A petition seeks action. It does not create a ban.
The Parliament of Australia describes an e-petition as a request for the House of Representatives or the Federal Government to take action. Certification allows people to sign it. It does not mean Parliament has adopted the request or that the request has become law.
Petition EN10357 is open for signatures through 2 September 2026. It asks Parliament to consider an immediate ban on the sale, importation, and promotion of AI-enabled smart glasses with recording or facial-recognition capability. It also asks for restrictions in public spaces and sensitive settings, along with bystander-facing consent and data-flow rules. Those are the petitioners' requests, not current Australian legislation.
The regulator is looking at the category
The petition names several products, but the policy question reaches beyond one brand. A device can take a photo, record a conversation, stream content, or connect an image to another service. Each capability raises a different question about notice, consent, retention, and accountability.
In August 2026, Australia's Office of the Australian Information Commissioner said it was giving serious consideration to surveillance wearables and monitoring their market presence to decide whether scrutiny or intervention may be warranted. That is a more useful starting point than treating every pair of glasses as identical or waiting until every capability has already become routine.
The line between capture and harm still needs care
A wearable camera can be used responsibly, and a policy should not assume that every image is an abuse of privacy. The legal and practical questions become sharper when material is shared, used to target someone, or linked with other information. Australia's eSafety Commissioner defines image-based abuse around the sharing or threat to share an intimate image or video without consent. That distinction keeps a response focused on actual harm while leaving room for clear expectations about recording in shared spaces.
NearLens's view is that an Australian framework should apply to capabilities rather than brand names. It also needs to account for accessibility and assistive use. People nearby need a plain explanation of what a device can do with their image or voice, and a practical response if a rule is breached. The petition has put those choices in front of Parliament. Parliament has not yet decided the answer.