in the commission of the offence, the governmentwants to provide for situations where lawful graffiti may be permitted on PublicTransport Corporation property. The Bill does not prohibit graffiti as an artform or as a legitimate form of expression; it is aimed only against graffiti that isunlawfully applied. Accordingly - and this is consistent with other legislation - anoffender will not be prosecuted if he or she can provide a lawful excuse such aswhere the corporation has allocated an area for lawful graffiti.35


34 Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic), s 110.



Section 223B(1) only applies where the market cost of repairing the property doesnot exceed $5000.36

3.2.2 Possession of Graffiti Implements

Section 223B(3) of the Transport Act makes it an offence for a person who is onproperty of the Public Transport Corporation or adjacent property to have in theirpossession prescribed graffiti implements or graffiti implements of a prescribedclass, unless the person has a lawful excuse for having such implements.

Section 223B(4) also makes it an offence for a person on property of the PublicTransport Corporation or adjacent property to have in his or her possession,without lawful excuse, any other sort of graffiti implement with the intention ofmarking graffiti.

A person who commits either of the above offences is subject to a penalty of 10penalty units (ie $1000).37

3.2.3 Aiding and Abetting

The Victorian Transport Act also makes it a specific offence to aid and abet anyoneto commit any of the offences created by ss 223B(1), (3) or (4). A person who doesso is liable to the same penalty as the principal offender.38 As explained in theSecond Reading Speech to introduce the Bill:

In order to target groups or gangs of people who are involved in unlawful graffitithere is specific reference in the Bill to an offence of aiding and abetting. Thismeans that an offender who performs other functions, such as keeping a look outfor the Transit Police, will be equally guilty of unlawfully marking graffiti orpossession of graffiti implements with the intent to unlawfully mark graffiti ... 39

36 Transport Act 1983 (Vic), s 223B(2).

37 Transport Act 1983 (Vic), ss 223B (3) and (4) and Sentencing Act 1991(Vic), s 110.

38 Transport Act 1983 (Vic), s 223B(5).



3.2.4 Seizure and Destruction of Graffiti Implements

Section 223C of the Transport Act gives police officers and other authorisedofficers the authority to seize graffiti implements in the possession of a person onproperty owned by the Public Transport Corporation or on adjacent property, if theofficer believes on reasonable grounds that the graffiti implement is intended to beused, or has been used, to mark graffiti on that property.

Under Section 223D, where a person is convicted of a graffiti offence under theTransport Act, a court may order that any graffiti implements seized from theperson be destroyed.

3.2.5 Other Offences

As previously explained, other more general provisions under which graffiti artistsmay be charged in Victoria exist in the Summary Offences Act and the Crimes Act.

A person who wilfully injures or damages private or public property can beprosecuted under s 9(1)(c) of the Summary Offences Act if the value placed on thedamage is under $500. An offender is liable to a penalty of 25 penalty units (ie$250040) or six months imprisonment.

Section 197 of the Crimes Act makes a person who, intentionally and without lawfulexcuse, destroys or damages someone else’s property guilty of an indictable offence.An offender is currently liable to 90 months imprisonment.41

3.3 SOUTH AUSTRALIA

In South Australia, specific graffiti offences were inserted into the SummaryOffences Act 1953 by the Summary Offences (Prevention of Graffiti Vandalism)Amendment Act 1992. Section 48(1)(b) of the Summary Offences Act makes it anoffence for a person to mark graffiti without lawful authority. A court may order aperson convicted of marking graffiti to pay compensation for the damage caused.

Offences covering the possession of graffiti implements were also included in thelegislation. Under s 48(4)(a) of the Summary Offences Act, a person who carries agraffiti implement, intending to mark graffiti with it, is guilty of an offence. Section48(4)(b) makes it an offence for a person to carry a graffiti implement of a

40 Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic), s 110.

41 Crimes Act 1958 s 197(1) and Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic), s 109.


prescribed class without lawful excuse in a public place or on private property if theperson is trespassing.

The penalties for marking graffiti, in contravention of s 48(1), and for possession ofgraffiti implements in breach of s 48(4), are the same. Persons convicted of any ofthese offences face a maximum fine of $2000 or a maximum jail sentence of sixmonths.

3.4 WESTERN AUSTRALIA

In Western Australia, s 80(1) of the Police Act 1892 makes it an offence to destroyor damage property. The Act was amended in 1994 by the Police Amendment(Graffiti) Act which inserted a new s 80A to deal with the punishment to beimposed in the special case of graffiti. Under s 80A, if the property damageinvolves graffiti which is visible to the public, or graffiti marked on public property,a person convicted of an offence under s 80(1) faces a maximum fine of $1000. Therequirement that the graffiti damage must be on public property or, if on privateproperty, be visible to the public was criticised during debate on the amendinglegislation. Mr Smith, for example, stated:

I do not see why only graffiti which is visible from a public place or in a publicplace is of concern to us. Graffiti that is written on the back wall of people’shouses is sometimes written with the intention of offending them. Quitedefamatory and racist remarks can be made by graffiti in places where the publiccannot see it, but it is seriously offensive to the people who can see it.42

3.4.1 Penalties

In addition to the imposition of the fine referred to above, s 80(3) envisages that acourt may, in accordance with the provisions of s 719 of the Western AustralianCriminal Code, order compensation to be paid to anyone who suffers loss ordamage or incurs expense as a result of a graffiti offence.

A court may also make a specific order for an offender to pay a reasonable sum incompensation to anyone who has cleaned up the graffiti.43 Such an order is also tobe treated as an award of compensation under s 719 of the Criminal Code.44

42 Police Amendment (Graffiti) Bill (WA), Second Reading, Legislative Assembly, Mr D LSmith, Western Australian Parliamentary Debates, 9 December 1993, p 9677.

43 Police Act 1892 (WA), 80A(3).


There is no provision under the Western Australian legislation for a jail sentence tobe imposed for a graffiti offence.

3.4.2 Possession of graffiti implements

Possession of graffiti implements is not covered by the legislation, and the absenceof such provisions was remarked upon during the Second Reading debates. MrCatania argued:

Another problem with this Bill is that if young, or even older, people roam aroundthe streets at 3.00 am or 4.00 am with spray cans and other instruments used forthe act of graffiti vandalism, what action will the police be able to take? Will theybe allowed to apprehend people or to take away from people those instruments ofvandalism? That matter is not addressed in the Bill or in the second readingspeech.45

3.5 TASMANIA

In Tasmania, graffiti would appear to be prohibited under the general prohibition ondefacing property which is contained in s 2 of the Defacement of Property Act 1898.

The Police Offences Act 1935 also makes it an offence to deface or mark walls,fences, hoardings, footpaths or buildings: s 15(1)(b) or unlawfully injure property: s37.

3.6 AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

In August 1995, the ACT Standing Committee on Planning and Environment wasgiven terms of reference to inquire into the environmental, social and financialimpact of graffiti in the Australian Capital Territory, and appropriate ways toprevent it. As part of its review, the Committee looked at ACT legislation dealingwith graffiti. At the outset of its review, the Committee was advised by the thenMinister for Urban Services, Mr De Domenico MLA, that his department had beenasked :

... together with the Attorney-General’s Department community safety unit and soon to look at the legislation associated with graffiti vandalism

44 Police Act 1892 (WA), s 80A(4).

45 Police Amendment (Graffiti) Bill (WA), Second Reading, Legislative Assembly, Mr Catania,Western Australian Parliamentary Debates, 9 December 1993, p 9676.


... At the moment graffiti vandalism is a criminal offence, which limits the degreeof discretion in terms of penalty application. The potential is there to look at itmore in terms of a civil offence where there could be a broader range ofdiscretionary options available, including the use of community serviceobligations or scales of fines and, most importantly, for the Government’s point ofview, introducing as soon as possible a voluntary code of conduct for the displayof those sorts of items [such as spray cans] that are used in graffiti vandalism.46

In handing down its report, the Standing Committee on Planning and Environmentrecommended that the ACT government should advise the Legislative Assemblyabout “ the results of its review of whether to change the legislation coveringgraffiti vandalism and whether to introduce a voluntary code of conduct for thedisplay of spray paints”.47

In the Ministerial response to the Committee’s report, it was stated:

... the review of the legislation relevant to the control of graffiti vandalism hasbeen carried out. The penalties of the Crimes Act 1900 have been reviewed andan additional subclause specifically related to damage under $1000 has beenadded.48

In 1995, the Crimes (Amendment Act) (No 2) inserted a new sub-section (4) intos 128 of the Crimes Act 1900. This provides that a person who intentionally andwithout a lawful excuse damages property under $1000 in value, through somemeans other than fire or explosives, is liable to a maximum fine of 50 penalty units(ie $500049) or six months imprisonment, or both. The effect of this amendinglegislation was to introduce a summary form of the existing indictable offences ofdestroying or damaging property (ss 128 (1) to (3)), all of which carry substantialprison sentences. The legislation was supported by the Opposition, on the groundsthat:

There is some benefit coming out of the process of consultation set up within theACT by the Criminal Law Consultative Committee, a body chaired by, I think,

46 Mr De Domenico MLA, as quoted in Australian Capital Territory. Legislative Assembly, TheEnvironmental, Social and Financial Impact of Graffiti in Canberra and the AppropriateMeans of Preventing Graffiti Damage, Report No 9 of the Standing Committee on Planningand Environment, March 1996, p 2.

