Queensland Parliamentary Library

Tackling Graffiti – Summary Offences and Other Acts Amendment Bill 2006 (Qld)

The purpose of this Research Brief is to update an earlier publication by the Queensland Parliamentary Library dealing with anti-graffiti laws under consideration at the time and various non-legislative strategies to combat graffiti damage to property. A decade on, the topic of graffiti still generates debate and divides opinion.

This Brief also considers some proposed provisions currently before Parliament to amend the Summary Offences Act 2005 (Qld) to ban the sale of spray paint cans to minors and looks at legislative developments in other Australian jurisdictions.

Nicolee Dixon

Research Brief No 2007/02

Queensland Parliamentary Library Research Publications and Resources Section

Ms Karen Sampford, Director (07) 3406 7116 Mrs Nicolee Dixon, Senior Parliamentary Research Officer (07) 3406 7409 Mrs Renee Gastaldon, Parliamentary Research Officer (07) 3406 7241

Research Publications are compiled for Members of the Queensland Parliament, for use in parliamentary debates and for related parliamentary purposes. Information in publications is current to the date of publication. Information on legislation, case law or legal policy issues does not constitute legal advice.

Research Publications on Bills reflect the legislation as introduced and should not be considered complete guides to the legislation. To determine whether a Bill has been enacted, or whether amendments have been made to a Bill during consideration in detail, the Queensland Legislation Annotations, prepared by the Office of the Queensland Parliamentary Counsel, or the Bills Update, produced by the Table Office of the Queensland Parliament, should be consulted. Readers should also refer to the relevant Alert Digest of the Scrutiny of Legislation Committee of the Queensland Parliament. © Queensland Parliamentary Library, 2007

ISSN 1443-7902 ISBN 1 921056 43 6 February 2007

Copyright protects this publication. Except for purposes permitted by the Copyright Act 1968, reproduction by whatever means is prohibited, other than by Members of the Queensland Parliament in the course of their official duties, without the prior written permission of the Clerk of the Parliament on behalf of the Parliament of Queensland.

Inquiries should be addressed to: Director, Research Publications & Resources Queensland Parliamentary Library Parliament House George Street, Brisbane QLD 4000 Ms Karen Sampford. (Tel: 07 3406 7116) Email: Karen.Sampford@parliament.qld.gov.au Information about Research Publications can be found on the Internet at: www.parliament.qld.gov.au/publications

CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .....................................................................................1

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

2 BACKGROUND................................................................................................1

2.1 WHAT IS GRAFFITI?.......................................................................................1

2.2 WHO ENGAGES IN GRAFFITI? ........................................................................4

2.3 POSSIBLE MOTIVATIONS FOR GRAFFITI WRITING..........................................5

2.4 WHERE IS GRAFFITI DONE?...........................................................................6

3 WHY IS GRAFFITI A PROBLEM? ..............................................................7

3.1 COSTS OF CLEAN-UP .....................................................................................7

3.2 COMMUNITY PERCEPTIONS OF SAFETY..........................................................8

3.3 COMMUNITY PERCEPTIONS OF SOCIAL DECLINE ...........................................9

3.4 HARM TO GRAFFITI WRITERS ........................................................................9

4 RESPONSES TO TACKLING GRAFFITI .................................................10

5 CURRENT ANTI-GRAFFITI LAWS IN QUEENSLAND ........................10

5.1 GRAFFITI OFFENCES ....................................................................................11

5.2 POSSESSION OF A GRAFFITI INSTRUMENT ....................................................12

5.3 GRAFFITI ON TRANSPORT INFRASTRUCTURE ...............................................13

5.4 IMPACT OF THE ANTI-GRAFFITI LAWS.........................................................13

6 NON-LEGISLATIVE ANTI-GRAFFITI RESPONSES.............................14

6.1.1 ‘Rapid Removal’ and Clean-up Trailers ..............................................16

6.1.2 Graffiti Solutions Initiative..................................................................16

6.1.3 Queensland Rail ...................................................................................17

6.1.4 Local Graffiti Management Strategies.................................................19

7 PROPOSED BANS ON SALES OF SPRAY PAINT TO MINORS ..........21

7.1 AMENDMENTS TO THE SUMMARY OFFENCES ACT 2005 (QLD) ..................... 21

7.1.1 Response by Industry .......................................................................... 23

7.2 AMENDMENTS TO THE POLICE POWERS AND RESPONSIBILITIES ACT 2000 (QLD) .................................................................................................................... 24

8 VICTORIA ...................................................................................................... 25

8.1 PROPOSED OFFENCES FOR DISCUSSION ....................................................... 26

8.2 PROPOSED SEARCH AND SEIZURE POWERS FOR POLICE .............................. 27

8.3 PENALTIES .................................................................................................. 27

8.4 CLEANING UP GRAFFITI .............................................................................. 28

9 NEW SOUTH WALES................................................................................... 28

10 SOUTH AUSTRALIA................................................................................. 31

11 WESTERN AUSTRALIA........................................................................... 33

12 AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY................................................. 33

13 GREAT BRITAIN....................................................................................... 35

RECENT QPL RESEARCH PUBLICATIONS 2007........................................ 37

Tackling Graffiti - Summary Offences and Other Acts Amendment Bill 2006 (Qld)

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The purpose of this Research Brief is to update an earlier publication by the Queensland Parliamentary Library dealing with anti-graffiti laws that were under consideration at the time and various non-legislative strategies to combat graffiti damage to property. This Brief also considers provisions in the Summary Offences and Other Acts Amendment Bill 2006 (Qld), currently before Parliament, that seek to amend the Summary Offences Act 2005 (Qld) to ban the sale of spray paint cans to minors. The Brief firstly considers the concept of graffiti, its evolution, its types, and the debate over its status as ‘art’ or vandalism: pages 1-4. It then discusses whether there is a ‘typical’ profile of graffiti writers, and possible motivations for engaging in it: pages 4-7. The Brief then goes on to discuss why graffiti is seen as a problem in the community – particularly in terms of its economic, social, and personal costs. The current anti-graffiti laws under the Queensland Criminal Code and the Summary Offences Act 2005 and under various transport infrastructure legislation are then considered followed by a discussion of State and Local Government non-legislative responses, such as rapid removal programs and the promotion of legal street art: pages 7-21. The proposal to ban the sale of spray paint cans to minors by the introduction of amendments to the Summary Offences Act 2005 under the Summary Offences and Other Acts Amendment Bill 2006 (Qld) is discussed, followed by a consideration of the industry perspective: pages 21-25. Finally, the Brief examines anti-graffiti legislation in other jurisdictions as well as non-legislative approaches that have been taken by some governments to address the problem: pages 25-35.

Tackling Graffiti - Summary Offences and Other Acts Amendment Bill 2006 (Qld) Page 1

1 INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this Research Brief is to update an earlier publication by the Queensland Parliamentary Library dealing with anti-graffiti laws that were under consideration at the time and various non-legislative strategies then in place to combat graffiti damage to property. This Brief also considers proposed provisions in the Summary Offences and Other Acts Amendment Bill 2006 (Qld) currently before Parliament to amend the Summary Offences Act 2005 (Qld) to ban the sale of spray paint cans to minors and discusses legislative developments in other Australian jurisdictions.

2 BACKGROUND

In March 1997, a Legislation Bulletin, Graffiti and the Criminal Law Amendment Bill 1996 by Karen Sampford of the Queensland Parliamentary Library was published,1 outlining the origins and history of graffiti; the manner in which graffiti artists operate; the variety of views about the graffiti issue; and its associated monetary and non-monetary costs. It also considered the then existing legislative responses to the graffiti issue throughout Australia and, more specifically, the changes that were then being proposed to the Criminal Code to make it an offence to damage or destroy property by graffiti.2 Another area the Legislation Bulletin explored in some depth was the various non-legislative responses to the graffiti problem, such as the establishment of street art sites and the adoption of voluntary codes of practice by retailers regarding the sale of spray paint.

2.1 WHAT IS GRAFFITI?

As noted in the above Legislation Bulletin, the word ‘graffiti’ derives from the Greek word ‘graphein’, which means ‘to draw or write’. Essentially, the term describes writing or drawing on property. Graffiti is far from being a new phenomenon, with suggestions that it may date back as far as 30,000 years ago. Examples of graffiti have been found at Pompeii dating from around AD 79

1 Karen Sampford, Graffiti and the Criminal Law Amendment Bill 1996, Legislation Bulletin

No 1/97, March 1997.

2 The Bulletin also examined the new offence provisions inserted by the Criminal Law Amendment Bill 1996 (Qld) to make possession of graffiti instruments an offence under the then Vagrants, Gaming and Other Offences Act 1931 (Qld) (now superseded by the Summary Offences Act 2005 (Qld)).

Page 2 Queensland Parliamentary Library

(writing that states ‘the man who wrote this did it because he wanted to’ has been found).3 It was also used as a marking on walls of towns that Romans conquered.4

Graffiti in its modern form emerged primarily in New York during the 1960s. The subway is the most popular target due to its high visibility, huge potential audience, and link with similar cultures. In the 1970s, there was a movement towards advancing graffiti as a legitimate art form and it then became associated with hip hop culture. A number of movies of the era tended to romanticise graffiti and some magazines appeared to embrace it, thus leading to its ‘popularisation’. Graffiti then began to spread all over the world.5

There are a number of different forms of graffiti, the most typical being the following –6

• ‘hip hop’ graffiti – a quite common type of writing and drawing with marker pens and aerosol paint originating in the United States and arriving in Australia during the 1980s. It is an aspect of hip hop culture that also includes rap music and break dancing. It tends to involve distinctive calligraphy, images and colours for the writing or painting of murals (called ‘pieces’) and names written in complicated calligraphy on walls, fences, train seats and windows, bus shelters and other surfaces (called ‘tags’). A typical ‘tag’ is likely to be a newly coined word or an actual word spelled in a ‘hip hop’ sort of style (e.g. Kaos) and written in a highly stylised format so as to be illegible to the general public;7

• slogan graffiti – another main form of graffiti done with pens and aerosol paint and which is more common in Australia.8 In recent times, stencil graffiti has tended to predominate over the mere writing of slogans and entails

3 M Halsey & A Young, ‘The Meanings of Graffiti and Municipal Administration’, Australian

and New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 35(2) 2002, pp 165-186, p 170, citing R Freeman, Graffiti, Hutchinson, London, 1966, p 148.

