South Australians have truth in political advertising laws. Why doesn’t everyone else?

With South Australia in its final week of campaigning ahead of the state election, you may have noticed while there’s been a few scandals around mistaken identity of hospital patients^[1] and controversial candidates’ opinions^[2], accusations of politicians lying are muted.

That’s partly because SA elections operate under a previously little-known law called truth in political advertising.

As governments across the world despair over misinformation turbocharged by AI and publish guides to spot misinformation^[3], this law has attracted renewed interest 40 years after its adoption.

It sounds simple enough, but what is it? How is it enforced – and more importantly, does it actually stop politicians lying?

What is SA’s truth in political advertising law?

Section 113 of SA’s Electoral Act (1985)^[4] makes it an offence for anyone to publish an electoral advertisement that “contains a statement purporting to be a statement of fact that is inaccurate and misleading to a material extent”.

Importantly, it only captures officially authorised electoral advertisements. That means political speech, commentary or opinion are not captured.

So while it sounds broad, the law applies to a narrow selection of material, and only to facts that are demonstrably misleading.

This is different from other jurisdictions, where the laws only apply to misleading voters about the literal act of voting. Advance’s bold “CCP says Vote Labor” campaign during the 2022 federal election attracted the Australian Electoral Commission’s warning, as the campaign used a tick on the ballot square^[5]. Advance had to change it to a number – not because the ad had outrageous content, but because it implied a tick on a ballot paper was a formal vote.

How does the SA law work?

If an objection is lodged, it falls to the state’s electoral commissioner to judge whether the material is inaccurate or misleading. If the commissioner determines it is, they can order the party to withdraw the advertisement and publish a retraction. The consequences of refusal include fines or even voiding an election’s results.

A simple example can be found from the 2022 state election. The Labor Party published an advertisement that ambulance ramping “is worse than ever”. The Liberal Party launched an objection as this was untrue – ramping rates^[6] in February 2022 (1,522 hours) were 47% lower than in October 2021 (2,868 hours).

So ramping was, in fact, not worse than ever.

Labor was ordered by the commissioner to withdraw the advertisement and publish a retraction.

Does it work?

While it does not prevent all dubious campaigning^[7], research involving former political staffers has noted the tone of SA campaigns^[8] is better than in other jurisdictions. This is because parties must scrutinise every statement and provide evidence that the advertisement is verified before publication.

The electoral commission is trusted to be a fair umpire, but political parties have increasingly weaponised their rulings in their campaigns. In 2010, only 63 objections were lodged, resulting in just two requests for removal. 2022 saw this nearly doubled^[9] to 122 objections, with 12 requests for removal.

There does not appear to have been any reported retraction or even any objection lodged in 2026 (so far).

If it works, why doesn’t everyone do it?

So far, only the Australian Capital Territory has followed SA in adopting truth in political advertising laws. Beyond lack of political consensus, there is reluctance^[10] from electoral commissions to wade into the murky world of political fact checking.

Another concern is constitutional. The implied right to freedom of political communication^[11] uncovered by the High Court is a possible barrier to further implementation.

There’s been considerable jurisprudence of what this “implied right” entails since truth in political advertising was upheld over 30 years ago in the SA Supreme Court. In 2022, for example, academic Kieren Pender wrote^[12] that laws that regulate “the truth” may unnecessarily burden this right.

More practically, the law is difficult to administer and labour intensive. Previous SA electoral commissioners estimated it took almost all their time to evaluate whether there had been a breach. The current commissioner has planned to double the number of staffers^[13] to investigate claims for 2026.

A global leader

Nonetheless, the law is popular. The Australia Institute has found nearly nine in ten voters^[14] across political parties want some kind of law to regulate truth in political advertising.

The law has also been lauded by international scholars as a global leader in regulating political speech^[15].

People clearly want to know more, as the commissioner fields calls from other nations at least once a month about this curious law^[16].

While not a silver bullet, truth in political advertising laws foster a culture where parties must think twice about their messaging. Its overall limited use this election and support among campaigners suggest it does work, to borrow a popular federal phrase, to turn the heat down during election campaigns.

References

1. ^{^} mistaken identity of hospital patients (www.abc.net.au)
2. ^{^} controversial candidates’ opinions (www.theguardian.com)
3. ^{^} publish guides to spot misinformation (www.aec.gov.au)
4. ^{^} Electoral Act (1985) (www.austlii.edu.au)
5. ^{^} used a tick on the ballot square (www.thenewdaily.com.au)
6. ^{^} ramping rates (www.abc.net.au)
7. ^{^} all dubious campaigning (www.theguardian.com)
8. ^{^} the tone of SA campaigns (apo.org.au)
9. ^{^} 2022 saw this nearly doubled (parlinfo.aph.gov.au)
10. ^{^} reluctance (www.canberratimes.com.au)
11. ^{^} The implied right to freedom of political communication (www.austlii.edu.au)
12. ^{^} Kieren Pender wrote (www.auspublaw.org)
13. ^{^} planned to double the number of staffers (parlinfo.aph.gov.au)
14. ^{^} nearly nine in ten voters (australiainstitute.org.au)
15. ^{^} a global leader in regulating political speech (www.ucl.ac.uk)
16. ^{^} at least once a month about this curious law (parlinfo.aph.gov.au)