47 ACT Standing Committee on Planning and Environment, p 14.

48 Ministerial Statement, Government Response to Report No 9 of the ACT Standing Committeeon Planning and Environment, The Environmental, Social and Financial Impact of Graffiti inCanberra and the Appropriate Means of Preventing Graffiti Damage.

49 Interpretation Act 1967 (ACT), s 33AA.


Justice Higgins and comprising members of the private profession, the DPP andthe Legal Aid Commission. The concern that was raised by those people was thatthere are situations now where comparatively minor matters have to be dealt withas serious indictable offences. Mr Humphries [the Attorney-General] exampledthem in his speech. They relate to theft of an amount of property less than $1000and vandalism of material less than $1000. That is a particularly topical onebecause of the graffiti issue ... Much as we would deplore graffiti, I do not thinkthat anybody here would suggest that a 10, 15 or 20-year gaol term for spraypainting a road sign is appropriate. ... It is far more sensible for minor propertydamage to be a summary offence, with a smaller penalty unit.50

More recently still, in October 1996, Attorney-General Gary Humphries wasreported as announcing a graffiti penalty review in response to community calls for atougher approach to graffiti. The Canberra Times quoted Mr Humphries in thefollowing terms:

The community is aware of the problem being caused by the graffiti, it is not anew problem but it is a problem which is becoming increasingly annoying to manyin our community, he said.

The penalty review I am announcing today recognises that graffiti is extremelycostly to the Canberra community, as well as being an irresponsible act. TheGovernment will examine ways of making offenders take responsibility for theircrimes as well as requiring them to be dealt with by the courts in the same way asnow.

I am foreshadowing a possible extension to the community service order schemeto require offenders to clean graffiti in all instances.51

A voluntary code of practice for retailers, of the kind previously referred to by MrDe Domenico, has also been drafted, but is not yet finalised.

4. QUEENSLAND: CURRENT AND PROPOSED LEGISLATION

4.1 THE CURRENT POSITION

Under Queensland law, as it currently stands, there is no specific graffiti offence.Prosecutions for graffiti offences are presently brought under the general provisionof s 469 of the Criminal Code, which provides that anyone who wilfully and

50 Crimes (Amendment) Bill (No 2) 1995 (ACT), Second Reading Speech, Mr Connolly, ACTParliamentary Debates, 6 December 1995, pp 2757-58.

51 S Corby, ‘Humphries to toughen line on graffiti’, Canberra Times, 16 October 1996, p 1.


unlawfully destroys or damages property is liable (if no other punishment isprovided) to a two year jail sentence. Should the offence be committed at night, theoffender is liable to imprisonment for three years. The remainder of s 469 providesfor punishment in special cases (eg if the property damaged is part of a railway, aperson convicted of unlawful damage is liable to imprisonment for 14 years).

4.2 THE QUEENSLAND NATIONAL LIBERAL COALITION POLICY ON

GRAFFITI AND VANDALISM

The Queensland National Liberal Coalition also addressed the issue of graffiti duringthe 1995 election campaign. In its election policy on graffiti and vandalism,


it indicated it would:

• strengthen the law to protect the community against acts of graffiti andvandalism

• encourage courts to consider the removal of graffiti by offenders as part ofthe punishment to be imposed

• give priority to the payment of restitution to property owners by adultoffenders, and give courts the option to order that parents of juvenileoffenders contribute to restitution ordered to be paid by their children, to amaximum of $5000

• trial, with local government, the establishment of “Street Art” projects toenable graffitists to display their work.

The full text of the Queensland National Liberal Coalition Policy on Graffiti andVandalism, as announced prior to the 1995 election, is reproduced as Appendix B tothis Bulletin.

4.3 THE GOSS GOVERNMENT’S 1995 ELECTION POLICY

During the 1995 election campaign, the Goss Government announced its intentionto reduce the incidence of graffiti “by implementing a number of initiativesdesigned to both prevent illegal graffiti and to provide for appropriate penaltieswhen people do offend”.52 In its policy, The Graffiti Problem: The Goss Plan toTackle Graffiti Louts, the then Labor Government outlined a platform whichincluded:

• inserting a specific graffiti offence into a proposed new Summary OffencesBill

• making it an offence to carry materials for marking graffiti without lawfulexcuse

• making persons convicted of graffiti offences liable to

• perform community service in the form of removing graffiti

• make reparation to the owners of damaged property

• controlling the sale of spray paint cans by establishing a Code of Practice forretailers.

The main points from The Goss Plan to Tackle Graffiti Louts are reproduced asAppendix C to this Bulletin.

52 Australian Labor Party. Queensland Division, The Graffiti Problem: The Goss Plan to TackleGraffiti Louts, p 8.


4.4 THE REPORT OF THE CRIMINAL CODE ADVISORY WORKING

GROUP TO THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL

In April 1996, the Coalition Government established a Criminal Code ReviewAdvisory Working Group, chaired by retired Supreme Court judge, Peter ConnollyQC. The Code Advisory Working Group was given the role of examining andreporting upon certain possible amendments of the current Criminal Code, andrelated legislation. The Working Group delivered its report to the Attorney-General, Hon D E Beanland MLA in July 1996.

In its report, the Code Advisory Working Group recommended:

• that s 469 of the Criminal Code be amended by inserting, under the categoryof Punishments in Special Cases, aggravated offences of wilful damageinvolving graffiti and wilful damage of educational institutions (proposednew paragraphs 9 and 10 of s 469), and

• that the proposed new paragraphs 9 and 10 include a provision that, where aperson is convicted of a graffiti offence, the court may, instead of or inaddition to any other penalty that may be imposed, order the offender toperform community service work which could include removing graffiti, andpay compensation under Part 3, Division 4 of the Penalties and SentencesAct.53

The Code Advisory Working Group also recommended that Queensland’s VagrantsGaming and Other Offences Act be amended to make possession of a graffitiinstrument in a public place an offence.54

Draft amendments giving effect to the Working Group’s recommendations wereincluded in the report.55

4.5 THE CRIMINAL LAW AMENDMENT BILL 1996

Clause 87 of the Criminal Law Amendment Bill amends s 469 of the Criminal Code.By virtue of Clause 87(1), the heading to s 469 (“Malicious injuries in general”) isomitted and replaced by the heading “Wilful damage”. The general provisions of s

53 Report of the Criminal Code Advisory Working Group to the Attorney-General, July 1996, p96.

54 Report of the Criminal Code Advisory Working Group to the Attorney-General, p 96.

55 Report of the Criminal Code Advisory Working Group to the Attorney-General, pp 96-97 andp 174.


469 are then amended by Clause 87(2) to remove the distinction between offencescommitted during the day and offences committed at night. The maximum penaltyfor all offences for which a special punishment is not prescribed will now becomefive years imprisonment.

4.5.1 Graffiti Offences

Proposed new s 469(9), inserted by Clause 87(4), provides that if the propertywhich is damaged or destroyed is in a public place, or can be seen from a publicplace, and the destruction or damage was inflicted by spraying, writing, drawing,marking or otherwise applying paint or some other marking substance, or byscratching or etching, the offender is liable to five years in jail. If the offenceinvolves obscene or indecent representations, the offender is liable to imprisonmentfor seven years.

The provision appears to be slightly wider than that drafted by the Criminal CodeAdvisory Working Group, which refers only to destruction or damage caused by the“spraying of paint or other marking substance” (ie marking graffiti by scratchingand etching would not appear to be caught under the legislation as drafted by theWorking Group).

4.5.2 Educational Institutions

According to figures released by the Attorney-General and Minister for Justice, in1994-95, the cost associated with malicious damage to Queensland’s EducationDepartment totalled $3,394,926.56

Under the Criminal Law Amendment Bill, damaging or destroying property which ispart of an educational institution (eg schools, colleges, universities) will attract aspecial punishment: proposed new s 469(10).57 Under the amendment, which iswide enough to encompass graffiti attacks on school buildings, and other acts ofschool vandalism, an offender will be liable to imprisonment for seven years. Bycontrast, under the proposals put forth by the Criminal Code Advisory WorkingGroup, it was recommended that an offender committing this offence be liable toimprisonment for 10 years.

