Legal action is being taken over a Victorian council’s ruling on election signs. 

Zoe Daniel - an independent candidate for the House of Representatives seat of Goldstein - has reacted to the Bayside City Council’s ruling that her campaign signs were put up prematurely. 

Council bylaws state that campaign signs can only be displayed for 3 months before an election, and because the House of Representatives election is not technically due until 3 September, signs cannot be put up before 3 June, unless the federal election is called earlier.

A half-Senate election must be held sometime between 9 April and 21 May, while an election only for the House of Representatives could be held as late as September. However, splitting the election is seen as unlikely, so a full vote is widely anticipated to occur in May 2022. 

Despite earlier indicating that it would allow Ms Daniel’s campaign materials to be displayed, the council has backflipped on its decision, finding in favour of a complaint by Liberal MP Tim Wilson (the current Federal Member for Goldstein) that the signs have gone up prematurely. 

The council has warned Ms Daniel’s volunteers that it has received “a number of complaints” about political signs, and asserted that they “can only be displayed when an election has been called”.

“As no election has been called the political sign displayed on your property is unauthorised,” it said.

The council said “fines may be issued for not complying with state legislation”, and told those displaying signs to “remove or completely cover them” within two days.

Ms Daniel’s campaign director, Keith Badger, has announced he will act as plaintiff in a supreme court challenge against the council and seek a declaration that the signs are lawful. 

Ms Daniel says the council’s ruling is inconsistent with neighbouring councils’ interpretations of the rules, exemplified in the neighbouring federal seat of Kooyong, where treasurer Josh Frydenberg signs are already widespread.

The legal challenge will question the council’s interpretation of the law, claiming it has contradicted its earlier advice, and arguing that its interpretation is contrary to the implied freedom of political communication.