One Nation Reportedly Screens AI Video With Racist Tropes at Victorian Campaign Launch
The clip has triggered a dispute with a Tasmanian cafe, while Australia’s broadcast and election watchdogs have limited powers over this online campaign material.
Loading page…
The clip has triggered a dispute with a Tasmanian cafe, while Australia’s broadcast and election watchdogs have limited powers over this online campaign material.
Listen to this story
The online-only video leaves Australian regulators with little room to intervene: election commissions focus on misinformation about electoral procedures, while the communications authority cannot act on the clip under its current powers. News Corp reported that One Nation was preparing a broadcast version, which could bring the authority’s rules into play without guaranteeing a breach. The dispute also sharpens pressure for election-period restrictions: David Pocock’s petition to ban election deepfakes has 35,000 signatures, but the federal Labor government has not acted.
The video invents One Nation supporters and includes racist stereotypes; the Guardian distinguishes it from footage or a claim that real voters changed sides.
A broadcast version could fall within the Australian Communications and Media Authority’s remit, but that would not automatically establish a rules violation.
Richmond Reading Room in Tasmania said it would donate spending by One Nation members to the Greens; candidate Lee Hanson said the post left her hurt.
One Nation reportedly played an AI-generated video featuring racist tropes at its Victorian campaign launch over the weekend, according to the Guardian. The party also published the clip online, where its fictional scenes of people embracing One Nation have sparked a backlash that Australia’s election and broadcast watchdogs have limited powers to address.
Titled “It’s ok to come out … as a One Nation voter”, the video turns invented characters into advocates for the party. It opens with a family eating “vegan mung beans” as a young man declares himself conservative. The premise carries through scenes of people abandoning their social or political allegiances.
Other scenes depict a man of African appearance wielding a machete and a man of Middle Eastern appearance wearing what looks like an explosives vest. The clip also addresses migration, bail laws, gender identity, power prices and funding for Indigenous Australians framed around “identity”. These are generated campaign scenes, not footage of those events.
The Guardian’s Josh Butler distinguishes the clip from a deception intended to convince voters that a real leftwing family changed sides. But that does not give regulators a clear route to intervene. Electoral commissions can police misinformation about the electoral process, rather than falsehoods or offensive campaign content more generally.
The Australian Communications and Media Authority cannot act against this online-only video under its current powers, the Guardian reports. It also cites News Corp reporting that a One Nation spokesperson said another version was being prepared for broadcast. A broadcast version could fall within the authority’s remit; that would not automatically establish a rules breach.
Calls for election restrictions predate this clip. Senator David Pocock has pushed for action for two years, and his petition seeking a ban on election deepfakes—synthetic media that impersonates people—has attracted 35,000 signatures. The federal Labor government has not acted on calls to ban AI-generated content during election periods.
Any money spent by a member of one nation will be donated directly to Tasmanian Greens.
Richmond Reading Room social-media post, quoted by ABC News
ABC News reported on October 6 that Richmond Reading Room, north-east of Hobart, had expressed disgust at the video on social media. Its post made an unnamed reference to regular customer Lee Hanson, a One Nation candidate and Pauline Hanson’s daughter, alongside the pledge to donate members’ spending to the Greens.
Lee Hanson said the post came as a “complete shock” and left her “genuinely hurt”. She argued that political disagreement should not determine whether a customer is welcome. She said she would keep supporting local Tasmanian businesses, but not those that publicly made people feel unwelcome because of their political views.
Loading discussion...
Join the conversation
Explain where you would draw the line between political expression and harmful campaigning.
Be the first to share a perspective or an experience.
Reader comments
Newest comments first. Replies stay oldest first.