56 Hon D E Beanland MLA, Attorney-General and Minister for Justice, ‘Writing “on the wall”for graffiti vandals’, 16 June 1996, Media Information Summary for the Period 15 June 1996to 21 June 1996, p 13.

57 inserted by Clause 87(4).


In a Media Statement released on the day the Criminal Law Amendment Bill wasintroduced into Parliament, the Minister for Education, Hon R J Quinn, is reportedas welcoming the proposed changes. Mr Quinn was quoted in the following terms:

“There have been some outrageous acts of senseless vandalism perpetrated onQueensland schools and the guilty parties have escaped with little more than aslap on the wrist”, Mr Quinn said.

I am looking forward to the day, in the not too distant future, when thesedisgraceful attacks on our schools will be punished in an appropriate way”. ...

Mr Quinn said vandalism, arson and graffiti cost the Department of Educationmillions of dollars a year.

“What these heartless, unthinking individuals fail to recognise is the sheerdistress they bring upon school communities. Dollar values aside, there’s anenormous amount of pain and suffering that just should not occur”.58

Some media reports, however, were critical and Appendix A contains some ofthese. By way of example:

Queensland’s proposal to impose seven-year jail sentences for graffiti “artists”who vandalise schools is an over-reaction to a middle-ranking law and orderproblem.

It has the capacity to reduce the criminal law to a laughing stock, underminingthe principle that the punishment should match the crime.

It stems from a sustained “law and order” campaign indulged in by both sides ofpolitics in Queensland and it targets the easiest community group to be demonised- young people who have no voice of their own in the legislative process. ...

Critics of Queensland’s proposal rightly point out the inconsistency of a lawwhich proposes that a person who draws slogans and symbols on a school wallcan suffer twice the prison penalty of a person who assaults a teacher.59

4.5.3 Penalties

As recommended by the Working Group, under proposed new sub-section (9) of s469, a court may, whether it imposes any other penalty for the offence, order anoffender to perform community service work including, for example, removinggraffiti from property, and pay compensation. Under proposed new sub-section

58 Hon R J Quinn MLA, Minister for Education, ‘Quinn welcomes tough penalties for schoolvandalism’, Ministerial Media Statements for the Period 1 December 1996 to 7 December1996, 4 December 1996, p 34.

59 ‘Queensland takes graffiti law too far’, Australian, 9 December 1996, p 8.


(10), an offender may be ordered to perform community service work which mayinclude cleaning or repairing damaged property that is part of an educationalinstitution, and pay compensation, whether or not any other penalty is imposed.Again, this is in accordance with the recommendations of the Working Group.

4.5.4 Possession of graffiti instruments

Schedule 2 of the Criminal Law Amendment Bill 1996 amends the Vagrants,Gaming and Other Offences Act by inserting a new s 37C. Proposed new s 37Cmakes it an offence to possess a graffiti instrument under circumstances which giverise to a reasonable suspicion that the instrument either has been used or is intendedto be used to commit a graffiti offence (defined as an offence to which proposednew s 469(9) of the Criminal Code applies). An offence is not committed underproposed new s 37C of the Vagrants, Gaming and Other Offences Act if the personhas a lawful excuse for his or her acts. However, the proof that the person has suchan excuse lies with him or her.

The maximum penalty for the offence proposed to be created by s 37C is 70 penaltyunits ($5250) or 2 years imprisonment. The Criminal Code Advisory WorkingGroup had recommended a slightly lesser monetary penalty ($5000).60

5. NON-LEGISLATIVE RESPONSES TO THE GRAFFITIPROBLEM

Tackling graffiti is generally considered to require a number of differing responses.

Based upon an analysis of experience in a number of countries, Geason and Wilson,in their monograph in the Crime Prevention Series published by the AustralianInstitute of Criminology in 1990, recommended strategies including:

(a) designing public places and public housing in a way which is attractive,fosters a sense of ownership, and which makes use of design factors whichminimise the opportunities for graffiti

(b) using graffiti-proof materials

(c) removing graffiti quickly, before it spawns imitators

(d) implementing educational programs in schools, to alert young people to theadverse consequences of graffiti

(e) providing legally sanctioned avenues for graffitists to practise their artform

60 Report of the Criminal Code Advisory Working Group to the Attorney-General, p 174.


(f) attacking the tools of graffiti, for instance, by restricting the sale of spraypaint to adults or tightening security surrounding the display of spray paintcans

(g) increasing surveillance of areas where graffiti is common

The remainder of this Bulletin examines options (e) and (f) above in greater detail.

5.1 LEGAL GRAFFITI ART

Geason and Wilson, in their research into the graffiti problem, expressed the viewthat:

Programs which give graffitists the chance to practice their art in an officiallysanctioned way - on hoardings donated by developers or on walls set aside formurals, for example - can help reduce illegal spraypainting.61

More recently, in its report into its inquiry into the impact of graffiti in the ACT, theStanding Committee on Planning and Environment stated that it had been told that:

... an educative strategy focussing exclusively on the problems caused by graffitiwas not the optimal way to go - for example, two high school students suggestedthe Department of Education and Training sponsor “a competition between theschools” to enable the development and display of graffiti-type art. While at firstsight this may seem a surprising suggestion, it does recognise that legal graffitiartists are currently plying their trade and are in demand - and that this type ofart-form is popular among some youngsters, adults and businesses.62

Based on the submissions made to it, the Committee acknowledged that “ there is aplace for graffiti art”63 (or street art, the description preferred by the Committee)and recommended that appropriate areas where graffiti art could be practised anddisplayed be identified.64 Associated recommendations made by the Committeewere that:

• the ACT government make available funding for the employment of at leastone youth arts outreach officer whose duties would include facilitating thelegal expression of graffiti art, and


62 ACT Standing Committee on Planning and Environment, pp 15-16.




• a Public Arts Program proposed by the Government in its 1996-97 DraftCapital Works Program should also provide for input from young peopleand others interested in producing lawful street art.65

The Committee expressed the view that putting in place the package ofrecommendations above:

... would strongly indicate to youngsters and to the public generally that graffiti isaccepted as a legitimate artform provided it is undertaken in designated areas. Anatural consequence of this policy would be to emphasise that graffiti is notacceptable outside those designated areas.66

Legal outlets for the expression of graffiti art have been trialled or mooted in anumber of other jurisdictions, mostly through local government projects orassistance. For example, in the published papers of the proceedings of a conferenceheld by the Australian Institute of Criminology in July 1989, the City of Gosnells inWestern Australia reported upon local government initiatives to deal with graffiti.Initially, a seminar was held, at which it was proposed:

• to set up a drop-in centre for youth interested in graffiti or urban art, and

• to employ a Community Youth Worker, with responsibility for coordinatingeffort to redirect graffitists to approved legal graffiti art sites, and for liaisingwith local government, and organisations such as Transperth and Westrail tofind legal sites.

Subsequently, a Working Party was established, based upon the municipal council’sview that graffiti art needed to be treated separately from vandalism, insofar as:

Graffiti or Suburban Art, as we prefer to call it, is usually carried out in mostcases, by very talented young artists. From interviewing these youngsters, it hasbeen found that most come from good homes, are not down and out and are notstreet kids as such. In fact most seem quite intelligent and are keen to gain legalsites. These youngsters are expressing their need for status in our society. Theydo not appear to be involved in sports or be interested in club orientatedactivities.67

The objective of the Working Party was to channel graffitists’ artistic endeavoursinto legal avenues and to provide approved graffiti sites. To this end, the council

65 ACT Standing Committee on Planning and Environment, pp 16-17.


67 M O’Doherty, ‘Positive Responses to Youthful Graffiti’, in J Vernon and S McKillop (eds),Preventing Juvenile Crime: Proceedings of a Conference held 17-19 July 1989, AustralianInstitute of Criminology, Canberra, ACT, 1991, p 181.


sought and received a grant for a Suburban Art Project:

... to develop the ideas and skills of young people from unlawful graffiti intopositive and artistic work at approved community sites. Any established youthcentre preferably with links to local government is eligible to sponsor a SuburbanArt Project and applications can be made with the Youth Affairs Bureau.68

Reporting upon the outcome of the project, Michael O’Doherty, Principal BuildingSurveyor for the City of Gosnells, noted that graffiti vandalism on council buildingshad generated approximately $14000 in insurance claims during the 1988-89financial year. However, he stated that:

... with the initiation of the Seminar on Graffiti and the word having spread thatcouncils, police and the government were serious about supporting a graffitiproject and making it legal, graffiti became non-existent on Council buildingsuntil the end of the financial year with only one public building and one piecebeing sprayed with anti-racist slogans.69

A similar program was developed by the Queensland Police in 1991-92, in whichknown and suspected graffiti artists were invited to paint on approved walls.Permission to paint walls with high quality street art was sought from owners ofproperty which had been wilfully damaged on previous occasions. The first wall tobe painted was the Bell Street Mall, Ipswich. In the Brisbane area, 36 walls werepainted. Benefits attributed to this project were stated to include:

• the incidence of repeating illegal graffiti was low

• graffiti artists involved in the program secured work as artists and signwriters; and

• problem youths had the opportunity to develop life skills and to interact withauthority figures, including police, in a non-threatening environment.70

The Goss Government’s 1995 election policy on graffiti included a commitment toprovide $140,000 to establish a similar Legal Street Art project designed to divertyoung people away from the practice of unlawful graffiti.71

The Liberal National Coalition’s 1995 election policy on graffiti also included acommitment to trialling graffiti art projects, in conjunction with local governments.

