This bill is currently before Parliament.
Government & democracy
Voters would be protected from political and referendum material containing seriously misleading factual claims.
The evidence pack does not state a government rationale because the bill was introduced by Zali Steggall, an Independent MP. Steggall said political misinformation was growing as AI and social media changed campaigning. The explanatory memorandum said 73 per cent of Australians encountered misleading political advertisements during the 2022 election, while May 2026 polling found 70 per cent supported truth-in-advertising laws and seven per cent opposed them.
Australian electoral law already barred material likely to mislead an elector about the act of casting a vote, but a 1981 High Court interpretation left misleading advertising during preference formation outside that protection. Real-world examples—including an AI-generated Biden robocall in New Hampshire in 2024 and AEC intervention over Australian election material in 2025—added urgency, so Zali Steggall MP introduced this private bill on 22 June 2026 to extend protection, label substantially AI-generated contentMaterial mainly created or meaningfully changed using AI. and create enforceable standards and oversight.
The evidence pack contains no speech opposing or criticising the bill. Zali Steggall (Independent) argued that the rules should stop false factual claims without restricting opinion, satire or criticism.
Zali Steggall MP introduced this bill. Supportive speeches so far have come from some crossbench members.
Did it become law?
Not yet
Final passage
No final vote yet
The bill has not yet completed passage through Parliament.
Days since introduction
46 days
Updated 07 Aug 2026.
Meaning
Voters would be protected from political and referendum material containing seriously misleading factual claims. Opinions would not be covered by this ban.
Candidates and campaigners could not falsely make political material appear to come from another person, party or campaign.
People viewing substantially AI-generated political images would see an “AI-generated content” label covering at least 10 per cent of the image.
People hearing substantially AI-generated political audio would hear the words “AI-generated content”. The same labelling rules would cover referendum material.
Political advertisers would follow a mandatory code requiring accurate claims, clear opinions, reliable evidence and honestly presented comparisons.
Anyone could complain to the Political Advertising Standards BoardThe proposed independent body handling complaints and investigations., an independent decision-making body within the Australian Electoral Commission.
People publishing seriously misleading claims could face 50 penalty units. Unlabelled AI content or breaches of the advertising code could attract 1,000.
(1) A person must not print, publish or distribute, or cause, permit or authorise to be printed, published or distributed, electoral matter or referendum matter if the matter contains a statement in relation to a matter of fact (including an implied statement) that is: (a) misleading or deceptive to a material extent; or (b) likely to mislead or deceive to a material extent. Example 1: Electoral matter that states that a candidate in an election made a statement that the candidate did not make. Example 2: Referendum matter that states that a person or entity associated with any of the refeCommonwealth Electoral Amendment (Voter Protections in Political Advertising) introduced text
Impersonating or passing off (2) Without limiting subsection (1), a person must not engage in conduct if: (a) the conduct is likely to cause another person to believe any of the following in relation to electoral matter or referendum matter that is printed, published or distributed: (i) the electoral matter is printed, published or distributed by a particular election participant; (ii) the referendum matter is printed, published or distributed by a particular person or entity associated with any of the referendum options; (iii) a particular election participant caused, permitted or authorCommonwealth Electoral Amendment (Voter Protections in Political Advertising) introduced text
321L Requirements for electoral matter containing substantially AI-generated content (1) Electoral matter containing substantially AI-generated content must be labelled with the words “AI‑generated content”. (2) If the electoral matter is an image, the words “AI‑generated content” must cover at least 10% of the image. (3) If the electoral matter is audio content, the content must include the spoken words “AI‑generated content”. (4) The regulations may prescribe additional requirements in relation to electoral matter that contains substantially AI‑generated content.Commonwealth Electoral Amendment (Voter Protections in Political Advertising) introduced text
110DA Requirements for referendum matter containing substantially AI-generated content (1) Referendum matter containing substantially AI-generated content must be labelled with the words “AI‑generated content”. (2) If the referendum matter is an image, the words “AI‑generated content” must cover at least 10% of the image. (3) If the referendum matter is audio content, the content must include the spoken words “AI‑generated content”. (4) The regulations may prescribe additional requirements in relation to referendum matter that contains substantially AI‑generated content.Commonwealth Electoral Amendment (Voter Protections in Political Advertising) introduced text
321M Ethical Political Advertising Code (1) The Ethical Political Advertising Code is set out in this section. Accurate, not misleading or deceptive (2) Political advertising must be truthful and factually accurate. (3) Claims must not mislead or deceive the public, whether by omission, ambiguity or exaggeration. (4) If presenting an opinion rather than a fact, it must be clearly identified as an opinion. Precise and substantiated (5) All claims must be supported by valid, reliable and precise evidence. (6) Clear language should be used, with explanations provided for technical terms.Commonwealth Electoral Amendment (Voter Protections in Political Advertising) introduced text
321P Complaints to the Political Advertising Standards Board Any person may make a written complaint to the Political Advertising Standards Board that another person has breached section 321N. 321R Powers of courts (1) On application by: (a) the Political Advertising Standards Board; or (b) a person who has made a complaint under section 321P; a court of competent jurisdiction that is satisfied on reasonable grounds that a person has contravened section 321N may order the person: (c) not to print, publish or distribute the relevant electoral matter or referendum matter, or not to cause,Commonwealth Electoral Amendment (Voter Protections in Political Advertising) introduced text
321S Offence (1) A person commits an offence if: (a) the person is subject to a requirement under section 321N; and (b) the person engages in conduct; and (c) the person’s conduct breaches the requirement. Penalty: 50 penalty units. (2) In a prosecution of a person for an offence against subsection (1), it is a defence if the defendant: (a) took no part in determining the content of the electoral matter or referendum matter to which the offence relates; and (b) could not reasonably be expected to have known that the statement to which the offence relates was misleading or deceptive, orCommonwealth Electoral Amendment (Voter Protections in Political Advertising) introduced text
Context
Australian electoral law already barred material likely to mislead an elector about the act of casting a vote, but a 1981 High Court interpretation left misleading advertising during preference formation outside that protection. Real-world examples—including an AI-generated Biden robocall in New Hampshire in 2024 and AEC intervention over Australian election material in 2025—added urgency, so Zali Steggall MP introduced this private bill on 22 June 2026 to extend protection, label substantially AI-generated contentMaterial mainly created or meaningfully changed using AI. and create enforceable standards and oversight.
