Right-wing blogger Morgan Jonas enters ‘corflute wars'
Morgan Jonas, an alt-right blogger and founder of the Freedom Party of Victoria, was warned by the AEC on Tuesday for only partially authorising corflute political signs.
The materials authorised by 'M. Jonas Melbourne Victoria 3000' were deemed non-compliant under the Commonwealth Electoral Act because they did not include Mr Jonas's full name and full street address.
The signs were displayed in at least four states, including the divisions of Chisholm, Hawke, Bendigo and Menzies in Victoria, the divisions of Calare and Bennelong in NSW, the division of Blair in Queensland and the division of Boothby in South Australia.
One of the non-compliant signs displayed in the Blair electorate attacked Labor MP Shayne Neumann, calling for 'Neumann out & a new man in!'.
The AEC has obtained an undertaking from Mr Jonas that he will 'cease distributing material that is not correctly authorised and will ensure that stickers are placed on all existing corflutes and signs'.
Updated signage now bears authorisation from 'Morgan C. Jonas 8/220 Collins Street Melbourne Victoria 3000'.
Mr Jonas recently shared a post on Facebook that announced the Freedom Party of Victoria would be 'skipping the federal election'.
'You will see me interacting with some of Victoria's minor right candidates, all of whom are solid picks,' he wrote.
According to the AEC, authorisations are important because they allow voters to easily find out the source of the electoral matter, persons participating in public debate relating to elections and reforms can be held accountable, and communications of electoral matter can be traced.
Mr Jonas has been contacted for comment.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
ABC News
a day ago
- ABC News
Former Liberal MP Andrew Laming wins a High Court appeal over fines for three Facebook posts
Former Queensland Liberal MP Andrew Laming has won his High Court appeal against a $40,000 fine over three Facebook posts. He was accused of not properly identifying himself as a political candidate upon posting in the lead-up to the 2019 federal election. Andrew Laming was the LNP member for Bowman when he made the Facebook posts on a page he administered titled "Redland Hospital: Let's fight for fair funding". The Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) went after Mr Laming for failing to provide the correct authorisation required of political candidates in political communication. Under Australian electoral laws, MPs are required to give details, including their name and location, on any material that is aimed at influencing votes. Mr Laming admitted the posts lacked the required authorisation, but contested whether some of them fell into the category of political communication. The original Federal Court judgment found some of the posts were clearly written by Mr Laming, having been signed by him, including a letter to a journalist, but others did not identify him as the writer or publisher. The judgment noted it was evident from the post "that Mr Laming was pretending it was posted by someone else", even referring to himself in the third person. In the end, the case was narrowed down to three posts and Mr Laming was fined $20,000. But the AEC appealed and the fine was doubled to $40,000. That was to reflect the fact that the posts had been viewed 28 times. Mr Laming took it to the High Court, describing the reasoning as counterintuitive, saying he only made the omission once on each post. The AEC said the purpose of the law was to deter breaches and protect the rights of voters to make an informed choice. The commission told the High Court that on Mr Laming's reasoning, any anonymous political publication would only result in a single contravention, no matter how harmful or wide-reaching it may be. But today the High Court ruled a line in the sand, saying there was a contravention each time the posts were published, not each time they were viewed. Mr Laming quit politics before the 2022 election after a series of unrelated controversies.