68 Councillor K R Trent, speaking at a local government executive meeting on 15 February 1989,quoted in O’Doherty, p 183.

69 O’Doherty, p 184.

70 The Graffiti Problem: The Goss Plan to Tackle Graffiti Louts, p 9.



5.2 A VOLUNTARY CODE OF PRACTICE FOR RETAILERS

In Western Australia, a voluntary code of practice for retailers, covering theavailability of materials which can be used in illegal graffiti, was developed by theWA Government, in consultation with the West Australian Small Business andEnterprise Association and the Retail Traders Association of WA. The Codeapplies particularly to spray paint cans, but recognises that opportunities forobtaining materials such as large felt tip pens, shoe dyes and polishes with felt tipapplicators, and engraving equipment also need to be restricted. A copy of the WAVoluntary Code of Practice for Retailers is reproduced as Appendix D of thisBulletin.

In South Australia, the draft Voluntary Code of Conduct for Graffiti Prevention,which is reproduced as Appendix E, was adopted in 1996. As with the WA Code,the SA Code was drawn up in conjunction with the retail industry. Possibleadditional measures not incorporated in the WA Code include ensuring thatadvertising of paint spray cans and felt tip markers carries a reminder of thepenalties for their unlawful possession or misuse, and requesting manufacturers toattach an appropriate statement to spray paint cans informing users that it is anoffence to use these items for the purpose of graffiti vandalism.

According to advice from the then ACT Minister for Urban Services, Mr DeDomenico, to the ACT Standing Committee on Planning and Environment, the ACTgovernment was looking at preparing a similar code, in consultation with localretailers.72 As noted in Section 3.6 of this Bulletin, to date, a code for the ACT hasnot been released, although it exists in draft form.

In NSW, as previously discussed, a Private Member’s Bill introduced in 1995sought to make it an offence to publicly display spray paint cans containing spraypaint unless they were in a locked cabinet or behind an attended counter or securedin some other way. It was proposed that offenders should be liable to a maximumfine of $300. The Bill was unsuccessful.

Here in Queensland, the Labor Party’s 1995 election platform included a package ofmeasures to tackle the graffiti problem, including establishing a Code of Practice toprohibit retailers from selling spray paint to persons under the age of 18. Under theproposals, purchasers of spray paint were to be required to provide proof of theiridentity and their age, and to sign a register. Retailers were to be required to storefull spray paint cans in secure areas of their stores to avert theft. Empty cans wereto be used for display purposes.73




BIBLIOGRAPHY

MONOGRAPHS

• Australian Capital Territory. Legislative Assembly, The Environmental, Socialand Financial Impact of Graffiti in Canberra and the Appropriate Means ofPreventing Graffiti Damage, Report No 9 of the Standing Committee onPlanning and Environment, March 1996.

• Australian Capital Territory. Ministerial Statement, Government Response toReport No 9 of the Standing Committee on Planning and Environment.

• Australian Labor Party (Queensland Division) The Graffiti Problem: The GossPlan to Tackle Graffiti Louts, 1995.

• Barnhart, R K (ed), The Barnhart Dictionary of Etymology, H W WilsonCompany, 1988.

• Geason, S and Wilson, P R, Preventing Graffiti and Vandalism, AustralianInstitute of Criminology, Canberra, 1990.

• Healey, K (ed), Youth Gangs: Issues for the Nineties, v 54, Spinney Press,Australia, 1996.

• O’Doherty, M, ‘Positive Responses to Youthful Graffiti’, in J Vernon and SMcKillop (eds), Preventing Juvenile Crime: Proceedings of a Conference held17-19 July 1989, Australian Institute of Criminology, Canberra, ACT, 1991.

• Queensland National Liberal Coalition Policy on Graffiti and Vandalism, 1995.

• Report of the Criminal Code Advisory Working Group to the Attorney-General,chaired by P D Connolly, July 1996.

ARTICLES

• ‘Fight graffiti! approve it officially!’, Community Crime Prevention Journal, v4, 1993, p 23.

• ‘Vandals arrested in rising numbers’, City News, 9(9), 6 March 1997, p 1.

• Fell, C, ‘Coming clean on graffiti: Audit rates vandalism “epidemic” inBrisbane’, City News, 9(9), 6 March 1997, p 1.

• Higgins, Y, ‘Graffiti sparks franchise plan’, Business Queensland, 6(286), 23October 1995, p 9.

• Jones, R, ‘Graffiti and vandalism - exploding urban myths’, Local GovernmentBulletin, December 1990, pp 38-40.

• Luna, J ‘Eradicating the stain: graffiti and advertising in our public spaces’, BadSubjects, No 20, April 1995.

• Morwood M and and Walsh, G, ‘A mark in time’, Australian Natural History,24(6), Spring 1993, pp 40-45.

• Sweet, F, ‘Posener rules O.K.’, Portfolio, March 1987, pp 43-47.


NEWS ARTICLES

• ‘Candid camera’, Sunday Mail, 10 March 1996, p 31.

• ‘Judge blasts graffiti morons’, Courier Mail, 10 October 1996, p 12.

• ‘Mixed results in criminal code review’, Courier Mail, 7 December 1996, p22.

• ‘Queensland takes graffiti law too far’, Australian, 9 December 1996, p 8.

• ‘State crime summit’, Courier Mail, 29 March 1996, p 2.

• ‘Too tuff on teenage crime’, Australian, 7 December 1996, p 26.

• Callinan, R, ‘Graffiti mop-up’, Courier Mail, 15 June 1996, p 15.

• Fagan, D, ‘Graffiti jail term longer than penalty for assault’, Australian, 3December 1996, p 3.

• Metcalf, F, ‘Criminals face more jail time’, Courier Mail, 2 December 1996, p1.

• Oberhardt, M, ‘Union concern saves clean-up’, Courier Mail, 23 August 1996,p 9.

• Shoemaker, A, ‘Painted into a corner by the law’, Courier Mail, 19 December1996, p 19.

• Smith, A, ‘Soorley: Government to blame, not jobless youth’, Courier Mail, 14June 1996, p 3.

• Stark, D, “Youth accused of 1200 graffiti crimes’, Courier Mail, 17 February1997, p 3.

• Thomas, M, ‘Child commissioner praises hard line on graffiti crimes’, CourierMail, 17 January 1997, p 7.

• Thomas, M, ‘Graffiti claims “out of touch”’, Courier Mail, 18 January 1997, p15.

MEDIA RELEASES

• Graffiti strategy: Spring clean up for Canberra’, Media Release from ACTMinister for Urban Services, Tony De Domenico, 15 August 1995:http://actg.canberra.edu.au/actg/dus/csg/org4/act10/15aug95.htm

• Hon D E Beanland MLA, Attorney-General and Minister for Justice, ‘Writing“on the wall” for graffiti vandals’, 16 June 1996, Media Information Summaryfor the Period 15 June 1996 to 21 June 1996, pp 13-14.

• Hon R J Quinn MLA, Minister for Education, “ Quinn welcomes tough penaltiesfor school vandalism’, 4 December 1996, Ministerial Media Statements for thePeriod 1 December 1996 to 7 December 1996, p 34.


LEGISLATION

New South Wales

• Summary Offences Act 1988

Victoria

• Transport Act 1983


• Crimes Act 1958

South Australia


Western Australia

• Police Act 1892

Tasmania

• Defacement of Property Act 1898

• Police Offences Act 1935

Australian Capital Territory

• Crimes Act 1900

CODES OF PRACTICE FOR RETAILERS

• Western Australia, Voluntary Code of Practice for Retailers

• South Australia, Draft Code of Conduct for Graffiti Prevention.