4 A Graycar, Former Director of the Australian Institute of Criminology (AIC), ‘Graffiti: Implications for law enforcement, local government and the community’, Conference held in conjunction with the Australian Local Government Association, Brisbane, 18-19 August 2003, p 1.

5 A Graycar, pp 4-5.

6 See M Halsey & A Young, pp 167-168; and Victorian Government, Department of Justice, ‘Graffiti Prevention Exposure Draft Bill’, Discussion Paper, 2006, http://www.justice.vic.gov.au/graffiti, p 4.

7 M Halsey & A Young, p 169.

8 M Halsey & A Young, p 169.

Tackling Graffiti - Summary Offences and Other Acts Amendment Bill 2006 (Qld) Page 3

the design of an image on a cut-out which can be reproduced using spray paint. The slogans can range across numerous topics from expressing love (e.g. ‘Jack loves Jill’), personal slurs (e.g. ‘Jill is a dag’), to anger over political, environmental, international relations and other issues (e.g. protests about Australian presence in Iraq; the destruction of wilderness; unemployment);

• hate graffiti – the writing of slogans that vilify a particular group. This is usually regarded to be the most damaging type of graffiti. Many local governments act to clean it up as quickly as possible.

It has been claimed that the various forms of graffiti are produced by quite different types of persons and for dissimilar reasons and may, therefore, have different effects on the community.9 Indeed, different people respond to graffiti in different ways – is it an ugly, defacing smear or is it an expression of individuality?10 Is it art (to which category some argue that some graffiti ‘pieces’ belong) or is it vandalism?11 Adding to the debate is the number of art historians who have expressed the view that some graffiti of sufficient creative merit can be regarded as visual art.12

While graffiti is commonly seen as unlawfully writing or drawing on public or private property, some graffiti is legally created. For instance, a local council may ask street artists to draw a mural on the side of a council building. The Queensland Department of Justice makes a distinction between ‘aerosol art’ (which has the backing of local governments and property owners) and ‘graffiti vandalism’ (which is the spraying of private and public property with slogans or tags).13

It has also been argued by some criminologists and legal academics that to equate graffiti with vandalism may be too simplistic and its ambiguous status as either art or damage means that it needs to be treated as, at least partly, distinct from more consciously formulated acts of vandalism (e.g. seat slashing on trains).14

9 M Halsey & A Young, p 168.

10 A Graycar, p 1.

11 M Halsey & A Young, pp 168-169, citing MA Gomez, ‘The Writing on Our Walls: Finding Solutions Through Distinguishing Graffiti Art From Graffiti Vandalism’, University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform, 26(3) 1993, pp 633-707, pp 634-635.

12 ‘Graffiti’, Wikipedia – the free encyclopaedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graffiti, citing B Smith, T Smith & C Heathcote, Australian Painting 1788-2000, Oxford University Press, Melbourne 2001, Ch 17.

13 Queensland Department of Justice website, ‘You and the Law: Graffiti’, http://www.justice.qld.gov.au/education/law/graffiti.htm.

14 M Halsey & A Young, p 168.

Page 4 Queensland Parliamentary Library

Dr Adam Graycar, the former Director of the Australian Institute of Criminology (AIC), believes that to understand the complexity of the graffiti problem and, therefore, how best to tackle it, it is necessary to understand the youth culture that initially promoted it and continues to popularise it.15

2.2 WHO ENGAGES IN GRAFFITI?

A study by researchers for the New South Wales Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research (BOCSAR) made a number of findings about the nature and type of graffiti incidents and those involved in them. The study relied on police and court data. Although the data pertains to NSW, it is reasonable to assume that it would be representative of other Australian states and territories. The findings were –16

• the majority of persons identified by police in relation to graffiti incidents were male (86.4%) and around 68% were under 18 years;

• young males (under 18) represented 56.7% of persons identified by police in relation to graffiti incidents but 11.1% of young females were also identified by police as being involved in graffiti incidents.17 The BOCSAR Brief commented that the results were consistent with other research suggesting that malicious damage is typically carried out by young people. However, it is also possible that a greater number of young people come to the attention of police for malicious damage offences not because they offend more often but because they are less experienced or more visible to police;18

• there appears to be a seasonal trend in graffiti incidents, with most occurring during winter months;

• a large proportion of graffiti incidents appear to take place on Friday nights between 3pm and 9pm and those three-hour time periods were the most frequently occurring time on each day;

• the most common targets tend to be schools, residential premises and commercial premises but this could be because insurance obligations may require reporting of damage to police.

15 A Graycar, p 4.

16 S Williams & S Poynton, ‘Recent Trends in Recorded Incidents of Graffiti in New South Wales 1996-2005’, Crime and Justice Statistics Bureau Brief, NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, April 2006.

17 S Williams & S Poynton, BOCSAR, pp 3-4.

18 S Williams & S Poynton, BOCSAR, p 4.

Tackling Graffiti - Summary Offences and Other Acts Amendment Bill 2006 (Qld) Page 5

There is no ‘typical’ demographic for graffiti writers despite media reports and public perception that graffiti is done by teenagers, or is caused by unemployment or boredom, or that it tends to occur in lower socio-economic areas.19

It has been found that while some graffiti writers do come from dysfunctional homes, just as many come from stable homes.20 It cannot be said that graffiti writers are predominantly from marginalised sections of the community. A recent study in South Australia found that hip hop graffiti writers tended to come from a wide range of social and family situations.21 There is also evidence that some graffiti writers continue to engage in graffiti activity into their 30s and 40s and that, while many writers are male, there are a number of female graffiti writers. Ultimately, as Halsey & Young point out, it could be said that graffiti “may be written by individuals in the following categories: those aged from 10 to 45; by males and females; by the employed and unemployed; by those in school and truants; by children of stable and unstable families; by students; by artists; and by the politically active”.22

A particular type of graffiti may be associated with particular sexes and age groups but this is not always borne out in reality. However, it would seem that political graffiti tends to be executed by older, politically active people while hip hop graffiti, the most widespread form of graffiti, is mainly done by adolescent males.23

2.3 POSSIBLE MOTIVATIONS FOR GRAFFITI WRITING

There are many and various motivations for engaging in graffiti activity apart from commonly perceived anti-social impetus and boredom.

A study in Geelong Victoria is reported to have found that the young people in the area applied graffiti for any number of reasons, including as a form of self-expression, as an art form, or for an ‘adrenalin rush’. To alleviate boredom, or as a form of rebellion were also mentioned.24 Interestingly, none of the graffiti writers thought that their behaviour was threatening or harmful to the community and they also had mixed views about legal graffiti projects (some thinking it gave a

19 M Halsey & A Young, pp 170-171.

20 M Halsey & A Young, p 171, citing R Lachmann, ‘Graffiti as a career and ideology’, American Journal of Sociology, 94 1988, pp 229-250, p 235.

21 Victorian Government, ‘Graffiti Prevention Exposure Draft Bill’, Discussion Paper, pp 5-6.

22 M Halsey & A Young, p 171.

23 Victorian Government, ‘Graffiti Prevention Exposure Draft Bill’ Discussion Paper, p 5.

24 Victorian Government, ‘Graffiti Prevention Exposure Draft Bill’, Discussion Paper, p 6.

Page 6 Queensland Parliamentary Library

legitimate alternative outlet while some thought it did not diminish their illegal writings).25 Participants in the study who no longer did graffiti gave the following reasons for stopping: fear of being caught and prosecuted, peer and family condemnation, and council graffiti removal policies.26

Some legal academics and sociologists have suggested that particular motivations behind certain types of graffiti include – • ‘tagging’ to show presence in a place or the area as ‘belonging’ to a person or

a group; or to gain recognition, respect or fame; • political ‘slogans’ to express a particular point of view; • ‘piecing’ to prove skill to the writers’ peers (with fellow writers often finding

admiration for the control over the spray can that the writer must have had); or to ‘liven up’ an ‘empty’ wall. Some writers will apologise if they are unhappy about the piece or tag they have written (e.g. ‘sorry about the drips’).27

Some graffiti writers argue that graffiti is a way of claiming space for themselves in increasingly large and fiscal urban areas.28

2.4 WHERE IS GRAFFITI DONE?

It appears that walls alongside railway lines are surfaces of choice for many pieces or ‘throw ups’29 and there is a great deal of status attached to tagging or piecing trains themselves.30

It appears trains have always had significance for graffiti writers. This may be because trains travel across many kilometres and allow pieces or tags to be viewed at numerous destinations around a city.31 One Melbourne graffiti writer is reported as saying that “if it’s a train it’s the best feeling when you get out of there. You feel

25 Victorian Government, ‘Graffiti Prevention Exposure Draft Bill’, Discussion Paper, p 6.

26 Victorian Government, ‘Graffiti Prevention Exposure Draft Bill’, Discussion Paper, p 6.

27 M Halsey & A Young, pp 171, 173.

28 Shannon McDonald, ‘Graffiti’, Overnights, ABC Online, 24 September 2005.

29 ‘Throw ups’ being a more simplified and larger version of a tag, less elaborate than a ‘piece’, and tend to be in bubble type lettering.

30 M Halsey & A Young, p 172.

31 M Halsey & A Young, p 172.

Tackling Graffiti - Summary Offences and Other Acts Amendment Bill 2006 (Qld) Page 7

like you’re a real writer, you know?”.32 The writers may spend many days travelling around on trains, observing tags and pieces, as well as stopping at places to write.

