When it comes to truth in political advertising, NSW can do better than Pontius Pilate

It is perfectly legal to lie in a political ad in New South Wales. It shouldn’t be.

And with Artificial Intelligence “deep fake” technology getting more convincing and easier to produce, political lies are only going to become more common unless something is done to stop them.  

There is a well-established model for greatly restricting political lies: South Australia’s truth in political advertising laws. These laws have worked for 40 years to improve the quality of political debate.  

The laws are easily transplanted. The ACT has already copied the laws for the 2024 territory election. Just one piece of misleading advertising was identified during the entire election campaign – and it was promptly addressed.   

There is no reason why NSW residents should be subject to dirtier, more deceptive election campaigns than South Australians and Canberrans. Their politicians just had the courage to do what successive NSW governments have not.  

The Australia Institute has joined with concerned citizen Michelle Millner to launch a petition urging the NSW Government to pass truth in political advertising laws ahead of the state election in March next year. All residents of NSW are eligible to sign. 

If the petition attracts 20,000 signatures by August, the NSW Parliament will debate truth in political advertising laws.  

Crossbench parliamentarians are already on board. Independent MP Jacqui Scruby sponsored the petition and independents Alex Greenwich, Phil Donato, Dr Joe McGirr and Michael Regan and the Greens’ Kobi Shetty lent their support. The Minns Labor Government would have the numbers to legislate truth in political advertising laws.  

Since the last state election, the NSW Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters has twice turned its mind to the question of truth in political advertising.  

Both times, a Biblical figure was evoked: Pontius Pilate, the Roman governor who sentenced Jesus to death.  

Pilate famously asked, “What is truth?”, but he was not interested in a philosophical discussion. In the words of Francis Bacon, “jesting Pilate … would not stay for an answer.”  

I am not surprised that Pilate came to witnesses’ minds. One of the questions politicians most frequently ask about truth in political advertising laws is how truth can be defined.  

It is not an unreasonable question. If electoral material is restricted, that power should be used very carefully and only on material that is definitely untrue.  

But if NSW’s parliamentarians stay for an answer on truth in political advertising laws, they will hear that South Australia’s laws are carefully designed. They rely on provable claims and exclude opinion and minor errors. The non-partisan Electoral Commission of South Australia is careful to get to the facts of the matter, including talking to both sides, before requesting that material is taken down.   

Philosophical questions about the nature of truth have not stopped parliaments from making laws that correct or punish falsehoods in other areas of life. Politicians demand truth from others.  

Witnesses before the NSW Parliament are required to swear or affirm to tell “the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth”. Only then do politicians question them about whether truth is a meaningful concept. Should the witnesses lie, the Parliament reserves the right to fine or jail them.  

There are laws against lying in court, telling defamatory lies about a person and lying in trade and commerce. The penalties for each can be much greater than South Australia’s correctives for lying politicians.  

Rule of law in Australia could not survive if we gave up on the idea of objective truth. Courts have established standards by which they assess the particular facts in dispute.  

NSW Chief Justice Andrew Bell has said that it is the primary duty of the courts to “ascertain the truth by the best evidence available” (quoting Lord Denning). 

Even within Parliament there are professional consequences for inaccuracies, if it is fellow politicians who are misled. A minister who misleads Parliament risks losing their job, as happened last month in Tasmania.  

South Australia has forty years of experience with truth in political advertising laws. Academic Yee-Fui Ng talked to current and former politicians and confirmed that the state’s laws mean untruths are taken more seriously, and advertising checked more carefully, than in other jurisdictions. The laws are not oppressive, but they are respected.   

If politicians are seriously interested in the limits of certainty, that is a worthy inquiry – but it could be directed first at the truth they demand from others, with far stricter consequences for lying than politicians would face under truth in political advertising laws.  

It is not too much to ask that NSW politicians be held to a standard of truthfulness that the law already demands of the local fish-and-chip shop or used car dealer, and with this new petition that world may finally be within reach.

If you are a NSW resident who supports truth in political advertising laws, please sign the Parliament of NSW petition here. 

Bill Browne is the director of the Democracy & Accountability Program at the Australia Institute