Image: Chalking in Glebe protesting against the O'Farrell Government's proposed anti-graffiti measures / Photo: Paul Gregoire
Outrage over the Attorney General’s Graffiti Control Amendment Bill 2013 has prompted City of Sydney Councillor Linda Scott and State MP David Shoebridge to ramp up proposals defending the practice of chalking.
The State Government’s bill, if enacted, bans the practice of chalking on footpaths.
“I think our city is full of young people and artists and the State Government and the Liberals are really trying to take the fun out of Sydney,” said Ms Scott.
“It would mean that people chalking pavements or roads – such as drawing rainbows or doing hopscotch squares or even writing messages of protest about refugees – all those things would become offences under the law.”
Ms Scott successfully forwarded a motion at the October 21 Council meeting calling for the establishment of exemption zones within Council areas.
“In my motion, I asked our CEO to investigate whether it was possible to exempt Council-owned roads and footpaths, so that we could still have a city where children can play hopscotch and where people could chalk rainbows,” said Ms Scott.
City of Sydney CEO Monica Barone will now investigate whether it is possible to implement the Council exemption zones allowing for chalking to continue if the state law is passed.
A spokesperson for the office of NSW Attorney General Greg Smith maintained: “Chalking on footpaths and roads without consent is an offence under the existing law. As with all offences, police and prosecutors have discretion about whether to lay or pursue charges.”
State Greens MP David Shoebridge refuted the claim chalking is disallowed under existing law. “The prohibition under the 2008 act is for chalking of premises and that definition does not apply to open public spaces such as footpaths or public parks,” he said.
“The advice from the Attorney-General I think is deliberately misconceived.”
Mr Shoebridge strongly supports Ms Scott’s motion to establish exemption zones, but only if the state law is passed unamended.
“The far better solution is for the Greens’ amendment to be adopted to explicitly exclude impermanent chalk markings from the criminal provisions of the graffiti legislation,” said Mr Shoebridge.
The Greens’ Hopscotch Amendment calls for the chalking of any footpath or public pavement – including hopscotch or handball courts – not to be criminalised.
When the Graffiti Control Amendment Bill is brought before the Upper House, Mr Shoebridge said he will forward the Hopscotch Amendment.
“There is a real prospect that we will get a majority in the Upper House to support our amendment,” said Mr Shoebridge.
“We want to make it very clear that it’s not a crime to mark a hopscotch or handball court on a footpath,” he said.