High Court limits misleading-vote protection to the act of voting
In Evans v Crichton-Browne, the High Court interpreted section 329(1) as applying only to the mechanical act of casting a vote, leaving preference formation outside its protection.
Commonwealth Electoral Amendment (Voter Protections in Political Advertising) explanatory memorandum ↗A deepfake of Queensland premier reached one million views
Advance Australia posted a deepfake of Queensland Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk during the Queensland election, and it was viewed one million times.
Commonwealth Electoral Amendment (Voter Protections in Political Advertising) explanatory memorandum ↗AI voice impersonating Biden used in New Hampshire robocall
An AI-generated voice mimicking then-President Biden was used to discourage voting, showing how automated synthetic messages could target electors at scale.
Commonwealth Electoral Amendment (Voter Protections in Political Advertising) explanatory memorandum ↗AEC intervention led Australians for Prosperity to delete election posts
The coal-industry-funded group removed two months of social media posts after the AEC approached it over unauthorised electoral material during the 2025 election campaign.
ABC News ↗Zali Steggall MP introduces the bill
Zali Steggall MP formally presented the private bill in the House of Representatives, proposing broader protection while voters form preferences and new controls for AI-generated advertising.
Parliamentary timeline ↗Legislative route
The bill was formally presented to the chamber and read a first time, which starts its parliamentary journey.
Introduced and read a first time
A minister or sponsoring member moved the second reading, opening the main debate on the bill's purpose and principles.
Second reading moved
Key criticism
The evidence pack contains no speech opposing or criticising the bill. Zali Steggall (Independent) argued that the rules should stop false factual claims without restricting opinion, satire or criticism.
The only other speaker recorded, Nicolette Boele (Independent), supported the bill. She said its board, advertising code and AI labels would help protect democratic debate.
Free-speech and legal uncertainty
In earlier debates about regulating political advertising, the ACCC noted constitutional difficulty and cautioned that supervising political arguments may be inappropriate. That history points to a risk that this bill’s truthfulness rules and fact-opinion tests could generate legal challenges or chill legitimate debate.
Further sources
Votes
No recorded votes have been found yet for this bill.
Parliamentary debate
Start here — lead voices
Zali Steggall supports the bill, arguing that political advertising needs truthfulness standards, AI watermarking and penalties to protect voters from misleading claims.
Read in Hansard ↗Nicolette Boele supports the bill, saying it would improve truth and transparency in political advertising and protect democracy from lies and AI-generated misinformation.
Read in Hansard ↗All speeches by bloc
2 speakers · 2 support
“I commend this bill to the House, and I thank the member for Bradfield for her support in this legislation.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“It's shocking that, as a politician, I could run ads tomorrow that have no bearing to the truth and face next to no consequences. It just doesn't make sense. Most Aussies agree. Seventy per cent of voters support laws to require claims in political advertising to be accurate and truthful according to a poll commissioned by the Australian Democracy Network. And why wouldn't they? Who wants to live in a democracy where our elected leaders, or those running against them, are free to lie and deceive. We don't allow it in our supermarkets, in our super funds or in our gas networks. Why do we tolerate it in our elections? Without truth in political advertising, the quality of public discourse is degraded. I recommend this bill to the House and I thank the member for Warringah for her work in this area.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
Record
House · Introduced and read a first time
Introduced
The bill was formally presented to the chamber and read a first time, which starts its parliamentary journey.
House · Second reading moved
Second reading opened
A minister or sponsoring member moved the second reading, opening the main debate on the bill's purpose and principles.
