Parliamentary Electorates and Elections Amendment (Truth in Advertising) Bill 2007

Debate resumed from 15 May 2008.

Mr DONALD PAGE (Ballina) [5.18 p.m.], in reply: I thank all members who participated in this debate. In all, 24 members participated in the debate and I thank the members for Bega, Manly, Vaucluse, Pittwater, Albury, Davidson, Tweed, Goulburn, Barwon, Orange, Port Stephens, Clarence, Burrinjuck, Baulkham Hills, Murray-Darling, Coffs Harbour, the Leader of The Nationals and member for Oxley, and from the Labor side the members for Drummoyne, Camden and Monaro, and Independent members for Tamworth and Dubbo.

The Coalition members have made particularly cogent contributions in support of this much needed truth in political advertising legislation. However, the few Labor members who have spoken have given nothing but lame excuses in defending the status quo, which the Daily Telegraph so aptly stated on 31 March 2008 in its headline, "Labor defends right to lie".

I will deal in a moment with the arguments put forward by the Labor Government in support of its position that it should be allowed to continue to lie in political advertising and get away with it. There is no question about public opinion on this issue. Overwhelmingly, members of the public want truth in advertising, and they want that across the board in relation to all political parties and individuals. On 31 March 2008 the Daily Telegraph ran a poll. Voters were asked, "Should misleading political advertising be banned?" Voters had two options: yes, truth is vital, and no, it is impractical. Of the 574 people who voted, 562, or 98 per cent of voters voted yes, truth is vital, and only 12, or 2 per cent of voters voted no. In effect, 98 per cent of the public supported this legislation. It is little wonder that many people in this State are saying that this Government is out of touch or on another planet.

Despite overwhelming support for this legislation in the community and despite the fact that identical legislation has been operating successfully in South Australia since 1985, the New South Wales Labor Government will use its numbers to vote down this good legislation, which is vital to protect the integrity of our electoral system. I remind members that this bill will make it an offence for a person to authorise, cause or permit the publication of an electoral advertisement containing a statement of fact that is inaccurate or misleading, to a material extent. It subjects political advertising to the same standard of probity and honesty as commercial advertising under State and Commonwealth law.

This legislation will eliminate the double standard that applies to the business community on the one hand and to politicians on the other—a double standard that should not exist. It is imperative that we restore the public's faith in the accuracy of political advertising because people in a democracy are entitled to expect honesty and accuracy in political advertising as a basis for making decisions about how they vote. In my agreement-in-principle speech I outlined strong arguments in support of the legislation, so I will not canvas that material again, except insofar as it relates to answering the arguments advanced by the Government in opposing this bill.

The New South Wales Labor Government's first reason for opposing the legislation is that it said it was unworkable. Clearly, that is rubbish because the legislation has been working successfully in South Australia since 1985, so it has been in operation for 23 years. The second argument advanced by the Government is that it will restrict political communication. This legislation restricts the lies that political parties can put in their communications, which is a good thing. So long as political communication is truthful and not inaccurate or misleading to a material extent, there is no restriction on political communication. Surely the electorate has a right to honest messages, not lies and deceit?

The third argument advanced by the Labor Government in opposition to this legislation is that it could lead to vexatious or frivolous complaints. However, the legislation is quite specific, in that it only applies to misleading and inaccurate advertising that is material. In other words, frivolous and vexatious complaints, by definition, are not material and, therefore, will not be an issue or a problem under this legislation. I repeat: this legislation applies to advertising that is inaccurate and misleading to a material extent, and does not allow frivolous or vexatious complaints to be considered. There was also a suggestion that this legislation might be used unreasonably to disrupt an opponent's advertising campaign. However, in South Australia, where this legislation has been operating for 23 years, there is no evidence that this legislation has been used for those purposes.

The other argument advanced by the Government is that requiring truth in political advertising would offend the implied right of freedom of expression in the Commonwealth Constitution. However, that argument has no validity because this issue was settled in 1995 in the case of Cameron v Becker, which involved an appeal to the Full Court of the Supreme Court of South Australia. Specifically the court held:

The constitutional free speech defence failed because the limitation imposed by S113 is manifestly proportionate to the legitimate object of ensuring that what is represented is factual material published in political advertising in political advertisements is accurate and not misleading.

The South Australian law, on which this legislation is based, was found to be constitutionally valid by the South Australian Supreme Court. It has not been challenged in the High Court. The fact is that the legitimacy and constitutionality of the bill have been subject to legal and parliamentary scrutiny across a range of jurisdictions and have been found to be workable. If we as politicians continue to argue for a lower standard of honesty than we impose on others, we are not only hypocrites; we also bring our profession into further disrepute. In conclusion, the Labor Government has no valid basis for opposing this legislation.

In his contribution to debate on this bill the member for Monaro complained about inaccurate or misleading advertising by The Nationals at the last election—a claim repeated by the member for Tamworth. However, those arguments support the introduction of this legislation. This legislation will apply to all political parties and to individual members. Complaints about inaccurate and misleading advertising by Government members serve to highlight the importance of passing this legislation, not rejecting it. I have demonstrated that there is no valid reason to oppose this legislation.

The Labor Government is opposing this legislation because it wants to continue to have the right to lie during election campaigns, as it did so blatantly at the last election. However, the people deserve better: they deserve to have this good legislation passed. Similar legislation has been working successfully in South Australia since 1985. The people of this State deserve to receive political advertising that is honest and not misleading to a material extent. I urge all members to support this legislation.

Question—That this bill be now agreed to in principle—put.

The House divided.

Mr Amery Ms Andrews Mr Aquilina Ms Beamer Mr Borger Mr Brown Ms Burney Mr Campbell Mr Collier Mr Coombs Mr Corrigan Mr Costa Mr Daley Ms D'Amore Ms Firth Ms Gadiel

Mr Gibson Mr Greene Mr Harris Mr Hickey Ms Judge Ms Keneally Mr Khoshaba Mr Koperberg Mr Lynch Dr McDonald Ms McKay Mr McLeay Ms McMahon Ms Meagher Ms Megarrity Mr Morris

Mrs Paluzzano Mr Pearce Mrs Perry Mr Rees Mr Sartor Mr Shearan Mr Stewart Ms Tebbutt Mr Terenzini Mr Tripodi Mr West Mr Whan Tellers, Mr Ashton Mr Martin

Question resolved in the negative.

Motion negatived.