Ruling (20) of the Returning Officer
In response to a complaint received on 9 September from Carla Drakeford (“the Complainant”) against Jackson Reynolds (“the Respondent”), the Returning Officer rules as follows:
1. The Respondent acknowledges that he stored campaign materials in his office in the UMSU space at VCA on Tuesday evening, and that this was in breach of Reg. 44.5.18. When the breach was pointed out to him by the Returning Officer he promptly apologised and agreed to remove them. It is not disputed that this was done and that there has been no further breach of this nature.
2. The Respondent claims that he had an understanding with the VCASU President that each of them would, for convenience, store campaign materials in their respective offices, but that the VCASU President, for reasons unrelated to the legal position, did not make use of this himself. The VCASU President confirms, in substance, the Respondent’s account.
3. While mutual agreement cannot justify a breach of the Regulations, it is relevant both to the question of culpability and to whether any substantial disadvantage has been caused to others. In this instance, the fact that all tickets that had been actively campaigning that day at VCA were covered by the arrangement makes it difficult to justify a penalty.
4. There is also a policy interest in settled decisions. In view of the fact that the VCASU President, who initially raised the matter, was satisfied with the outcome on Tuesday evening, significant further evidence or argument would be required to justify reopening it.
5. For the above reasons, the complaint is dismissed.
Charles Richardson
Returning Officer
11.9.09
Ruling (19) of the Returning Officer
In relation to a complaint received on 9 September from Martin Spencer (“the Complainant”) against the Synergy ticket (“the Respondent”) for misleading conduct, the Returning Officer rules as follows:
1. The leaflet complained of advertises, among other things, the Respondent’s promise of a free weekly breakfast for students. The promise is illustrated by a picture depicting cereal topped with milk and fruit.
2. The Complainant alleges that this is misleading because the proposed free breakfasts would in fact be of an inferior quality to that depicted in the picture.
3. In the Returning Officer’s opinion, the natural interpretation of the picture is simply as an illustration of the idea of “breakfast”, rather than a promise of any particular type or quality of breakfast. The Respondent argues that it had not actually directed its attention to what sort of fruit would be provided, and the Returning Officer has no reason to doubt this assurance.
4. The complaint is therefore dismissed.
Charles Richardson
Returning Officer
10.9.09
Ruling (18) of the Returning Officer
In response to a formal complaint received on 10 September from John Shipp (the Complainant) against Scott Williams (the Respondent) regarding a complaint received verbally that morning by the Returning Officer from a student, the Returning Officer rules as follows:
1. The Respondent is found to be guilty of making misleading statements in breach of Reg. 44.5.3.
2. The Respondent agreed that the words he had said were the same as the words complained of, but denied they were in contravention of the Regulations and appeared entirely uncommitted to the avoidance of further breaches.
3. Due to the seriousness of the breaches, the Returning Officer therefore bans the Respondent from campaigning for the remainder of today, Friday.
4. The Returning Officer offers a final warning to all candidates and campaigners, and to members of the Left Student Unionists ticket in particular, to be especially careful regarding the validity and appropriateness of their claims when communicating with potential voters.
Charles Richardson
Returning Officer
11.9.09
Ruling (17) of the Returning Officer
In relation to an incident on 10 September, and several informal complaints received on that day about this and similar incidents, the Returning Officer rules as follows:
1. Stephanie McHenry is found to be guilty of making misleading statements in breach of Reg. 44.5.3.
2. Having received complaints about this conduct from various sources, the Returning Officer finds that the final source of evidence is sufficiently reliable and independent as to corroborate the previous complaints.
3. Stephanie McHenry was therefore verbally banned from campaigning as of that afternoon, the ban to extend until the end of polling the following day, Friday 11 September.
4. The Returning Officer offers a final warning to all candidates and campaigners, and to members of the Synergy ticket in particular, to be especially careful regarding the validity and appropriateness of their claims when communicating with potential voters.
Charles Richardson
Returning Officer
10.9.09
Ruling (16) of the Returning Officer
In relation to a complaint received on 10 September from the Stand Up! Ticket (“the Complainant”) against the iUnion ticket (“the Respondent”) for breach of Reg. 44.5.15 and other matters, the Returning Officer rules as follows:
1. Several reports have been received during the course of the week of campaigners escorting voters to the polling stations in both the Food Hall and Baillieu. A few confirmed instances on Monday morning, which were attributed to inexperienced campaigners, resulted in warnings being given.