Graffiti websites have emerged – sites which contain photographs of graffiti around Australia and the world. Some websites also provide instructions on how to do piece graffiti and police have found websites used by graffiti writers to ‘recruit’ young people and to taunt police.33 However, many sites are constructed by legitimate organisations.34

3 WHY IS GRAFFITI A PROBLEM?

Generally speaking, graffiti has criminal status rather than being regarded as an expression of self or of one’s art. The reasons are mainly because of the costs associated with cleaning up graffiti; reduced community feeling of safety; increased community perception of social decline; and the fact that the writing of graffiti often occurs in dangerous places.

3.1 COSTS OF CLEAN-UP

It has been claimed that state and local government bodies, private industry and the general community spend millions of dollars each year to repair damage caused by graffiti throughout Queensland.35 Private property owners feel the effects through rises in insurance premiums. The costs of public property clean-ups are ultimately borne by taxpayers and ratepayers. For instance, Lord Mayor Campbell Newman recently estimated that graffiti damage costs the Brisbane community around $10 million each year and significantly reduces the amenity, sense of safety and liveability of the city.36 It has also been reported that Queensland Rail (QR) spent $1 million removing graffiti from its rail network during 2005 and has employed four full time painters to clean up graffiti at stations, while another full time team

32 M Halsey & A Young, p 183.

33 Ainsley Pavey, ‘How web braggers lure new vandals’, Sunday Mail, 29 January 2006, p 10.

34 A Graycar, p 7.

35 Summary Offences and Other Acts Amendment Bill 2006 (Qld), Explanatory Notes, p 3.

36 Summary Offences and Other Acts Amendment Bill 2006 (Qld), Explanatory Notes, p 3.

Page 8 Queensland Parliamentary Library

works at cleaning up graffiti in railway yards and removing offensive graffiti from carriages.37

During Question Time in Parliament in September 2003, the then Minister for Police and Corrective Services, the Hon Tony McGrady MP, noted that graffiti costs the community around $100 million each year and, of all the crimes against public property in Queensland, it was possibly the most common.38

3.2 COMMUNITY PERCEPTIONS OF SAFETY

It has been suggested that malicious damage incidents in a neighbourhood can lead to a greater fear of crime by residents and may encourage further crimes.39

The latest Review of Government Services 2006 indicates that, in 2004-2005, when Australians were asked about crime problems within their state or territory, the proportion of people who perceived ‘graffiti and other vandalism’ to be a problem was around 85%.40 In Queensland, 84.6% of those surveyed considered ‘graffiti and other vandalism’ to be a major problem or somewhat a problem. This reflects a similar result for 2003-2004.41 When it came to an opinion about whether ‘graffiti or other vandalism’ was a major problem or somewhat a problem in their neighbourhood during 2004-2005, 44.5% of Queenslanders surveyed said it was,

37 Ainsley Pavey, ‘Dirty old town’, Sunday Mail, 22 January 2006, p 4.

38 Hon T McGrady MP, Minister for Police and Corrective Services, ‘Graffiti Task Force’, Questions Without Notice, Queensland Parliamentary Debates, 11 September 2003, p 3514.

39 M Howard, ‘Malicious Damage to Property Offences in New South Wales’, Crime and Justice Bulletin No 100, NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, September 2006, p 2, citing PN Grabosky, ‘Fear of Crime and Crime Reduction Strategies’, Trends and Issues in Crime and Criminal Justice No 44, Australian Institute of Criminology, 1995 and W Skogen, ‘Disorder and Decline: Crime and the Spiral of Decay in American Neighbourhoods’, The Free Press, New York, 1990.

40 Australian Government, Steering Committee for the Review of Government Service Provision, Report on Government Services 2006, Productivity Commission, Canberra, January 2006, p 5.30, Table 5A.38, http://www.pc.gov.au/gsp/reports/rogs/2006/index.html. The sample size for obtaining an opinion on whether graffiti or other vandalism was a problem in the state or territory was 23,204 people across the nation.

41 Report on Government Services 2006, Table 5A.38. The sample size in Queensland for obtaining an opinion on whether graffiti or other vandalism was a problem in the state or territory was 5,537 people in 2004-2005 and 3,982 in 2003-2004.

Tackling Graffiti - Summary Offences and Other Acts Amendment Bill 2006 (Qld) Page 9

down from almost 53% from the previous year. It was also less than the national figure at 50.5%.42

In January 2006, the Courier Mail reported graffiti attacks on an estate in Goodna that had been carried out by warring teenage gangs vying for ‘turf control’. Residents reported being frightened by the growing amount of graffiti and fearing that the perpetrators may break into homes to steal money for spray paint. One resident reported not feeling safe in his own home. 43

The presence of graffiti on QR trains and stations can also create feelings of insecurity among commuters.

While there is a common view that graffiti in a particular area can indicate that interpersonal violent crime may be prevalent there, some academics argue that, in fact, the main criminal activity associated with graffiti is the theft of paint which usually occurs elsewhere and without risk to local residents.44

3.3 COMMUNITY PERCEPTIONS OF SOCIAL DECLINE

If there is graffiti in a particular area of the community, this may make residents feel that the local government is not interested in the area and that the authorities might see the neighbourhood as socially unstable.45

3.4 HARM TO GRAFFITI WRITERS

A lot of graffiti is seen in quite dangerous places, such as on the side of trains, on walls of railway and bus tunnels, railway stations and high up on walls of buildings. This obviously means that those who engage in the activity are putting themselves at considerable risk.46 In New South Wales, for example, over an 18

42 Report on Government Services 2006, Table 5A.35.

43 Ainsley Pavey & Edmund Burke, ‘Gangs battle to mark their turf’, Sunday Mail, 29 January 2006, p 10.

44 M Halsey & A Young, p 171.

45 Victorian Government, ‘Graffiti Prevention Exposure Draft Bill’, Discussion Paper, p 6.

46 Victorian Government, ‘Graffiti Prevention Exposure Draft Bill’, Discussion Paper, p 7.

Page 10 Queensland Parliamentary Library

month period to the end of 2002, nine young males were killed engaging in writing on trains or railway infrastructure.47

4 RESPONSES TO TACKLING GRAFFITI

State and local governments around the nation have a range of legislative and administrative approaches to dealing with graffiti. The various responses have tended to focus upon the graffiti that occurs in community spaces, such as on trains, walls of buildings and other public areas. This is because it tends to be seen as affecting the general community, not just the owner of the property upon which the graffiti is applied.

Graffiti is commonly banned or restricted through legislation in most states and territories. Criminal laws tend to categorise graffiti under ‘damaging or defacing property’ and make it an offence to engage in such activity. A number of jurisdictions also deal with graffiti at an earlier point by restricting sales of spray paint and making it an offence to have a graffiti implement in one’s possession. There are also a number of transport specific (especially bus and train) anti-graffiti laws.

Penalties tend to include custodial sentences and community service orders requiring removal of graffiti. It has been argued, however, that the punishments on offer may provide little deterrence as the majority of graffiti incidents in Australia do not receive criminal sanction.48 Graffiti writing is rarely witnessed, thus making the occurrences hard to prove.

It has been said that Queensland has some of the toughest anti-graffiti laws in the world.49

5 CURRENT ANTI-GRAFFITI LAWS IN QUEENSLAND

As pointed out in Legislation Bulletin 1/97, until 1997, there were no specific anti-graffiti laws in Queensland. The main provision used to prosecute a person for an

47 Damien Carrick, ‘Getting Rid of Graffiti’, The Law Report: ABC Radio National, 15 March

2005, downloaded 24 November 2006.

48 A Graycar, p 4.

49 Damien Carrick.

Tackling Graffiti - Summary Offences and Other Acts Amendment Bill 2006 (Qld) Page 11

act of graffiti was s 469 of the Criminal Code which makes it an offence to wilfully and unlawfully destroy or damage any property.50

Following recommendations of the Criminal Code Review Advisory Working Group, established by the then Coalition Government in April 1996, and a public consultation process, the then Attorney-General, the Hon Denver Beanland MLA, introduced the Criminal Law Amendment Bill 1996 (Qld) to amend s 469 of the Criminal Code.51

5.1 GRAFFITI OFFENCES

The Criminal Law Amendment Act 1997 (Qld), commencing on 1 July 1997, introduced into the Criminal Code the first specific laws dealing with graffiti in Queensland.52

Section 469(9) of the Criminal Code provides that if the property in question is in a public place, and the destruction or damage is caused by –

• spraying, writing, drawing, marking or otherwise applying paint or another marking substance; or

• scratching or etching;

an offence is committed and the offender is liable to five years imprisonment. If the graffiti involves obscene or indecent representations, then a seven year term of imprisonment applies.

However, the court may, whether or not any other penalty is imposed, order the offender to perform community service, such as removing graffiti from property, and order the offender to pay compensation.

If the wilful and unlawful damage is to part of a school, education centre, college, university, or other educational institution, the offender can be imprisoned for seven years: s 469(10). The court can also order the offender to perform community service work, such as cleaning or repairing damage to the educational institution, and order the offender to pay compensation.

50 At that time the penalty was two years imprisonment if no other penalty was provided.

51 Graffiti was an issue in the 1995 Queensland State Election campaign with the Coalition releasing a ‘Graffiti and Vandalism’ policy and the Goss Labor Government unveiling ‘The Goss Plan to Tackle Graffiti Louts’ policy.

52 A more detailed discussion of the changes effected by the Criminal Law Amendment Bill 1996 (Qld) is found on pp 17-20 of Legislation Bulletin 1/97.

Page 12 Queensland Parliamentary Library

If the property in question is part of a railway or any work connected with a railway, the offender is liable to a 14 year prison term: s 469(5).

Unlike the situation then prevailing in most other jurisdictions, graffiti became a serious indictable offence in Queensland. It appears that the standard maximum term of imprisonment in other Australian states was six months.53

At the time the amendments were introduced, there was some criticism in the media about the severity of the penalties. For example, one newspaper report suggested that the seven year jail term for graffiti ‘artists’ who vandalise schools was an “overreaction to a middle-ranking law and order problem”. It was regarded by some people as targeting “the easiest community group to be demonised – young people who have no voice of their own in the legislative process…”.54

5.2 POSSESSION OF A GRAFFITI INSTRUMENT

The Criminal Law Amendment Act 1997 also created a new offence of possession of a graffiti instrument (which is now found in s 17 of the Summary Offences Act 2005 (Qld)). A ‘graffiti instrument’ is defined as including a container from which paint or another marking substance may be forced by pressure, suction or in another way; or an etching instrument: Sch 2.

