Algorithmic Transparency and Electoral Integrity Act
Submitted to InquiryExecutive Summary
The Regulatory Gap
Digital platforms now play a decisive role in shaping political visibility during Australian elections. Algorithmic systems rank, amplify, suppress, and recommend political content at scale—materially influencing voter awareness and perception.
Current Situation:
- Australian electoral law regulates traditional influence (campaign finance, advertising, broadcast media)
- But does NOT address algorithmic visibility despite comparable impact
- Platforms perform gatekeeping function analogous to broadcasters
- Yet their decision-making processes remain opaque during elections
The Solution
Narrow, proportionate reform: post-election disclosure of algorithmic factors affecting political content visibility, overseen by the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC).
Key Mechanisms:
- Applies only during regulated electoral periods
- Applies only to large platforms with significant Australian user bases
- Post-election transparency reports (not real-time interference)
- No source code disclosure required (protects trade secrets)
- AEC audit powers for verification
What This Does NOT Do
- ❌ Does NOT regulate speech or content
- ❌ Does NOT mandate algorithmic neutrality
- ❌ Does NOT require source code disclosure
- ❌ Does NOT interfere with platform operations during campaigns
- ❌ Does NOT create prior restraint on political communication
This extends existing electoral transparency principles to the digital public square.
Key Provisions
1. Scope of Application
- Applies only during regulated electoral periods
- Applies only to large digital platforms with significant Australian user bases
- Applies only to political content (parties, candidates, incumbents, referenda)
2. Core Obligation: Digital Electoral Transparency Report
Platforms must provide report to AEC and public after each election.
Report Must Include:
- Plain-language descriptions of ranking and recommendation factors
- Disclosure of material algorithmic changes during election period
- Aggregate visibility data by political actor category
- Disclosure of any manual intervention affecting political content
3. AEC Audit and Oversight
- Independent audit powers vested in AEC
- No requirement to disclose proprietary source code
- Findings tabled in Parliament
4. Protection of Trade Secrets
Framework protects proprietary information by focusing on outcomes and criteria rather than source code.
Platforms describe what factors affect ranking without revealing implementation details.
Constitutional and Legal Foundations
Implied Freedom of Political Communication
Transparency obligations enhance this freedom by:
- Enabling voters to assess conditions of political communication
- Preventing undisclosed distortions of political discourse
- Strengthening informed electoral choice
The framework regulates process, not content, and is proportionate to legitimate constitutional purpose.
Parliamentary Power Over Elections
Commonwealth Parliament possesses clear authority to regulate federal elections and electoral processes.
Algorithmic visibility, when materially influencing elections, falls within this remit.
Why This Matters
For Electoral Integrity
Australian democracy has historically adapted electoral laws to new forms of influence. Algorithmic political visibility now represents a decisive electoral factor.
Extending transparency obligations is a logical, proportionate evolution of electoral law.
For Public Confidence
Failure to address this gap risks undermining public confidence in electoral fairness.
Addressing it strengthens democratic legitimacy without restricting political speech.
For Platform Operators
Provides legal clarity on expectations during electoral periods.
Post-election reporting reduces real-time compliance burden.
Trade secrets protected (no source code disclosure).
Join the Discussion
Read Full White Paper
For complete legislative text, constitutional arguments, and international context, see the full Algorithmic Transparency white paper.