Candidates grilled over 'illegal' election signage at forum

A DEBATE of election signage flared up at the QT's election forum last night after an audience member asked Paul Tully who paid for his billboards.

The questioner claimed that the billboards cost $70,000.

Tully denied the billboards cost this much. He refused to elaborate on who paid for them.

Gary Duffy then accused both Cr Tully and Cr Antoniolli of placing signs illegally.

He said it was an unfair playing field for other candidates, who had to pay $600 and nominate each address their signs were placed on, with a $380 fine for any discrepancies.

"These guys (Tully and Antoniolli) have signs on every fence or mound of dirt possible", Duffy said.

>>Have you seen any signs placed illegally or in a way that raises safety concerns? Do you have a photo?

Let us know, email

According to an Ipswich City Council fact sheet on election signage, signs are not allowed on council controlled land, unless placed on an approved advertising device.

"Election signs are most commonly displayed on the private property of supporters and volunteers (with their consent). This also requires a permit from Council," the sheet reads.

The requirements include that the election signage does not obstruct or distract traffic, does not unreasonably obstruct views, is constructed out of quality materials and does not flash or revolve.

Read the full fact sheet here

Topics:  ipswich election 2017

Labor to introduce four new taxes if elected

Treasurer Curtis Pitt

Treasurer says only 1 per cent of voters will be affected

Where's Labor? Mayor calls for funding commitment match

Aerial view of Springfield Central shot in June, 2015. Photo: Contributed

$15 million pledge for Springfield stadium

Robber threatens servo worker with gun, demands cash

The man entered the petrol station just after 7.30am this morning

Local Partners