If you thought of all the reasons Craig Kelly might have found himself in court, the font size of the electoral authorisation on his election signs would be likely quite far down the list. But that’s what has brought the former (and likely never) self-proclaimed “next prime minister” and national United Australia Party (UAP) director to the Federal Court this week.
On Monday, Kelly faced court over legal action brought by the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC). The AEC’s barristers alleged that the first run of Kelly’s corflutes, posters and sandwich boards for the 2022 federal election (which had UAP’s distinctive yellow-and-black branding and prominently featured Kelly’s bust) had authorisation text that was so small it did not meet the requirements of being “reasonably prominent”.
They also claim the signs continued to be in circulation even after the AEC instructed Kelly to remove them, and featured an incorrect authorisation (which gave his address as Parliament House).
Kelly disputes this. In fact, he’s taken umbrage with the case being levelled at all. As his barrister began getting into the particulars of his defence, Kelly continued to tweet his displeasure.
Replying to a tweet from this writer about what was happening in the courtroom, the former Liberal Party member for Hughes drew a contrast to the “dozens of homeless sleeping rough” on his way to court with the numerous barristers, lawyers and clerks arguing his case.
“Good to see as a nation we have our priorities in order,” tweeted Kelly, who had previously spent more than a decade in Parliament.
While their client blustered, Kelly’s barrister, Christopher Ward, began to piece together the case of why the signs — which used 8-point font for the “authorised by Craig Kelly” bit — did not contravene election rules. Despite involving a man best known for his far-fetched conspiracy Facebook posts and for bombarding Australians with sensationalist text messages, the substance of the lawsuit comes down to a contest over the specific, nuanced interpretation of words in legislation and explanatory memorandum.
What is “reasonably prominent”? Ward argued there was nothing stopping people from walking up to the signs to read the authorisation. He compared the size of Kelly’s authorisations with those on the posters of other major parties. He contended that most signs had names and party branding that could be read by someone driving past, but not their authorisations.
Justice Steven Rares appeared sceptical, at one point saying that authorisations were “not intended to have people walk up to it with a microscope” to read them.
The most Kelly-inspired argument, which Ward foreshadowed would be made in case others weren’t successful, was that his signs were protected by Australia’s implied right to political expression.
But it was another one that stood out the most: that Kelly had relied on the “professional experience” of his designers when deciding on the size of the authorisation. The man who spent the pandemic demonising Australia and global health authorities while promoting crank science distilled from fringe figures on Facebook, YouTube and Telegram was all along listening to the experts — just not about vaccines.
Kelly’s case continues on Tuesday.
