Posted on September 19, 2009 by by jr

ABC News Online is reporting on a story involving two unnamed individuals who were arrested for using water hoses to spray political messages on foot paths in Civic. The ABC are picking up on the ACT Greens media release from MLA Caroline LeCouteur.

Initially you would think that Ms. LeCouteur may actually have a point: these messages were only “temporary”, the individuals were allegedly cleaning the footpath and one might assume that there would be no long term ill effect because the “messages” were written with ordinary tap water out of the end of a standard garden hose.

I would happy argue the case that the charge of defacing territory property leading to an arrest would appear excessive, though the circumstances leading to the need for the actual arrests instead of issuing  fines have not been elaborated in the ABC News article.

However, Ms. LeCouteur is either sadly naive or perhaps simply just ill-advised if she believes that no offense has actually been committed.

I can think of two offenses that may be applicable:

1: The ACT is currently under stage three Water Restrictions and it is clear from the ACTEW Water Restrictions web page that what was done may have been in breach of those restrictions.

Permanent Water Conservation Measures, and when in force Temporary Water Restrictions, are mandatory and any person or business witnessed by an authorised person to be acting in contravention of these may be liable for fines starting at $200 (individual) or $1,000 (corporation):

Paved areas

Water must not be used to clean paved areas unless necessary as a result of accident, fire, health hazard or other emergency.

Examples of situations where cleaning of paved areas may be necessary as a result of accident, fire, health hazard or other emergency include (but are not limited to):

a. spillage of harmful chemicals;
b. spillage of substances that present a possible slip or other health or safety concern; and
c. overflow of sewerage or excrement on paved areas.

2: It is also an offence under the ACT Electoral Act 1992, Division 17.3, Section 299 to graffiti on any Territory property in any circumstances (or without consent of the owner or leaseholder in the case of private property):

Graffiti

(1) A person shall not, without reasonable excuse, mark any electoral matter directly on any defined place or object without the consent of—

(a) for a place—the lessee or lawful occupier of the place; or (b) for an object—the owner or lawful possessor of the object.

Maximum penalty: 10 penalty units.

(2) The Territory or a Territory authority shall not give consent for subsection (1).

(3) In a prosecution for an offence against subsection (1) in relation to a defined place or object leased, occupied, owned or possessed by the Territory or a Territory authority, it is to be conclusively presumed that the Territory or the Territory authority, as the case requires, did not consent to any marking of electoral matter on the place or object.

(4) In this section:

defined place or object means a building, footpath, hoarding, roadway, vehicle, vessel or any public or private place (whether on land or water or in the air).

lessee—see the Planning and Development Act 2007, section 234.

mark means write, draw or depict.

Sadly it would be nice to actually have parliamentarians that understood the current legislation rather than have them start flapping their wings like a chicken with its head cut off glibly sprouting that new “anti-bill posting” legislation (that has not yet been fully debated, potentially amended or enacted) will be draconian and heavy handed.

ACT Greens naivety obvious in comments regarding arrest of two people for political "graffiti" incident, 5.0 out of 5 based on 3 ratings

Tweet