A person must not possess a graffiti instrument that is reasonably suspected of having been used for graffiti; or is being used for graffiti; or is reasonably suspected of being about to be used for that purpose. However, it is a defence to a charge of possessing a graffiti instrument that is reasonably suspected of having been used for graffiti to prove that such possession was not connected to any involvement in the preparation of the offence or to any criminal responsibility in relation to the offence: s 17(3).

Pursuant to s 319A of the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 (Qld), before a police officer charges a person with possession of a graffiti instrument for the above purposes, the officer must give the person an opportunity to explain why he or she was in possession of it at the relevant time.

53 Linda Lavarch MP, Chair of the Queensland Graffiti Taskforce, ‘Law & Water: An Holistic

Approach to Graffiti Reduction and Prevention’, Paper presented at the Graffiti and Disorder Conference convened by the Australian Institute of Criminology in conjunction with the Australian Local Government Association, Brisbane, 18-19 August 2003, p 3.

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

Tackling Graffiti - Summary Offences and Other Acts Amendment Bill 2006 (Qld) Page 13

The maximum penalty prescribed under the Summary Offences Act 2005 is a $1,500 fine55 or a one year prison term. The court may, whether or not any other penalty is imposed, order the offender to perform community service, such as removing graffiti from property, or to pay compensation.

Child offenders (aged 10-17 years) are dealt with in accordance with provisions of the Juvenile Justices Act 1992 (Qld). The Children’s Court must sentence juvenile defendants in accordance with Part 7 and the sentencing principles of that Act. Alternatives to custodial sentences are encouraged such as fines, community service orders (including graffiti removal and property restoration), and good behaviour orders.

5.3 GRAFFITI ON TRANSPORT INFRASTRUCTURE

Specific offences are created regarding graffiti on particular transport infrastructure. Under s 3 of the Transport Infrastructure (Busway) Regulation 2002 (Qld), a person must not wilfully damage or deface a busway (such as a route for the priority movement of buses; and places for the taking on and letting off of passengers) or busway transport infrastructure (such as the pavements on which buses run, bus stations, bridges associated with the operations, depots, associated noise barriers, office buildings, platforms, passenger interchange facilities, tunnels, ticket machines).

The provision gives, as an example of damaging a busway or busway infrastructure, putting graffiti on a busway or busway transport infrastructure. The penalty for breach is a fine of up to $3000.

The Transport Infrastructure (Rail) Regulation 2006 (Qld) provides, in s 15(1), that a person must not wilfully damage or deface a railway or rolling stock and also provides, in s 15(2), that a person must not put graffiti on a railway or rolling stock. In each case the maximum penalty is a fine of $3000.

5.4 IMPACT OF THE ANTI-GRAFFITI LAWS

It has been said that it is difficult to accurately assess the deterrent effect of the anti-graffiti laws introduced in 1997. However, it appears that information provided to the Queensland Graffiti Taskforce (discussed below) indicated that, in the 2000-2001 financial year, there were 3,421 reported graffiti offences in the Brisbane area, a slight decrease on the previous financial year which had 3,731

55 See Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), s 5 (a penalty unit is $75).

Page 14 Queensland Parliamentary Library

reported incidents.56 Mrs Lavarch MP, the then Chair of the Taskforce, commented that the raw figures give little evidence that the harsh laws, of themselves, are an effective strategy to combat graffiti.57

6 NON-LEGISLATIVE ANTI-GRAFFITI RESPONSES

Apart from legislative action, there are other measures that can be used to reduce or prevent graffiti, many of which have been used throughout Australia and overseas. The former Director of the AIC, Dr Adam Graycar, recently commented that anti-graffiti measures during the 1970s and 1980s tended to focus on legislative sanctions and enforcement but these had limited impact on the incidence of graffiti. This then led a more holistic approach being taken in the form of harm minimisation. However, by the late 1990s, some jurisdictions began to combine harm minimisation measures with more focused law enforcement techniques and harsher penalties.58

It has been recognised that anti-graffiti strategies need to have a broad focus and not concentrate on legislation and enforcement alone. Dr Graycar believes that agencies need to work in partnership to control graffiti incidents and to attempt to solve the graffiti problems using evidence-based approaches. The problem also needs to be understood in its local context.59 As mentioned earlier, Dr Graycar considers that to understand the complexity of the graffiti problem and, therefore, how best to tackle it, it is necessary to understand the youth culture that initially promoted it and continues to popularise it.60

Around the same time as the graffiti laws were strengthened in Queensland in 1997, the Queensland Department of Justice began to develop a model graffiti crime prevention plan designed to be implemented by local communities. The plan had four components: better reporting and recording systems; rapid removal of graffiti; public information about prevention; and redirecting young graffiti writers through a legal art program. The outcome was a manual entitled the Graffiti Crime

56 Linda Lavarch MP, p 3.

57 Linda Lavarch MP, p 3.

58 A Graycar, p 3.

59 A Graycar, p 4.

60 A Graycar, p 4.

Tackling Graffiti - Summary Offences and Other Acts Amendment Bill 2006 (Qld) Page 15

Prevention Plan aimed at local government which was used by many local councils to develop holistic and multi-faceted anti-graffiti measures.61

A further step in tackling graffiti was taken in December 2001 when the then Minister for Police and Corrective Services, the Hon Tony McGrady MP, sought expressions of interest from Members of the Queensland Parliament to form a Parliamentary taskforce to consider the issue. The outcome was the Queensland Graffiti Taskforce comprising 34 Members of Parliament, across all party lines, and chaired by Mrs Linda Lavarch MP.

In its Report to the Minister, the Taskforce pointed out that there was no one single solution to the problem and that the community, led by Members of Parliament, has a large role to play in forming part of the response to tackle the issue. It also considered various ideas and strategies adopted by local communities in order to determine which initiatives could be ‘marketed’ to other areas in the State.

Brisbane Lord Mayor Campbell Newman has sought government support for a combined taskforce to crack down on graffiti and has proposed using council officers to police graffiti ‘hot spots’ armed with digital cameras to enable the officers to collect evidence for passing on to police.62 In July 2006, the Minister for Transport & Main Roads, the Hon Paul Lucas MP, announced that he and the Lord Mayor had signed a memorandum of understanding to engage six government and public agencies in working together to better respond to graffiti at public places across Brisbane.63 This will occur through sharing resources and intelligence, combining operational activities, and joint training and education, as well as having closer ties with the Queensland Police Service (QPS). For instance, as was noted earlier, the Brisbane City Council (BCC) has a large database depicting photographs of graffiti that has been removed, particularly tags that can sometimes identify a graffiti writer or group. Agencies could possibly develop a combined database that is available to the QPS to assist detection.64

A number of other state and local government and community responses have also been established in Queensland over the past few years, a small sample of which are outlined under the headings below. Other states and territories have various

61 Linda Lavarch MP, p 3.

62 Jessica Lawrence & Edmund Burke, ‘Repeat offender – Graffiti vandals in brazen attack on the heart of justice’, Sunday Mail, 19 February 2006, p 22.

63 Hon Paul Lucas MP, Minister for Transport & Main Roads, ‘The writing’s on the wall: joint forces to fight graffiti across Brisbane’, Media Statement, 21 July 2006. Other signatory parties include the Department of Main Roads, QR, Energex, Telstra and Australia Post.

64 Hon Paul Lucas MP, ‘The writing’s on the wall: joint forces to fight graffiti across Brisbane’.

Page 16 Queensland Parliamentary Library

initiatives being unveiled or in place but only those pertaining to Queensland can be explored here.

6.1.1 ‘Rapid Removal’ and Clean-up Trailers

The Graffiti Taskforce, together with the Queensland Department of Corrective Services, organised for inmates at the Woodford Correctional Centre to build four graffiti clean-up trailers to be used by community groups to develop a rapid removal approach to graffiti in their local area. With sponsorship from local industry, such as Bunnings, further trailers have since been constructed and rolled out.65

The reasoning behind ‘rapid removal’ is that if the products of the graffiti writers are removed early, this serves to reduce the satisfaction and peer notoriety achieved from the activity. This, in turn, reduces the instances of graffiti writing.66 There is, however, the issue that if an opportunity to commit an offence in a particular place or at a certain time is reduced or prevented, the perpetrator may just go elsewhere to commit the offence.67

6.1.2 Graffiti Solutions Initiative

The Queensland Department of Communities has established the Graffiti Solutions initiative – a program that targets both the impact of graffiti on local communities and its causes. It has received funding from the Government’s Crime Prevention Strategy over three years to support local communities to find local solutions to the graffiti problems in their areas through the harnessing of local knowledge.

For instance, in the 2004 funding round, 14 community organisations each shared in over $100,000 for a range of different projects. Examples of such include the Wynnum-Manly Graffiti Task Force’s legal street arts program during school holidays (for which it received $2,070); and the Emerald Shire Council’s tunnel art project (engaging a professional artist to work with youths) which received $4,500 to design and paint artwork for a pedestrian tunnel. Another project is one where young people clean up existing graffiti and then create a community mural while

65 Linda Lavarch MP, p 6; Hon T McGrady MP, Minister for Police and Corrective Services,

‘Graffiti Clean-up Trailers’, Questions Without Notice, Queensland Parliamentary Debates, 28 May 2003, p 2368.

