A political dispute in the battleground electorate of Kooyong has escalated into a constitutional issue as the election approaches. On Wednesday, just three days before the poll, multiple A-frame signs from the Liberal Party were removed from outside an early voting centre in Kew. This action followed local council regulations stipulating that each candidate is only allowed one sign on public land.
Liberal candidate Amelia Hamer was informed to adhere to this signage rule, unlike her primary opponent, teal independent MP Monique Ryan, who operated within the restrictions alongside other candidates. The City of Boroondara justified the removal by asserting the signs posed potential risks to pedestrians and road users. Breaching this regulation could incur substantial fines, accumulating at $500 per sign daily.
In response, Liberal state director Stuart Smith has initiated legal action against the council in the Victorian Supreme Court, asserting that the permit regulation might infringe upon the implied constitutional right to political communication. Smith, an election campaign veteran since 2001, highlighted the importance of candidate visibility outside polling stations for voter recognition and policy communication.
While the council had informed candidates for the Kooyong election about the signage limitations back in April, other candidates in adjacent seats were not similarly notified. Smith’s counsel, Dean Luxton, contested the rationale behind restricting a political party to a single sign, arguing that larger parties with multiple candidates are disproportionately impacted compared to independents, who may find one sign sufficient.
In a further twist, the confiscated signs were returned to the Liberals on Thursday morning, although the matter remains subject to judicial review. Luxton contended that the implied freedom of political communication is crucial for representative democracy, suggesting safety concerns could be addressed through commitments from Smith.
Boroondara’s barrister Emrys Nekvapil SC warned that granting an injunction would effectively enable the Liberals to proliferate signage in the critical final pre-poll days. Yet Luxton maintained that the court’s decision would hold significant implications for future elections in the locality.
Justice Kerri Judd expressed intent to deliver a ruling on the injunction later that same day, noting that both parties seemed relatively close to reaching a consensus. The legal dispute not only underscores the tensions surrounding campaign regulations but also raises questions about electoral fairness in a competitive political landscape.