APPENDIX A

MEDIA RELEASES AND ARTICLES

This Appendix contains copies of the following media releases and articles:

• Hon DE Beanland MLA, ‘Writing on the wall for graffiti vandals’, MediaInformation Summary for the period 15 June 1996 to 21 June 1996, pp 13-14.

• Celia Feil, ‘Coming clean on graffiti’, City News, 6 March 1997, p 1.

• Adam Shoemaker, ‘Painted into a corner by the law’, Courier Mail, 19December 1996, p 19.

• ‘Queensland takes graffiti law too far’, Australian, 9 December 1996, p 8.

• ‘Mixed results in Criminal Code review’, Courier Mail, 7 December 1996, p7.

• Elisabeth Wynhausen, ‘Too tuff on teenage crime’, Australian, 7 December1996, p 26.

• David Fagan, ‘Graffiti jail term longer than penalty for assault’, Australian,3 December 1996, p 3.

• ‘Judge blasts graffiti “morons”’, Courier Mail, 10 October 1996, p 12.

• Mark Oberhardt, ‘Union concern saves clean-up’, Courier Mail, 23 August1996, p 9.

• Amanda Smith, ‘Soorley: government to blame, not jobless youth’, CourierMail, 14 June 1996, p 3.

• ‘Candid camera’, Sunday Mail, 10 June 1996, p 3.

Attorney-General and Minister for Justice

16 June 1996

WRITING ON THE WALL FOR GRAFFITI VANDALS

Attorney-General and Minister for Justice, Denver Beanland, today announced moves to crack-down on graffiti and vandalism that costs the Queensland economy millions of dollars a year.

Mr Beanland has asked the Criminal Code Advisory Working Group to ‘toughen up’ graffiti andvandalism laws by prescribing them as crimes in the revamped Criminal Code.

The Working Group will make its recommendations before the end of this year and the Attorney-General has asked it to consider including graffiti and vandalism un ‘Wilful Damage’ or givingthe crimes a special section of their own.

The cost of vandalism to the Queensland economy easily tops $18 million per year and couldexceed $20 million.

The Insurance Council of Australia estimates that companies pay out 11.4 million dollars in claimsfor graffiti and vandalism in the State each year, alone. Of that total, approximately 3 milliondollars is directly due to graffiti and the figure could be much higher. Many victims of the crimesimply clean up the mess themselves without making a claim and growing evidence suggestsordinary households are becoming greater graffiti targets.

“Graffiti and vandalism are a scourge of modern society. The recent predilection of using spraypaint and permanent markers to ‘sign’ public and private property is costing ordinary people andproperty owners millions of dollars a year in damages which leads to skyrocketing insurancepremiums and increased taxes,” Mr Beanland said.

“Graffiti hurts everyone. No private fence, wall or vehicle is safe and the public facilities thatpeople should take pride in are turned into a disgrace. It is not a crime of creativity, it is a crime ofenvy and stupidity.”

Estimates of the cost of graffiti and vandalism on Government departments are staggering. In1994-95 the total clean up bill was $5,366,500 dollars. Queensland Rail’s graffiti bill was$813,000 alone. This year the cost has blown out even further. To date the Department ofEducation has suffered $3,037,200 worth of malicious damage, and the toll is rising.

Local Authorities are also bearing the brunt of the ‘spray paint scourge’ and the ‘Nikko pennightmare’. Brisbane City Council estimates that graffiti costs ratepayers almost $1 million eachyear and Logan City Council has had to introduce special anti-graffiti programs.

Mr Beanland said the solution is straight forward, “Consideration will be given to granting Policegreater power and better laws to apprehend offenders, and the Courts will be given greaterflexibility in sentencing and tougher penalty options which will encourage offenders to makerestitution or clean up the mess.

“The National/Liberal Coalition promised to get tough on graffiti and vandalism, and it will. Thesewill be strong new laws that will deliver an important part of our overall ‘Law and Order’package.”

Along with greater punishment will come greater prevention. Over the coming weeks theNational/Liberal Government will outline a program designed to stop graffiti before it starts.

“The writing is on the wall, graffiti artists will have to clean up their act,” Mr Beanland said.

Malicious Damage - The Cost

Department 1994-95

Public Works $84,372

Justice $28,372

Environment $749

Education $$3,394,926

Training and Industrial Relations (TAFE) $70,808

Families, Youth and Community Care $102,448

Health $34,610

Parliamentary Services Commission (MLA’s offices and Parliament House $4,199

Primary Industries $1,118

Police $27,802

Corrective Services $105,823

Emergency Services $1,077

Mines and Energy $803

Transport $367

Total $3,857,474

Queensland RailStation Rolling Stock Total ($) Graffiti VandalismStation Rolling Stock 92-93 160,000 598,000

187,000139,000326,00093-94 213,000 497,000241,000139,000380,00094-95 234,000 462,000527,000286,000813,000

Further information: Denver Beanland, Attorney-General, (07) 3217 7229 or page (07) 3831 6199quote 40269. Paul Edwards, Senior Media Adviser, (07) 3239 3815 office, 041 2161 202 mobile.

Copyright Provision: Copy recorded for Parliamentarians only.

Disclaimer: No responsibility is taken for any transmission errors

Coming Clean on Graffiti - Audit rates vandalism ‘epidemic’ in Brisbane

Celia Feil

City News

6 March 1997

page 1

Graffiti vandalism in the CBD has reachedepidemic proportions, and audit has shown.

Conducted by the Graffiti Alert ProjectGroup, the audit uncovered 572 pieces ofgraffiti on four highly visible CBD sites,some of historic significance.

Project founder Shauna McGilvray said theaudit was conducted at the old State Librarybuilding, Emma Miller Park (next to the oldState Library in William St), Boundary Stand Melbourne St in South Brisbane.

Some of the graffiti near the old StateLibrary had been there for two years, MrMcGilvray said.

“In some sites in Brisbane there are over1800 pieces of graffiti in a four-streetradius,” she said.

Ms McGilvray said Brisbane had a graffitiepidemic and criticised Brisbane CityCouncil for its inaction in removing graffitiand stopping vandals.

The Graffiti Alert Project was founded onthe Gold Coast in 1993 in response to analarming graffiti problem and has since beenrecognised nationally and internationally forits success.

The group consults local governmentsthroughout Queensland and interstate ongraffiti issues.

“We have reduced graffiti vandalism on theGold Coast by 66 per cent,” Ms McGilvraysaid.

On Monday Ms McGilvray launched theEnough is Enough campaign in an attempt

to prompt Brisbane people to be moreproactive in combating graffiti.

Brisbane City Councillor David Hinchcliffesaid council had a policy of removing graffitifrom council property within 24 hours of itbeing reported.

“We have encouraged the railways, Statetransport, electricity, gas and all other publicutilities to do the same,” he said.

Cr Hinchcliffe said the old State Librarybuilding were State Government propertyand not Council’s responsibility.



Coming Clean on Graffiti - Vandals arrested in rising numbers

Celia Feil

City News

6 March 1997

page 1

Police have arrested 50 people on 1500charges relating to graffiti vandalism in thecity since July last year, as part of a graffiticrackdown operation.

The vandals have been ordered to payrestitution to the value of $200,000.

Operation Swipe is a police initiativetargeting graffiti vandalism throughout thecity.

“Young people are spraying their tags onevery post and every wall,” Railway SquadConst Steve Marshall said.

He said the majority of convicted graffitivandals were ordered to perform communityservice and were put on probation.

The maximum penalty for wilful damage toproperty was three years imprisonment, ornine years if railway property was damaged.



Title Painted into a corner by the law.

Author SHOEMAKER, ADAM

Source Courier Mail ( 59 )

Date Issue 19/12/96

Pages 19

WHEN does an artist become a criminal?.

This is a question Queensland judges willask far more often after last week's revisionof the state criminal code.

According to the proposed new regulations,Queenslanders convicted of defacing publicor private property with graffiti will facehuge fines and imprisonment for up to sevenyears.

Before this change, first-time offenders wereoften released on good-behaviour bonds,frequently with the option of communityservice.

Why this huge increase - and is it justified?.

More to the point, if graffiti is a crime (andthere is considerable debate over this point)is this new regime of punishment far toosevere?.

To put this in perspective, we have just seenAlan Bond sentenced to a maximum of fiveyears' jail for committing the mostsignificant corporate fraud in Australia'shistory.

At most, Bond will serve two years less inprison than a convicted "graffiti criminal"who receives the new maximum sentence inthis state.

This is beyond doubt one of the mostdraconian penalties for graffiti in the entirewestern world.

What is going on here?.

Make no mistake: I am as concerned byvandalism as anyone in the community.

