Huge political push to ban smart glasses: What Aussies who wear them need to know
Australia's Greens party has launched a campaign for a 12-month import ban on camera-equipped smart glasses, which they have labelled "pervert glasses" over fears they enable covert filming of women and children in public. The push comes as cheaper alternatives to Meta's Ray-Ban smart glasses become widely available through retailers such as Kmart and Temu, prompting concerns that outdated privacy laws are failing to keep pace with the technology.
Greens senator David Shoebridge said the devices let people secretly film others in change rooms, on the street or at children's swimming lessons without consent, citing Monash University research showing many smart-glasses owners admit to filming people without permission. The campaign has proved awkward for the Greens, after Senator Sarah Hanson-Young's husband, lobbyist Ben Oquist, was pictured wearing the glasses, though her office says her support for a ban is unchanged. Other MPs, including Kate Chaney and David Pocock, have echoed calls for a ban, and Attorney-General Michelle Rowland acknowledged the concerns—citing research suggesting 60 per cent of some point-of-view footage constitutes harassment—but stopped short of backing an import ban, saying it was not part of the current privacy law review.
- Greens want Australia to ban camera smart glasses for a year
- Concerns focus on covert filming of women, children in private spaces
- Attorney-General won't rule out a ban but isn't formally reviewing one
New here? Start with this
Australia does not currently have a specific law banning smart glasses with built-in cameras, such as Meta's Ray-Ban range, and cheaper versions have recently become widely available in shops like Kmart and Temu and online through Temu. Privacy campaigners argue that existing laws were written before this technology existed and do not adequately stop people from secretly filming others in places like change rooms, swimming pools or the street.
The push for a ban is being led by the Australian Greens, a minor party known for progressive and environmental policies, with senator David Shoebridge at the forefront. Other politicians from different parties, including independents Kate Chaney and David Pocock, have also voiced support for restrictions, while Attorney-General Michelle Rowland, who oversees the government's ongoing review of privacy law, has acknowledged the concerns without committing to an import ban.
The debate matters because it sits at the intersection of personal privacy and the growing use of wearable technology that can record video without an obvious signal to bystanders. It raises broader questions about how quickly laws should adapt to new consumer gadgets, and about balancing individual freedom to use such devices against the right of others not to be filmed without their knowledge.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Supporters argue that camera-equipped smart glasses represent a genuine and rapidly growing threat to privacy because, unlike a phone held up to record, they allow covert filming that targets cannot detect or challenge, in places such as change rooms, pools and swimming lessons where children are present. They point to research suggesting a significant share of point-of-view footage constitutes harassment, and argue that when a technology is cheap, ubiquitous and specifically enables non-consensual surveillance of women and children, a temporary import pause is a proportionate, precautionary step while privacy law and social norms catch up with the hardware.
The case against
Opponents argue that banning an entire category of consumer technology is a blunt and largely unenforceable response to what is fundamentally a behavioural problem, since covert filming is already achievable with ordinary phones and is already unlawful in most of the circumstances described, meaning the real gap is enforcement rather than the existence of a ban-worthy gadget. They would say smart glasses have legitimate uses for accessibility, navigation, work and everyday photography, that an import ban would penalise the overwhelming majority of law-abiding wearers for the misconduct of a minority, and that policy should focus on updating and enforcing surveillance and harassment laws rather than restricting the sale of devices themselves.