The outcome of Zoe Daniel’s campaign’s challenge against a Victorian council ban on supporters putting up signs in their yards before the federal election has been called will have ramifications for the entire state, the judge hearing the case says.
The independent candidate for Goldstein’s campaign manager, Keith Badger, has challenged a ruling by Bayside city council earlier this month that signs cannot be erected until within three months of an election.
State bylaws say signs may only be displayed for 14 days after an event or three months in total.
The council backflipped on an earlier ruling after Liberal incumbent MP, Tim Wilson, pointed out the highly unlikely scenario of an election being held as late as 3 September, meaning signs could not be put up until 3 June.
The Daniel campaign has pointed out that other councils have interpreted this law differently, and signs are allowed in other electorates, including the neighbouring electorate of Kooyong, held by the treasurer, Josh Frydenberg.
Justice John Dixon noted in a hearing on Wednesday that his decision would affect what was allowed in those other electorates.
“Whatever I determine in relation to this has a full effect across the state of Victoria,” he said, noting he had seen signs in his own suburb the previous night.
“It really doesn’t matter what other councils have done. They don’t even need to be on notice about this but the consequence would be the decision was made to issue the declaration or not issue the declaration in Mr Badger’s favour will have implications across the state,” he said.
Counsel acting for the Daniel campaign, Jonathan Evans, argued that the sign is not advertising the event of the election, but Daniel as a candidate, and wouldn’t be covered by the law for event signage.
Evans argued that it was “absurd” to apply the laws to small signs that can be affixed to trees or the fence of someone’s home, given it would mean that signs protesting the climate crisis or war in Ukraine could also be covered by the law.
The campaign has argued if the bylaws do cover such signs, then it should accommodate the implied freedom of political expression.
Dixon noted that holding a half Senate election separate from the House of Representatives – the only way to avoid a May federal election – would be “in the terms of political journalists that would be suicide” . He said that is entirely the discretion of the prime minister but there remains uncertainty around when it will be held, making it harder to wrap a “political event” in with religious or cultural events which have a set date known well in advance.
Evans noted that writs for the election can be issued with as little as 33 days notice, meaning if the council’s interpretation of the law holds, the Daniel campaign would only be able to put up signs for 47 days, giving the incumbent – who they argue is better known in the electorate – an advantage.
Counsel for Bayside council, Emrys Nekvapil, argued the rules were designed to protect the “visual amenity” of the area.
“Signs have a particular capacity to change the visual landscape. And so it’s not surprising in that sense that they are regulated by the planning law of this state,” he said.
Nekvapil argued the signs were promoting an event, that is, the upcoming election for the federal seat of Goldstein.
Dixon reserved his judgment, and the council took an undertaking not to enforce the current rule in the meantime.