2. On Thursday afternoon, photographic evidence was received of two such cases by campaigners for the Complainant and the Respondent. Each ticket was banned from campaigning for an hour as a result.
3. The Complainant alleges that in the case of the Respondent, the offence was part of a continuing course of conduct, and has drawn attention in particular to an alleged instance at lunchtime on Thursday. The Complainant also suggests that the Respondent’s conduct in the matter discussed in Ruling (10) should be taken into account.
4. These allegations have been fully investigated, and while there are certainly grounds for suspicion, it has not been possible to be satisfied of their truth. The evidence offered is not unequivocal, and the reported statements of members of the Respondent’s ticket are capable of alternative interpretations.
5. The question of campaigners campaigning in languages other than English poses particular difficulties, because while it is natural for rival campaigners to be suspicious of things they cannot understand, it would be intolerable for tickets or campaigners to be in effect penalised for their choice and ability to communicate in different languages.
6. The Returning Officer also notes that there have been a number of cases of Chinese-language material being mistaken for electoral material but on investigation turning out to be quite innocent.
7. The iUnion ticket is accordingly warned that the conduct of its campaigners is under strict scrutiny, particularly in the areas proximate to the polling stations, and that any future reports of misconduct will be treated with the utmost seriousness.
8. In other respects, the complaint is dismissed.
Charles Richardson
Returning Officer
10.9.09
Ruling (15) of the Returning Officer
In response to several informal complaints received on 8 September, the Returning Officer rules as follows:
1. The allocation of funds in the 2009 UMSU budget, and in particular the relative priority given to Clubs & Societies, Activities and NUS, is clearly an issue of some importance in this election.
2. A considerable quantity of material has been provided in support of competing claims on the issue. The Returning Officer claims no particular expertise in assessing this type of evidence, and has no intention of doing so any more than is strictly necessary to prevent misleading conduct.
3. It is to be expected that different groups will have different perceptions of budgetary decisions, and contradictory claims are not necessarily evidence of dishonesty or bad faith. The interests of free and open debate require that such claims should be allowed to circulate, provided voters are not being actively misled. In the light of the controversy that has been created, however, some additional safeguard against misleading conduct appears to be called for.
4. From now on, all campaign statements of any sort, including but not limited to chalking, lecture-bashing and conversations with voters, that make specific claims about the UMSU budget, are subject to pre-approval by the Returning Officer. All requests for such pre-approval must be accompanied by direct evidence for the specific claim being made.
5. The purpose of pre-approval, as with authorisation of written material, is not for the Returning Officer to warrant the truth of the statements, but to ensure that they are not actively misleading. It is quite possible that contradictory claims will be pre-approved, if the Returning Officer believes that the evidence provided makes each claim reasonably arguable.
6. Any claims made in breach of this Ruling will be treated as unauthorised campaign material and penalties applied accordingly.
Charles Richardson
Returning Officer
9.9.09
Ruling (14) of the Returning Officer
In response to an incident that occurred shortly before the close of polls on Tuesday 8 September, the Returning Officer rules as follows:
1. David Liubinas is found to be guilty of serious breaches of Regs. 44.5.26 and 44.5.27, and is therefore banned from all campaigning activity and directed to absent himself from the environs of any polling or campaigning area for the remainder of the election.
2. David Liubinas is also directed to write an appropriate letter of apology for his conduct, to be published on the elections website and submitted to Farrago.
3. Tickets have repeatedly been reminded that they must take responsibility for the actions of their campaigners, and the seriousness of this breach demands that a further penalty be imposed.
4. The More Activities ticket and its candidates and campaigners are therefore suspended from all campaign activity from now until the close of polls today, 9 September.
Charles Richardson
Returning Officer
9.9.09
Ruling (13) of the Returning Officer
In response to a number of informal complaints received on 8 September against the Justice For Palestine ticket (“the Respondent”), and after independent investigation by AQE staff, the Returning Officer rules as follows:
1. A number of posters advertising the Justice for Palestine rally on 25 September and associated events, which, under the terms of Ruling (9), clearly constitute election material, have been posted without authorisation.
