Hobart City Council has requested that the Tasmanian Labor Party cover the costs associated with the removal of election signage deemed unlawful. This request, presented during a council meeting on July 17, 2023, involves expenses ranging between $4,000 and $5,000 for a clean-up crew tasked with removing “TassieDoc” stickers from various locations across the city.
The stickers, promoting a Labor election initiative, were widely placed around the central business district, Sandy Bay, and New Town in the lead-up to Tasmania’s snap election, held on July 19. In a letter to the Labor Party, then-acting chief executive Michael Reynolds emphasized the inappropriateness of using city assets for political advertising without authorization. He noted that the removal process resulted in damage to city property, including scratches and peeled paint on poles and bins.
Council’s Motion and Labor’s Response
During the meeting, Councillor Louise Elliot, who introduced the motion, acknowledged that there is no evidence linking the Labor Party directly to the placement of the stickers. She stated, “There is no suggestion that the placement of the stickers was authorised or supported by the Tasmanian Labor Party.” Despite this, she mentioned that multiple volunteers associated with the party were identified placing the promotional material.
According to the regulations outlined in the Tasmanian Planning Scheme, all election campaign materials must be removed within seven days following an election. The council’s clean-up effort involved approximately 40 hours of labor by a three-person crew.
The council’s request for payment allows Labor the opportunity to either comply or disregard the invoice. Cr. Elliot expressed that Labor could simply refuse the payment, stating, “It could very well be Labor’s prerogative to say, ‘no, get stuffed. We’re not gonna pay that invoice.'” Nonetheless, she suggested that a gesture of goodwill might be more prudent, implying that it would be beneficial for the party to settle the invoice.
Potential Consequences and Future Implications
Initially, Cr. Elliot’s motion suggested issuing an invoice, but it was clarified that council invoices are only for goods or services, prompting the proposal of a request for payment instead. The council also discussed the possibility of investigating the individuals responsible for the unlawful placement of the stickers, which could lead to cost recovery through legal avenues.
In an interview on ABC Hobart’s Mornings program, Cr. Reynolds highlighted the financial impact on ratepayers caused by the clean-up operation. Councillor Louise Bloomfield supported the motion, stating, “What I like about this motion is it actually starts to set some precedent,” indicating that political campaigns must adhere to regulations regarding signage.
Conversely, Councillor Ryan Posselt, a member of the Labor Party, abstained from voting but voiced concerns about pursuing the party when the responsible individuals were already identifiable. He argued for a focused investigation aimed at holding those accountable rather than targeting the party as a whole.
The Tasmanian Labor Party has not yet responded to requests for comment regarding the council’s actions. As the situation unfolds, it raises questions about the responsibilities of political parties in adhering to local regulations and the implications for future elections.
