|
|
|
Local Government Perspective on Graffiti
Cr Peter Woods OAM, President, Local Government Association of NSW
The Associations are pleased to see graffiti back on the agenda and will support any efforts to have an integrated response to the problem.
We hope most sincerely that any committee that emerges from today doesn't go the way of the last government-sponsored committee - the 1994 Interdepartmental Committee which met, laboured mightily, and produced a report which appears never to have been made public despite requests. And we hope it has a balanced and realistic agenda in the face of what we know about graffiti, rather than a sweeping agenda redolent with impossible goals.
Before I turn to the substance of my talk, I will take the opportunity to explain a little about the Local Government and Shires Associations of NSW, for those of you who may not be familiar with us. Together, my Association - the Local Government Association - and the Shires Association of NSW represent the 177 councils in this state.
The Municipal Association of New South Wales was established in 1883 to promote the interests of urban councils (then called cities and municipalities). In 1906, it became the Local Government Association of NSW with the Charter to represent all councils. However, the Shires Association was established in 1907 to promote the interests of rural councils (then called shires). Nevertheless, since 1922, the two Associations have shared common offices and a common secretariat.
The mission of the Associations is to be credible, professional organisations representing Local Government, providing services to councils and facilitating the development of an efficient, effective, responsive, community-based system of Local Government in NSW.
In pursuit of this mission, the Associations:
- represent the views of councils to State and Commonwealth Governments
- provide industrial relations and specialist services to councils
- promote Local Government to the community and the media.
The Associations are of the view that graffiti needs to be tackled as a priority. It has been a concern to councils for more than 15 years - yet serious, studied and co-ordinated responses seem to have eluded State Governments over the years. A collective response from different spheres of government, residents and industry has eluded us all. There remains a need for an integrated approach across agencies and spheres of government which is appropriate to the present level of the problem.
However, the Associations would hesitate to say that graffiti should be tackled as the highest priority by every council. We wonder whether the graffiti problem of the late 1990s is of the same level as it was 10 or even five years ago. There is a view amongst many that it is trending down. This view was certainly given some support at the recent Police Service Graffiti Conference, by the representative of the Youth Crime Intelligence Unit. It may be if the trend is down the significant question for the immediate future is - What elements have contributed to this trend and how do we sustain them. It seems to us we still don't have a reliable big picture!
We need to recognise that there is considerable variation in the extent of the problem and the local community response to it, and therefore that councils will be responding differently. We recognise that in many areas graffiti is neither the number one youth crime concern nor the number one public amenity management issue.
If we look at youth crime in many areas we would accept that crimes like break and enter, motor vehicle theft, shop-lifting and other theft offences are bigger problems for the community at large - according to the Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research these made up 46 per cent of appearances in the Children's Court in 1994/95. And we accept that violent offences make up 23 per cent of appearances. We also we know property offences which include graffiti damage is at number six in the most common. offences over the five year period 1990 to 1995.
If we look at graffiti as a public amenity management issue, we accept some councils have higher priority concerns with issues like protecting public safety through needle/syringe disposal, or through broken glass clean ups from alcohol abuse in public places or damage to public facilities through vandalism. In this context we accept we need to take careful stock of the actual nature of local problems and local priorities, rather than assuming graffiti - as offensive as it is to many in our community - is the number one problem.
If you accept these points, you can see that councils will not respond 'm a universal fashion and nor should they.
Having said that, we do need to get the general or statewide framework for responding to graffiti right, especially to assist those councils and communities where it is a significant issue.
I will turn briefly now to the nature of Local Government concerns.
Local Government is concerned because it is costing significant amounts of money to fix graffiti damage to public property in some councils each year. The favourite municipal property targets remain toilet and amenity blocks at parks and sports grounds, pedestrian underpasses, street furniture and the like.
Local Government is also concerned because of the costs to residents. We have no reliable estimates but councils are often informed of the concerns of the owners of commercial and residential buildings when they've been hit The problem for a struggling business, or a struggling homeowner, is that they are often not in a position to paint out or remove the graffiti immediately in the way public authorities can and thereby reducing the notoriety value for the perpetrator.
However, it is not just a matter of these direct costs. There are of course the costs of inappropriate risk taking to the graffitists. We hear taggers are still injuring and occasionally killing themselves in the course of their exploits. And we know there is still a strong debate about whether making it an offence has achieved much more than putting some young people into the juvenile justice system, thereby helping them learn more lasting criminal habits.
Whilst I am dealing with this question of making it an offence, I would like to pose a question. I would like to ask whether the creation of specific offences of "wilfully defacing property with a spray can" and "having spray paint in one's possession for such purposes" has had any impact on graffiti rates or apprehension rates? Who is really tracking what is going on? As councils with significant graffiti problems seek to develop local solutions, it would be very useful for them to know the real effect of the existing law. It seems to us that graffiti is the sort of offence that is eminently suited to the new Youth Justice Conferencing system with its emphasis on warnings, cautioning, and conferencing. The notion of conferencing and organising specific restitution seems very appealing in the case of graffiti damage.
I will turn now to our wider thoughts on a better solution.
The Associations accept in principle that graffiti may be amenable to an integrated crime prevention approach as long as it coupled with a stronger policing approach.
As others have mentioned, this framework involves:
- Early Childhood Development, involving things like parenting education and pre-school education.
- Opportunities for young people, involving interventions to tackle this problem behaviour and offer the young people diversionary activities
- Environmental Management, involving strategies of target hardening and situational control
- Reducing re-offending, involving strategies with known or persistent offenders.
But we also advocate did there is the need for better policing targeted at graffiti and for better co-ordination of the policing with the crime prevention strategies.
As you will be aware and have heard from other speakers, Local Government has made some significant contributions in the areas of Opportunities for Young People and in Environmental Management.
A number of councils have been involved in strategies which create legal sites for graffiti or aerosol art, and/or offer art related vocational training, for example Waverley, Blacktown, Ashfield and Hurstville. In fact, legal graffiti walls and other proactive youth development strategies are familiar to us all. What is missing is a co-ordinated system for promoting the success stories and detailing the less successful.
Local Government has made some significant contributions in the area of environmental management. Councils report their best environmental strategy is the simple one of a fast response when it involves municipal property. Again you are all familiar with this one - the maintenance crews get out there and paint it out or remove it as soon as possible. For existing structures councils have been experimenting for years with paint or other surface technologies that make graffiti either harder to apply or easier to remove. New products were being promoted to councils in my area in the recent past.
Councils who in the process of providing new public infrastructure have also sought design solutions such as fast growing screen plantings to large concrete expanses, and of course improved lighting. Again, what would help would be a more efficient system for communicating the individual successes and failures of the individual environmental techniques.
Councils have of course also entered into the policing style activities. These include such things as offering rewards for information leading to the apprehension of graffitists. Again we need information on the success of this strategy.
I would like to leave you with some questions that the Associations have concerning future work on graffiti:
- Do agencies regard the present level of graffiti of sufficient priority to demand a State Government response?
- Are there the will and the resources to develop and pursue an integrated response to graffiti?
- Is there value in running a State-wide Anti-Graffiti Education Campaign to support the work of individual agencies and councils? Will the State Government look at this suggestion seriously?
- Is the State interested in developing system to control the supply of aerosols? Would an Industry Code of Conduct help or would we need something more stringent?
- Is the State interested in developing a central clearinghouse or best practice database on agency and council responses to graffiti, to aid those organisations in continuously improving their response to the issue?
- If a number of these questions are answered positively, the Associations feel we may be setting off in the right direction and the Associations are willing to support the process.
|