New Zealand’s next general election is shaping up to be unlike any that has come before. While political parties continue to focus on policy announcements and campaign strategy, a quieter but potentially far more disruptive force is emerging in the background: highly realistic AI-generated video.
Advances in artificial intelligence over the past year have produced video models capable of generating footage that, to many viewers, is almost indistinguishable from real life. What was once the domain of obvious deepfakes and clumsy animations has rapidly evolved into something far more convincing. The implications for political discourse, satire, and public trust are significant.
The issue intersects directly with a debate already underway in Parliament.
In 2024, Green Party MP Kahurangi Carter had her Copyright (Parody and Satire) Amendment Bill pulled from the ballot. At the time, she argued that “Satire is more than a joke - it’s also a way of making sense of a world that can sometimes feel dark and heavy.” She also said, “This Bill is designed to provide space for creators, artists, commentators, and everyday Kiwis to poke a little fun without breaking the law – or the bank.”
While the bill did not proceed, the ideas behind it remain relevant, particularly as technology races ahead of the legal frameworks designed to regulate speech and media.
Testing the boundaries
Over recent weeks, I have been researching and testing a range of AI video models. These tools are not cheap. Accessing high-end models requires paid subscriptions, usage credits, and ongoing experimentation. This work has largely been undertaken during annual leave, and it has been made possible in part by support from my paying subscribers on here - so thank you.
The results have been striking.
The realism of some AI-generated footage is such that even attentive viewers can struggle to determine whether a video depicts a real event or a synthetic one. Facial expressions, lighting, movement, and audio cues are increasingly natural. In a fast-moving social media environment, context is easily lost, and viewers are often left to make snap judgments based on what appears on their screen.
This raises an obvious question. If satire is legally protected as commentary and critique, what happens when satirical content looks real enough to be taken at face value?
Under existing interpretations, a piece of AI-generated political satire may not make explicit claims or accusations. It may simply present a scenario, a moment, or a point of view. Yet once that content is shared beyond its original audience, it can take on a life of its own. Viewers may not know it is satire. Others may not care.
Technology of this kind is politically neutral. It can be used to criticise the government, the opposition, or anyone in public life. Once these tools are widely accessible, control over their use becomes diffuse and unpredictable.
A new media environment
The broader consequence is a shift in how political information is consumed and trusted. For decades, video has carried a sense of authority. Seeing something happen has often been treated as proof that it did. That assumption is now under pressure…
Listen to this episode with a 7-day free trial
Subscribe to Matua Kahurangi to listen to this post and get 7 days of free access to the full post archives.