News.com.au
6 days ago
- News.com.au
Battle for Bradfield hits High Court, to be decided by 150 disputed ballot papers
Around 150 disputed ballot papers will be the focus of a trial to decide if Liberal challenger Gisele Kapterian can overturn an election result against her Teal independent challenger. Nicolette Boele was awarded the seat of Bradfield in north Sydney by 26 votes, or 50.01 per cent of the two candidate preferred, at May's federal election. Ms Kapterian's legal challenge in the Court of Disputed Returns began on Friday, with Chief Justice Stephen Gageler referring the trial to the Federal Court in NSW. 'The trial will primarily be concerned with the formality of in excess of 150 disputed ballot papers,' he said. The ballot papers will now be re-examined to ensure all numbers were legible. While Ms Kapterian is challenging the Australian Electoral Commission's decision to award Ms Boele the seat, Ms Boele will remain the representative for Bradfield. Ms Boele has been sworn into parliament, and delivered her maiden speech in the House of Representatives. Ahead of the Friday's hearing she vowed to continue to serve her electorate. 'This is the next step in Australia's strong and trusted democratic process,' she said. 'I have every confidence in the court, the AEC, and the integrity of their work. 'While the court challenge proceeds, I'm focused on delivering the genuine representation Bradfield voted for.' She has also sought donations from her community to cover the legal costs of the court case, while vowing to either return the money or donate the funds to a nominated cause if the Liberal Party is ordered to pay her costs. The battle for Bradfield comes after a whirlwind count, which initially awarded the electorate in Ms Boele's favour on a margin of eight votes. However the ultra-slim margin, under 100 votes, triggered an automatic recount, which declared Ms Boele the winner. The result was then challenged by Ms Kapterian about 10 weeks following the election on July 15, largely on the premise of the conflicting counts. The Liberal hopeful said her court bid was not about challenging the 'integrity of our electoral system' but was done to ensure 'the intentions of the voters of Bradfield are accurately reflected in the final count'. Ms Kapterian's legal team has not asked for the election result to be made void, which would trigger a by-election. 'Pursuing this final step will provide collective confidence that the final result reflects the true wishes of the voters in Bradfield and remove any remaining doubt created by the two conflicting counts,' she said previously. 'Every vote counts'. This year's May 3 election was the first time the blue-ribbon electorate has been held by a non-Liberal MP. It was previously held by former minister Paul Fletcher who retired ahead of the 2025 poll.
Sydney Morning Herald
7 days ago
- Sydney Morning Herald
Every voter's squiggle counts: why Bradfield court battle could drag on for months
The Bradfield election count saw more reversals of fortune than Succession. First the independent Nicolette Boele was acclaimed the likely winner on election night. Then the Liberal Gisele Kapterian won the count by eight votes, only to see this snatched away in a recount with Boele winning by 26 votes. Now Kapterian is challenging the outcome in the Court of Disputed Returns. Does this mean the beleaguered burghers of Bradfield will be heading back to the polls? The Court of Disputed Returns has the power to declare that any election is absolutely void, or that a person who was returned as elected was not duly elected and that any other candidate is elected. But other than cases of disqualification or corrupt conduct by a candidate, the court can only alter the outcome of an election or declare it void if any error or illegal practice in the conduct of the election was likely to have affected its outcome and 'it is just' to do so. The law requires that 'real justice' be observed, with the court to be 'guided by the substantial merits and good conscience of each case without regard to legal forms or technicalities'. Kapterian's challenge is about whether particular ballot papers were mistakenly classified as formal or informal, affecting the outcome of the result. Was a 5 really an 8, and was that squiggle actually a 7? If a successful claim were made that the outcome could not be known because ballots had gone missing or electors were wrongfully denied the ability to vote, a fresh election would be required. But in this case, as the court can determine the formality of each vote, it is more likely it would either confirm Boele's election or declare Kapterian the winner. A fresh election is unlikely, unless the margin is so close that the outcome cannot be fairly determined, or is affected by other factors, such as multiple voting. Loading How long will it take? The Commonwealth Electoral Act contains a section optimistically headed 'Court must make its decision quickly'. But the substance says the court must make its decision 'as quickly as reasonable in the circumstances'. This will depend on a number of factors. First, there is the question of who constitutes the Court of Disputed Returns. Ordinarily, it is the High Court. But on Friday, the Chief Justice of the High Court, Stephen Gageler, sent it off to the Federal Court to determine. As Kapterian's challenge mostly involves assessments of fact, rather than high legal principle, it is appropriate that it be dealt with by a lower court. Second, timing will depend on how many ballots need to be reviewed and the time given for the parties to examine them and prepare their arguments.
