Andrew Laming to challenge $40K landmark federal court penalties over Facebook election posts

Former federal MP Andrew Laming is set to head back to court over a landmark Federal Court ruling forcing him to pay $40,000 in penalties for three unauthorised Facebook posts.

Former federal MP Andrew Laming.

Former federal MP Andrew Laming is set to head back to court over a landmark Federal Court ruling forcing him to pay $40,000 in penalties for three unauthorised Facebook posts.

Dr Laming will head to the High Court following a decision this month granting him leave to appeal the Federal Court ruling over the posts made during the 2019 federal election.

The case, brought against Dr Laming by the Australian Electoral Commission, revolves around three Facebook posts made while he was the member for Bowman.

Former Federal MP Andrew Laming will challenge a federal court ruling in the High Court.

The AEC successfully argued the posts lacked legally mandated authorisation statements by Dr Laming under section 321D of the Commonwealth Electoral Act.

Under the Act, authorisation of election statements is required to ensure transparency about their origin, intent and who is behind the statement.

The AEC initiated Federal Court proceedings against Dr Laming in December 2021, asserting that his failure to include authorisation statements breached electoral law.

The Federal Court initially ruled in August 2023 that Dr Laming had indeed violated the Act, imposing three civil penalties totalling $20,000.

The AEC appealed the penalty, seeking a harsher outcome, and in August 2024, the Full Federal Court upheld the appeal, increasing the penalty to $40,000.

The appeal court decision also established that each instance of an unauthorised post being viewed constituted a separate breach of the Act.

The ruling was lauded by the AEC as a significant precedent emphasising the importance of authorisation laws, especially in an era of increasingly complex online information.

“This outcome reinforces the ramifications of failing to comply with authorisation requirements,” the AEC noted at the time.

Following the Federal Court’s increased penalty, Dr Laming applied to the High Court in September 2024 for special leave to appeal.

His application challenged both the substantive findings of the lower court and the steepened penalty.

Andrew Laming was found to have published three unauthorised election posts.

Last week, the High Court granted his application, allowing his case to proceed to a full hearing, though a date has not yet been set.

Dr Laming’s legal team is expected to argue that the Federal Court’s interpretation of authorisation laws was overly expansive, particularly its finding that each view of an unauthorised post constituted a distinct breach.

They are also expected to contend that the interpretation imposes an impractical burden on political candidates and others engaging in public discourse online.

The implications of this case extend beyond Dr Laming.

Legal experts suggest the High Court’s eventual ruling could clarify the scope of authorisation requirements for social media in election campaigns, potentially shaping how candidates and political organisations operate online.

While Dr Laming has yet to comment publicly on the latest development, the AEC has indicated it will continue to defend the enforcement of electoral laws, arguing they are crucial for maintaining transparency and public confidence in elections.