2. In addition, a number of similar posters, which had been authorised, have been posted over the top of posters belonging to other tickets, despite the availability of bollard space, contrary to the Returning Officer’s directions in respect of sharing bollards.
3. The Respondent has previously been found in breach of the authorisation provisions on several occasions, and these further breaches show a degree of disregard for the Regulations that cannot be seen to be condoned.
4. The Justice For Palestine ticket is therefore suspended from all campaign activity from now until the close of polls on Thursday, 10 September.
Charles Richardson
Returning Officer
9.9.09
Ruling (12) of the Returning Officer
In response to a complaint received on 7 September from Adelaide Rief and Sam Cossar-Gilbert (“the Complainants”) against the Synergy ticket (“the Respondent”), the Returning Officer rules as follows:
1. No ticket can claim a monopoly on a particular color. The fact that the Activate ticket has used green t-shirts for several years does not deprive other tickets of the right to do the same, provided their conduct is not misleading under Reg. 44.3. This is particularly clear since the number of basic colors available is clearly less than the number of tickets.
2. There is no evidence that the Respondent has attempted to imitate the color or appearance of Activate’s t-shirts, and their shade of green, although broadly similar, is clearly distinctive.
3. Nor is there any evidence that the Respondent is relying on similar campaign themes to Activate, or otherwise behaving in a fashion that when taken in conjunction with the t-shirts is likely to mislead voters.
4. While the Complainants suggest that the Respondent’s campaigners should be required to wear some distinguishing mark in addition to their t-shirts, the Returning Officer is of the view that the Synergy logo on the t-shirts already performs whatever function such a mark could do.
5. Regs. 44.5.2, 44.5.3 and 44.5.14, also relied on by the Complainants, seem to be clearly intended for quite different sorts of conduct than those involved in this case.
6. For the above reasons, the complaint is dismissed.
Charles Richardson
Returning Officer
8.9.09
Ruling (11) of the Returning Officer
In response to a complaint received on 8 September from Jade Eckhaus and Noni Sproule (“the Complainants”) against Sterling Thorley (“the Respondent”) for breach of Reg. 44.5.26 and Reg. 44.5.27, and related questions raised by the Complainants and others, and in consideration of Regulation 44.5.20, the Returning Officer rules as follows:
1. The Respondent has used threatening and intimidating language towards the Complainants.
2. The Respondent has used offensive language and exhibited offensive behaviour in hearing range of candidates other than and including the Complainants, other campaigners, and voters.
3. The Respondent has failed to comply with a direction of the Returning Officer.
4. Sterling Thorley is hereby immediately banned from any further campaigning or participation in these elections.
Charles Richardson
Returning Officer
8.9.09
Ruling (10) of the Returning Officer
In response to a question raised on 3 September concerning issue number 43 of the Chinese Publishers Group magazine, the Returning Officer rules as follows:
1. The publication concerned is a 44-page glossy magazine, published almost entirely in Chinese and distributed free on campus. By an arrangement between the publishers and the iUnion ticket, a number of copies were distributed with iUnion how-to-vote material inserted.
2. Given that the magazine is of long standing, that free distribution is its normal practice and that the Returning Officer has been assured by the publishers that the current print run is also normal, no case of inducement under Reg. 44.4 has been made out.
3. However, an article on pages 34-35 of the magazine titled (according to the translation supplied to the Returning Officer) “The Student Union Election and Us: the sacredness and the power of one vote”, which discusses inter alia the state of the Union, the election and the representation of international students, is clearly election material. The links between the publishers and the iUnion ticket, and the insertion of campaign material already referred to, merely confirm this finding.
4. The magazine is not authorised, and given that it is not printed on recycled paper it cannot be authorised.
5. The Returning Officer accepts that the publishers of the magazine had no intent to breach the Regulations, particularly in light of the fact that the article in question was commissioned and written well in advance of the campaign period. Nor is there anything in the article that could not be authorised if it were, for example, to be reprinted as a leaflet. Nonetheless, distribution of the magazine cannot be allowed to continue.
