Independent MP Zali Steggall will push again to criminalise lying in political advertising with a new bill she hopes will have an impact before the referendum on an Indigenous Voice to Parliament.
Crikey can reveal that a tweaked version of Steggall’s bill, which she’ll introduce on Monday, will include a defence for people accused of contravening the proposed new rules, as well as specific language to make the rules apply to referendums.
“I don’t want to see the debate distorted with false and misleading claims as to what [the Voice] would do,” Steggall told Crikey.
“At the moment, there’s no price to pay.”
The Warringah MP first introduced her bill last year, but it lapsed when Parliament was dissolved ahead of the May election.
It proposes fines of up to 50 penalty units — which would be $13,750 at next year’s rate — for individuals who publish election material “misleading or deceptive to a material extent” or “likely to mislead”.
Parties could face five times the penalty for individuals at $68,750.
Apart from the new language to capture referendums, the new version of the bill will include paragraphs that state it’s a defence if the defendant “took no part in determining the content of the advertisement” or “could not reasonably be expected to have known that the statement to which the charge relates was inaccurate and misleading”.
Steggall said she was convinced by legal experts to include this.
“I was a little reluctant around the defence, but I was told that for constitutionality, it’s very important to have it there,” she said.
She also said she would have liked stiffer penalties, but that the bill was written so that it would fall in line with similar legislation in the ACT and South Australia.
“I’m trying not to be revolutionary. I’m trying to be sensible,” Steggall said.
“We wanted to throw the book at it, but you’ve also got to make it palatable legislation to get people on board with it.”
Steggall said she was sure there would be a campaign against the proposed Voice, and noted ex-prime minister Tony Abbott, who held her seat before the 2019 election, had already emerged as a critic.
The ABC’s fact-checking team has rated Steggall’s claim that it’s legal to lie in political advertising as “close to the mark”, noting there are “existing laws [that] might apply in narrow circumstances”.
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese committed during his May victory speech to the Uluru Statement from the Heart and has since announced he intends to hold a referendum and ask Australians the question: “Do you support an alteration to the constitution that establishes an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice?”
Asked if Labor will support Steggall’s bill, Special Minister of State Don Farrell said he would await the recommendations from an inquiry into the past election before looking at legislation.
“Its terms of reference include the potential for ‘truth in political advertising’ laws and other matters for reform,” Farrell told Crikey.
“We are really proud of our strong democratic system and are focused on strengthening it, especially at a time when misinformation has grown.
“Labor wants to consider truth in political advertising laws on a federal level. There are examples of this being done well, including in my home state of South Australia.
“I am keenly interested to review the multi-partisan and joint committee’s findings, including any recommendations it makes, about the possible application of such laws in our jurisdiction.”
The inquiry was launched in early August and is expected to take up to a year to conclude.
Perhaps whatever laws arise could be applied to journalists too? Not a pointed remark to Crikey, but would love a response from Crikey on this idea.
I’d rather go in the opposite direction and lock in free speech.
totally
thats a stupid thing to say :))
No, the opposite direction is to lie all the time. What we need is free speech but no lies. There is no virtue or value in telling lies
We do have free speech every day. But politicians are paid to support and represent us, they are not entitled to lie and mislead. Just as you and I can’t in our daily work.
Brett is, of course, correct when he says the opposite is lies all the time.
This phrase “free speech” is an interesting one. It’s rarely spoken by people who use words for kindness or people who speak and write with respect, dignity and civility.
It seems to come from people who offer abuse, vitriol, intimidation and lies through their words. It comes with messages like X who is working to end child sexual abuse is *insert abuse*, women deserve to be raped or set on fire because *insert vitriol*, vile racism, etc. In the US it also seems to come out of the mouths of people holding weapons.
I think that when people say speech should be free, they are saying I want to use speech as part of my armoury to abuse and oppress others and I don’t like other people calling me on it.
totally
Laughable. Of course legal experts reckon this is a good idea – they can see the billable hours racking up from here to the moon. Plenty of lawyers among the good citizens of Mosman and Manly.
Politicians don’t need to be sanctioned for telling lies. Its the banal verbal pollution that flows from their mouths that is the problem, that conceals the truth without ever uttering a ‘lie’. A quick pass over the Member for Warringah’s webpage reveals reams of it. Banalities, motherhood statements, drivel.
Start by calling out some basic truths in clear unadulterated English. Welcome some defamation cases or better yet, use Parliamentary privilege like the Member for Clark does so often for public benefit. That’s what public accountability looks like.
If billable legal hours racking up is the system go for it. For those of us who don’t have parliamentary privilege we have play by the same rules.
Press conferences have become a joke, pork barreling, and stone walling the questions, whether it is from Journalists for from concerned taxpayers, taking the time to write to a local member.
Yes I am totally in favour of this proposal, anything to clean up our political system
Anything that contributes positively to transparency in our political system should be a no brainer, The electorate would be perfectly entitled to draw an inference from any politician voting against such a bill. No ifs buts or ands. Well played Zali Steggall; I hope this not only gets up, but is enforced as enthusiastically as any criminal law on the books.
It is an aberration that lying in politics is not already covered by legal sanctions just like misrepresenting the benefits of a product are. We have an expectation that advertising will be factually honest and politics is no different.
Unfortunately Zali’s bill will most likely not get passed, as the Political Parties are wedded to lying.
Something seems to happen when aspiring Politicians actually become Politicians. It seems like their morals go out the window.
Their morals goout the window when they fall under the control of the Party Whip. Parties are the most egregiously anti-democratic institutions in our system.