Dean Jaensch: How can voters judge truth or falsehood, if they do not have any means to do so?

TRUTH should be axiomatic in democratic elections. Crucial to this process is the quality of the material parties put before the voters in the campaigns, including political advertising, writes Dean Jaensch.

OVER the next 12 months Australia will have a feast of elections.

They start with five by-elections on July 28 and then a full federal election — probably later this year. Next is Victoria in November and New South Wales early next year.

What is common to these is the absence of a crucial factor affecting the quality of the elections: a guarantee that the voters will be told the truth in the campaigns.

Truth should be axiomatic in democratic elections. Voters are involved in making decisions about parties, candidates, policies and promises.

Crucial to this process is the quality of the material parties put before the voters in the campaigns, including political advertising.

When the Australian Electoral Act was revised in 1984, it contained a major democratic guarantee to Australian voters.

It created a serious electoral offence if any person published an electoral advertisement which was untrue, or likely to be misleading or deceptive.

This would have been a guarantee of truth in political advertising.

But the clause failed to pass Parliament when the Labor, Liberal and National parties voted against it and deleted it from the new Act.

The SA Electoral Act, to my knowledge, is the only one in Australia which has a truth in politics clause. It states (Section 113) that it is an offence to publish any statement of fact that is inaccurate and misleading to a material extent.

Only the Australian Democrats supported it. A joint parliamentary committee put its reasons for the decision.

These were so pathetic that they merit reporting in detail: “Political advertising differs from other forms of advertising in that it promotes intangibles ideas, policies and images … and involves vigorous controversies … [hence] even though fair advertising is desirable … it is not possible to control political advertising by legislation … the safest course is to leave the question of whether political advertising is true or false to the electors.”

That is an outrageous cop-out.

For a start, parliaments have had no difficulty in regulating advertising in the commercial and business areas. More important, how can the voters judge truth or falsehood, if they do not have any means to do so?

How can the average voter become a “truth-checker”? The stance of the Commonwealth parliament was a prime case of party self-interest.

Full marks to the legislators in South Australia.

The SA Electoral Act, to my knowledge, is the only one in Australia which has a truth in politics clause. It states (Section 113) that it is an offence to publish any statement of fact that is inaccurate and misleading to a material extent.

Further, it has been used to effect in recent elections.

I can see no reason why the other electoral arenas cannot follow this model.

If they do not, then the voters have every right to distrust every party in the coming election campaigns.