Campaign myths are a blight on democracy

The comment I’ve heard most during the Queensland election campaign is how little choice voters have. I suspect that ennui is wrapped up in a deepening mistrust Australian voters now have of all governments and politicians, and of democracy in general, writes Paul Williams.

The comment I’ve heard most during the Queensland election campaign is how little choice voters have.

There’s little public love for either major party and, anecdotally, folk are equally unimpressed by Pauline Hanson, Bob Katter and Clive Palmer.

Analysis: Why ALP mud isn’t sticking to Deb Frecklington

Why Baby Boomers could lift Labor’s vote

Health staff told to work harder to fund Labor’s key election promise

CFMEU donate $20,500 to Labor candidate

I suspect that ennui is wrapped up in a deepening mistrust Australian voters now have of all governments and politicians, and of democracy in general. Bizarrely, the 2019 Australian Election Study found just 59 per cent of voters are satisfied with Australian democracy, with 56 per cent believing government is run by “a few big interests”. Frighteningly, just 25 per cent believe governments can be “trusted”.

And given the level of political “spin”, obfuscation and misinformation that pollies have fed us over the years, who can blame us?

Two recent breaches of trust come to mind. The first is Labor’s “Mediscare” campaign that, during the 2016 federal election, had Labor allege a Turnbull government would privatise Medicare. It was a cruel exaggeration of an earlier Coalition policy to privatise the Medicare payments system.

Then, in 2019, the Coalition got square by repackaging Labor’s “dividend imputation” policy (franking credits reforms affecting a small minority of wealthy shareholders too rich to receive a pension) as a “retirement tax” burdening everyone’s sunset years. Then there was that dreadful social media campaign that brazenly lied about a federal Labor plan for a 40 per cent “death tax”.

We’d hoped the bad press those campaigns brought each party would draw a line under such behaviour. But, no. Voters’ sense of decency has again been violated, this time by ads by Palmer’s United Australia Party alleging the Palaszczuk government’s own “death tax” plan. The government has denied the allegation and demanded that the ads be pulled.

But the ads remain, with one small but critical change: Labor “could” introduce a death tax, the UAP now insists. To my mind, that change is a confession the UAP knows the claims are baseless.

After all, anything “could” happen, no matter how improbable.

University of Queensland professor of law Graeme Orr says Palmer’s “death tax” ad is “pretty poisonous” and “about as egregious as it gets”. But he says there’s little anyone can do under a Queensland Electoral Act offering just two protections against dishonesty.

One is that a person must not “mislead an elector in relation to the way of voting at the election”. That means miscreants cannot text voters and falsely claim the election has been postponed.

The other is to prevent the publication of a “false statement of fact regarding the personal character or conduct of the candidate” – in short, a protection against defamation.

Australia did trial truth in political advertising legislation federally in 1983. But it was repealed in 1984 when a parliamentary committee warned it was impossible to police. “Truth” is subjective, members argued.

But two other pieces of legislation, in South Australia and the ACT, do offer protection, and Prof Orr says that, under either jurisdiction, the Palmer ads would “be out”.

In the ACT, for example, individuals can be fined up to $8000 (and corporations up to $40,500) for “false political advertising”.

Prof Orr argues that truth in political advertising laws are the way to go, and he points to how truth in commercial advertising laws since the 1970s have improved business ethics.

We’re also reminded that even the most polemical radio and television commentator is prevented – under Australia’s Broadcasting Services Act – from telling furphies. So why should politicians be given a free pass when it comes to election advertising?

Interestingly, research shows that when one party sledges, voters view all politicians just as grimly. In that sense, the UAP is merely shooting itself in the foot.

So will this be the end of campaign misinformation? No. According to Prof Orr, this is merely part of the “Trump effect” – the manifestation of a postmodern age where facts mean nothing in the battle to win at any cost. In that sense, expect more of the same.

That’s why, whoever wins office on Saturday, the next government must amend the Electoral Act.

The health of our democracy depends on it.