66 Hon T McGrady MP, ‘Graffiti Clean-up Trailers’.

67 A Graycar, p 3.

Tackling Graffiti - Summary Offences and Other Acts Amendment Bill 2006 (Qld) Page 17

helping to make a documentary about the experience.68 It is reported that the Department has spent $500,000 on workshops since 2001.69

However, the Initiative does have its critics. It is believed that a youth arts organisation, Phantast, raised concerns with the Community Services Minister that funds were being used to actually contribute to more graffiti by “creating graffiti artists out of kids that may never have got into it in the first place”.70 Phantast has criticised the workshops on the basis that they could encourage children to use spray cans who normally may not have done so, and that Phantast has been aware of a link between legal graffiti activities and an increase in graffiti in the relevant area.71 Countering this claim is a graffiti artist whose company provides various workshops around the State.72

Other critics of legal graffiti projects are some members of the public who do not want special sites designated to graffiti writers and consider that recognising artistic merit in some graffiti does not excuse the activity. Many also consider that even legal graffiti degrades local areas.73

6.1.3 Queensland Rail

Queensland Rail (QR) is reported to spend $2 million each year on repairing graffiti damage.

It has been reported that dozens of train carriages are tagged each week as organised gangs cut through razor wire into railway yards. Police have indicated that almost one third of graffiti offences occur on the City Train network but officers have managed to clean up around 40% of it.74 It has been reported that 420 out of the 429 carriages on the City Train network had been tagged and pieces

68 Hon W Pitt MP, Minister for Communities, ‘Graffiti Solutions’, Questions Without Notice’,

Queensland Parliamentary Debates, 16 May 2004, pp 1085-1086.

69 Edmund Burke, ‘Thanks for the lesson: Taxpayer-funded graffiti workshops backfire’, Sunday Mail, 26 February 2006, p 23.

70 Edmund Burke, quoting a spokesperson from the youth arts organisation, Phantast.

71 Edmund Burke.

72 Edmund Burke.

73 A Graycar, p 8.

74 Ainsley Pavey, ‘Dirty old town’.

Page 18 Queensland Parliamentary Library

painted on 200 of them, while trains and stations across the State were hit almost 6,000 times in a year.75

QR employs four two-person teams to continuously remove graffiti and maintenance staff inspect the entire metropolitan rail network every second day. Most graffiti at City Train stations is removed within 24 hours and a team of cleaners work in shifts every day to clean graffiti from trains.76 During 2006, QR increased its efforts to respond to graffiti offenders, trialling tougher fencing, patrol dogs, closed-circuit TV, and 24 hour security.77

The QPS has a graffiti unit comprising officers who travel undercover as railway commuters during the day and seek out graffiti writers by night. The police officers will often watch the graffiti writers scouting around for a place to paint or write and may film their activities.78 It is reported that, during 2005 alone, 20,000 photographs of suspected graffiti offenders were collected for a database. However, it was also stated that fewer than 400 offenders were found guilty of graffiti offences in 2004-2005, often due to evidentiary problems.79

A further difficulty is that a large amount of graffiti that can be seen from trains and station platforms is actually on walls of adjoining privately owned buildings. The Minister for Transport & Main Roads has indicated that the Government wishes to work with local government and property owners to have such graffiti removed and prevent further attacks.80

During 2006, QR commissioned a consultant, Mr Peter Forster, to consider the issues of vandalism and graffiti, among others, affecting QR. It is reported that Mr Forster recommended new powers for rail and security staff to search for and

75 Ainsley Pavey & Edmund Burke.

76 Hon Paul Lucas MP, Minister for Transport & Main Roads, ‘The writing’s on the wall: joint forces to fight graffiti across Brisbane’, Media Statement, 21 July 2006.

77 Queensland Rail, ‘Security & Safety Initiatives’, http://www.citytrain.com.au/about_your_trip/security_safety/initiatives/initiatives.asp; Ainsley Pavey, ‘How web braggers lure new vandals’, Sunday Mail, 29 January 2006, p 10.

78 Ainsley Pavey, ‘Secret world of paint police’, Courier Mail, 29 January 2006, p 11.

79 Ainsley Pavey, ‘Secret world of paint police’.

80 Hon Paul Lucas MP, ‘The writing’s on the wall: joint forces to fight graffiti across Brisbane’.

Tackling Graffiti - Summary Offences and Other Acts Amendment Bill 2006 (Qld) Page 19

confiscate graffiti implements, move on offenders and ban them from the network for 24 hours.81

In an effort to reduce graffiti and to ‘beautify’ railway stations for commuters, QR has created a new project – QR Positive pARTnership – which engages local artists to design artwork for train stations. The artists have come to the project either through approaching QR or through QR seeking artists at local schools.82 It has been reported that the artwork may have reduced the amount of graffiti at train stations, possibly because many graffiti writers do not write over the work of other people.83 Countering this, however, is that some graffiti writers reject the idea of legal projects as inherently contradicting the fundamental nature of graffiti – its illegality. Also, as noted above, some members of the community view legal graffiti sites as excusing its illegality and the graffiti ‘art’ as degrading the area as much as illegal graffiti.84

6.1.4 Local Graffiti Management Strategies

Many local governments have a graffiti management strategy. The BCC’s graffiti management strategy is centred upon rapid removal of graffiti, regarding this as the best way of reducing the reappearance of graffiti because it decreases the exposure and recognition desired by graffiti writers. It also indicates to graffiti writers and the community that the area is being monitored and looked after.85 The BCC aims to remove all graffiti from its buildings and structures within seven days of it being reported but offensive or high profile graffiti is removed within 24 hours.86

It is understood that the BCC has spent $3 million on its graffiti reduction program since Lord Mayor Campbell Newman came to office in 2004, and will spend

81 Josh Robertson, ‘What lies behind the writing on the wall’, Courier Mail, 28 October 2006,

p 77.

82 Phil Smith, ‘Fighting graffiti with Art’, ABC Brisbane, ABC Online, 17 October 2006.

83 Phil Smith.

84 A Graycar, p 8.

85 Brisbane City Council, ‘Graffiti’, http://www.brisbane.qld.gov.au/BCC:STANDARD:1445376449:pc=PC_281#strategy.

86 Brisbane City Council, ‘Graffiti’.

Page 20 Queensland Parliamentary Library

around $1.5 million during 2006 alone.87 Early in 2006, Councillor Newman called for offenders to face mandatory clean-up orders.88

The BCC employs five graffiti removal teams to get rid of graffiti from Council and community property. The Council also offers free removal kits and other graffiti reduction and removal materials to the community; distributes graffiti prevention guidelines; makes presentations about graffiti damage to community groups; undertakes graffiti and safety audits in affected areas; coordinates legal art projects; and designs public areas to support graffiti prevention.89

The aforementioned graffiti prevention guidelines aim to assist people in decreasing incidents of graffiti on property.90 For example, the first guideline concerns access control, the basis of this being to deny access to potential canvases wherever possible through tactics such as using vegetation in front of walls to create a barrier and fencing (being careful to build structures that do not themselves provide a canvas – e.g. see-through fencing palings, wire fencing) as well as passive controls such as using lighting in dark areas, signage and different floor textures to subtly indicate that access is not intended.

Other control measures include video and security surveillance in hot spots – a measure which is being used by police rail squads, as noted earlier. Encouraging community surveillance and reporting can also help with aiding rapid removal of graffiti.

The Gold Coast City Council also has a rapid removal policy and ensures that before being removed, the tag is photographed for adding to a police database for analysis to trace the author.91

For space reasons, not all Queensland local government programs and strategies (either as part of wider community based programs or in tandem with the State Government and/or with State funding) can be considered but a sample of some initiatives are –

87 Hannah Davies, ‘Hard line on vandals is branded a waste of time – Prof’s “go easy” call on

graffiti’, Sunday Mail, 17 September 2006, p 17.

88 Ainsley Pavey, ‘Dirty old town’.

89 Brisbane City Council, ‘Graffiti’.

90 Brisbane City Council, ‘Graffiti’, http://www.brisbane.qld.gov.au/BCC:STANDARD:740990511:pc=PC_281

91 Joel Dullroy, ‘Writing on the wall for tags’, Courier Mail, 12 November 2005, p 29.

Tackling Graffiti - Summary Offences and Other Acts Amendment Bill 2006 (Qld) Page 21

• a multi-faceted approach taken by the Hervey Bay City Council with projects that include a ‘Dunnies and Art’ program to address defacing of public toilets; and a number of activities for young people, particularly in holiday periods;

• a BCC project that has been operating for over six years which involves mural art being applied to traffic light signal boxes and freeway sound barriers around Brisbane;

• a Townsville City Council Graffiti Action Plan which seeks to combat graffiti damage by working closely with community groups and State Government departments to improve reporting of graffiti damage, encourage property owners to remove graffiti quickly and to develop better preventative measures, and redirect youth away from graffiti to legal art activities.

7 PROPOSED BANS ON SALES OF SPRAY PAINT TO MINORS

Given that QPS records indicate that graffiti offences are predominantly committed by minors and young adults, the Summary Offences and Other Acts Amendment Bill 2006 (Qld) (the Bill) aims to prohibit the sale of spray paint cans to minors (i.e. persons aged 17 years and under) with accompanying penalties.

As well as aiming to tackle graffiti, the restrictions also seek to stop the dangerous practice of chroming that causes damage to health and death.92 The ban and penalties will mirror those regarding sales of tobacco products to minors.

Many retailers have adopted a voluntary code of practice of not selling spray paint to minors. However, without legislative backing, it can be difficult for staff of retail outlets selling the spray paint to adhere to the code.

7.1 AMENDMENTS TO THE SUMMARY OFFENCES ACT 2005 (QLD)

Clause 5 of the Bill will insert proposed new ss 23A-23E into the Summary Offences Act 2005 setting out the prevention measures and offences in relation to selling spray paint.

Under amendments to the Dictionary in Sch 2 (see cl 8), ‘spray paint’ is defined as a spray can and any liquid or other substance in a spray can that, if applied to a surface of a thing using a spray can, is designed to colour, stain, mark or corrode the surface of the thing. To ‘sell’ is given a broad meaning in the Dictionary (transferred from the current definition found in s 23(3)). However, a proposed new s 23E qualifies the scope of the definition by providing that a seller does not

92 Darrell Giles, ‘Crackdown on graffiti paint – ‘ALP promise to ban spray can sales to kids’,

Sunday Mail, 27 August 2006, p 12.

