Zoe Daniel wins court battle. Council ban quashed, signs stay up

Federal independent candidate Zoe Daniel has won a Supreme Court case overturning a ban on her supporters putting up political signs in their front yards.

The ban by Bayside City Council came after Liberal MP Tim Wilson wrote to supporters on February 18 urging them to send him the address of any property displaying one of Ms Daniel’s campaign signs. “It is unlawful to erect signs until the election has been called,” he wrote.

Member for Goldstein Tim Wilson and challenger Zoe Daniel.Credit: Alex Ellinghausen, Simon Schluter

Bayside City Council issued its ban on political signs in front yards on February 25, using its interpretation of planning laws to threaten residents who displayed them with a $909 fine.

Justice John Dixon ruled on Wednesday morning that putting up a sign before a federal election was called was lawful, and did not break any planning laws.

Ms Daniel’s campaign manager took Bayside City Council to the Supreme Court to challenge the signs ban.

Planning laws across all 79 of Victoria’s councils say that signs publicising information about a candidate for an election must not be displayed for longer than three months, and must be taken down within two weeks of the election being held.

No other Victorian council has troubled itself by intervening in the issue of electoral signs for the upcoming federal poll.

But Bayside City Council argued the planning laws meant it was only lawful for signs to be displayed once an election was called. Alternatively, the council had ruled, a sign could only be displayed after June 3 – three months before the absolute last possible date a federal Lower House federal election could be held. (A combined Senate and Lower House election is widely expected to be held by May 21.)

Justice Dixon ruled the council was wrong, and that election signs could be displayed. “Bayside is not entitled to maintain that the sign cannot be put up for display until the election is called,” he wrote in his judgement.

Justice Dixon also ordered the council pay the court costs of Ms Daniel’s team. The cost of Bayside defending its signs ban will amount to tens of thousands of dollars.

Hampton resident Lana Dacy was one of the residents who wanted to display a campaign sign for Zoe Daniel, and now has authority to do so.Credit: Penny Stephens

“I’m pleased to have clarity from the Supreme Court confirming that our signs are legal. Our supporters can now feel free to keep their signs up, and put their signs up, without fear of being fined”, Ms Daniel said.

Mr Wilson said he welcomed the Supreme Court’s decision.

“We have only ever wanted a consistent council rule that applies to all candidates equally, and now we have one we can get on with erecting our signs in the coming weeks,” Mr Wilson said.

Planning Minister Richard Wynne had earlier this month declined to comment specifically on the Bayside signs ban because it was before the Supreme Court. But he said the state’s planning laws were “clear” and that political signage was allowed.

“Advertising signs no larger than five square metres publicising information about a candidate for an election must not be displayed for longer than three months or 14 days after the event is held,” Mr Wynne said. “It does not require an election to be called.”

Bayside City Council chief executive Mick Cummins said the ruling had provided “clarity” on planning laws. The state government has told The Age that it is unaware of any other council ever having banned political signage in the decades-long history of the planning regulations.

Mr Cummins said the ruling meant Bayside residents were able to display political signage on private property for up to three months and no longer than 14 days after an election.

“Residents who were previously notified that their signage was unlawful are advised that it is now permissible to display political signage,” Mr Cummins said.

The council said in a statement that it had not issued any infringement notices for political signage. The Supreme Court, however, found that multiple residents received a letter from Bayside noting that “fines may be issued” for displaying election signs.

David Burstyner, of law firm Adley Burstyner, represented Ms Daniel in the case. He said the case showed the Supreme Court could “tackle important matters very quickly, and how overstepping by officious authorities with individual rights – whether it be political rights or property owners’ rights – can be successfully challenged by individuals”.

Our Breaking News Alert will notify you of significant breaking news when it happens. Get it here.