(Cth) Expand the Definition of Electoral Matter to Target Astroturfing

Miya Latham, Georgia Riessen, Nya Sharma, Abby Thompson & Lucy Leutchford
17 hours ago
8 min read

Author: Miya Latham, Georgia Riessen, Nya Sharma, Abby Thompson & Lucy Leutchford | Publish date: 8/9/2026

P: In Australia, electoral law does not always cover astroturfing.
S: The Special Minister of State should amend Section 4AA(1) of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 (Cth) to include ‘implicit’ references in the definition of ‘electoral matter’ to include astroturfing campaigns, in line with the ACT.
E: Curran, Nixon, Reid & Zhang, University of Queensland Pro Bono Centre (2025): ‘The definition of ‘electoral matter’ in ACT regulation should be adopted into the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 (Cth) [to target astroturfing].’

Problem Identification:

Section 4AA(1) of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 (Cth) refers to electoral matters as ‘matter communicated or intended to be communicated for the dominant purpose of influencing how electors vote’. However, Curran, Nixon, Reid and Zhang from University of Queensland Pro Bono Centre’s Law Reform Team found ‘implicit’ references in public material without a directly stated connection to an election or candidate are not included in the definition of ‘electoral matter.’

According to the ARC Centre of Excellence for Automated Decision Making and Society (ADM+S), a national research centre, this means that groups can engage in astroturfing ‘to spread misleading or decontextualised claims in … policy domains … [which] undermines informed public discussion and erodes confidence in democratic institutions’. Curran et al. found that ‘media produced by astroturfing campaigns aims [to] influence voters’ political leaning’ and ‘often escapes regulation.’

Context:

ADM+S defined astroturfing as ‘the practice where industry groups … create ostensibly independent front organisations to influence regulatory reform, styling these as … “grassroots”, “independent” or “community” organisations.’ Curran et al. reported that ‘astroturfing campaigns were prevalent throughout the [2025] election,’ citing Mums for Nuclear’s link to Nuclear for Australia. Further, an ABC investigation identified Australians for Natural Gas as a 'textbook astroturfing’ case; it had ties to a gas company and a major party's pollster despite 'claim[ing] to be a grassroots movement.'

The Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) defined electoral expenditure as ‘expenditure incurred for the dominant purpose of creating or communicating electoral matter.’ This can include advertising and promotional material, social media campaigns and other digital content. The ADM+S stated that these political advertising provisions ‘are narrow … and poorly adapted to the realities of digital campaigning.’ They further stated ‘the result is an ecosystem in which well-financed third-party organisations … mask their true funding sources.’

The Australian Strategic Policy Institute asserted ‘every vote cast on election day is the product of the information ecosystem of the preceding months. Shaping the nature ... of information … [is a] way of influencing voter decision-making’. ABC News described the 2016 federal election as Australia’s ‘Facebook election’. In the 2025 federal election, the ADM+S observed that ‘for every ad from a registered political party, there [was] roughly one ad from a third-party entity.’

Arguments:

The ADM+S stated that ‘astroturfing distorts democratic debate by presenting partisan messaging as community consensus.’ Jovy Chan (2022), a postdoctoral fellow with expertise in ethics and misinformation, explained that astroturfing creates the impression that a ‘message is highly credible, by pretending that it comes from a large number of unconnected independent individuals.’ Professor Matthew Rimmer (2025) argued that astroturfing is used in the ‘framing of policy-relevant matters … to manufacture doubt’. A report from ABC News flagged that ‘astroturfing is a longstanding political technique that is prospering in the social media era … unlike making a television ad, social media is by definition easy to manipulate; it is software anyone can use.’

Curran et al. reported that electoral advertising ‘is defined too narrowly in federal regulation to capture all astroturfing advertisements’, allowing these campaigns to bypass expenditure caps. Renew Economy identified that, during the 2024-25 financial year, ‘Coal Australia contributed $7.12 million to groups with the veneer of being grassroots organisations’. The ADM+S noted that ‘some groups spent well into six-figure sums during the [2025 election] campaign period’. They stated that this created ‘deliberate ambiguity … [to] avoid registration with the [AEC], … despite apparently surpassing the spending thresholds.’

Advice/Solution Identification:

Curran et al. have called to expand the definition of ‘electoral matter’ to include astroturfing campaigns, in line with the ACT. They noted that this could allow ‘“implicit reference” to “electoral matters” [to be] considered’. They further stated that this would ‘highlight the advertisement’s political intentions’ without limiting discourse.