Page 22 Queensland Parliamentary Library

keep or expose for sale or offer to sell spray paint to a minor only because the seller keeps or exposes for sale or offers to sell spray paint to the public generally.

The proposed new s 23A will provide that a seller who is an employer must take prevention measures in relation to his or her employees or else be liable to a fine of up to $3000. Such prevention measures are – • instructing employees not to sell spray paint to minors in any circumstances

and that they must sight acceptable evidence of age (i.e. a driver’s licence, proof of age card or a passport that bears a photograph and date of birth), unless satisfied the person is an adult;

• warning employees that if they disregard the previous instructions and sell spray paint to a minor, the employee concerned will commit an offence; and

• obtaining written acknowledgement by employees that they have received the above instructions.

A proposed new s 23B will provide that a seller of spray paint (which does not, for this provision, include the employee of the seller) must not sell it to a minor.93 The maximum penalty for a first offence is $10,500, up to $21,000 for a second offence, and up to $31,500 for a third or later offence. The defence to a charge is for the seller to prove that the seller or their employee required acceptable evidence of age to be provided by the person and the person produced such evidence showing that the person was not a minor and there was no reason for the seller or employee to believe the evidence was false.

Whereas an employee of the seller cannot be prosecuted for an offence under proposed new s 23B, if a seller has taken the prevention measures mentioned in proposed new s 23A, an employee will commit an offence if the employee, in the course of his or her employment, sells spray paint to a minor. The maximum penalty for a first offence will be up to $1,500 and, for a second or later offence, up to $3000: proposed new s 23C.

A proposed new s 23D will require a seller who is an employer to display a prescribed prohibition sign (i.e. a sign about the supply to minors containing the prescribed requirements to be set out in a Regulation) at each point of sale at the seller’s premises where the spray paint is available for sale to the public. A contravention will incur a maximum fine of $1,500.

Clause 7 seeks to amend s 27 of the Summary Offences Act 2005 by extending its coverage so that if a court finds a person guilty of an offence under the proposed new ss 23B or 23C, the court may order that the thing to which the offence relates be forfeited to the State.

93 It will not be an act of discrimination pursuant to s 46 of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991

(Qld) for the seller to refuse to sell spray paint to a minor.

Tackling Graffiti - Summary Offences and Other Acts Amendment Bill 2006 (Qld) Page 23

7.1.1 Response by Industry and Others

Laws restricting sales of spray paint have been opposed by the Australian Retailers Association which argues that such restrictions would penalise the majority of consumers who use spray paint for legal purposes.94 It has also been argued that where similar measures have been taken overseas, spray paint sales have declined by up to 30% in some cases, impacting on employment but without achieving any noticeable reduction in graffiti.95 The Aerosol Association of Australia (AAA) has argued that the idea of restricting access and display of spray paint was popular in the USA during the early 1990s yet USA cities have the worst graffiti problems.96 It also contends that while many graffiti offenders are minors, a lot are also aged over 18 years, as indicated by a newspaper article from London which points out that many ‘taggers’ are people in their 30s with respectable jobs.97

The AAA has supported initiatives to reduce theft of aerosol paints and has adopted a ‘Responsible Retailing’ strategy promoted by the Australian Retailers Association. The AAA believes that the strategy is working given that retailer feedback indicates a low ‘shrinkage’ rate for paint cans.98

There is also a danger, argue some in the industry, that if graffiti writers cannot obtain access to one graffiti tool (i.e. spray paint) they may be driven to other and more destructive implements like glass, rocks, keys, coins, or chemical compounds. Marker pens are also popular graffiti tools as these are readily available in newsagencies and supermarkets and are easily concealed.99

When considering whether to introduce laws restricting the sale of spray paint to minors in Victoria, the Department of Justice’s Discussion Paper (discussed later) noted that doing so might increase the likelihood of the theft of spray paint. Further, as there are many graffiti writers who are over 18 years of age, the ban might be of limited effect. The Discussion Paper also warned that such a ban might be contrary to the Victorian Charter of Human Rights which prohibits

94 A Graycar, p 2.

95 P Fleming, Executive Director, Aerosol Association of Australia Inc., ‘Is the Product the Problem? An Aerosol Industry Perspective’, Paper presented at the Graffiti and Disorder Conference convened by the AIC and the Australian Local Government Association, Brisbane, 18-19 August 2003, p 5.

96 P Fleming, p 3.

97 P Fleming, p 5, citing Weekly Telegraph, No 564, May 2002.

98 P Fleming, p 2.

99 P Fleming, p 5.

Page 24 Queensland Parliamentary Library

discrimination based on age.100 An alternative suggested by the Discussion Paper was to enact laws requiring retailers of spray paint to record the identity of purchasers which could then be given to the police to assist in the investigation of graffiti offences. However, given the wide range of legal uses of spray paint, such an obligation might be very onerous on retailers.101

In January 2006, local laws were passed in New York to make it illegal for a person under 21 years of age to possess spray paint or permanent markers. The response was outrage from a fashion and media mogul who sued the New York mayor on behalf of art students and legitimate graffiti artists. In May 2006, the Court issued a preliminary injunction which prevents the enforcement of the new laws.102

7.2 AMENDMENTS TO THE POLICE POWERS AND RESPONSIBILITIES ACT 2000 (QLD)

Part 2 of the Bill proposes to amend various provisions of the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 (Qld) (PPR Act) to empower police officers to detain and search persons and vehicles and seize evidence of an offence under the proposed new ss 23B and 23C of the Summary Offences Act 2005. It will also enable police officers to ask a minor who is reasonably suspected of having been sold spray paint certain questions, as explained below.

Pursuant to s 29 of the PPR Act, a police officer who reasonably suspects any of the prescribed circumstances set out in s 30 exist for searching a person without a warrant, the officer may, without obtaining a warrant, do any of the following – • stop and detain a person; • search the person and anything in the person’s possession for anything relevant

to the circumstances for which the person is detained.

The police officer may seize all or part of a thing that may provide evidence of an offence.

Section 30 of the PPR Act then sets out the prescribed circumstances for searching persons without a warrant. At present, one such circumstance (in s 30(a)(viii)) is that the person has something that may be evidence of the commission of an

100 ‘Graffiti Prevention Exposure Draft Bill’, Discussion Paper, pp 29-30. Note that the new

Queensland Bill expressly provides that the restriction is not contrary to s 46 of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld)

101 ‘Graffiti Prevention Exposure Draft Bill’, Discussion Paper, p 30.

102 ‘Graffiti’, Wikipedia – the free encyclopaedia, http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graffiti.

Tackling Graffiti - Summary Offences and Other Acts Amendment Bill 2006 (Qld) Page 25

offence against s 17 of the Summary Offences Act 2005 (which concerns the possession of a graffiti instrument, as discussed earlier). Clause 12 seeks to amend s 30(a)(viii) by making it a ‘prescribed circumstance’ to allow a search and seizure of evidence without a warrant if a person has something that may be evidence of the commission of the new graffiti offences in proposed new ss 23B or 23C.

Thus, a police officer will be able to stop, detain and search a person without a warrant if the officer reasonably suspects that the person has something that may be evidence of the commission of the offence of possessing a graffiti instrument, or selling spray paint to minors (as a seller or the employee of a seller). A similar amendment is effected to s 32(l) of the PPR Act regarding the prescribed circumstances for searching a vehicle without a warrant.

The same safeguards that currently apply to search and detention of adults and minor under the PPR Act will apply in these new instances as well.103

A proposed new s 43A (inserted by cl 15) will apply if a police officer observes a person (that the officer reasonably suspects is under 18 years) being sold a thing that the officer reasonably suspects is spray paint or reasonably suspects the person has just been sold spray paint. In such a situation, the police officer may ask the person to show acceptable evidence of age104 and require the person to produce the thing sold to the person. The police officer may seize the spray paint if the person either refuses, or is unable, to show acceptable evidence of age or the evidence of age reveals that the person is under 18 years and the police officer reasonably suspects that the spray paint is evidence of an offence against proposed new ss 23B or 23C of the Summary Offences Act 2005.

8 VICTORIA

At present, there is a two-tiered approach under Victorian laws for penalising graffiti offenders.105 However, there is no specific ‘graffiti’ offence. The Summary Offences Act 1966 (Vic) makes it an offence to wilfully damage property: s 9. The penalty is up to six months imprisonment or a fine of up to $2,685.75 if the property concerned has a value less than $500. Section 197 of the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic) imposes a penalty of 10 years imprisonment for a person who intentionally, and without lawful excuse, destroys or damages property.

103 See Summary Offences and Other Acts Amendment Bill 2006 (Qld), Explanatory Notes, p 6.

104 Which has the same meaning as that given under s 23B of the Summary Offences Act 2005 (Qld).

105 ‘Graffiti Prevention Exposure Draft Bill’, Discussion Paper, p 20.

Page 26 Queensland Parliamentary Library

During 2005-2006, the Victorian Government committed over $3 million to graffiti removal programs. Further, it is estimated that $1.3 million is spent each year on removing graffiti from Melbourne’s train network, taking into account cleaning and repair expenses and the costs of taking trains out of service to remove damage.106 The Department of Justice also reports that one graffiti writer alone has recently caused around $250,000 worth of damage to trains.107

The Victorian Government recently released the ‘Graffiti Prevention Exposure Draft Bill’, Discussion Paper inviting public comment until 31 January 2007.108

The proposed laws will establish specific offences for marking graffiti and will provide search and seizure powers for police officers as well as enabling authorised persons to enter private property to remove visible graffiti.109

8.1 PROPOSED OFFENCES FOR DISCUSSION

The key offence will be the marking of graffiti on property that is visible from a public place (widely defined) without the consent of the property owner. This will mean that a person invited to paint a mural on a wall owned by a local council will not be committing an offence.

A second type of offence will be the marking of graffiti on property, the content of which harasses or vilifies an individual or a group of people. The reason behind this provision is that harassing or vilifying graffiti – similar to ‘hate graffiti’ – is regarded as serious by the community and many councils will remove it immediately. There will be no defences to a charge of such an offence, even if the property owner has consented to the writing of the graffiti.

