Wearable Recording Devices (Import Control) Bill 2026

Senator SHOEBRIDGE (New South Wales—Leader of the Australian Greens) (15:47): I move: That this bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to table an explanatory memorandum relating to the bill. Leave granted.

Senator SHOEBRIDGE: I table an explanatory memorandum and seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows — Already we are seeing the impact that covert wearable recording devices are having on our community with women and girls in particular being filmed without their knowledge and consent, and the content shared online for engagement and clicks.

It is a key example of technology outpacing the law. For years we have said that privacy laws have failed to keep pace with the internet and associated technology. Laws written in the era of the postal service weren't fit for purpose for this connected, high-tech era.

This bill is a proportionate and reasonable step in the face of rapid and high impact advances in technology. It seeks to put in place a temporary pause on the importation of these devices to give our privacy laws time to catch up. The Government currently has draft privacy laws out for public consultation, but they are months away from implementation and they are not focused on this emerging privacy threat.

We should hit pause in the meantime on these imports to reduce immediate harm. The Greens recognise that glasses with built in cameras are already on the market. Earbuds with hidden cameras are coming sooner than we expect.

These are products designed, in many cases, to look completely ordinary while doing something that is frankly quite creepy: recording the people around the wearer without their knowledge and without their consent. Many have asked how this technology differs from phones or cameras which can also be used to film others and share the content. The key difference is the covert nature of the filming on these new devices.

While it is possible to secretly film someone on a phone it is a fact that most people in the community can recognise if a phone is pointed towards them and possibly recording, the same cannot be said of most of the so-called smart glasses on the market or the coming earbuds. We know what is happening out there with the take-up of this technology and for once Parliament should act before a wave of harm washes across the country.

We need to act now before the genie is well and truly out of the bottle. A person wearing what looks like an ordinary pair of glasses, or an ordinary set of earbuds, can film everyone they walk past, everyone they sit next to, everyone they speak with, and none of those people will have any way of knowing it is happening. There is no red light, no visible lens, no cue at all.

Or there is a light but its small and can only be seen if the person recording is within a metre of the person being filmed. Our existing privacy protections were built for a world of visible cameras and known recording devices. They were not built for surveillance that hides in plain sight, worn as jewellery or fashion.

The bill works by inserting a new regulation into the Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations 1956. It prohibits the importation of a wearable recording device unless the Minister for Home Affairs, or an authorised officer within the department, grants written permission. The definition of a wearable recording device is deliberately broad, because the harm here comes from concealment, not from any one particular product category.

There is nothing inherently more harmful about glasses than other concealed recording devices, but they are becoming increasingly common with corporations selling them at price points from $20 through to thousands of dollars. It covers devices capable of video recording that are designed to be worn on the body or carried as an accessory, including glasses, earpieces and earbuds, watches, pins and badges, pendants and brooches, and headwear.

The intention is to capture the whole emerging category of covert recording products, not just today's smart glasses, so that the law does not fall a generation of gadgets behind the moment it passes. This definition is not extended to cover existing camera technology such as "Go Pros" that may be worn on your body using a strap or similar as the device is a camera not headwear.

Some of these smart glasses have a light when recording or otherwise operating, many do not. There are no laws that regulate the use of these devices in public places. This is despite the clear community agreement that its inappropriate for these to be used to non-consensually film women and children in public places.

Updating our laws will also serve to protect those using these devices. Currently a person uploading their morning routine or hours with their children to the tech companies linked with these devices have few protections on how this data is used. We have seen the reports of such footage being viewed by workers in Kenya without the knowledge or consent of those who uploaded it.

This is likely the tip of the iceberg. To be clear this import ban as much protects the privacy of potential wearers as it does people being secretly recorded. This bill is deliberately narrow in what it stops.

It only applies to devices that can record video. Audio only devices are not affected. This is about the specific and growing risk of covert visual surveillance carried on the body, not a broader intervention into wearable technology as a whole.

The bill also protects people who genuinely rely on this kind of technology. Some Australians use camera equipped wearables as disability aids, and this bill does not want to get in the way of that. The Minister or an authorised officer must consider whether a device is intended for use as a disability aid when deciding whether to grant a permission, using the existing definition of disability aid found in the Disability Discrimination Act 1992.

That means the door stays open for legitimate assistive technology, even while the door closes on devices designed to spy on the public. Following consultation with the blind community we make it clear the bill is drafted to ensure that the Minister can provide an exemption to permit the importation of smart glasses which will then be available to a person using them as a disability aid.

In the very likely event the Minister determines an exemption is required to meet the needs of disabled people it will not require a specific application to be made by those people. This is intended to ensure the import pause does not unfairly impact blind users, and further does not create additional administrative burdens. This is not a permanent ban.

The prohibition automatically expires 12 months after commencement. It gives the Parliament with the help of experts and civil society, the space to properly examine the privacy implications of this technology and to design a considered, lasting regulatory response, rather than leaving Australians exposed to covert surveillance products on an ongoing basis. Australians have a reasonable expectation that they are not being secretly filmed by the people around them.

That expectation is being tested by a wave of new products entering the market faster than our laws traditionally respond. This bill does not try to solve every question raised by wearable technology. It does one thing, and it does it now: it stops the immediate flow of covert recording devices into the country while the harder work of updating our privacy laws catches up. .

I commend the bill to the Senate. Senator SHOEBRIDGE: I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned.