Lying in political ads could become a crime
Zali Steggall is an independent MP, which means she is not in a party. She wants truth in political ad laws for federal elections and referendums. A referendum is a national vote to change the Constitution. A new board would judge complaints fast.
Official name: Commonwealth Electoral Amendment (Voter Protections in Political Advertising) Bill 2026
- Political ads with false or misleading claims of fact would be banned at all times, even between elections.
- Fake ads that pretend to come from a candidate, including deepfakes, would be banned.
- Real-looking election content made by AI would need a label saying "AI-generated content".
- A new board would judge complaints within 2 days during elections.
Who it affects
- Voters: They would be protected from ads that state false facts or lie about who made them.
- Parties, candidates and campaign groups: They could be fined for misleading ads or AI content with no label. They could be ordered to fix or pull them.
- Media outlets that run political ads: They would not be to blame if they had no part in the content and could not have known it was false.
- People who use AI tools in campaigns: They would count as the publisher of anything an AI agent they control puts out. An AI agent is a computer program that acts on its own.
- The Australian Electoral Commission: It runs federal elections. It would host and staff the new board.
Political ads can lie legally
No federal law in Australia bans false claims of fact in political ads. The main election law bans material that misleads voters about how to cast a vote. In 1981 the High Court, Australia's top court, said that rule only covers the act of voting itself. It does not cover claims that shape who you vote for.
The bill's notes list Australian campaign claims that people disputed. These include the Labor party's 2016 campaign about Medicare. They include the Liberal and National parties' 2019 'death tax' claim. They also include a 2020 deepfake video of the Queensland Premier, the leader of the state government.
The notes also point to new risks from AI. One example is a fake AI copy of US President Biden's voice in a 2024 phone call to voters. The notes point to a poll by The Australia Institute, a research group. It found 89 per cent of Australians back truth in political ad laws.
South Australia has had a similar law since 1985. The Australian Capital Territory has had one since 2020. This bill is based on them.
Misleading political ads banned
The bill would make it a crime to print, publish or share election or referendum material with a misleading claim of fact. The claim must mislead, or be likely to mislead, in a way that matters.
It would cover facts only, not opinions. Say an ad claims a candidate said something they never said. That could break the law. An ad saying a candidate's policy is bad for families would be an opinion.
It would only apply to material that must carry a line saying who is behind it.
The rule would apply all the time. That means between elections as well as during campaigns.
Fake ads and deepfakes banned
The bill would also ban pretending to be another candidate, party or campaigner. It would ban falsely saying they made something.
The bill gives two examples. One is an ad that claims to come from a candidate's campaign but does not. The other is a phone message with a voice faking a candidate.
Penalties and a defence
Breaking the ban would be a crime. The fine would be up to 50 penalty units for a person. For a company it could be up to 250 penalty units. A penalty unit is a set dollar amount used to work out fines.
Some people would not be to blame. They must have had no part in making the ad, and no fair way of knowing it was false. This is meant to protect, for example, a TV station that honestly runs a party's ad, not knowing it is false.
The person charged would have to prove this. It would not help someone who carelessly shares a false claim they could easily have checked.
Labels for AI content
Some election or referendum material is mostly made by AI and would look real to a fair-minded person. It would need the label "AI-generated content".
Small edits that do not change what the material shows or means would not need a label. The rules would set basic label standards for pictures and sound.
A person might run an AI agent that publishes election material. That person would count as the publisher.
Approving AI content with no label could bring a fine of up to 1,000 penalty units. A court would set this fine. It would not give the person a criminal record.
A code for political ads
The bill would write a code of conduct into law. Political ads would have to be true and correct. They would have to keep opinion clearly apart from fact. Claims of fact would need good proof behind them.
Ads could not use fake backing from people, false information on purpose, or misleading content made or changed by AI.
Approving an ad that breaks the code could also bring a court fine of up to 1,000 penalty units. Ads paid for from an MP's work allowance or by a government department would not be covered.
A new complaints board
The bill would set up a political ad standards board. It would sit inside the Australian Electoral Commission. The board would make its own choices.
Anyone could complain to the board. It could look into complaints and publish its decisions. It could order an ad to be taken back, fixed or removed. It would give at least 24 hours to do this. Ignoring an order could bring a court fine.
During an election, the board would have to decide within 2 days. In the last 2 days before voting day, it would have 24 hours.
Members would be retired federal judges or people with special skills. They would serve for up to 5 years. Judges still working could not be members.
Going to court
The board, or a person who complained, could ask a court to stop an ad or to order a correction.
Courts could throw out cases that are trivial, made to annoy, or have no real chance of winning.
Referendums
Part 2 of the bill would apply the same AI label rules and code to referendum ads. The ban on misleading claims would cover referendum material too.
One example in the bill is an ad that gets the cost of a referendum option wrong.
Waiting in the House
Zali Steggall brought this private bill to the House of Representatives on 22 June 2026. She is an independent MP. A private bill is one not brought by the government.
It is still before the House. To become law, it would need to pass both houses. Then the Governor-General, the King's representative, would need to sign it.
It would only start once Parliament sets aside money for the new board. It would start the day after that money is approved.
Its journey through Parliament
| 22 Jun 2026 | House of Representatives: Introduced and read a first time |
| 22 Jun 2026 | House of Representatives: Second reading moved |