Thirdly, it will be an offence to possess, without lawful excuse, a prescribed graffiti implement when a person is trespassing without invitation on property; or is on or around public transport or infrastructure (e.g. riding on a train, waiting at a train station or at a bus stop). A ‘prescribed graffiti implement’ is intended to embrace spray paint cans. A person found with a graffiti implement will have to demonstrate a lawful excuse for its possession to avoid prosecution. It is also

106 Victorian Government, Department of Justice, ‘Graffiti Prevention Exposure Draft Bill’,

Discussion Paper, 2006, http://www.justice.vic.gov.au/graffiti.

107 ‘Graffiti Prevention Exposure Draft Bill’, Discussion Paper, p 20.

108 ‘Graffiti Prevention Exposure Draft Bill’, Discussion Paper, p 20.

109 The following discussion is sourced from the ‘Graffiti Prevention Exposure Draft Bill’, Discussion Paper, pp 11ff.

Tackling Graffiti - Summary Offences and Other Acts Amendment Bill 2006 (Qld) Page 27

provided that carrying the implement as part of the person’s employment, such as a painter or decorator carrying spray paint, is not an offence.

It will also be an offence to possess a graffiti implement with the intent of marking graffiti. This offence will be proved only if the prosecution can show beyond reasonable doubt that the person was intent on marking graffiti. This will depend upon the evidence.

8.2 PROPOSED SEARCH AND SEIZURE POWERS FOR POLICE

It is proposed that police officers will be able to search a person or a place, with or without a warrant, for evidence of a graffiti offence having been or being committed. Such evidence might comprise graffiti implements, photographs of graffitied walls, or electronic messages describing the graffiti markings. Police officers will be able to search a person or a vehicle or thing in a person’s possession without a warrant in certain circumstances. These are that the person is trespassing on property, or is present around public transport or public transport infrastructure and the officer has reasonable grounds to suspect that the person has a prescribed graffiti implement and that evidence could be lost or destroyed if there was need to wait for a warrant to be issued. Various safeguards will be included and particular protections will apply for searching persons under 18 years of age.

8.3 PENALTIES

The new Bill intends to impose a penalty of a maximum two years imprisonment and/or a fine of $25,783.20 for the offence of marking graffiti and for the offence of marking harassing or vilifying graffiti. It is intended that the new penalties would fit within the existing regime of penalties under the Summary Offences Act and the Crimes Act so that if the damage caused by the graffiti was very minor, the charge against the offender could be brought under the Summary Offences Act and the penalties under that Act imposed. On the other hand, if the damage is considerable, the charge could be brought under the Crimes Act.110 The Discussion Paper also points out that it is open for the police and the courts to issue a caution to a person caught under the new offence provisions and for the court to place an offender on a community based order which may require the offender to clean up graffiti.111

110 ‘Graffiti Prevention Exposure Draft Bill’, Discussion Paper, p 21.

111 ‘Graffiti Prevention Exposure Draft Bill’, Discussion Paper, p 21. A further option is the placement of offenders in a Criminal Justice Diversion Program.

Page 28 Queensland Parliamentary Library

The court could also order a convicted offender to pay compensation to a property owner for the damage caused.

8.4 CLEANING UP GRAFFITI

The Bill will include provisions to enable publicly visible graffiti to be removed from private property. These requirements attempt to strike a balance between the rapid removal of graffiti and the quiet enjoyment of the property by its owner or occupier. The scheme proposed is that where a property is marked by graffiti that is visible to the public, a notice will be served on the property owner or occupier advising that an authorised person (which could include Government officers, community groups, or offenders on community based orders) intends to remove it on a specified date and in a specified way. If there is an objection, the removal will not take place.112

It is intended that authorised persons will be provided with a limited immunity from civil liability for property damage (but not injury to another person) arising from acts done in good faith when cleaning up graffiti on private property. An example might be a ladder slipping and breaking a window of a building. This immunity will arise only if the owner has neither objected nor consented to the clean up.113

9 NEW SOUTH WALES

If a person is found guilty of malicious damage to property (i.e. the destruction or defacement of public, commercial or private property which also includes application of graffiti), he or she can be liable to five years imprisonment under s 195 of the Crimes Act 1900.

Part 2 of the Summary Offences Act 1988 (NSW) makes it an offence to damage or desecrate protected places such as a shrine, monument, statue or war memorial: s 8. The maximum penalty is a fine of $2,200. Wilfully marking, by means of chalk, paint or other material, any premises so that the marking can be seen from a public place without the consent of the occupier or owner is also an offence carrying a

112 ‘Graffiti Prevention Exposure Draft Bill’, Discussion Paper, p 24.

113 ‘Graffiti Prevention Exposure Draft Bill’, Discussion Paper, p 27.

Tackling Graffiti - Summary Offences and Other Acts Amendment Bill 2006 (Qld) Page 29

fine of up to $440: s 9. It is reported that during 2004, there were 20 charges finalised under s 9.114

In addition, s 10A of the Act makes it an offence to, without reasonable excuse (which the person must prove), wilfully damage or deface any premises or other property by means of spray paint. An offender is liable to a maximum fine of $2,200 or up to six months imprisonment. However, the term of imprisonment will apply only if the offender has previously been convicted of this offence or of unlawful possession of spray paint (explained below) on so many occasions that the court is satisfied that the offender is a serious and persistent offender and is likely to reoffend. Alternatively, the court may make an order that the offender perform community services work (e.g. removal of graffiti and restoration of places after removal). Thirty charges were finalised under this provision in 2004.115

Possession of spray paint with the intention that it be used to damage or deface premises or other property is an offence under s 10B of the Summary Offences Act 1988, attracting a maximum penalty of $1,100 or three months imprisonment. Again, a sentence will only apply to serious and persistent offenders and the court can order the performance of community service work as an alternative penalty. The court can also, additionally to any other penalty it imposes, order the forfeiture of the spray paint to the Crown. There were 35 charges finalised under this section during 2004.116

In relation to spray paint charges (wilful damage by way of spray paint and possession of spray paint with intent), 84% of the 65 charges were proven during 2004 and where it was the offenders’ main offence, the most common penalty was a fine.117

In 2002, s 10C was inserted into the Summary Offences Act 1988 to make it an offence to sell spray paint cans to persons under 18 years of age. A breach attracts a maximum fine of $1,100. It is a defence if the seller can prove that he or she believed on reasonable grounds that the person to whom the spray paint can was sold was 18 years of age or over. If the person selling the spray paint to a person under 18 is an employee, the employer is taken to have committed the offence whether or not the employee contravened the provision without the employer’s authority or contrary to the employer’s orders or instructions. However, the

114 S Williams & S Poynton, BOCSAR, p 5. Sourced from NSW courts data. Latest figures

available.

115 S Williams & S Poynton, BOCSAR, p 6.

116 S Williams & S Poynton, BOCSAR, p 6.

117 S Williams & S Poynton BOCSAR, p 6.

Page 30 Queensland Parliamentary Library

employer can raise a defence that the employer had no knowledge of the contravention and could not, by the exercise of due diligence, have prevented it from occurring. An employer can be prosecuted and convicted of the offence committed by the employee whether or not the employee has been prosecuted or convicted. This provision commenced in September 2003 and, up until the end of 2005, no charges had been brought under it.118

The New South Wales Parliament recently passed the Summary Offences Amendment (Display of Spray Paint Cans) Act 2006 to insert a new s 10D into the Summary Offences Act 1988. Occupiers of a shop from which spray paint cans are sold must not display spray paint cans in any part of the store to which the public has access unless the can is properly secured: s 10D. The penalty is a fine of up to $1,100. The spray paint can is properly secured if it is kept in a locked cabinet; or behind the counter in a way that members of the public cannot easily gain access; or in any other manner prescribed by Regulation. The Summary Offences Amendment (Display of Spray Paint Cans) Regulation 2006 provides that a can is properly secured if it is displayed on a shelf that is at least 2.1 metres high. However, the restriction does not apply in relation to a spray paint can that contains paint that, when applied to a surface, is transparent and colourless.119 The Minister must review the operation of s 10D as soon as possible after 2 years of its introduction. The section commenced on 1 November 2006 but a ‘grace period’ applies to give retailers, with the assistance of government officers, time to comply.

A recent (April 2006) NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research (BOCSAR) Brief noted that there is little in the way of official statistics to measure the incidence of graffiti – primarily due to under-reporting of graffiti incidents.120 However, the Brief noted that, in lieu of any more reliable data source, incidents of graffiti reported to the police amounted to just under 9% of all malicious damage to property incidents. A September 2006 BOCSAR study has found that schools (30.5%) and residential premises (22.2%) were the common targets during 2005.121 The September 2006 study noted that while only a small proportion of malicious damage incidents reported to police involved graffiti, increases in graffiti-related offences made up almost one third of the overall increase in malicious damage

118 E-mail communication with an officer from NSW BOCSAR.

119 The Summary Offences Amendment (Display of Spray Paint Cans) Regulation 2006 (NSW).

120 S Williams & S Poynton, BOCSAR, p 1.

121 M Howard, BOCSAR, pp 2, 3. The study used data from the NSW Police’s Computerised Operational Policing System which is the primary source of data for recorded crime in NSW.

