Australia considers banning smart glasses in government buildings

Australia's federal government is considering a ban on recording-capable smart glasses in Commonwealth workplaces. Public Service Minister Katy Gallagher has asked the Australian Public Service Commission for advice on whether the devices should be prohibited and what exemptions may be required. As of September 17, 2026, however, no ban had taken effect.

That distinction matters. The confirmed development is the review itself; adoption, scope and enforcement remain unsettled. The discussion concerns workplaces run by the Commonwealth, not a nationwide ban on selling, importing or using smart glasses in every public or private setting.

What the government is considering

Gallagher said devices capable of recording and capturing information raise legitimate privacy and security concerns. In practical terms, the public service must decide whether a consistent rule should cover offices, service centres and other federal facilities, and how staff would distinguish camera-equipped models from ordinary frames.

State-run schools and hospitals would not automatically fall under a federal workplace policy. Private employers would also remain responsible for their own rules, although Australia's review could influence workplace policies elsewhere. That potential influence is an editorial inference, not a decision already announced by the government.

The review follows narrower restrictions adopted by local authorities. Australian councils have already limited smart glasses in sensitive places such as swimming pools, gyms, childcare centres and playgrounds. Those measures show that the issue has moved beyond a hypothetical technology debate, but they do not create one uniform rule across the country.

Why glasses change the privacy equation

Phones can also record people without consent, but they usually require someone to raise and point a device. Smart glasses remove much of that visible cue: a wearer can capture what they are looking at. Australia's eSafety Commissioner says recording lights can be small, unfamiliar to bystanders and potentially covered or disabled.

The regulator cited a 2024 study in which 17% of surveyed Australian smart-glasses owners reported prohibited use, including recording people without consent or recording in restricted places. The figure does not suggest every wearer behaves that way, but it documents a risk that policies based solely on responsible use cannot remove.

Inside government buildings, the concern is not limited to images of employees and visitors. A discreet camera may capture screens, documents, conversations and security routines. The Australian proposal therefore combines two separate interests: individual privacy and protection of institutional information.

Accessibility makes a simple rule difficult

The same features that create risks can also expand independence. People who are blind or have low vision can ask a device to describe objects, while deaf users may benefit from real-time speech transcription. The eSafety Commissioner argues that accessibility and privacy protections are not inherently incompatible when safety is built into product design.

That balance makes exemptions central to the review. A blanket ban could exclude people who rely on the technology, while a vague policy would be difficult to enforce. Measures proposed by the regulator include clear recording indicators that cannot be obscured, disabling capture when an indicator is tampered with and automatically blurring faces when informed consent has not been provided.

What remains undecided

The government has not announced a deadline for the advice, a list of affected models or an enforcement process. It has also not said whether a rule would treat video recording, livestreaming, microphones and camera-free functions differently.

For now, the story is less about a completed ban than a change in policy assumptions. Wearable devices that resemble ordinary accessories may require controls different from those designed for phones. The outcome of the review will show whether Australia can turn that concern into a rule that is enforceable, proportionate and compatible with accessibility.