Towards outlawing lying in politics by Gunduz Kalic

Should we tolerate the telling of deliberate lies by politicians, especially during election campaigns?  In the wake of the recent travel rorts affair, the public has apparently become more cynical about the political process than ever.  Rather than turning off on politics en masse, however, perhaps we Australians ought to insist that our political representatives put in place across the board "truth in politics" legislation with real teeth.

Current happenings in Canada offer hope that substantial, realistic legal standards of political honesty, particularly at election-time, are achievable.  An explosive political trial brewing in the province of British Columbia is attracting worldwide interest: the provincial government (equivalent to an Australian state government) is being sued by one of its own citizens for electoral fraud.

Most election laws in most places including Australia, of course, contain no real or effective provisions against lying.  But British Columbia is different.  In a rash moment some years ago, its government amended the Election Act to outlaw politicians from using "fraudulent means" to win elections - and to allow ordinary voters to trigger this legislation via court action.

Inspired by the Edmund Burke quote that "the only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing", a previously apolitical small town printer named David Stockell is contending that Premier Glen Clark's repeated declarations at election-time that his government's accounts were balanced or in surplus were deliberate "misstatements".  Stockell, who has a strong Aussie collection - he is married to an Australian woman, has in - laws in Brisbane, and visited here earlier this year - has obtained incriminating memos written by finance department mandarins which "clearly show the opposite to be the case" - and, allegedly, that the Premiers office knew it.  Does any of this sound a tad familiar?

Having paid for polling which shows that BC's governing party would not have won re-election had voters known the true financial state of their province, Stockell is seeking, through a class action on behalf of all "tricked" voters to void the election results.  The mind boggles!  Eminent Canadian commentator Peter C Newman has written of the case that "Stockell's lonely stand on behalf of old fashioned morality is the most significant citizen protest in the country right now.  If his case is upheld - and ... his accusations seem solid enough - he will have set a standard that (governments) will have to follow".

The yawning gulf between what politicians of all political persuasions say during election campaigns and what they say and actually do upon gaining or regaining power is, as we all know, as great in Australia as anywhere in the West.  As Prime Minister John Howard himself has said, broken promises - the inevitable "changed circumstances" which political parties "discover" upon entering or returning to government - merely confirm the prevailing cynicism about politicians.  What can do to get out of this rut?  What can we do to narrow the truth gap?

In fact, an excellent start on this project has been made by the Queensland State Parliament Legal, Constitutional, and Administrative Review Committee with its report last year on Truth in Political Advertising.  Judy Gamin and her colleagues decisively repudiate the conventional wisdom on political lying in Australian politics, which is that it should be left to voters to determine if politicians are telling the truth or not.  This report calls for legislative standards for political advertising akin to the Trade Practices Act:    "Parliament sets legislative standards for the commercial community ... How then can we not set similar standards for candidates seeking election to Parliament?  How can the community have faith in their elected representatives if those same representatives fail to at least set the standard that they will not lie or misrepresent facts during an election campaign?" 

We might well ask why such standards should not apply to all political statements - not just political advertising.  At any rate, the committee's good work has been conveniently left in limbo by the Borbidge Government, breaking promises made at the last state election to make state politics more honest!

A Federal Parliamentary Committee has tabled a report which similarly concludes that voters need to be protected from misrepresentation in political advertising because, as with commercial activity, the public is often unable to tell what is or is not true.  This report too seems to have been buried.  Could it be that, deep down, many of our politicians are even more cynical about us than we are about them?  Former ALP powerbroker Graham "I had to lie from time to time" Richardson has recently said that politicians should not be faulted for telling voters "what they want to hear" at election time.  According to Richardson, politicians naturally just want to win - and they should not be blamed for that.

Yet it is upon political promises and statements that we base our vote.  Well performed lies, exaggerations, false promises and meaningless or simplistic bylines effectively cut the public out of "public" discussion.  The influence of the public upon policy direction is blunted, if not neutered.  And the country operates on the "politicians and bureaucrats know best" basis which infuriates almost everyone.

Yet the whole idea of democracy, as writer John Ralston Saul has recently been at pains to remind us, is that broad and authentic public participation tends to lead to wiser government.

Most of us desire that our political representatives communicate with us straightforwardly, that they do not speak to us with a forked tongue.  We wish that our politicians would not play so fast and skillfully with the truth.  Comprehensive and enforceable standards of basic honesty in politics could do much to restore our faith that the words of politicians had concrete meaning, and that, therefore, our tick in the ballot booth was more significant than a mere choice between rival political brands.  As David Stockell puts it, we could "get back democracy".

Politicians are unlikely to take decisive action on this issue without strong pressure from below.  How about it Australia?  One or two million signatures delivered to Parliament House insisting that our state and federal representatives legislate a national Charter of Political Honesty - with bite.

Unpublished 1997.