Following AEC judicial action, ex-MP Andrew Laming says he will appeal a court ruling fining him over Facebook statements released before of the 2019 federal election.
The former Liberal National MP was punished for postings on social media in the run-up to the 2019 federal election that looked to have been made by someone else.
The Australian Electoral Commission charged the Queenslander with violating Commonwealth standards by putting content on a Facebook page called “Redland Hospital: Let’s fight for fair funding” without sufficiently disclosing his political connections.
The former Bowman member was fined $20,000 and has stated that he will appeal immediately.
In a decision issued on Wednesday, Justice Darryl Rangiah determined Laming violated the law by displaying election materials on three dates without notifying his identity or the town or city in which he resides.
One post indicated that the author was pleased with Laming’s announcement of increased hospital service funding, but then claimed to ‘fact verify’ the assertion before deciding that the amount was significantly less.
“I infer Mr Laming thought that by pretending the post was written by someone else, his self-flattery would be more likely to be accepted as true by viewers and his achievement admirable,” Justice Rangiah stated.
The post had two purposes: one was to spread word about funds for the Redland Hospital in Laming’s electorate, and the other was to promote himself.
This was demonstrated by Laming’s deceit in pretending that the post, which complimented himself for securing a funding boost, was objective because it was created by someone else.
“I am convinced by the lengths he went to perpetrate the deception that his primary goal was self-promotion,” Justice Rangiah remarked.
That was a particularly serious message, according to Justice Rangiah.
“It was not simply a case of Mr Laming failing to notify his name and relevant town or city,” he stated, “but a deliberate attempt to conceal the fact that he was its author.”
“This type of deceptive behaviour undermines the integrity of our electoral system.”
Laming said that the posts were primarily intended to protest the Queensland government’s sponsorship of Redland Hospital.
Justice Rangiah determined that two of the five positions complained about by the commission were not in violation of the law.
He stated that the case had a long and tortuous history, but that by the time the trial began in September, Laming had made some admissions.
It was not a case where violations occurred in a systematic or organised manner, and Laming was unlikely to participate in such behaviour in the future.
However, Laming pretended that the posts were published by someone else, and the Facebook page obscured the fact that he was its administrator.
The posts received a small number of views – six for one and eight for another.
The third post was viewed by 14 people, nine of whom shared it.
One tweet that Justice Rangiah deemed unconstitutional appeared to be an excerpt from a speech Laming delivered in parliament, while another referred to the politician “ripping Labour a new one over the Hospital.”
He fined Dr Laming $10,000 for a particularly serious post, and $5000 for two others.
Laming told AAP that he will immediately challenge the decision, which touched three of more than 100 positions.
“The posts were factual and completely unintentional,” he explained.