The spate of school-trashings throughoutBrisbane, the arson, the vandalising of parks,gardens and public places is something weall deplore.

But is graffiti always vandalism?.

Have legitimate graffiti artists been unfairlylumped together with other vandals?.

The battlelines have been drawn, and theyall centre around definitions.

What makes a piece of graffiti in the firstplace?.

Style?.

Permission?.

Technique?.

One thing is certain: graffiti is aninternational phenomenon, as common inWestern Europe as it is in the United States.

And it has found its way to Australia via thehands and imaginations of thousands ofyoung people.

Take one example.

During the time of the divided Germany, oneof the most popular tourist attractions in thatcity was the mural art on the western side ofthe Berlin Wall.

To this day, hundreds of thousands ofvisitors flock to see the art on the lastremaining fragments of the Wall.

No one in Berlin questions that it is art, yetto all intents and purposes it is graffiti.

Some might say there is no wall in Brisbane.



There is also no political struggle of thedimensions of the Cold War.

But this ignores the fact that there isextremely high youth unemployment insouth-east Queensland; that Australia (andthis state) has one of the highest youthsuicide rates in the world; that substanceabuse among the young is as high here as inany major Australian city.

All of this attests to the fact that there areserious political issues which face youngBrisbanites; for them, anger with"government" and the "system" often findsits expression in illegal acts.

Literally, graffiti is the writing on the wallthat not all is going well.

As one graffitist in New York City, "Celtic",put it: "The streets aren't any safer becausethe walls are clean; it just looks that way.".

So what is the solution?.

We can begin by recognising that a hugerange of people write and paint graffiti.

Some are young people simply reproducingtheir names (or "tags") all over publicsurfaces - a rebellious statement that theyexist.

Others are far more ambitious.

They have undoubted artistic talent and inany other environment they would beexcelling in art school.

This is recognised by the fact that more andmore Brisbane businesses are hiring localgraffiti artists to paint high-quality outdoorsigns and walls.

At the same time, many cities (includingBrisbane) have had success experimentingwith so-called "legal walls".

This provides an outlet for young artists,rather than boxing them into a situation inwhich they are forced to break the law if theywant to practise their craft.

Even Queensland Rail could consider thisoption.

It would be far more effective than spendinghundreds of thousands of dollars each yearcleaning trains and stations.

The way of the future is to providealternatives, not the prospect of costlyimprisonment.

One of the most exciting ways of the futurefor graffiti artists will, beyond doubt, be theInternet.

Already, the American website "Art Crimes"has attracted thousands of submissions ofgraffiti art from all over the world.

Closer to home, the "Smart Arts" website,dedicated to the "Australian and WorldwideHip-Hop culture" provides a focus forgraffitists in south-east Queensland.

As many have pointed out, the Internet isvery much like the graffiti art movement: itis rapid, highly visual, global and anarchic.

The World Wide Web will undoubtedly bethe next battleground for pro-and anti-graffiti forces, with "virtual graffiti" galleriesthe model for many young people.

At the same time, anti-vandalism civiccrusaders are already using the Web togarner support for their point of view.

Which brings us back to the core issue: isgraffiti vandalism?.

Certainly, it can be - but just as certainly, itdoes not have to be.

Much of this depends upon perspective.

What is undeniable is that the threat of aseven-year prison sentence will do little todeter graffitists who are making an anti-authoritarian statement in the first place.

On the contrary, I predict the incidence ofgraffiti will actually rise in Brisbane inresponse to this new legislation.



Title Queensland takes graffiti law too far.

Source Australian ( 80 )

Date Issue 09/12/96

Pages 8

Queensland s proposal to impose seven-yearjail sentences for graffiti "artists" whovandalise schools is an over-reaction to amiddle-ranking law and order problem.

It has the capacity to reduce the criminal lawto a laughing stock, undermining theprinciple that the punishment should matchthe crime.

It stems from a sustained "law-and-order"campaign indulged in by both sides ofpolitics in Queensland and it targets theeasiest community group to be demonised -young people who have no voice of their ownin the legislative process.

The fact that the proposal has made it intolegislation now lying on the table of theQueensland Parliament illustrates the dangerof law-and-order auctions that increasinglyoverhang State politics.

Queensland experienced an unseemlybidding war in the run-up to last year'selections which ultimately saw a Coalitiongovernment come to power.

Despite evidence to the contrary, bothgovernment and opposition parties panderedto fears that the crime rate was increasing;they promised longer prison sentences as adeterrent.

There is a contagious attraction to this eventhough there is considerable evidence thatthe risk of more severe punishments do notscare off criminals, particularly pettyoffenders such as graffiti artists who areinherently optimistic about their chances ofevading arrest.

There is no condoning graffiti art.

It is the work of vandals who show no regardfor the property of others.

And it is an expensive crime - with a lot ofthe cost borne by taxpayers.

But tackling the cause of the problem is amore sensible, although less populist,approach.

This involves a complex mix of improvingneighbourhood facilities, addressingshortcomings in the education system andinstilling values that encourage respect forthe community and its property.

Critics of Queensland's proposal rightlypoint out the inconsistency of a law whichproposes that a person who draws slogansand symbols on a school wall can suffertwice the prison penalty of a person whoassaults a teacher.

The reality is that such penalties willprobably never be enforced:

first, because police resources are too scarceto actually catch most offenders, and second,because courts will use their discretion toapply commonsense sentences.

But that in itself is a danger for society.

Any law that cannot be enforced is ludicrousand has the capacity to erode the integrity ofthe whole legal system.

Queensland's actions illustrate the dangerthat parties happy to exploit community fearsin Opposition will follow up with increasedsentences when they gain power.

Such ratchetting up of penalties is anexpensive outcome but, more importantly,



one that does little to tackle the variousunderlying causes of crime.



Title Mixed results in criminal code review.


Date Issue 07/12/96

Pages 22

THE 100-page Criminal Law AmendmentBill tabled in the Legislative Assembly thisweek doesn't quite live up to the claim of itspropounder, Attorney-General DenverBeanland, that it delivers a "comprehensivecriminal code".

It is certainly substantial, and it does deliveron many of the promises for tougherpenalties made by the Coalition when inOpposition.

One was to repeal the revamped code onwhich former Attorney-General Dean Wellshad worked for five years.

In honouring that undertaking, Mr Beanlandhas scrapped some worthwhile changes.

It is to be hoped that when political partisanship is less of a concern, he will take asecond look at reforming the code and pickup more of the improvements his opponentshad proposed.

One that he did adopt which could haveimportant consequences for the courts andfor the jails concerns the summarydetermination of indictable offences.

The changes will enable magistrates to dealwith a wide range of offences and imposesentences of up to three years - rather thanthe present two years - for offences which, iftried by a jury, could bring seven yearsimprisonment, or more.

In some cases, the defendant will be able toinsist on a jury trial; in others, the optionwill be with the prosecution.

In any case, the magistrate may decide thatthe penalty required is higher than could beimposed in a summary trial and can requireit to be heard on indictment.

The whole process will help with the quickerdisposal of criminal trials, and shouldgenerally ensure that lesser crimes receiveappropriate penalties.

At the same time, the Government has sent aclear message to the courts that more seriouscrimes should receive longer sentences.

Offences for which maximum penalties haveincreased include burglary and stealingcrimes, where possible penalties have insome cases doubled from seven to 14 years,and breaking and entering and committingan indictable offence, which can bring a lifesentence.

Curiously, the burglary provision retains ahigher penalty for offences "committed inthe night".

Although the Penalties and Sentences Act isto be amended in the Bill, there will not bechanges to the "jail as a last resort" provisionthe Coalition's law-and-order rhetoric haslong targeted.

That is apparently on next year's agenda.

Abolishing it would not sit well with Policeand Prisons Minister Russell Cooper's recentsensible recognition of the desirability of notjailing people for minor offences.

Mr Beanland has taken the opportunityoffered by this Bill to reverse the effect of anumber of recent, highly publicised decisionsof the Supreme Court and the High Court.

He also has reformed the law by creatingsome new offences - computer hacking, forexample.

Unfortunately, he has decided to make toomuch of the graffiti problem.



His Bill makes causing damage by paint on aproperty visible from a public place a crimecarrying a punishment of five years' jail, orseven years if the material is obsceneindecent or involves an educationalinstitution.

Worse, the Bill makes carrying a spray canof paint an offence punishable by a fine of upto $5250 or two years' jail - unless the personis able to provide a "lawful excuse" forpossessing it.

This is not a matter of such vital importanceas to justify destruction of a fundamentallegislative principle by reversing the onus ofproof.



Title Too tuff on teenage crime?

Author WYNHAUSEN, ELISABETH


Date Issue 07/12/96

Pages 26

THE teenagers, who have dyed hair, bigbaggy shorts and baseball caps onbackwards, are wandering along QueenStreet in Brisbane around l0 at night.

They're not doing anything wrong, justjostling each other and making plenty ofnoise; the police descend on them anyway.

"Ten kids walking down a city street at nightwill attract police attention, whatever they'redoing," says barrister Alan Rose, thepresident of the Australian Law ReformCommission.

"Kids together attract police attention likeiron filings to a magnet."

For the past year the commission hasinvestigated juvenile justice, talking tothousands of juveniles (as part of a widerstudy of the position of children in the legalprocess).

The findings are disturbing, to say the least.

"Police target kids to the extent that they feelquite at liberty to walk up and start harassingthem," says Rose.

He has no doubt that police harassment ofyoung people tends to produce the verybehaviour that it's supposed to keep undercontrol.

But that isn't the sort of detail that inhibits apolitician bent on exploiting communityfears.

In elections in recent years, in fact,politicians fabricating a law and order crisishave proposed increasingly tougherpunishments of youthful miscreants.

One result is that the community comes toproject something of its own sense ofinsecurity on to an image of youth crime.

"Because of the perception of a so calledcrime wave ...politicians on all sides reactwith outrageous responses, as has

happened in Queensland," says Rose.

Only this week, the Queensland Governmentpromised to jail people for up to seven yearsfor damaging school property with graffiti.

In announcing his amendments to theQueensland Criminal Code, DenverBeanland, the State Attorney-General,matched election promises to get tough oncrime with some hair-raising penalties.

Spray-painting graffiti on school walls (ordamaging any property at all with obscene orindecent graffiti) carries a maximum seven-year sentence, four years more than themaximum sentence for common assault.

If it comes to that the maximum sentence for"cruelty to a child" is two years less than themaximum for graffitists.

Naturally, Beanland denies that it is bizarreto think of putting young people behind barsfor seven years for daubing dirty words on awall.

It may even be the sort of penalty the voterscame to expect, following the mountinghysteria about law and order in last year'sState election campaign.

'Tin elected by the people, don't let's forgetthat," Beanland says.



While the Australian Law ReformCommission's investigation suggests that ourchildren get the roughest of rough justice inQueensland and Western Australia,politicians in other parts of the country havebeen no slower to exploit unreasoning fear ofcrime by scapegoating juveniles.

Despite the complaints of the judiciary andrepresentations made by the Chief Justicehimself, a fortnight ago the NorthernTerritory Parliament passed a law that makesit mandatory for courts to give 14 and 15-year-olds a month's detention the secondtime they are charged with a property crime.

Territory Chief Minister Shane Stone hadpromised to crack down following anincrease in property crime in the (white)northern suburbs of Darwin and will showjust how tough he is by locking children up.

But there aren't any detention centres outsideDarwin and Alice Springs.

Never mind the recommendations thatfollowed the Royal Commission intoAboriginal Deaths in Custody, black youthfrom elsewhere in the Territory will be takenfrom their homes and families to serve theirsentences.

The law soon may prove unworkable, muchas in Western Australia, where the formerLabor government's botched legislativeattempt to imprison juvenile joy riders(nearly all of them Aboriginal) has sincebeen dropped.

"When did you last hear a politician say'We're going to reduce a penalty'," says WestAustralian District Court judge Hal Jackson,who, as president of the State's ChildrensCourt in those years, was openly critical ofthe political response to the fervour aboutcrime whipped up in sections of the media.

Somehow youth crime is all the easier anissue to exploit, he suggests.

"There's a sense that it's worse for kids tomisbehave.

Adults don't apply the same standards tothemselves.

"But adult offences are usually worse.

Kids smoke cannabis but they don't growplantations of the stuff.

"The vast majority of homicides and seriousand violent offences are committed byadults," Jackson says.

"If Martin Bryant was 16, there would havebeen a completely different response."Rather than seeing him as a sick, twistedindividual, his crimes would have been seenas symptomatic of a sickness in youth.

"The most disturbing feature of the pastdecade is the rise in hostility towards youngpeople, within the public political arena,"says NSW Labor MLC Ann Symonds, whobelieves it is part of a worldwide trend.

Brisbane solicitor Terry O'Gorman, thepresident of the Australian Council for CivilLiberties even sees Australia "going downthe US road".

The young have been scapegoated sinceSocrates's time, but O'Gorman believes thephenomenon has been most marked in recentyears.

A few months ago, he says, the United StatesCongress passed the Youth Predators Act,which erases many legal distinctionsbetween criminal acts

committed by adults and by juveniles.

No one seems to have much sympathy leftfor those once thought of as vulnerable.

The community feels itself battered bychanges of all sorts, from the uncertaintiesproduced by globalisation to the sense thatfamilies no longer hold together as theyought.

Something of the resulting sense ofinsecurity is most readily blamed on crimeand most readily "solved" with cheap



legislative solutions and still more promisesthat the police will not stand for anynonsense from our kids.

"In any other circumstance, police act on thebasis that they have a reasonable suspicionthat some crime has been or will becommitted," says the ALRC's Rose.

In Queensland police are to be given carteblanche to stop and search youths so much assuspected of carrying marking pens, spraycans or any other implement that could beused to apply, scratch or etch graffiti.

Unless they can explain themselves theycould go to jail for up to two years.

At a "crime prevention summit" held inBrisbane only the other day, Beanlandclaimed that many of the State's youth weregripped by a culture of chaos, crime anddespair.

He asserted that the Government must lookbeyond "traditional punishment" to saveyoung adults from a lifetime of crime.

But it was just a bit more empty rhetoric.

Queensland courts were handing out stiffersentences even before the BorbidgeGovernment passed amendments to theJuvenile Justice Act increasing penalties formany offences earlier this year.

In the past three years the numbers of peoplein Queensland jails have gone up by about65 per cent.

For all that, Gold Coast police had no soonerbeen issued with a directive saying theywould handle thefts involving less than$5000 worth of property over the phone (justthe sort of detail the political rhetoric ismeant to hide) when the Opposition accusedthe Government of being soft!.on crime.

One side is as cynical as the other, of course.

In 1994, the year before Bob Carr becameNSW Premier, his office produced its so-called anti-gang strategy - a bunch of scare

tactics thrown together in a document thatblurred the distinctions between murderous

criminal gangs and the clumps of unrulykids hanging around in shopping malls or onstreet corners.

If it hadn't been so silly, one might haveimagined that the out-of- touch descriptionof "roaming gangs of youths ...their baseballcaps turned back to front" (with its shadowysuggestion of gangs in the process of takingover the city) was calculated to create whatthe criminologists call "moral panic".

It certainly panicked the Fahey government,which rustled up a piece of legislation calledThe Children, Parental Responsibility Act ina matter of weeks.

The Act gives police officers the right toapproach any person under the age of 16,whether the individual is committing anoffence or not.

"Our view is that it was purely based on theLiberal government's desire to gain anelectoral advantage by playing on ill-foundedcommunity fears of a juvenile crime wave,"says Jane Irwin, a children's solicitor at theMarrickville Legal Centre who is theconvener of the Youth Justice Coalition.

The legislation is on trial in two towns,Orange and Cosford.

At a cost of hundreds of thousands, theGovernment set up two round-the- clock"safe houses" for juveniles picked up by thepolice.

Only a handful of young people have evenspent the night.

Following the report on the pilot schemeearly next year the whole thing could well gothe way of Western Australia's boot camp,the $1.5 million experiment where the courtsfailed to send so much as one recalcitrantkid.

But don't worry.



The Carr Government isn't going soft oncrime.

Two days ago, the NSW Upper House passedthe latest such measure - the Street andIllegal Racing Bill.

Despite the existing laws on dangerousdriving, this particular piece of legislationmeans that youngsters with souped-up carswill have their vehicles permanentlyconfiscated if police catch them spinningtheir wheels.

We asked a press secretary for NSW PoliceMinister Paul Whelan how you can stop yourcar being confiscated.

"You have to satisfy the court you weren'tdoing it deliberately," she said.

It was still hard to believe that teenagersdoing wheelies and doughnuts meritedlegislation of their own.

Nuisance or not, where exactly was themenace?.

"There are incidents and we've seen it onTV," the Police Minister's press secretarysaid.



Title Graffiti jail term longer than penalty for assault.

Author FAGAN, DAVID ( 5591 )


Date Issue 03/12/96

Pages 3

QUEENSLAND'S Borbidge Governmentwill match its get-tough rhetoric on youthcrime with jail sentences of up to seven yearsfor people caught painting graffiti on schoolsand other educational institutions.