Precedent:

There is domestic precedent for regulating astroturfing campaigns. In the ACT, ‘implicit references’ are included in the definition of electoral matter.

Public Support of the Solution:

(This list reflects publicly stated positions and should not necessarily be taken as endorsement of this specific brief.)

Curran, Nixon, Reid & Zhang, University of Queensland Pro Bono Centre

Broad Support

Select Committee on Information Integrity on Climate Change and Energy (SCIICCE) (2026) - A 2026 Senate Inquiry called for the Australian Government to ‘explore ways to ensure greater transparency of campaign activities.’ However, they have not explicitly called for expanding the definition of ‘electoral matter’ to include astroturfing campaigns.
Climate Council - Their submission to the SCIICCE (2026) called for the reform of ‘political donation and advertising laws.’ However, they have not explicitly called for expanding the definition of ‘electoral matter’ to include astroturfing campaigns.
The ARC Centre of Excellence for Automated Decision-Making and Society (ADM+S) - The ADM+S Submission to the SCIICCE (2026) called for real-time disclosure of third-party funding and donors and closing loopholes that allow concealment. However, they have not explicitly called for expanding the definition of ‘electoral matter’ to include astroturfing campaigns.

News Coverage:

The Guardian - “Independent group Energy for Australians that ran anti-Labor ads received more than $1m from coal lobby”. This article discussed the Energy for Australians group and the funding it received from a coal industry lobby group during the 2025 federal election. By: Graham Readfearn | 19 April 2026 - Read the article here.
Australian Museum - “Light shone on 'deceptive' anti-renewables campaigns”. This article reported on the Senate inquiry's finding that astroturfing was common during the 2025 federal election, and its recommendation to track corporate interests behind third parties. By: Poppy Johnston | 24 March 2026 - Read the article here.
Renew Economy - “Coal’s hidden campaign: The shocking spend on astroturfing in the 2025 Australian election”. This article used Australian Electoral Commission donation disclosures to reveal that Coal Australia contributed $7.12 million to astroturfing groups. By: Michael Mazengarb | 5 February 2026 - Read the article here.
Renew Economy - “Senate launches inquiry into who is funding fake astroturf anti-renewables groups”. This article reported on the establishment of the Senate Select Committee on Information Integrity on Climate Change and Energy, tasked with uncovering which organisations fund astroturfing campaigns against renewable energy. By: Rachel Williamson | 31 July 2025 - Read the article here.
The Conversation - “What political ads are Australians seeing online? Astroturfing, fake grassroots groups, and outright falsehoods”. This article analysed online political advertising, highlighting astroturfing, misleading campaign messaging, and transparency issues during the 2025 Australian federal election. By: Daniel Angus, Christine Parker, Giselle Newton, Kate Clark, and Mark Andrejevic | 28 April 2025 - Read the article here.

Where to go to learn more:

(2025) Submission to the Select Committee on Information Integrity on Climate Change and Energy (SCIICCE) | University of Queensland Pro Bono Centre - Their submission to the SCIICCE with 8 recommendations, including ‘expand[ing] the Commonwealth Electoral Act to target astroturfing’ by adopting the ‘ACT regulation.’ View the submission here.
(2026) The Integrity Gap: Restoring Trust in the Climate and Energy Debate | Select Committee on Information Integrity on Climate Change and Energy - This Senate Inquiry explored the prevalence and impacts of misinformation and disinformation that relate to climate change and energy. Astroturfing was a point of discussion. View the report here.
(2025) Submission to the Select Committee on Information Integrity on Climate Change and Energy | Climate Council - They presented arguments of astroturfing as a defining tactic of misinformation. View the submission here.
(2016) Report on the conduct of the 2016 federal election and matters related thereto | Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters - The Committee conducted a study on democracy and digital technology, with a focus on online misinformation where astroturfing is prevalent. View report here.
The Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 (Cth) - Read the Act here.
Electoral Act 1992 (ACT) - Read the Act here.

