The Liberal National party has cautiously endorsed some kind of truth-in-advertising provision, telling a federal parliamentary committee it should consider creating a mechanism to prevent the distribution of campaign materials that are “patently false”.
The Queensland representative of the Coalition has used a submission to a parliamentary inquiry into the conduct of the last federal election, and the adequacy of Australia’s donations and disclosure regime, to argue in favour of expanding the authorisation requirements during elections to cover robocalls, texts and social media. It has also put a toe in the water about a truth-in-advertising regime.
“In relation to truth in advertising, while the voters should ultimately be the arbiters of truth in an election campaign, the committee should consider whether there should be remedies available to stop and prevent materials that are patently false,” the LNP submission says.
Truth in advertising has been added to the terms of reference for the donations inquiry because that change is being sought by the crossbench kingmaker Nick Xenophon. Xenophon was unhappy with some of the advertising directed at his Nick Xenophon Team party in South Australia during the 2016 federal election.
The federal Coalition has also complained volubly about Labor’s Medicare anti-privatisation campaign during the election campaign – complaints that are revived in the LNP submission.
Criticism is also directed at the campaign activities of progressive activist groups, such as “militant trade unions” and “so-called environmental groups”.
The LNP says Labor’s Medicare text campaign relied on the fact the ALP didn’t have to authorise the content. It says if the content was authorised, then voters would have known it was a “despicable” campaign.
The LNP also argues activist groups should be required “to abide by the same funding, disclosure and authorisation laws as registered political parties” and it has also put a question mark over giving some groups tax-deductibility status.
The party’s submission says activist groups are funding their political activities with member fees and “generous” tax concessions, and this is a “distortion of the intent behind affording these groups with tax-deductible status”.
Federal Labor argues strenuously in its submission against a truth-in-advertising provision, saying it has serious doubts about the constitutional validity of any legal regime and “grave concerns about the potentially chilling effect on democracy”.
The ALP says a lot of statements made during elections are commentary, rather than fact, and a truth provision could become “a lawyers’ picnic”.
“The ALP believes that all Australians should have the same opportunity to participate in political debate, even if some may view their contributions as inarticulate or even irrational,” the party says.
Labor says it will countenance changes to the current procedures for authorising election material if the changes are format-neutral and do not interfere with the purpose of the advertisement, “which is to communicate with electors”.
Consistent with statements in the lead-up to the inquiry – which was triggered in part by controversy about the Labor senator Sam Dastyari accepting a payment from a Chinese businessman – the ALP has flagged support for significant changes to the donations and disclosure regime.
These include reducing the current disclosure threshold from $13, 200 to $1,000, banning donation splitting, banning foreign donations, and banning anonymous donations above $50.
The party also proposes to link public funding “to genuine campaign expenditure to prevent serial candidates making a windfall from standing for elections” and to create new offences and increased penalties for abuses of the public disclosure regime.
Labor says it supports real-time disclosure of donations in principle, and it says consideration should be given to tighter regulation of associated entities such as the Free Enterprise Foundation and the Millennium Forum.
On activist groups, Labor says election campaigns need to be a level playing field where all participants face the same regulation.
It says there should be no distinction between groups such as GetUp!, unions or business associations – and if distinctions are imposed, they would be “anti-democratic and potentially unconstitutional”.
The Australian Conservation Foundation has used its submission to the inquiry to hit back against the Coalition’s criticism of third-party activist campaigns by progressive groups.
The ACF says all its activities during elections comply with the guidelines from the Australian Charities and Not-for-Profits Commission, and the organisation is non-partisan.
