Abbie Chatfield’s podcast cleared of breaching electoral law

The Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) has completed its review into whether Abbie Chatfield’s podcast breached political content labelling laws.

The investigation comes after two separate appearances by Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and Greens leader Adam Bandt on Chatfield’s podcast earlier this year.

In a statement to TDA this week, the AEC said that “while the podcasts in question could be viewed” as political campaigning material, they did not breach any legal obligations.

Podcast

Chatfield is a media personality and content creator who hosts the podcast ‘It’s a Lot’.

In February, Albanese appeared on this podcast, followed by Bandt in March.

Promotional social media posts were shared across Chatfield’s channels and reposted by both politicians.

Questions raised in the Senate last week by the Coalition led to an AEC probe, which examined whether this content met the legal threshold for authorisation messaging.

You have read 0 articles this year.

Your contribution ensures The Daily Aus can continue doing the work you love.

Contribute

Close X

I want to give $10 monthly to help TDA keep doing the news.

MonthlySingle

$5$10$15$50

Other

Your details:

Contribute $10 Monthly

Authorisation

An authorisation is a disclaimer attached to electoral material, clarifying who created the content and informing voters that it is likely to influence their vote.

These laws apply to anyone publishing political content, not just candidates. Content creators can be held liable if their material is not appropriately authorised.

Generally, electoral material would require authorisation if it is a paid advertisement, created by or on behalf of a political party or distributed in print (e.g. pamphlets, flyers, magnets).

AEC findings

On Thursday, the electoral watchdog said it found Chatfield has not breached authorisation laws.

In a statement to TDA, the AEC said that while the content could be seen as influencing voting decisions, it did not require an authorisation statement.

It said there was “no evidence” that Chatfield was paid for either interview or that either politician had any “creative control” over the questions asked during the interview.