Human Perspective:

Stan had recently moved to a town on the mid-NSW coast and was learning about issues that mattered locally. This included a proposal to build a community garden that would provide a space for residents to come together and grow their own produce. He discovered that one local group, Coastal Residents for a Community Garden, strongly supported the project, while another, Shopkeepers For Retail Growth, actively campaigned against it. The latter group wanted the space to be used to expand the shopping park. Stan found it difficult to know which group to trust. Coastal Residents for a Community Garden highlighted the social and health benefits of the garden. Shopkeepers For Retail Growth told a very different story. Scrolling through his social media feeds, Stan kept seeing claims that the garden would damage the local economy by taking up space and deterring people from buying local produce. He noticed how quickly these messages spread through community pages, and how many of his new neighbours had started repeating them as fact. He came across suggestions that external wealthy developers were financially backing the campaign so that they could expand the shopping park, all the while presenting it as a grassroots organisation. Stan began to question whether Shopkeepers For Retail Growth was truly an independent community movement. The widespread online messaging appeared to reinforce existing misconceptions and fears about the project. Despite Coastal Residents for a Community Garden's efforts, the group struggled to compete with the well-funded online campaign. Public support for the community garden proposal steadily declined, and many residents shifted their support to expanding the shopping park.

To protect the anonymity of those involved, this is a fictionalised account drawn from an amalgamation of real-life stories, experiences and testimonials gathered during the research process for this brief. Any resemblance to actual individuals is purely coincidental.

Conflict of interest/acknowledgment statement:

N/A.

Support

If your organisation would like to add your support to this paper or suggest amendments, please email Info@foreaustralia.com.

Disclaimers

Please review all FORE disclaimers here.

Reference list:

Angus, D. et al (2025). ADM+S submission to the Senate Select Committee on Information Integrity on Climate Change and Energy. ARC Centre of Excellence for Automated Decision-Making and Society. https://apo.org.au/node/332111

Australian Electoral Commission. (2026). Electoral Expenditure Caps Guideline for Registered Political Parties and Expenditure Groups. Commonwealth of Australia. https://www.aec.gov.au/FADReform/guidelines/Electoral-Expenditure-Caps-Guideline-for-Registered-Political-Parties-and-Expenditure-Groups-v1.pdf

Bogle, A. (2019, January 20). Instagram spreads political misinformation and Australian elections are vulnerable. ABC News. https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2019-01-20/instagram-australian-federal-election-russian-misinformation/10717034

Chan, J. (2022). Online astroturfing: A problem beyond disinformation. Philosophy & Social Criticism, 50(3), 507-528. https://doi.org/10.1177/01914537221108467

Climate Council. (2025). Submission: Climate mis- and disinformation inquiry. Climate Council. https://www.climatecouncil.org.au/resources/submission-climate-mis-and-disinformation-inquiry/

Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 (Cth). https://www.legislation.gov.au/C1918A00027/latest/text

Curran, F., Nixon, F., Reid, C., & Zhang, Z. (2025). Submission to the Select Committee on Information Integrity on Climate Change and Energy [Submission 63]. University of Queensland Pro Bono Centre. https://share.google/V5dMhHVBGpRzyd7Ns

Electoral Act 1992 (ACT).

https://www.legislation.act.gov.au/a/1992-71

Hawkins, Z. (2017). Securing democracy in the digital age. The Australian Strategic Policy Institute. https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/ad-aspi/2017-08/ASPI%20Securing%20Democracy.pdf

Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters. (2016). 7. Democracy and digital technology. Parliament of Australia. https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Joint/Electoral_Matters/2016Election/2016_election_report/section?id=committees%2Freportjnt%2F024085%2F26618

Mazengarb, M. (2026, February 5). Coal’s hidden campaign: The shocking spend on astroturfing in the 2025 Australian election. Renew Economy. https://reneweconomy.com.au/coals-hidden-campaign-the-shocking-spend-on-astroturfing-in-the-2025-australian-election/

Rimmer, M. (2025). The Regulation of Astroturfing: A Submission to the Senate Select Committee on Information Integrity on Climate Change and Energy. Senate Select Committee on Information Integrity on Climate Change and Energy.

https://eprints.qut.edu.au/260072/

Select Committee on Information Integrity on Climate Change and Energy. (2026). The Integrity Gap: Restoring Trust in the Climate and Energy Debate. Parliament of Australia. https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Information_Integrity_on_Climate_Change_and_Energy/ClimateIntegrity/Report

Twomey, A. (2025). Why Australia’s Campaign Finance Reform is Likely to Face Constitutional Challenge. Verfassungsblog.

https://doi.org/10.59704/8427c96b52d54965