Source: Radio New Zealand
By law South Australian politicians aren’t allowed to lie in their election ads. Here, we have the Advertising Standards Authority and the Media Council, but neither have the force of a criminal penalty behind them. RNZ
Does New Zealand have robust enough checks and balances to stop politicians lying in election ads – or should we be looking to Australia for stronger laws
In South Australia, by law, politicians aren’t allowed to lie in their election ads.
You might think that it would be normal that politicians don’t lie in their election ads, and that this would be an unnecessary rule.
But redundant or not, commentators say the fact that they check themselves before sending out their official messaging has helped turn the heat down during election campaigns.
The law is popular with voters and has been praised internationally as a tool for regulating political speech, but it’s also been criticised as labour-intensive to police, and something that has become weaponised by political parties.
It only governs advertising, not statements, what’s said on the campaign trail or on social media.
In New Zealand our watchdog over political advertising is the same body that governs all advertising – the Advertising Standards Authority. It doesn’t have the force of criminal penalties behind it, but it is a mechanism to have false information removed.
If there is a complaint, that board will often make a decision within 48 – 72 hours, and if it finds the message incorrect, it will be taken down. The ASA is the referee in this area, and all parties so far abide by it.
The subject of electoral law is a specialty topic for political commentator David Farrar. He says there is actually a law in New Zealand governing truth in politics, but it’s much wider – although it only applies for the 48 hours before an election. It’s section 199A of the Electoral Act.
“It actually can apply to anyone in New Zealand who states something false which could influence the election,” he says.
“It basically says it’s a corrupt practice – so that means you can go to jail for what’s a criminal offence – to make a knowingly false statement within 48 hours of an election, designed to influence the election.”
The law’s been in place for several decades and Farrar says it reflects a time before the news cycle was sped up, and before advance voting came in, so it’s pretty out of date.
“It’s from the days if you pop out say, a pamphlet to every household on the Friday before an election and there was something false in there, back in the old days there’d be no way to correct that. It would be too late and then you might have an election outcome that got decided on false information. Now, my view is, that’s not the case today.”
He says these days, it would be questioned on social media within 10 minutes, and reported on by media within an hour.
“It’s still on the books – Parliament hasn’t removed it – I don’t think there’s ever been a prosecution under it, but I do recall Winston [Peters] threatening me with it around 20 years ago for something – which was accurate by the way – that I published on my blog on a Friday before the election.”
Farrar says where it gets interesting though, is the question of what is actually false.
‘Those tricks are as old as the hills’
That’s a point also emphasised by Tim Hurdle, a political consultant and long-time political campaign manager who ran Auckland mayor Wayne Brown’s campaign, and the National Party’s campaign in 2020.
“Even with numbers you get into the old quote, ‘lies, damn lies and statistics’ because people look at base years; they can stretch out over what, quarters or months; or they can decide to use a real or nominal number when it comes to economic numbers … those tricks are as old as the hills. They’re used by every political party.
“I don’t think you can necessarily determine it’s an incorrect method – it’s the choice of the person who’s using them.
“But often if they are used in an almost farcical way then they will get called out, but generally they may be technically true or correct and pass some sort of legal test, but are they actually credible with the public is actually the ultimate political test.”
Mostly though, Hurdle points out that politicians don’t want to be caught out in a lie – because it hands their opposition a weapon with which they can attack.
The editor of The Post, Tracy Watkins, says New Zealand has self-regulation and laws which oversee not just political advertising but the broader advertising environment.
“The basis of those is that something has to be factually correct and truthful,” she says.
“Definitely the South Australian [law] does seem to be a much more robust law in that it’s got very strong powers to enforce, and to fine, and to order take-downs and things; but the Advertising Standards Authority I think operates under a self-regulatory regime, same as the Media Council.
“But there’s quite a lot of power in that, because under that sort of regime the media organisations have to agree that the referee’s word is final, and they have to abide by what the referee has said, and to a certain extent everyone benefits from that, even though sometimes we disagree.”
Watkins says we don’t necessarily need a new law to deal with lying.
“I think we’ve got enough guardrails in place to deal with that.”
Check out how to listen to and follow The Detail here.
You can also stay up-to-date by liking us on Facebook or following us on Twitter.
– Published by EveningReport.nz and AsiaPacificReport.nz, see: MIL OSI in partnership with Radio New Zealand
