The bill creates a standalone Electoral Communications Panel inside the Australian Electoral Commission and new civil‑penalty rules that make a person or entity liable when they authorise written, visual or audio electoral or referendum communications that are inaccurate and misleading to a material extent during an election or referendum period. It also imposes fast investigative and decision timelines close to polling, gives the Panel power to request documents and to seek Federal Court injunctions, and requires disclosure when campaign content has been substantially or entirely created or modified using digital technology.
This changes how election misinformation is policed in Australia: enforcement shifts from traditional criminal or ad‑standards channels to a specialist administrative Panel empowered to investigate and publish decisions, demand corrective action and apply for injunctive relief. The measure targets digitally‑manipulated content (including AI deepfakes), tightens obligations for those who approve or pay for campaign material, and introduces practical questions about rapid adjudication, funding and the scope of the implied freedom of political communication.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill creates Division 2 civil‑penalty offences for authorising inaccurate and misleading written, visual or audio electoral or referendum matter during election or referendum periods and establishes an Electoral Communications Panel to investigate and decide reports and to seek remedies, including injunctions. It also mandates on‑material disclosure when content was substantially or entirely created or modified using digital technology.
Who It Affects
Registered political actors, campaign creators, advertisers and entities that approve or pay for electoral content; platforms, broadcasters and carriage service providers that may be subject to Federal Court injunctions; and the Australian Electoral Commission, which will host and resource the Panel.
Why It Matters
The bill creates an administrative enforcement pathway designed for rapid action in the lead up to and during polls, prioritising corrective remedies and injunctions over criminal sanctions and signalling a regulatory focus on deepfakes and digitally‑manipulated campaign material.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill adds a new Part XXB to the Commonwealth Electoral Act and a similar Part IXA to the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act. Those Parts set out civil penalties for a person or entity that authorises electoral or referendum communications containing written statements presented as facts, visual depictions presented as factual images of candidates, or audio presented as a candidate’s factual statements, where the content is inaccurate and misleading to a material extent and the authorisation or communication occurs during the relevant period (or was intended for that period).
Liability attaches to both natural persons and entities; for organisations that are not legal persons the bill treats responsible members, agents or officers as having authorised the communication. The Acts also include a geographical scope that captures conduct wholly or partly in Australia, on Australian aircraft or ships, or conduct outside Australia by Australian citizens, residents or Australian incorporated bodies.
There is an express exception for foreign entities acting wholly abroad in places where an equivalent offence exists.Investigations and decisions are handled by the Electoral Communications Panel. The Panel sits inside the Electoral Commission for finance purposes but operates independently in exercising its functions.
The Chair must be a retired Federal Court judge, and other members must be retired judges or persons with special skills; the Minister compiles a shortlist and the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters reviews the Chair recommendation. If the Chair receives a report during the relevant period, they must (subject to limited safeguards) form a Decision Panel of at least three members, investigate, publish reasons and can request remedial action — retractions, corrections or takedowns — or apply to the Federal Court for injunctions.
The bill sets compressed timeframes for Decision Panels: generally two days for reports made earlier in the election period and 24 hours for reports made in the last two days before polling.For digitally‑created or substantially modified material the bill requires disclosure on advertisements and printed electoral matter: specified wording must appear on ads and leaflets that rely on content substantially or entirely created or modified by digital technology (examples in the bill reference deepfakes and AI). The Panel can require information and documents from people or entities (civil penalty of 200 penalty units for non‑compliance).
The civil penalty for authorising inaccurate/misleading authorisable electoral or referendum matter is 1,000 penalty units; certain communications paid from parliamentary allowances or authorised by Commonwealth Departments are excluded. The Acts also preserve the constitutional implied freedom of political communication as a statutory carve‑out.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill imposes a civil penalty of 1,000 penalty units for authorising written, visual or audio electoral or referendum matter that is inaccurate and misleading to a material extent during the relevant period.
It establishes an Electoral Communications Panel whose Chair must be a retired Federal Court judge and whose Decision Panels must include at least three members and decide most reported matters within 2 days, or within 24 hours in the 48‑hour pre‑poll window.
A 200‑penalty‑unit civil penalty applies to persons or entities who fail to comply with a written notice from the Chair requiring information or documents relevant to an investigation.
Advertisers must include the statements “The content of this advertisement was substantially or entirely created or modified using digital technology.” (and an analogous statement for printed referendum/electoral matter) when the content was substantially or entirely created or modified using digital technology.
Decision Panels can request remedial action (approved retraction, correction or takedown) and may apply to the Federal Court for injunctions that can extend to restraining carriage service providers or broadcasters from supplying services or broadcasting the matter.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Civil‑penalty offences for misleading electoral communications
This division creates three parallel civil‑penalty provisions targeting written statements, visual depictions and audio depictions that purport to be factual and are inaccurate and misleading to a material extent when authorised for use in an election period. Each provision sets the civil penalty at 1,000 penalty units and carries narrowly drafted exceptions: lack of involvement in content determination with no reasonable expectation of knowledge, candidate authorisation (visual/audio), and communications paid from parliamentary allowances or by Commonwealth Departments. The provisions define what counts as authorisable electoral matter by cross‑reference to existing section 321D and exclude ordinary news reporting under a revised news‑media definition.
