Ex-MP Craig Kelly faces possible $26k fine after social media complaint

A controversial former MP is facing a possible fine worth tens of thousands of dollars after an anonymous complaint, a court has been told.

An anonymous complaint on a social media platform could lead to a $26,600 fine for controversial former MP Craig Kelly, the Federal Court has been told.

The Australian Electoral Commission has taken legal action against the former United Party Australia leader over his campaign materials from last year’s federal election.

The regulator alleges the authorisation displayed on some of his posters, sandwich boards and corflutes in the lead-up to the May 2022 poll were too small to read.

Christopher Tran, the barrister representing the AEC in court, said Mr Kelly’s approval details were initially printed in size eight font at the bottom of the posters.

Former MP Craig Kelly is accused of doing ‘public harm’ by displaying campaign posters before last year’s federal election that did not properly display required details. Picture: NCA NewsWire /Gaye Gerard

On Tuesday, he labelled the font “objectively very small” and said the authorisations did not fulfil the requirement of being clearly identifiable on the campaign poster.

“The obligation is about legibility, it’s about readability,” Mr Tran said.

“For the voter, knowing that authorisation is actually self-promotion is very important.”

The court was told the legal proceedings arose from “an anonymous complaint from an anonymous person” who used Facebook to contact the AEC in the lead up to the election.

The complaint clearly identified the posters as belonging to the United Australia Party, and the AEC sent an email to Mr Kelly about the breach.

Mr Kelly’s barrister Christopher Ward SC told the court his client had acted “within a heartbeat of being told there was a problem”.

The former Hughes MP hastily ordered 500 new corflutes to be disseminated and 1000 stickers in size 24 font to cover the authorisations which had been deemed too small.

He had “done everything that was humanly possible” to fix the problem, but the court heard the AEC refused to answer his repeated requests for the locations of the offending signs.

The authorisation line on his poster was allegedly too small. Picture: NCA NewsWire / Monique Harmer

Justice Steven Rares criticised the AEC for not responding with the locations, despite it deeming the matter serious enough to be taken to the Federal Court.

“It seems to me it doesn’t reflect very well on the Commission to say these are the contraventions but not telling him where,” he said.

“I don’t think that’s an appropriate way for a regulator to be behaving, particularly when it’s telling a court that this is such a serious thing that there should be a pecuniary penalty.”

The court was told the agency knew of at least one location but it did not enlighten Mr Kelly, despite his willingness to address the issue.

Dr Ward said his client’s signs complied with political and print industry standards, but the issue came down to “an inherent ambiguity in font size” specified by the AEC.

Dr Ward said there was “no doubt the words are legible” on Mr Kelly’s signs but conceded a voter needed to “be close to read them”.

“You’d have to be practically cuddling the sign to read the authorisation,” Justice Rares quipped in response.

He said the authorisation was intended to be seen and used to trace the campaign materials back to the person who authorised the message.

The argument centres on Mr Kelly’s campaign materials disseminated in the Sydney electorate of Hughes. Picture: NCA NewsWire / Sarah Marshall

It’s intended to be viewed by the “ordinary person” and not “the moron in a hurry”, the Supreme Court Justice explained.

Mr Tran told the court that “eight point font at the bottom of these posters doesn’t satisfy the requirement” for visibility and ultimately they were not adequately legible.

He said Mr Kelly’s first print run of his campaign materials had been “substandard” and he was “reckless” not to double check the requirements for the authorisations.

However, Dr Ward argued the former MP believed his signs complied with the regulations and aligned with the “entirely uniform approach of all the major political parties”.

He showed photos of campaign posters run by a number of current and former federal politicians which showed either no authorisations or similarly small font.

“If that’s not eight point (size font), I’ll eat my barristerial wig,” Dr Ward said of former prime minister Scott Morrison’s campaign sign.

The court heard Mr Kelly had been “singled out” and unfairly chosen as “the unfortunate soul to receive the full force of the AEC”.

“This case appears to be … in the nature of an attempt to clarify the legislation … In the face of an ambiguous standard which was apparently misunderstood by many,” his barrister argued.

The United Australia Party, chaired by Clive Palmer, spent more than $120m in the lead up to the 2022 federal election, according to the AEC. Picture: NCA NewsWire / Dan Peled

However, Justice Rares said the actions of other politicians didn’t excuse Mr Kelly from not reviewing the electoral legislation when he knew it had changed.

“That just means they all didn’t comply and for some unusual reason, Mr Kelly has been hit and others, including major parties, have been left alone.”

The maximum fine for the alleged campaign material breaches is $26,640.

The hearing will continue before Justice Rares on Wednesday.

Outside court, Mr Kelly seemed upbeat during the second day of the hearing.

“We’re fighting over font size,” he said dryly.

“I’ll let people decide for themselves about that.”

Originally published as Ex-MP Craig Kelly faces possible $26k fine after social media complaint