Tackling Graffiti - Summary Offences and Other Acts Amendment Bill 2006 (Qld) Page 31

offences in NSW between 2004 and 2005.122 It appears that there has been a ‘significant upward trend in the number of recorded graffiti incidents in NSW’ over the past 10 years, with a net increase of 88%. Although recorded incidents have remained reasonably stable since 2000, there was a sharp increase (a rise of 43%) during 2005 from the previous year.123

In May 2006, the NSW Government established a multi-agency Action Team to crack down on graffiti in public areas and on transport infrastructure as part of an anti-graffiti strategy worth $500,000 announced by the NSW Premier. The Action Team seeks to increase the use of community service orders to make offenders repair damage caused by graffiti; identify ‘hot spots’ for graffiti and improve surveillance and enforcement; and to assist local government with graffiti management plans.124

10 SOUTH AUSTRALIA

In 2001, the South Australian Parliament passed the Graffiti Control Act 2001 (the Act) to deal comprehensively with graffiti.125 It should be noted, however, that s 85 of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 deals with serious damage to property which is intentional or done with reckless indifference and imposes a prison term of two years for damage up to $2,500 rising to 10 years for damage exceeding $30,000.126

The objective of the Graffiti Control Act 2001 is to minimise graffiti and punish those responsible as well as provide for the removal of graffiti. The main features of the Act are – • sellers of spray paint cans must ensure that the cans are kept in a securely

locked cabinet or in another prescribed manner unless the paint does not contain a pigment and is transparent when sprayed onto a surface. The maximum penalty for breach is a fine of $1,250: s 4;127

122 M Howard, BOCSAR, p 7, citing S Williams & S Poynton.

123 S Williams & S Poynton, BOCSAR, p 1.

124 New South Wales Government, Lawlink announcements, http://www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au.

125 Therefore, provisions relating to graffiti and possession of graffiti implements in the Summary Offences Act 1953 (SA) were removed and incorporated into the Graffiti Control Act 2001.

126 Attempt to cause such damage is also punishable by imprisonment of varying severity.

127 See also Graffiti Control Regulations 2002 (SA).

Page 32 Queensland Parliamentary Library

• sales of spray paint to minors are prohibited with a maximum penalty for contravention being $1,250. It is a defence to prove that the person or a person acting on the person’s behalf asked for evidence of age and the minor produced false evidence: s 5;

• sellers of spray paint cans must prominently display a notice (in accordance with the specifications of the provision) stating that it is unlawful to sell spray paint to persons under 18 years and that evidence of age may be required: s 6;

• authorised council officers are responsible for enforcing the above provisions in accordance with the powers and restrictions set out in s 7;

• marking graffiti is an offence carrying a fine of up to $2,500 or imprisonment for up to six months. When a court convicts an offender, it must, if satisfied that it will be reasonably practicable for the offender to remove or obliterate the graffiti, order that the offender do so under appropriate supervision. The court must also order that the offender pay the owner/occupier compensation: s 9;

• carrying a graffiti implement with the intention of marking graffiti or carrying a graffiti implement of a prescribed class (cans for spraying paint; implements that produce a mark that is not readily removable and is more than 15 millimetres wide) without lawful excuse (the onus being on the person carrying the implement) in a public place or on which the person is trespassing is an offence with the maximum penalty being a fine of $2,500 or six months imprisonment: ss 10-11;

• a council can enter onto private property and take any necessary action to remove or obliterate graffiti that is visible from a public place. However, the council must first serve a notice (as specified in the provision) on the owner or occupier at least 10 days in advance and the owner or occupier must not have objected. If the owner or occupier objects, the action will not be taken. The Act requires that the council must attempt to liaise with the owner or occupier regarding the manner of removal, and carry out the work as quickly as possible with minimum inconvenience and with reasonable care and to a reasonable standard. The action can be taken by a council employee or other authorised person. Immunity is provided from civil liability. It is also made clear that the foregoing does not derogate from other powers councils have to order owners to clean up unsightly conditions on land or, if the owner will not, to do the clean up themselves and recover the cost from the owner: s 12.

When introducing the legislation into the Parliament, the South Australian Attorney-General said that it built on, and gave legislative backing to, a number of successful initiatives taken by local governments around the state, supported by State Government funding. In particular, the Attorney-General’s Department had provided funding to assist local graffiti prevention strategies. These include a code of conduct regarding sales of spray paint, a local crime prevention program aimed at rapid removal of graffiti, and providing wall space for mural work. The

Tackling Graffiti - Summary Offences and Other Acts Amendment Bill 2006 (Qld) Page 33

Attorney-General commented that these and other strategies had achieved positive results.128

11 WESTERN AUSTRALIA

In 2004, changes were made to the Criminal Code to strengthen graffiti laws. If a person wilfully and unlawfully destroys or damages any property, he or she is guilty of a crime and is liable to imprisonment for 10 years or, if the offence is committed in circumstances of racial aggravation, to imprisonment for 14 years: s 444. The summary conviction penalty, if the amount of the injury done does not exceed $25,000, is imprisonment for 3 years and a fine of $36,000.

Any person who unlawfully destroys or damages property of another person without the other person’s consent is guilty of an offence and liable to 12 months imprisonment and a fine of $12,000: s 445.

Under s 446, if a court convicts a person under s 444 or s 445 and the damage is graffiti that is visible to the public or is on public property, the court may order the offender to pay a reasonable amount towards the costs of obliterating the graffiti. This order is in addition to any penalty imposed for the offence and may be in addition to a compensation order made under the Sentencing Act 1995.

Pursuant to s 557G, the possession of a thing with the intention of using it to cause graffiti damage is an offence and attracts a fine of $6,000.

In addition, the WA Government has a range of strategies for dealing with graffiti, including a website called ‘Goodbye Graffiti’, established by the WA Office of Crime Prevention, to provide an online means of prompt reporting and removal of graffiti in the community. At present, a Graffiti Vandalism Working Group, comprising representatives from police, local government and the community, is considering various ways of combating the problem. Among proposals being explored are laws to enable state and local governments to remove graffiti from public and private property without having to obtain permission from owners.

12 AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

In 2004, a Private Member’s Bill was presented to the Legislative Assembly by Mr Greg Cornwall which sought to insert a new provision (s 384A) into the Crimes Act 1900 to prohibit the sale of spray paint cans to children and to make an employer

128 Hon KT Griffin MLC, Attorney-General, Graffiti Control Bill 2001 (SA), Second Reading

Speech, SA Legislative Council Hansard, 2 May 2001, http://www.parliament.sa.gov.au/Hansard/LegislativeCouncil/Hansard.htm.

Page 34 Queensland Parliamentary Library

liable for an offence if an employee sold a spray paint can to a child even if the spray paint was sold without the employer’s authority or contrary to the employer’s instructions or orders. A defence was provided if the employer could prove that that he or she had no knowledge of the sale and could not, by the exercise of appropriate diligence, have prevented the sale.129 The penalty was a fine of up to $1000 for an individual and $5000 for a corporation. The Bill lapsed on 16 October 2004, pending the ACT election.

Section 116 of the Crimes Act 1900 provides that a person who, intentionally and without lawful excuse, destroys or damages property that does not exceed $1000 in value commits an offence. Pursuant to s 119, a person shall not deface any private premises without consent of the owner or occupier or person in charge. The maximum penalty is $500 and/or imprisonment for six months. It is also an offence (with the same penalties applying) to deface, without lawful authority, any public street, road, footpath, bus shelter or other property of the Territory or Commonwealth Government.

Sections 14A and 14B of the Roads and Public Places Act 1937 provide for the removal of graffiti by authorised persons on property on leased territory land that is visible from a public place.

It is understood that the ACT Government provides around $1 million each year for an ongoing graffiti removal program.130

In August 2004, the ACT Government released the Graffiti Management Strategy to manage graffiti problems in the ACT. It adopts a whole-of-government approach to reducing graffiti vandalism in the attempt to make the city more attractive while minimising the cost of removal. The Strategy also encourages the development of government approved sites for young persons to engage in legal graffiti. In terms of addressing graffiti damage, the Strategy advances five key elements (prevention; anti-graffiti building designs; rapid removal of visible graffiti; diversion programs that redirect graffiti writers to constructive activities such as legal street art projects; community awareness; and supporting legislation.131

In February 2005, a Graffiti Management Steering Committee was established to implement the Strategy as well as support a government funded graffiti art

129 Similar to the law in NSW and the proposed law in Victoria.

130 Mr J Hargreaves MLA, Minister for Urban Services, ‘Graffiti’, Legislative Assembly Hansard, 4 May 2005, p 166.

131 ACT Government, Canberra Urban Parks and Places Policy and Planning Unit, Graffiti Management Strategy for the Australian Capital Territory, August 2006.

Tackling Graffiti - Summary Offences and Other Acts Amendment Bill 2006 (Qld) Page 35

workshop program. Evaluation of the workshops indicated that youths at risk of illegal graffiti were successfully engaged and that highly motivated participants benefited through improved skills and social interaction. Further, it is understood that the workshops provided an environment conducive to learning about graffiti and the law and also, that work on public murals enabled contact with other members of the public to help break down the stereotypes.132

13 GREAT BRITAIN

The Anti-Social Behaviour Act 2003 was passed in Britain in 2003 to deal with various anti-social behaviour, including graffiti. A person can be fined for defacing or damaging property with graffiti and, in certain circumstances, a council can require property owners to clean up graffiti in public areas or surfaces visible to the public. It also bans the sale of aerosol paint to persons under 16 years of age.

132 Mr J Hargreaves MLA, Minister for Urban Services, ‘Graffiti’, Legislative Assembly Hansard,

20 October 2005, p 4056.

RECENT QPL RESEARCH PUBLICATIONS 2007 2007/01 Homework for the 21st Century Feb 2007 2007/02 Tackling Graffiti – Summary Offences and Other Acts Amendment Bill 2006 (Qld) Feb 2007

Research Papers are available as PDF files: • to members of the general public the full text of Research briefs is now available on the parliamentary web site, URL,

www.parliament.qld.gov.au/publications • www.parliament.qld.gov.au/Library/Query.exe – e-Documents & e-Articles – Quick display of Library’s research publications

A Subject Index to Research Publications is available at the following site: www.parliament.qld.gov.au/view/publications/publications.asp?area=research&LIndex=4&SubArea=s_aborigines&Bindex=0&Barea=searchParliamentary Library - Research Publications & Resources Telephone (07) 3406 7108 Orders may be sent to Karen Sampford, Karen.Sampford@parliament.qld.gov.au

This Publication:

RBR 2007/02 Tackling Graffiti – Summary Offences and Other Acts Amendment Bill 2006 (Qld) (QPL, February 2007)

Related Publications:

Graffiti and the Criminal Law Amendment Bill 1996 (QPL, March 1997)

LB 1/97