6. Any further distribution to Melbourne University students of issue number 43 of the Chinese Publishers Group magazine, so long as it contains its current pages 34 and 35, is therefore prohibited from now until close of polling on Friday 11 September.
Charles Richardson
Returning Officer
5.9.09
Ruling (9) of the Returning Officer
In response to a complaint received on 4 September from John Shipp (“the Complainant”) against Tim Arnot (“the first Respondent”) and the Justice For Palestine ticket (“the second Respondent”) for breach of Reg. 44.5.18, and related questions raised by the Complainant and others, the Returning Officer rules as follows:
1. It appears that the room booking concerned was made some time ago by the first Respondent on behalf of the Students for Palestine collective, in his capacity as Education (Public Affairs) Officer. At the time he could not reasonably have been expected to know what purpose Students for Palestine would use the room for on any particular date.
2. The complaint against the first Respondent for abuse of office is therefore not made out. However, the complaint raises the more general question of the relationship between the second Respondent and Students for Palestine.
3. In light of the substantial identity of themes, activities and personnel, it now seems impossible to draw a principled distinction between the second Respondent and Students for Palestine. Publicity for both must therefore be treated as election material.
4. The Returning Officer accordingly finds that pro- or anti-Palestinian student activism is an election issue, and that all material relating to that issue is election material and must be duly authorised before display or distribution.
5. Furthermore, no material relating to pro- or anti-Palestinian student activism for distribution to Melbourne University students, or for display on or near campus, is to be produced using UMSU resources (except those generally available to all students), whether by the Respondents, Students for Palestine, or any other person or group, and no material already produced using such resources is to be so distributed or displayed from now until the close of polling on 11 September.
6. Regardless of the view taken of the role of Students for Palestine or the status of the Palestinian question as an election issue, the poster advertising the disputed Students for Palestine meeting on 1 September is clearly election material and should have been authorised. In view of previous failures by the second Respondent to have material authorised, it is appropriate that a penalty be imposed.
7. In relation to the past confusion of roles between the second Respondent and the Students for Palestine collective, the Returning Officer is otherwise reluctant to impose a penalty, since the issues are complex and the confusion was at least partly on the part of the Returning Officer. All parties concerned, however, are warned that this issue will be under strict scrutiny in future and any beaches of the terms of this Ruling will be treated seriously.
8. The Justice For Palestine ticket is therefore banned from all campaign activity for the first two hours of polling, 10-12 on Monday 4 September, and no Justice For Palestine material is to be on display during this period.
Charles Richardson
Returning Officer
5.9.09
Ruling (8) of the Returning Officer
In response to a complaint received on 1 September from Nina Flanagan (“the Complainant”) against the Independent Media ticket (“the Respondent”), the Returning Officer rules as follows:
1. The Complainant alleges that by failing to publish her book review in the election edition of Farrago, the incumbent Media Officers, who are associated with the Respondent, were in breach of Reg. 44.5.14 (interfering with a candidate’s publicity) and Reg. 44.5.18 (use of Union facilities).
2. While it could possibly be argued that the appearance of a book review by the Complainant would constitute election material, preventing a form of publicity from appearing cannot amount to “interference” unless the candidate has some prior right to have the material appear. The correspondence which the Complainant cites between her and the Media Officers fails to establish any such right.
3. While the Returning Officer is willing to exert control over the election edition of Farrago to the extent of preventing the publication of certain election-related material, any attempt to dictate to the Media Officers what should be printed would be a dangerous precedent and potentially a threat to the freedom of the press.
4. In relation to Reg. 44.5.18, the question is whether the exercise of editorial discretion as to what to publish, even if affected by political motives, can be regarded as a use of facilities “for campaign purposes”. In the Returning Officer’s view, such a construction would be stretching the language of the Regulation beyond the limits of credibility.
5. The Regulations require that UMSU Office-Bearers not abuse their offices for political purposes, but they do not require that they be politically neutral in all their actions. Even if a Farrago editorial decision had been made for political reasons, it would not amount to a breach of the Regulations.
