Steggall's ban on lies in election ads lapsed without a vote
Zali Steggall, a Member of Parliament (MP) who is not in a big party, wanted rules to stop lies of fact in election ads. She also wanted labels on ads made with AI, and a panel to rule on complaints within days. Her bill would also have let TV and radio run election ads right up to voting day. It was dropped in March 2026.
Official name: Electoral Legislation Amendment (Electoral Communications) Bill 2025
- Election ads could not make false claims of fact that badly mislead voters.
- Fake pictures or sound of a candidate, such as AI deepfakes, would be banned unless the candidate said yes.
- Ads made or changed mostly with computer tools would need a label saying so.
- A new panel would rule on complaints, most often within two days.
- The bill was dropped from Parliament's to-do list on 3 March 2026 with no vote.
Who it affects
- Voters: Election ads would have to avoid badly false claims of fact, and say when computer tools made them.
- Political parties, candidates and campaign groups: Whoever approves an ad could face a court fine of up to 1,000 penalty units for a badly misleading claim. A penalty unit is a set dollar amount used to work out fines.
- Candidates: They would be protected from real-looking fake videos, photos and copies of their voice in election ads.
- TV and radio stations and SBS: SBS is the public multicultural broadcaster. A referendum is a national vote to change the Constitution, the top law that sets up how Australia is run. These stations could run election and referendum ads in the last three days before voting day.
- News media, comedians, artists and teachers: Opinion, news, jokes, art and teaching were left out of the new rules.
No rule against false ads
Federal election law is mostly the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918. It says who must be named on an election ad. But it does not stop false claims in campaign ads. The only false claims it covers are about how to fill in a ballot paper.
The bill's notes say AI can now easily make fake video and sound. These are called deepfakes. The notes point to a fake phone call in the United States that copied President Joe Biden's voice. They also point to deepfakes of UK leaders before the 2024 British election.
In 2023, a group of MPs and senators who look at election law gave advice. It said the government should think about truth in political ad laws.
South Australia has had such a law for state elections since 1985. The Australian Capital Territory brought one in in 2020. The bill's author says this bill takes the South Australian law and fits it to federal elections. It adds extra protection against fake pictures and sound of candidates.
Who brought the bill
This was a private bill. That means the government did not bring it. Zali Steggall MP brought it to the House of Representatives on 28 July 2025. She holds the Medal of the Order of Australia, an award for service to the community.
Ban on misleading election ads
The bill added three new rules to the main federal election law. Each one covers election material that has been approved and signed off. That means paid ads, leaflets, posters and how-to-vote cards.
The first rule covers a written claim that says it is a fact but is wrong. It must be wrong enough to badly mislead a voter. Some claims cannot be proved, like an opinion or a guess about the future. A fair-minded person would see that, so those would not count.
The second rule covers pictures or video that claim to show a candidate for real but badly mislead. The third covers sound that claims to be a candidate speaking but badly misleads. These cover deepfakes and copied voices. They would not apply if the candidate said yes to the ad.
Say a group runs a social media ad with a real-looking AI video. It shows a candidate saying something they never said. The person who approved that ad could be fined.
Who is responsible and penalties
Only the person who signed off the ad would be in trouble. That is the person or group that approved what the ad says. TV stations, publishers and people who share the ad online would not be.
Someone else might pay to run an ad again without the approver knowing. Then the person who paid would count as the one who signed it off.
Breaking each rule could bring a court fine of up to 1,000 penalty units. This kind of fine does not give you a criminal record. A penalty unit is a set dollar amount used to work out fines.
The rules only applied during an election period. They also covered ads approved earlier for use in that period. A person was not to blame if they had no part in the content and could not have known it was false.
What it would not cover
The new rules left out opinion, jokes, art, teaching and research. They left out news reports and current affairs. They also left out real news content from media that follow a known code of conduct.
They left out private messages, stickers and fridge magnets. They left out anything about state or territory elections. They also left out material paid for from MPs' work allowances, and material from government departments.
The courts say the Constitution protects free speech about politics. The bill said its rules would not apply where they would break that freedom.
A panel for complaints
The bill set up a new panel inside the Australian Electoral Commission. That is the body that runs federal elections. The panel would make its own choices, apart from the head of the electoral commission.
The panel would have a Chair and 3 to 14 other members, all part-time. The Chair must be a retired judge of the Federal Court, a national court that hears many government cases. The judge needs at least three years on that court. MPs and senators who look at election law would have to approve the Chair.
Anyone could report an ad that might break the rules. The Chair would pick at least three members to look at it. They would have to decide within two days. In the last two days before voting day, they would have 24 hours. Then they would publish their decision.
If an ad broke the rules, the panel could ask for a public correction. It could ask for the ad to be fixed or taken down. Only the Federal Court could force this. People could challenge panel decisions in court.
The Chair could also demand information during a check. Ignoring that demand could bring a court fine of up to 200 penalty units.
Labels on AI ads
Election material already has to say who approved it. The bill added a new label. It was for material made or changed mostly or fully with computer tools, including AI.
An ad would carry these words. "The content of this advertisement was substantially or entirely created or modified using digital technology." Leaflets, posters and how-to-vote cards would carry a similar line.
This label rule was separate from the ban. It would apply even to true content. A person who had no say in the content and could not have known would not be caught.
Same rules for referendums
The bill made matching changes to the law for referendums. Referendum ads could not contain badly misleading written claims of fact.
The same panel would handle referendum complaints. The same AI label would apply.
Ending the ad blackout
Right now, TV and radio stations with a licence cannot run election or referendum ads in the last three days before voting day. Neither can SBS, the public multicultural broadcaster. This is called the media blackout.
The bill removed the blackout. Its author says this would treat these stations the same as other media. Social media, for example, has no blackout.
Ignoring AEC notices made illegal
The bill said a fair-minded person's view of an ad's main purpose decides if it counts as election material. It made clear that groups, as well as single people, can sign off election material.
Ignoring a notice from the electoral commission about who signed off an ad would become a crime. The penalty would be up to 200 penalty units. The Minister could also make short-term rules to help the changes start smoothly.
MPs and senators who look at election law would check the new rules. They would do this within 12 months after the first general election held under them.
Planned start
The bill says the changes would start the day after Parliament set aside money for the panel. The new ad rules would apply to elections called after that date.
The bill's notes say the electoral commission cannot guess the cost ahead of time. It would work out the cost with the Department of Finance, which looks after government spending, once the real costs are known.
Dropped after time ran out
Zali Steggall MP brought in the bill on 28 July 2025. The same day she opened the debate on its main idea.
The House never debated or voted on it. On 3 March 2026 it was dropped from Parliament's to-do list. Under the House's rules, private bills not dealt with in time are dropped this way.
The bill will not become law in this form.
Its journey through Parliament
| 28 Jul 2025 | House of Representatives: Introduced and read a first time |
| 28 Jul 2025 | House of Representatives: Second reading moved |
| 03 Mar 2026 | House of Representatives: Removed from the Notice Paper in accordance with (SO 42) |