But the south-west arts community remains divided on the matter. Three Warrnambool artists played down the notion that destroying the work was censorship, saying the mural was not a very good piece of art to start with, while others said doing so was the first step on a slippery slope.

The comments came in the wake of councillor Peter Hulin’s call for the outback landscape — which is covered by a blackened piece of Perspex and in a section of the theatre not used by the public — to be destroyed once and for all.

Art collector and former MP Adam Kempton said such a call was atrocious. 

“It’s a populist view and smacks of the censorship imposed by the Nazis in Germany,” Mr Kempton said. 

“The councillors are quite  right to condemn and hate what this man has been convicted of. But destroying artwork is censorship and is entirely unacceptable. 

“These cowboys in council are taking a wishy-washy populist view. It goes against all the values of a liberal democracy our forefathers fought to protect.” 

Mr Kempton said if the mural was to be destroyed he hoped there would be a full audit of every book, painting and any other item held by council or the art gallery. 

“Then if any artist or writer is found to have been convicted of a crime, their work should too be destroyed,” he said. 

“That’s the logic these councillors are working on.”

He said councillor Kylie Gaston’s suggestion of placing some sort of symbol on the mural was also censorship, saying the mural should be left as it is.

Other members of the arts community remained divided.

F Project president Dr Emma Charlton backed Mr Kempton’s view.

“Does appreciation of something a person created mean that you agree with who they were, or what they did?” Dr Charlton asked.

“I don’t think so. And if we get rid of one artwork, should this standard be applied to other creations, other inventions, other art? 

“As it stands Rolf’s mural allows conversation about adult/child, celebrity/child relationships; and there is a very public message that sexual abuse and paedophilia is not OK.

“What are our motives for wanting him erased from our public landscape? 

“A broader desire to erase our inability to protect young people? A desire to pretend this never happened? Destroying art is not the answer.”

Three Warrnambool artists described the artwork as poor — two saying it was not worth saving regardless of who painted it.

“Even before they found him guilty and people used to say ‘oh look at that, Rolf Harris did it’ I thought it was hideous,” artist Jenny Altmann said.

“It’s a crap piece of art … and we should get people from CASA (South Western Centre Against Sexual Assault) to paint over it. It will be healing.”

Warrnambool artist Megan Nicolson backed Altmann’s sentiments, saying she didn’t “consider it to be a piece of great art”.

“It’s a bit of kitsch culture,” Nicolson said.

“And murals by their very nature are transient.

“The work doesn’t say anything. There’s no statement being censored if it’s destroyed.

“There are so many issues related to it — there are so many dodgy artists (throughout history), so it’s a really grey area.

“But I don’t know that it’s valuable. I don’t feel any attachment to it, I’ve never seen it, I’m not a fan of Rolf Harris’ work anyway ... and if the community needs to make a statement, so be it.”

Warrnambool artist Rachel Peters supported the notion that it was not a good piece of art, but stopped short of calling for its destruction. 

“I don’t feel strongly one way or the other,” Peters said.

“Through history there have been an awful lot of artists who have been not necessarily good characters (and there’s the argument) that we shouldn’t destroy art because of who the artist is.

“But there’s also the argument that it’s not a particularly good work.”