Key Takeaways
- One Nation has placed campaign signs supporting Ben Roberts‑Smith outside pre‑poll booths in southern NSW ahead of the Farrer by‑election.
- The signs feature Roberts‑Smith in SAS uniform with the slogan “He fought for us. One Nation stands with him.”
- Roberts‑Smith faces five war‑crime murder charges linked to alleged incidents in Afghanistan (2009‑2012); he has denied the allegations and vowed to clear his name.
- Pauline Hanson, leader of One Nation, has been the most vocal political backer of Roberts‑Smith since his release on bail.
- The Australian Defence Force (ADF) requests that political parties refrain from using imagery of serving or former ADF personnel in campaign material, citing protections under the Defence Act 1903 and Trade Marks Act 1995.
- Electoral law only requires an authorisation statement on signage; it does not regulate the substantive content of the messages.
- Legal experts warn the signs could raise sub‑judice contempt concerns, as they may influence public perception of a case still before the courts.
- Sub‑judice laws aim to preserve the presumption of innocence and keep judicial proceedings free from prejudicial public debate.
- While courts can suppress potentially contemptuous publications, the sheer volume of existing material makes suppression orders difficult; any order would also need to balance freedom of expression, especially given the trial is likely years away.
One Nation’s Campaign Signage in Farrer
One Nation has erected corflute signs endorsing former Special Air Service soldier Ben Roberts‑Smith at several pre‑poll voting locations in Albury and surrounding areas of southern New South Wales. The signage, authorised by party leader Pauline Hanson, displays Roberts‑Smith in his SAS beret and winged badge alongside the slogan “He fought for us. One Nation stands with him.” The party says the display is intended to inform voters in the Farrer electorate of its unequivocal support for the former soldier, positioning that support as a reflection of its broader commitment to Australian veterans.
Legal Background of the Roberts‑Smith Case
Ben Roberts‑Smith is currently facing five charges of murder under the Commonwealth Criminal Code, allegedly committed during his deployments to Afghanistan between 2009 and 2012. The allegations pertain to specific incidents in which he is accused of unlawfully killing Afghan civilians. Roberts‑Smith has consistently denied the charges, describing them as baseless and stating that he will use the ongoing legal process to “finally clear my name.” The case remains active in the civilian court system, with no trial date set as of the latest reports.
One Nation’s Stated Motivation
In a statement to the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, a One Nation spokesperson asserted that the party is the only political entity publicly backing Roberts‑Smith. The spokesperson framed the support as part of a larger policy goal: to improve the treatment of Australian veterans, which they argue the current Labor government has failed to do adequately. By aligning itself with Roberts‑Smith, One Nation seeks to signal its dedication to veteran affairs while also differentiating itself from major parties on this issue.
Pauline Hanson’s Personal Advocacy
Party leader Pauline Hanson has been particularly outspoken in her defence of Roberts‑Smith since his release on bail last month. Hanson has repeatedly praised the former soldier’s service, criticised the prosecution’s handling of the case, and portrayed the charges as politically motivated. Her vocal endorsement has amplified the party’s message and drawn additional media attention to the signage controversy.
ADF Guidance on Military Imagery in Politics
The Australian Defence Force issued a statement through the ABC urging political parties and candidates to avoid using images of serving or former ADF personnel in campaign materials. The ADF emphasized that such imagery is protected under the Defence Act 1903 and the Trade Marks Act 1995, which safeguard military insignia, uniforms, and related symbols from unauthorised commercial or political use. The request is framed as a matter of respect for the armed forces and an effort to prevent the exploitation of military symbols for partisan gain.
Electoral Law Limitations on Signage Content
According to the Australian Electoral Commission, federal electoral law does not regulate the substantive content of campaign signage beyond requiring a clear authorisation statement that identifies who is responsible for the material. Consequently, while the signs must disclose that they were authorised by One Nation (and, implicitly, by Pauline Hanson), there is no statutory restriction on the messages, images, or slogans they may display. This legal gap leaves room for parties to employ potentially controversial or sensitive imagery without breaching electoral regulations.
Sub‑Judice Concerns Raised by Legal Experts
Legal scholars have warned that the One Nation signs could implicate sub‑judice contempt laws, which prohibit public commentary that risks prejudicing a case still before the courts. Associate Professor Jason Bosland of the University of Melbourne Law School told SBS News that the corflutes might constitute sub‑judice contempt if they create sympathy for Roberts‑Smith or assert his innocence, thereby influencing public opinion and potentially affecting the fairness of a future trial. Bosland noted that the timing of the signage relative to the eventual trial date will be a crucial factor in assessing any contempt risk.
Purpose and Limits of Sub‑Judice Legislation
Sub‑judice rules exist to uphold the presumption of innocence and ensure that criminal matters are decided solely on the evidence presented in court, rather than through extrajudicial debate or media influence. Bosland explained that while courts possess the authority to suppress publications deemed contemptuous, issuing a suppression order in this case would be challenging due to the extensive pre‑existing media coverage of Roberts‑Smith’s case. Any order limiting future commentary would also need to be weighed against the principle of freedom of expression, particularly given that the trial is likely several years away.
Balancing Free Speech and Judicial Integrity
Experts acknowledge the tension between protecting the integrity of judicial proceedings and preserving the right to political expression. Bosland characterised the political statements as “problematic” and “inappropriate,” noting that commentary from elected officials carries heightened weight and may implicate separation‑of‑powers concerns. He suggested that, should the court deem the signage contemptuous, it might issue a forward‑looking order preventing further similar publications, but such a measure would be scrutinised for its impact on democratic discourse.
Implications for the Farrer By‑Election and Beyond
The appearance of One Nation’s Roberts‑Smith signs in the Farrer by‑election contest highlights the intersection of veterans’ advocacy, political campaigning, and legal constraints on pre‑trial publicity. While the party frames its actions as a principled stand for veteran support, legal commentators caution that the signage risks undermining judicial fairness by potentially swaying public perception of an accused individual awaiting trial. As the matter unfolds, observers will watch whether electoral authorities, the ADF, or the courts intervene to address the concerns raised, and how the controversy influences voter sentiment in the upcoming by‑election and future political discourse involving military personnel.