The penalty, one of a range of amendmentsto Queensland's Criminal Code, will be fouryears more than the maximum penaltyplanned for common assault and two yearsmore than that to be imposed for stealing.

The Australian Council for Civil Libertiescriticised the penalties as the harshest in thecountry and part of a deliberate "scape-goating" of young people by the QueenslandGovernment.

"The fact that assaulting a teacher bringshalf the sentence of graffitiing the schoolwall shows the law and order madness of thesentencing hike in this code," the ACCLpresident, Mr Terry O'Gorman, saidyesterday.

The code is the first law in the country toimpose higher penalties for graffitistsdefacing a specific class of building andfollows a series of attempts to crack down ongraffiti crime in the past year.

The Goss government had promised butnever legislated a crackdown that includedpenalties for teenagers caught possessingspray cans but drew the line at prisonsentences for convicted graffitists.

Criminal Code amendments announcedyesterday by the Attorney-General, MrBeanland, prescribe a five-year maximumjail term for normal graffiti while obscenegraffiti or defacing educational institutionswill attract the higher penalty.

The seven-year penalty is lower than the 10years' jail recommended to the Governmentby the retired judge Mr Peter Connolly QC,who reviewed the code this year.

The Queensland Government estimates thatgraffiti damage cost it almost $4 million lastyear with 80 per cent of the cost to schooland educational institutions.

Mr Beanland said graffiti warranted toughpenalties because it was the "scourge" ofmodern society.

"It is not a crime of creativity, it is a crime ofenvy and stupidity," he said.

Other law reforms in the code include anacross-the-board increase in maximumpenalties and the creation of a new of fenceof torture, designed to cover the infliction ofsevere pain and suffering.

Mr Beanland said he wanted the reforms tosend a message to the community that crimewould not be tolerated and he also expectedthat message would flow to the courts.

"The judiciary like everybody else is boundby the law and the judiciary will surely seewhat the penalties are," he said.

Mr Beanland's code - which will be debatednext year - is the third attempt in five yearsto modernise Queensland's century oldCriminal Code.

The Goss government passed amendments torewrite and modernise the code but theywere never gazetted.

Mr Beanland said he wanted tougherpenalties for people convicted of sexoffences.



In some cases, the penalties for sex offenceswould treble.

The maximum sentence for an offenderconvicted of unlawful carnal knowledge of agirl under 16 would increase from five yearsto 14 years.

Women convicted of incest would face lifeimprisonment - compared with three yearsunder the current law.

The Government separately will introducelegislation to define how sentences are to beapplied but Mr Beanland indicated yesterdaythat life sentences were likely to be longer,possibly through the exclusion of parole forlife convicts.



Title Judge blasts graffiti `morons'.


Date Issue 10/10/96

Pages 12

TOUGHER legislation was needed so thecourts could be harder on "morons" whosprayed graffiti signs, District Court ChiefJudge Pat Shanahan said yesterday.

When told there were legislative changesplanned to allow graffiti artists to be treatedmore severely, Judge Shanahan said it was"not before time".

Judge Shanahan was sentencing a universitystudent who pleaded guilty to 26 wilfuldamage charges from September toDecember 1994.

The court was told the man, who was aminor at the time and cannot be named, hadpreviously been given community serviceand probation for similar offences.

Prosecutor Deborah Holliday said the manwent by the graffiti name "EZAR" and was amember of the AOK gang.

She said damage done to property by theman was estimated at $4120.

Judge Shanahan said: "Can you explain whatmotivates their (graffiti artists)contemptuous attitude to the public?.

"There must be some explanation for thesecreatures who only come out after dark andgo around disfiguring the city.".

Judge Shanahan sentenced the man to 240hours' community service and ordered he pay$120 compensation.



Title Union concern saves clean-up.

Author OBERHARDT, MARK


Date Issue 23/08/96

Pages 9

Article: A DISTRICT Court judgeyesterday decided against ordering a graffitisprayer to clean railway stations because itmight cause union problems.

The youth, 18, who is now employed as asign writer, sprayed his graffiti tag of"PSUED" on railway stations, bus shelters,school walls and other public property.

Judge Brian Hoath was sentencing the youthafter he pleaded guilty yesterday to eightwilful damage charges and six of stealingspray paint cans.

The youth, who was a minor when thecrimes were committed in 1994 and 1995,also admitted 155 other wilful damage andfive other stealing charges.

The admissions were taken into accountwhen Judge Hoath sentenced him to 240hours' community service and three years'probation. No convictions were recorded.

Prosecutor Neville Weston told Judge Hoaththe Queensland Railways Departmentwanted the youth to perform part of hiscommunity service cleaning graffiti off wallsat railway stations.

The judge said he did not think he couldmake such an order.

"It seems inconsistent with the attitude of therailway unions, who show resistance to theuse of free labour for certain jobs," JudgeHoath said.



Title Soorley: government to blame, not jobless youth.

Author SMITH, AMANDA


Date Issue 14/06/96

Pages 3

UNEMPLOYED youth could not be blamedfor stealing cars and defacing buildings in asociety which did not give them access tojobs, Brisbane Lord Mayor Jim Soorley saidyesterday.

In an attack on the Federal Government'shandling of unemployment at a nationalunemployment conference in Brisbane, CrSoorley also: *Called for the "bombing" ofthe Department of Employment, Educationand Training and suggested DEET wastrying to sabotage Brisbane City Councilemployment programmes.

* Claimed sections of Brisbane, such asInala, were producing "third- generationunemployed", which was creating a new"non-working class".

* Condemned the new Federal Government'seconomic rationalist approach and the lackof commitment to council employmentinitiatives.

Cr Soorley told the three-day conference thatgovernments and society had failed in their"social and moral responsibility" to ensureyoung people had the opportunity to work.

"Why shouldn't they (unemployed youth puttheir graffiti on the building where they getwork? Why shouldn't they break into a carand steal it?" Cr Soorley said.

"I totally reject the Liberal code that it's"their' problem and "their' fault because theyare inadequate and wrong.

"If a young 16-year-old leaves school andcan't get a job, it's society's fault," he said.

Building Owners and Managers AssociationQueensland president Angus Harvey Ross

said the Lord Mayor was drawing a "verylong bow" to claim the people who paid torepair graffiti and vandalism should feelresponsible for unemployed youth not havingjobs.

"Graffiti and vandalism is a major problemfor us," Mr Harvey Ross said.

"The building owners do not feel that it'snecessarily their problem these people don'thave jobs - yet we are the ones who directlypay for the damage.".

Cr Soorley said the council had been forcedto close its employment programmes such asLEAP and Skillshare in this year's Budgetbecause of uncertainty over the continuationof federal government funding.

"We have now enshrined the gods ofeconomic rationalism in Canberra," he said.

"Their economic rationalist position is to getrid of these jobs.

"But we ain't seen nothing yet - they will becontinuing the selling and hacking up ofinfra structure which we have built up in thiscountry over 100 years.".

Cr Soorley said third-generation unemployedcould be found in Brisbane suburbs such asInala.

"But they've gotten used to it.

There's none of the anger and hostility of thepeople that live in Woodridge where there'sonly two generations of unemployed," hesaid.

"Do we really want to propagate in oursociety having a working class and a non-working class?".



Cr Soorley also said he believed DEET wasan incompetent agency bogged down bybureaucratic red tape.

"It should be bombed," he said.

An employment initiative for the council totake on 1000 workers had resulted in manyfrustrating bureaucratic delays, Cr Soorleysaid.

"They are trying in many ways to sabotageour programmes".

Council Opposition leader Bob Millsyesterday branded the Lord Mayor'scomments "irresponsible" and"reprehensible".

"It's time the people of Brisbane realised thatthe Lord Mayor is unable to control himselfor his language," Cr Mills said.

He also accused Cr Soorley of beinghypocritical in his attack on the FederalGovernment.



Title Candid camera.

Source SUNDAY MAIL ( 151 )

Date Issue 10/03/96

Pages 31

SURVEILLANCE cameras installed onBrisbane's worst trouble-spot railway stationshad led to more than 20 arrests and manymore cases were under investigation, aQueensland Rail spokesman said.

The first stage of a $22 million, three-yearprogram had focused on 23 stations toincrease passenger safety and reducevandalism and graffiti.

The stations had closed-circuit securitycameras on platforms and subways.

Platform lighting had been improved andemergency telephones and alarm systemsinstalled.

"Trainwatch", a community-based schemedesigned to cut the annual $1.5 milliongraffiti and vandalism bill, was workingwell.

The 24- hour toll-free number is 1800 643443.

graffiti and the criminal law amendment bill 1996 · the 1996 bill repeals the criminal code 1995...

Documents