Truth in political advertising legislation modelled on South Australia and the ACT, which banned inaccurate and misleading electoral advertising in 2021.
Transparency & AccountabilityTruth in Political Advertising
Transparency & Accountability · Truth in Political AdvertisingBeing lied to is not acceptable
Australia already prohibits misleading political publication — then hands out a get-out-of-jail card: it is no offence if the person "did not know or could not reasonably be expected to have known" the claim was likely to mislead an elector. South Australia has run working truth in political advertising laws for 40 years, and they survived a constitutional challenge. According to the Australia Institute's exit poll for the referendum, 9 out of 10 voters want truth in political advertising.
9in 10 Voters who want truth in political advertising From the Australia Institute's exit poll for the referendum.
40years South Australia has had these laws Administered by the AEC. They work, and they survived a constitutional challenge.
0 Agencies overseeing the content of political claims The AEC's role in spotting misinformation was limited to the mechanics of the referendum, not the content, and there is no other agency with oversight.
$5,000 Maximum South Australian penalty for a natural person And $25,000 for a corporation — the scale South Australia uses.
Legal or illegal? You be the judge
Four real-world scenarios — guess which ones the law actually stops.
Scenarios reflect Australian Consumer Law and SA’s s113 electoral law.
The case in three beats
- The set-up
The laws are already on the books. They simply do not bite.
Referendum law s.122 and Electoral Act s.329(1) both prohibit misleading or deceptive publication. Then comes the excuse: it is not an offence if the person did not know, or could not reasonably be expected to have known, that the matter was likely to mislead an elector. On the party's reading the conclusion is blunt — the laws are weak.
- What it cost
The referendum showed how cheap a false claim is, and how hard it is to refute.
At the referendum on recognition of First Nations in the Constitution and a Voice to Parliament, the 'No' campaign's central claims were that there was no detail, that it was driven by the Canberra elite, that rights would be taken away, that financial compensation would be demanded and that it would divide the country. None of it true. It was easy to mislead and almost impossible to refute the claims made — and both major parties have indulged in lies before, from Medicare to death taxes, because it clearly works.
- The fix
Nine commitments — and a warning from the last attempt.
The policy makes nine commitments, and they reach past party campaigns to government advertising itself: truth in government advertising laws, and party logos off government announcements. The history is the warning. The Hawke Government introduced the first of these laws, an offence punishable by 6 months imprisonment or a fine, and it was soon repealed — prompting Democrats Senator Michael Macklin to write at the time: "It is surely a small price to pay for a better-informed democracy that politicians are required to tell the truth."
The plan at a glance
False statements of fact — not political opinion — are what the law catches, as under the provisions of section 113 in South Australia. Robust argument stays free.
The law targets the identifiable political actors who authored or authorised the material, so responsibility sits with a person, not a leaflet.
Truth required at all times, not just at elections, with penalties for publishing the material — not merely for refusing to take it down.
Properly resource the AEC to fulfil the role of truth in political advertising watchdog, and require every candidate to sign a declaration that they have read and understood what the legislation requires of them.
Who carries the cost of a lie?
Today it is the voter. Under our plan it is whoever told it.
Today
- Truth is only ever an election-period question
- No agency has oversight of the content of political claims
- Government announcements can carry party logos
- Candidates need never read the rules they campaign under
Our plan
- Truth in political advertising required at all times, not just at elections
- The AEC properly resourced as the truth in political advertising watchdog
- Truth in government advertising laws, and party logos off government announcements
- Every candidate signs a declaration that they have read and understood what the legislation requires of them
Why the law does not bite
No offence if the person "did not know" the claim was likely to mislead, and penalties bite only over material left up
False statements of fact, rather than opinion, subject to the law — and publishing one is penalised, not just refusing to take it down
The prohibition already exists — section 122 of Referendum law and section 329(1) of the Electoral Act — and then excuses anyone who did not know, or could not reasonably be expected to have known, that the claim was likely to mislead an elector. That single sentence is why the laws are weak. South Australia's version is narrower and sturdier: false statements of fact rather than political opinion, with maximum penalties that mean something. Adopting that standard is the change that makes every other commitment enforceable.
The full policy
Word for word — the platform as our members wrote it.
The Issues
We are now in an era of post-truth, an age of disinformation. Political advertising campaigns should be presented in an objective, fair and accessible manner and justified as relevant and effective, rather than promoting party political interests — but they are clearly not.
Our Plan
-
Adopt Truth in Political Advertising legislation similar to that of SA and the ACT.
-
Target identifiable political actors who are authors or authorisers of the material in question.
-
Make false statements of fact (rather than opinion) subject to the law, as per the provisions under section 113 in SA.
-
Require truth in political advertising at all times, not just at elections.
-
Apply penalties for publishing, not just for refusing to take down offending material.
-
Properly resource the AEC to fulfil the role of truth in political advertising watchdog.
-
Require candidates to sign a declaration that they have read and understood what the legislation requires of them.
-
For government advertising: establish truth in government advertising laws.
-
Ensure party logos do not appear on government announcements.
The Evidence
The ‘No’ campaign on the referendum for recognition of First Nations in the Constitution and a Voice to Parliament clearly lied to the people of Australia — e.g. there is no detail, it is driven by the Canberra elite, rights will be taken away, financial compensation will be demanded, it will divide the country. None of it true.
The laws are weak. There is a prohibition on misleading or deceptive publication in Referendum law, s.122, and in the Electoral Act s.329(1), but here’s the get-out-of-jail card: it is not an offence if the person ‘did not know or could not reasonably be expected to have known the matter or thing was likely to mislead an elector ’.
The AEC’s role in spotting misinformation was limited to the mechanics of the Referendum, not the content. There is no other agency with oversight.
It was easy to mislead and deceive and almost impossible to refute the claims made. It polarised and politicised people, delegitimised the electoral system, fed conspiracies and dark prejudices, and it deliberately undermined trust in the government — precisely as intended.
Both major parties have indulged in lies — think Labor’s Medicare and the LNP’s death taxes. World-wide there is a tendency to do more of this, think Donald Trump and ‘fake news’. It clearly works. However, being lied to is not acceptable and, according to the Australia Institute’s exit poll for the Referendum, 9 out of 10 voters want truth in political advertising.
There is a long history of unmet promises and laws on truth in political advertising hastily repealed. The Hawke Government introduced the first of these, making it an offence punishable by 6 months imprisonment or a fine. It was soon repealed, prompting Democrats Senator Michael Macklin to write at the time:
It is surely a small price to pay for a better-informed democracy that politicians are required to tell the truth.
— Senator Michael Macklin
South Australia has had such laws, administered by the AEC, for 40 years. They work and they survived a constitutional challenge. There, the maximum penalty for a natural person is $5,000, and $25,000 for a corporation. The ACT banned inaccurate and misleading electoral advertising in 2021.
References
-
The Australia Institute — Are Truth in Political Advertising Laws Constitutional?
-
Explainer: The rules (or lack thereof) for political advertising.
-
Three reasons why disinformation is so pervasive and what we can do about it.
-
Australians are tired of lies in political advertising. Here’s how it can be fixed.
-
Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters inquiry into the 2022 Federal Election.
Make it happen.
Policies like this only become law when enough people push. Push with us.