Alarming AI ads are flooding social media in the lead-up to Victoria’s election. But who is behind them?
Ahead of Victoria's state election, a wave of alarming AI-generated ads depicting crime, health system collapse and government debt is spreading across social media, and Guardian Australia has traced them to two groups whose funding and political links remain largely opaque. One group, Fix Victoria, reportedly spent up to $100,000 publishing ads in August alone, more than most major parties and candidates, while a second group, Better Victoria, is spending heavily to contrast Labor spending priorities with underfunded roads, schools and hospitals. This matters because voters are being targeted with emotionally charged, dramatised imagery echoing opposition talking points, without clarity on who is bankrolling the campaigns or why.
Fix Victoria is staffed by former senior figures from the conservative Institute of Public Affairs thinktank, including registrant Deborah Henderson, communications director Andrew Hudgson and advocacy head Gideon Rozner, who has previously voiced support for the Liberal party's new leader, Jess Wilson. The group says it is "issues-driven, not politics-driven", focused on crime, corruption and debt, including a forecast $199bn state debt figure, but a gap in Victoria's electoral laws means groups need only register as third-party campaigners if they explicitly back or oppose a party or candidate, so funding sources may never be disclosed. The Centre for Public Integrity's Catherine Williams noted the state's disclosure rules are narrower than federal equivalents, where donation transparency rules have previously exposed a major donor behind a third-party campaign.
- AI-generated ads flood Victorian social media before the state election
- Fix Victoria spent up to $100,000 in August, run by ex-IPA staff
- Legal loophole means funders may never be publicly disclosed
New here? Start with this
Fix Victoria and Better Victoria are two campaign groups running large numbers of AI-generated adverts on social media ahead of Victoria's state election. The ads show dramatic, often frightening scenarios involving crime, a struggling health system and rising government debt. Fix Victoria alone reportedly spent up to $100,000 on ads in a single month, more than most political parties or candidates.
Fix Victoria is run by people who previously held senior roles at the Institute of Public Affairs, a conservative thinktank, and its messaging closely echoes lines used by the opposition Liberal party. Better Victoria is a separate group pushing a similar contrast between government spending and underfunded services such as roads, schools and hospitals. Neither group has fully disclosed who funds them.
This matters because Victoria's election laws only require a group to register as a political campaigner, and reveal its backers, if it explicitly supports or opposes a specific party or candidate. Groups that frame themselves as raising "issues" rather than backing a side can avoid this disclosure, meaning voters may see large, emotionally charged ad campaigns without knowing who is paying for them or why.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Advocates for stronger disclosure argue that voters have a fundamental right to know who is funding political messaging, particularly when AI-generated, emotionally charged content is being deployed at a scale rivalling major parties. When groups linked to partisan figures spend heavily to shape perceptions on crime, health and debt while sheltering behind an issues-based label, this can function as a backdoor to influence elections without the accountability that formal parties and candidates accept. Closing the gap in Victoria's disclosure laws, they contend, would simply bring state rules into line with federal standards, protecting the integrity of democratic debate rather than restricting anyone's right to speak.
The case against
Defenders of the current framework argue that citizens and advocacy groups have a longstanding and legitimate right to campaign on issues such as crime, debt and public services without being forced to align formally with a party, and that issue-based advocacy is meaningfully different from partisan campaigning. They would say the law's distinction reflects a deliberate policy choice to protect free political expression and freedom of association, and that using new tools such as AI-generated imagery is simply a modern extension of familiar campaign techniques, not inherently deceptive provided the underlying claims are accurate. Presuming hidden or improper motives simply because funding disclosure is not legally required, on this view, risks unfairly stigmatising groups exercising a right that many ordinary advocacy organisations rely upon.