Are Liberal Facebook ads in breach of the Electoral Act?

The Liberal Party has been caught out apparently breaching Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) rules on political advertising.

Facebook – the Web 2.0 social networking phenomenon (see earlier posts) – is the latest battleground for voters’ hearts and minds and it’s also the site of a political advertisement for the Liberal Party which appears to be in breach of the Commonwealth Electoral Act.

According to the AEC, “Section 328 (1) of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 (CEA) requires all electoral advertisements to include the name and address of the person who authorised the advertisement”. But the ad you see below, which appeared when I navigated to the homepage of one of my Facebook friends this evening, provides no such attribution – just the carriage of the word ‘sponsored’. Given its obvious pro-Howard government spin and appreciating the laws of political advertising, this ad piqued my interest. When I clicked on the image I was redirected to the homepage of the Liberal Party of Australia. Mystery solved. This is a Liberal Party advertisement, sans mandatory acknowledgement of authorisation. Twenty minutes later when I randomly visited another FB friend’s page the ad appeared again – it’s presumably on high rotation.

The ‘Seinfeldian’ bent of the ad and its subtlety were no doubt designed to appeal almost subliminally to the youth market – the demographic where the Coalition is fighting its biggest losing battle. But it is clearly still a political advertisement and there is no loophole for social networking sites in the Commonwealth Electoral Act.

Perhaps the Liberal Party will deny they placed the advertisement – maybe some well intentioned Facebook-savvy sponsor linked the ad to the Liberal Party website without informing the boss? I strongly doubt it. Perhaps the Coalition is hoping Facebook users aren’t politically savvy enough to notice such breaches? Big mistake – I have Canberra Press Gallery journalists and a host of other reporters in my FB network…the media cottoned on to the power of social networking sites long before the politicians did. And, it’s a stupid politician who underestimates the intelligence of young voters. Perhaps the Liberal Party will argue that the fact the link, if clicked on (not that there’s any invitation to click on the image), identifies the government’s handiwork. Spurious argument: do TV advertisements rely on viewers investigating the source of advertisements? No. The Act is explicit – it REQUIRES ALL such advertising to carry details of the person/s authorising the plug.

In fact, the Howard Government actually ensured the internet was captured by the Act by legislating in July 2005 for its specific inclusion. At the time, the Special Minister of State, Eric Abetz told the technology news website, Zdnet Australia, “the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) has adopted a policy of recommending to all political parties and the public who contemplate electoral advertising on the Internet that electoral matter conforms with the provisions of the Electoral Act.” Ironically, it was a website exposing Howard government ‘lies’, which failed to acknowledge political affiliations, that was the trigger for the legislative action clarifying the powers of the Act in relation to the Internet. It would appear the boot is now on the other foot.

Complaints about political advertising make up the bulk of matters referred to the AEC during an election campaign and the Liberal Party is probably counting on the fact that a written complaint is required to trigger an investigation. Four days out from an election, perhaps they’re willing to take their chances. But my next move after signing off here will be to write to the AEC. Stay tuned.

UPDATE: The Greens are also running political advertisements without official attribution on Facebook but the ads witnessed tonight are at least clearly identifiable as promotional material for the their party.

Julie Posetti is a journalist and journalism academic, who blogs at J-Scribe. The original post appeared here.


10 Comments

  1. russell bancroft
    Posted Tuesday, 20 November 2007 at 2:24 pm | Permalink

    Breaches of the Electoral Act? So what? What will be done about it? Nothing as usual. Every election we have allegations of breaches and nothing happens so why should it be different this time?

  2. Julie Posetti
    Posted Tuesday, 20 November 2007 at 4:10 pm | Permalink

    As Peter Black points out, commenting on my post (see http://www.freedomtodiffer.com/), Facebook is also potentially in breach of the Act for carrying the advertisement. I’ve written to the AEC - let’s wait and see.

  3. dermot j mcGuire
    Posted Wednesday, 21 November 2007 at 1:56 pm | Permalink

    actually peter there is black letter law on the matter. the statute is black letter law if you mean case law say so. Also one can get a good feel about how a statute will be interpreted from aids such as explanatory memoranda and agency guidelines

  4. Peter
    Posted Wednesday, 21 November 2007 at 12:19 pm | Permalink

    Firstly, Cam, the relevent section is 328A, not 328, so get your fact’s right. Secondly, how can you possibly be so absolute in your view, given that there is not even a single, teensy-weensy bit of ‘black letter’ law about the section 328A of the Act!?!

  5. Peter
    Posted Wednesday, 21 November 2007 at 9:38 am | Permalink

    Howard would have gone 2004 but for Mark” - then explain the final Newspoll of 2004: 52.5% Labor, 48.5% Coalition. Net lesson to be learned is?

  6. julie posetti
    Posted Thursday, 22 November 2007 at 1:28 pm | Permalink

    The Liberals ads on FB have now been pulled. The Greens’ are now carrying proper authorisation and the AEC has confirmed there does appear to have been a breach here. http://www.smh.com.au/news/web/facebook-ads-pulled/2007/11/22/1195321914802.html jp

  7. Malcolm B. Duncan
    Posted Tuesday, 20 November 2007 at 2:20 pm | Permalink

    Accordingly, the relevant tests of a breach of the section is whether the advertisment was paid for or otherwise simply constitutes commentary.
    I tire of jopurnalists and others who cannot understand the law.
    Malcolm B. Duncan
    Barrister
    Sydney

  8. Cameron Jackson
    Posted Wednesday, 21 November 2007 at 2:32 pm | Permalink

    OK, 328A, I did look at it. Looking at the underlying purpose of the section, which is to make political parties seeking to influence political opinion accountable, I can’t see why whether or not the party pays for the plug or not would be determinative.

  9. Cameron Jackson
    Posted Wednesday, 21 November 2007 at 11:43 am | Permalink

    This facebook entry is in breach of section 328 of the Act, paid for or not.

    I tire of barristers who do not understand the law.

  10. brett o'sullivan
    Posted Wednesday, 21 November 2007 at 12:18 am | Permalink

    Only the beginning of a desperate campaign of smear by those moribund intellectual dinosaurs of the Liberal party. As one old sage told me the Libs have only ever had one ideological imperative, staying in power.