6. For the above reasons, the complaint is dismissed.
Charles Richardson
Returning Officer
3.9.09
Ruling (7) of the Returning Officer
In response to a complaint received on 31 August from Onagh Bishop (“the Complainant”) against David Liubinas (“the Respondent”), the Returning Officer rules as follows:
1. A case of harassment has not been made out against the Respondent in relation to his LOLCAT posting campaign.
2. However, the joke has now gone far enough, and in light of his prior conduct the Respondent is warned that any further posting of LOLCATS and any further use of the word “LOLCAT” directed against his political opponents, by him or his associates, will be viewed as a serious case of harassment and treated accordingly.
3. The Respondent’s attention is also particularly drawn to paragraph 7 of Ruling (3), issued yesterday.
Charles Richardson
Returning Officer
2.9.09
Ruling (6) of the Returning Officer
In response to an objection made on 26 August by Mark Peart against the registration of the “Pride” ticket, the Returning Officer rules as follows:
1. The objection cites the fact that a club called “Pride” was affiliated to UMSU and active as recently as 2007, and that the “Pride” ticket could therefore mislead voters into assuming a connection between them which does not exist.
2. Reg. 21.4 prohibits tickets using the name of affiliated club without its consent, and Reg. 21.5 prohibits the use of a ticket name used within the previous three years without its registrant’s consent. Reg. 21.6 also gives the Returning Officer a general discretion to refuse ticket names which are “misleading or offensive”.
3. The fact that Reg. 21.5 covers the previous three years while Reg. 21.4 does not, suggests that their authors believed a ticket name was more needing of protection than a club name. This makes sense, since a ticket name necessarily has a public profile and political associations, whereas a club name need not.
4. Use of a previous club name could still be misleading if it was both recent and politically active, but the Returning Officer is not convinced that this case meets the test.
5. It is also noted that to uphold the objection would be particularly burdensome to the “Pride” ticket, given that the objection was only raised twelve days after ticket registrations closed, and therefore leaves very little time for an alternative name to be chosen. Such a burden would only be imposed as a result of a very strong case being made out, which in this instance has not been done.
6. The objection is therefore dismissed.
Charles Richardson
Returning Officer
2.9.09
Ruling (5) of the Returning Officer
In response to a complaint received on 25 August from Chris Heath (“the Complainant”) against Sadia Schneider (“the Respondent”), the Returning Officer rules as follows:
1. The email sent by the Respondent on behalf of the Justice for Palestine ticket is a matter of concern for three reasons: the lack of authorisation, the failure to bcc the recipients’ addresses, and some of the language used about the ticket’s political opponents.
2. In relation to the first two matters, the Respondent has admitted the error and apologised.
3. In relation to the third matter, the Respondent argues that the language was justified, but concedes that it should not have been used without substantiating evidence.
4. While tickets are entitled to put their point of view clearly and forcefully, the Returning Officer takes the view that accusing political opponents of bigotry and support for massacres is unacceptable conduct, unless it is very carefully supported with evidence. Middle East politics are a very emotive issue, and it would be appreciated if all tickets would co-operate in keeping the temperature down and avoiding over-heated rhetoric.
5. The evidence adduced by the Respondent clearly provides a basis for arguing her ticket’s position, but does not, in the Returning Officer’s view, justify the terms used.
6. Given the fact that the incident occurred some two weeks before the election, and the Respondent immediately acknowledged the problems, it does not appear necessary to impose a penalty. However, the Respondent and her ticket are warned that any future breaches of the Regulations will be treated seriously.
7. The Respondent is also directed to send a further email to the recipients apologising for the breach of privacy and for the inflammatory rhetoric.
Charles Richardson
Returning Officer
1.9.09
Ruling (4) of the Returning Officer
In response to questions that have been raised, the Returning Officer rules that the following guidelines should apply to the production of campaign videos:
1. The script needs to be authorised, and a printed copy must be placed in the authorised material file before the video is released.
2. The Returning Officer needs to be notified as to what format the video will be distributed in, and links or physical copies lodged as appropriate.
3. The closing credits need to include the words “published by [name & student # of someone who takes responsibility for it]” and “authorised by the Returning Officer”.
4. Anyone who appears on the video other than as incidental scenery needs to be an eligible campaigner – ie a Melbourne University student and not an office-bearer who has not taken leave – and needs to have given their consent to appear.
5. All videos must otherwise comply with all relevant regulations, such as not being misleading, defamatory, sexist, etc.
