‘Scary’: how misinformation and AI hallucinations are infiltrating Australia’s parliament
A Guardian Australia investigation has found that Australia's parliamentary inquiry system is being flooded with AI-generated submissions containing hallucinated content, including invented studies and fabricated research wrongly attributed to real academics. Some committee reports have cited submissions in which most sources appear to be AI "hallucinations" — plausible but false content generated by large language models such as ChatGPT or Claude. Experts warn this risks parliamentarians making policy decisions based on evidence that does not actually exist, undermining the integrity of a process designed to inform lawmaking with genuine expert and public input.
The problem is compounded by AI tools like Google's search summaries, which can generate convincing-sounding descriptions of fake references rather than flagging them as non-existent, creating a feedback loop of misinformation. One submission to an inquiry into family violence and suicide falsely attributed a hallucinated reference and misrepresented findings from University of Queensland researcher Divna Haslam, who described the fabrication as "scary" for how authentic it appeared. The submission's author, Drilldown Reports, said it used AI in its research process, had identified the errors too late to correct them before the deadline, and attributed the mistake to human error in uploading rather than AI itself. The committee chair overseeing the inquiry said all submissions are scrutinised as part of the standard evidence-gathering process.
- AI hallucinations are contaminating Australian parliamentary inquiry submissions
- Fake studies falsely attributed to real academics have gone uncorrected
- Experts fear MPs may base decisions on fabricated evidence
New here? Start with this
Australian parliamentary inquiries gather written evidence on proposed laws and other public issues. Members of parliament use submissions from researchers, organisations and members of the public to understand a topic before making recommendations or shaping policy.
Generative AI tools can produce text that sounds convincing but includes made-up studies, references or claims. Search summaries may repeat or reinforce those errors, making false information harder to spot.
If inquiry evidence is inaccurate, MPs may get a misleading picture of the issue. Checking submissions matters because the inquiry process is intended to help parliament make decisions using reliable information alongside public input.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
AI tools can help people and organisations prepare submissions, find relevant material and take part in parliamentary inquiries, broadening access to a process that can otherwise favour those with time and specialist resources. The errors described are serious, but the submitter says it identified them too late to correct, and committees already scrutinise evidence; improving verification and disclosure may address the risks while preserving the benefits of public participation.
The case against
Inquiry submissions can shape policy only if parliamentarians and the public can trust that cited evidence exists and has been represented accurately. AI-generated fabrications attributed to real researchers, especially when echoed by search summaries, can waste scrutiny time, damage reputations and lend false authority to claims, so advocates of caution may argue for stronger checks and clear accountability before such material informs deliberations.