Pre-election sites in Albury have been marked with promotional corflutes endorsing Ben Roberts-Smith VC as part of One Nation’s campaign for the upcoming Farrer by-election.
Mr. Roberts-Smith is currently facing serious allegations of war crimes related to events that allegedly took place during his military service in Afghanistan.
The Farrer by-election is scheduled for this Saturday.
Corflutes supporting Mr. Roberts-Smith, who has been accused of war crimes, have been installed near pre-polling locations throughout southern New South Wales, in anticipation of the Farrer by-election this weekend.
The signs feature an image of Mr. Roberts-Smith in military attire, accompanied by the text: “He fought for us. One Nation stands with him.”
The Australian Defence Force (ADF) has recommended that political parties refrain from utilizing images of current or former ADF members in their campaign materials. Legal experts have also cautioned about the potential implications of discussing issues currently under judicial review.
One of the signs at the North Albury pre-polling site for One Nation candidate David Farley indicated it was authorized by party leader Pauline Hanson.
The ABC sought a response from Mr. Farley and received a statement from a One Nation representative.
“One Nation is the only political party that has openly supported Ben Roberts-Smith, and we want to ensure that voters in Farrer, where many veterans reside, are aware of this,” the spokesperson stated.
“Our backing of him underscores our strong dedication to better support Australian veterans compared to the current Labor government.”
Mr. Roberts-Smith has been charged with five counts of war crime murder, with the allegations stemming from his military engagements in Afghanistan between 2009 and 2012.
He has persistently denied these claims throughout a significant civil defamation case against Nine newspapers, which concluded unfavorably for him in 2023.
The politicization of defense issues has drawn attention, with the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) noting that electoral laws only require an authorization statement for signage content and do not regulate it further.
Military symbols are safeguarded under both the Defence Act 1903 and the Trade Marks Act 1995.
While the ADF does not comment on specific instances of ADF imagery used in political contexts, it has reiterated its advice against such practices. A Defence spokesperson stated, “We respectfully ask political parties and candidates to avoid using images of current or former ADF members in campaign materials.”
One Nation did not reply to inquiries from the ABC regarding whether Mr. Roberts-Smith, the Department of Defence, or the Australian War Memorial had approved the use of these images.
Richard Hendrie, a veteran and Greens candidate in the Farrer by-election, emphasized the importance of maintaining the neutrality of the Defence Force.
“Their role is to serve the interests of the government’s foreign and domestic policies,” he remarked.
Mr. Hendrie expressed discomfort with the involvement of Mr. Roberts-Smith, or any veterans, in political discussions.
“As a veteran myself, it has caused me considerable distress. The veteran community deserves a voice on this matter, which is essential for a healthy democracy,” he added.
However, he objected to the exploitation of veterans for political gain.
The presence of these signs could influence ongoing legal proceedings due to sub judice contempt laws.
“Ben Roberts-Smith VC MG is entitled to the presumption of innocence,” Mr. Hendrie stated.
“Political parties should separate themselves from these issues and allow the courts to carry out their functions.”
Professor David Rolph from the University of Sydney Law School noted that public expressions of support regarding matters currently in court could affect judicial proceedings based on the principle of sub judice.
“In the past, there have been instances where public figures have made statements that negatively impacted individuals facing sub judice contempt,” he explained.
Professor Rolph highlighted that such laws are designed to protect the presumption of innocence for the accused and ensure a fair trial, rather than catering to the “court of public opinion.”
He added that courts might issue non-publication orders if they believe that public commentary could prejudice the trial, thus limiting what the public is allowed to know about the proceedings.
“Transparency in justice is a fundamental aspect of our legal system, as it has long been established that justice must not only be served but must also be seen to be served,” Professor Rolph asserted.
“This principle restricts public knowledge regarding ongoing legal matters.”