6. These guidelines are based on the assumption that videos will be quite short – a maximum of two or three minutes – and will be reviewed if requests are made for longer videos.
Charles Richardson
Returning Officer
31.8.09
Ruling (3) of the Returning Officer
In response to a number of questions that have been raised concerning the use of social media such as Facebook for election purposes (including the complaints that prompted Rulings (1) and (2), the Returning Officer rules as follows:
1. All candidates and campaigners should be aware that all internet communications, other than those that are purely internal to a particular group, can constitute electoral material if they “either explicitly mention, or comment visually, literally or figuratively on the elections, the candidates or the issues involved” (Reg. 28.1).
2. In particular, the fact that access to material on Facebook may be restricted to a person’s Facebook friends – which typically number several hundred – does not prevent it from being “produced, displayed or distributed” within the meaning of Reg. 28.1.
3. All election material, including that in electronic form, must be authorised: that is, it must be seen and authorised by the Returning Officer, and a copy placed on the file in the Elections office, before it is displayed or distributed.
4. Facebook pages carrying election comment need to contain the authorisation lines required by Regs. 28.5 and 25.6, and a printed screenshot needs to be placed on the file.
5. Group emails circulating beyond the confines of the particular group also need to contain the authorisation lines, and a copy of the text needs to be placed on the file.
6. Brief and non-controversial updates to electronic media do not need to be separately authorised, but any substantive changes should be drawn to the Returning Officer’s attention and a fresh copy added to the file.
7. The making of comments on the pages of political opponents, whether events, groups or individuals, is prohibited.
8. The use of Twitter for election material is prohibited.
Charles Richardson
Returning Officer
1.9.09
Ruling (2) of the Returning Officer
In response to a complaint received on 18 August from Carla Drakeford (“the Complainant”) against David Liubinas (“the Respondent”), the Returning Officer rules as follows:
1. Although none of the Facebook comments and status updates complained of, taken individually, would be a matter of grave concern, taken together they suggest a pattern of conduct that could easily be interpreted as threatening or intimidating.
2. The Respondent’s defence is that he was merely speaking his mind in a light-hearted fashion that was not intended as a threat to anyone.
3. While the Respondent does not appear to have intended any particular harm by his comments, it must be stressed, as with Ruling (1), that campaigners will be held responsible for the natural interpretations of their words or actions, even if not intended.
4. The Returning Officer wishes to make it particularly clear that harassment will not be tolerated, especially in light of the fact that some apparent cases of harassment in 2008 were treated with what, in hindsight, may have been an undue degree of leniency.
5. David Liubinas is therefore banned from campaign activity between now and the close of polling on Monday, 7 September.
Charles Richardson
Returning Officer
30.8.09
Ruling (1) of the Returning Officer
In response to a complaint received on 17 August from Jesse Overton-Skinner (“the Complainant”) against Chris Summers (“the Respondent”), the Returning Officer rules as follows:
1. The words complained of in the Complainant’s Facebook status update amount to a prima facie breach of Regulations 28.1 (distribution of unauthorised material) and 44.5.3 (defamatory statements).
2. The Respondent’s defence is that since the status update was only visible to his Facebook friends, it was not “distributed” within the meaning of the Regulations.
3. Given that the Respondent at the time had some 537 Facebook friends, the Returning Officer finds this argument unconvincing. Even accepting that many of them would not be Melbourne University students, there was still considerable scope for circulation outside of the Respondent’s own political group.
4. The Respondent also contends that the comment in the update was satirical in intent, and that the extravagance of its language shows that it was not intended to be taken at face value. While there is some merit in this argument, an author’s intentions do not control the meaning of language, and those who publish material need to be wary of natural if unintended interpretations.
5. While the Respondent’s offence is not at the high end of culpability, in light of the need to send a clear message about offensive material, especially in electronic media, it is appropriate that a penalty be imposed.
6. Chris Summers is therefore banned from campaign activity between now and the close of polling on Monday, 7 September.
7. The general question of Facebook use will be addressed in a separate ruling.
Charles Richardson
Returning Officer
30.8.09
Bookmark & Share.
Posted Tuesday 1 September, 2009. Updated Thursday 17 September, 2009.