Electoral Communications Panel — composition, appointments and independence
The bill establishes the Electoral Communications Panel within the Electoral Commission for finance purposes but shields its decision‑making from direction by the Commission. The Chair must be a retired Federal Court judge (appointed from a Ministerial shortlist of three, with the Chief Justice’s views sought) and other members must be retired federal judges or persons with special skills. Members are part‑time, remunerated by the Remuneration Tribunal, and subject to leave, disclosure and termination rules. The Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters has a mandatory review role for appointments and for the new Part one year after first use.
Investigation, information‑gathering and decision‑making with compressed timelines
The Chair receives reports and must constitute a Decision Panel (minimum three members) to investigate reports received during the election period, unless the Chair considers the report outside jurisdiction or frivolous. Decision Panels can require further information from reporters, compel documents from persons or entities (with a civil penalty for non‑compliance), and must decide within two days for most in‑period referrals or within 24 hours for referrals made within 48 hours of polling. Panels must publish decisions and reasons and notify relevant parties, and they may decline to investigate if the matter falls outside authorisable electoral matter or is not made in good faith.
Remedial requests and Federal Court injunctions (including restraints on service providers)
If satisfied of a contravention, a Decision Panel may request remedial action — a Chair‑approved retraction, correction or removal — with a minimum 24‑hour compliance window. The Panel can apply to the Federal Court for restraining or performance injunctions and seek orders against broadcasters or carriage service providers (including restraints on supplying bulk voice/text services). The Federal Court may grant interim injunctions without requiring undertakings as to damages. The Court’s injunction powers explicitly coexist with other powers it already holds.
Mandatory labeling when digital technology substantially or entirely created/modified content
The bill adds two table items to existing disclosure rules: for electoral/referendum advertisements and for printed matter (stickers, leaflets, how‑to‑vote cards) that were substantially or entirely created or modified using digital technology, the communication must notify the public with specified language about the digital origin. The Chair may exempt notifiers who could not reasonably have known they were not involved in content creation. The amendments explicitly reference AI/deepfakes as examples to be captured.
Extended extra‑territorial reach and commencement dependencies
The new civil‑penalty provisions apply to conduct wholly or partly in Australia, on Australian aircraft/ships, or conducted overseas by Australians or Australian companies; they also cover ancillary contraventions. There is an exception for foreign entities acting wholly in foreign countries where a corresponding law exists. Schedules link commencement to an appropriation for the Panel and empower the Minister to make transitional rules (excluding creation of offences or taxes).
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Elections across all five countries.
Explore Elections in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Voters and the public — receive a faster administrative pathway to corrective action for inaccurate electoral and referendum material, including takedowns or Court‑ordered retractions within tight pre‑poll windows.
- Candidates — gain a statutory remedy against deepfakes and fabricated audio/visual depictions presented as factual representations of them, including expedited investigations and potential injunctions.
- Regulatory actors and adjudicators — the Electoral Commission gains a dedicated, expert body (with judicially experienced Chair) to assess and publicise findings about misleading campaign content, centralising enforcement and precedent.
Who Bears the Cost
- Political parties, campaign managers and paid content approvers — face heightened compliance risk, potential large civil penalties (1,000 penalty units) and obligations to label AI‑modified content and to produce documents on demand.
- Digital content creators, platforms and advertisers — exposure to urgent remedial requests and injunctions; platforms and carriage providers may be ordered by courts to cease supplying services or to remove content, creating operational and legal burdens.
- Australian Electoral Commission — must host and resource the Panel (subject to appropriation), absorb administrative responsibilities for rapid investigations and maintain independence safeguards, imposing staffing and budgetary costs.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill tries to stop rapid, digitally‑amplified distortions of electoral discourse by giving an expert administrative Panel fast, court‑backed remedies, but doing so risks curbing robust political communication and producing rushed, high‑stakes decisions where legal standards of materiality and intent are hard to apply; the central dilemma is preventing election‑day deception without creating an administrative gatekeeper that inadvertently suppresses lawful political speech.
The bill answers the need for rapid corrective mechanisms but leaves several operational questions unresolved. First, the core mens rea and materiality standards — what counts as ‘inaccurate and misleading to a material extent’ and when a reasonable observer would regard a depiction as non‑factual — are fact‑sensitive and will generate borderline decisions that the Decision Panel must resolve quickly.
Second, the compressed decision windows (2 days or 24 hours) push adjudication toward snap judgments; the bill provides procedural tools but limited time for complex forensic analysis of deepfakes or cross‑border evidence. Third, the exceptions and evidential burdens (for those who claim they did not help determine content) shift practical proof burdens onto defendants; proving lack of involvement or knowledge in digital supply chains may be difficult for actors with outsourced campaign production.
Implementation also depends on funding: commencement of the schedules links to an appropriation for the Panel, so operational capacity (for forensic experts, staffing and legal counsel) will affect how meaningful the timelines and remedies are in practice. The bill grants broad powers to seek documents and to apply for injunctions against third parties such as broadcasters and carriage providers; those levers are powerful but raise questions about proportionality, forum shopping and the risk of secondary effects on legitimate platform content moderation and commercial relationships.
Finally, while the statute preserves the constitutional implied freedom carve‑out, the panel’s public decisions and remedial demands could chill political speech if applied too expansively, producing legal challenges that will test the statutory framework against constitutional standards.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.