Overlapping regulation
The bill could duplicate existing powers and split responsibility across regulators and enforcement bodies, making the system more complex instead of delivering a coordinated digital-safety framework.
Online Safety and Other Legislation Amendment (My Face, My Rights)
Current status
This bill is currently before Parliament.
Policy area
Transport & communications
What does this bill do?
Australians shown in realistic fake images, video or audio could complain when their face or voice was used without consentA clear, voluntary and informed agreement..
Why was it introduced?
Senator David Pocock (Independent), who introduced the bill, said artificial intelligence can now create convincing fake faces and voices that deceive, humiliate and exploit people. He argued that existing laws did not adequately cover deepfakes beyond sexually explicit material, leaving gaps around scams, false political footage and other misuse. The explanatory memorandum said implementation was expected to have no significant cost to the Commonwealth and would use existing regulator resources.
Broader context
Australia already had online-safety rules, including an image-based abuse scheme, but rapid advances in artificial intelligence made realistic fabricated faces and voices easier to create and exposed gaps in laws covering deepfakeA realistic but false digital image, video or recording of a person. impersonation, scams and misinformation. Senator David Pocock introduced this private senator’s bill to give people stronger removal and civil-redress options, and the Senate debated concerns about deepfakeA realistic but false digital image, video or recording of a person. harms, particularly sexualised abuse affecting women, in June 2026.
Key criticism
Murray Watt (Labor) argued that existing online-safety and privacy laws already covered some AI-made abuse. He said the bill could duplicate the work of the eSafety CommissionerAustralia’s regulator for online safety., the privacy regulator and police. Corinne Mulholland (Labor) similarly argued for broader laws focused on preventing harm, rather than another response after content had spread. Pauline Hanson (One Nation) said the definition was too broad and could restrict legitimate political satire because satire had no clear exemption. David Shoebridge (Greens) supported the bill but warned that suing could require money and lawyers. He also said the removal system might miss encrypted messages, private transfers, closed forums and offshore websites.
Who supported it?
Senator David Pocock introduced this bill. Supportive speeches so far have come from Greens, some crossbench members.
Introduced in Senate 24 Nov 2025
Debate underway in Senate 25 June 2026
Not yet reached House —
Not yet law —
Did it become law?
Not yet
Final passage
No final vote yet
The bill has not yet completed passage through Parliament.
Days since introduction
256 days
Updated 07 Aug 2026.
Meaning
What does this bill do?
-
Australians shown in realistic fake images, video or audio could complain when their face or voice was used without consentA clear, voluntary and informed agreement..
-
Australian users who knowingly posted these deepfakes without consentA clear, voluntary and informed agreement. could face a civil penaltyA financial penalty imposed under civil law. of 500 penalty units.
-
People seeking removal would generally complain to the online service first. If it remained after 48 hours, the eSafety CommissionerAustralia’s regulator for online safety. could intervene.
-
Online services, users and hosting companies could be ordered to remove the material within 24 hours. Ignoring an order could cost 500 penalty units.
-
Australians harmed by a deepfakeA realistic but false digital image, video or recording of a person. could sue someone who knowingly or recklessly used it without consentA clear, voluntary and informed agreement.. They would not need to prove financial loss.
-
People who sued could seek compensation, an apology, a correction or destruction of the material. A court could also stop further use.
-
Professional journalism, government work done honestly, policing and intelligence work would receive exemptions. People under 18 who used the material would also be exempt.
Show source excerpts
-
21A Core concepts regarding deepfake material What is deepfake material? (1) Material is deepfake material if: (a) the material is in any of the following forms: (i) a still visual image or a moving visual image; (ii) speech, music or other sound or audio; (iii) any combination of any of the above; and (b) the material depicts, in a realistic way, an individual’s face or voice or an attribute or aspect of an individual’s face or voice; and (c) the depiction is false on account of the material being created or altered entirely, substantially or in a significant respect using technology;
Online Safety and Other Legislation Amendment (My Face, My Rights) introduced text -
93B Posting deepfake material A person contravenes this subsection if: (a) the person posts deepfake material on a social media service, a relevant electronic service or a designated internet service; and (b) the person is an end‑user of the service; and (c) the person is ordinarily resident in Australia; and (d) the resulting provision of the material on the service is non‑consensual for a subject of the material and the person posts the material aware of that fact; and (e) the resulting provision of the material on the service is not an exempt provision of the material. Civil penalty:
Online Safety and Other Legislation Amendment (My Face, My Rights) introduced text -
93D Removal notice given to the provider of a social media service, relevant electronic service or designated internet service (a) deepfake material is provided on: (i) a social media service; or (ii) a relevant electronic service; or (iii) a designated internet service; and (b) the Commissioner is satisfied that the provision of the material is non‑consensual for a subject of the material; and (c) the provision of the material on the service is not an exempt provision of the material; and (d) a complaint about the provision of the material has been made to the provider of the service;
Online Safety and Other Legislation Amendment (My Face, My Rights) introduced text -
93E Removal notice given to an end‑user (a) deepfake material is provided on: (i) a social media service; or (ii) a relevant electronic service; or (iii) a designated internet service; and (b) the material was posted on the service by a particular end‑user of the service; and (c) the Commissioner is satisfied that the provision of the material is non‑consensual for a subject of the material; and (d) the provision of the material on the service is not an exempt provision of the material; and (e) a complaint about the provision of the material has been made to the Commissioner under sect
Online Safety and Other Legislation Amendment (My Face, My Rights) introduced text -
7 Cause of action and related concepts (1) An individual (the plaintiff) has a cause of action in tort (to be known as wrongful use or disclosure of deepfake material) against another person (the defendant) if: (a) the plaintiff is a subject of deepfake material; and (b) the defendant uses or discloses the material; and (c) the defendant does so knowing the material was created or altered using technology or is reckless as to that fact; and (d) neither the plaintiff, nor a person having lawful authority to do so for the plaintiff, expressly or impliedly consented to the use or disclosure;
Online Safety and Other Legislation Amendment (My Face, My Rights) introduced text -
13 Other remedies (1) The court may grant such remedies, in addition to or instead of damages awarded in accordance with clause 12, as the court thinks most appropriate in the circumstances. (2) Without limiting subclause (1), those remedies may include one or more of the following: (a) an account of profits; (b) an injunction; (c) an order requiring the defendant to apologise to the plaintiff; (d) a correction order; (e) an order that any material (including copies): (i) that is in the defendant’s possession, or that the defendant is able to retrieve; and (ii) the use or disclosure o
Online Safety and Other Legislation Amendment (My Face, My Rights) introduced text -
16 Journalists etc. (1) This Schedule does not apply to the use or disclosure of deepfake material by any of the following to the extent that the use or disclosure involves the collection, preparation for publication or publication of journalistic material: (a) a journalist; (b) an employer of, or a person engaging, a journalist; (c) a person assisting a journalist who is employed or engaged by: (i) the journalist’s employer; or (ii) a person engaging the journalist; (d) a person assisting a journalist in the person’s professional capacity. (2) This Schedule does not apply to the use o
Online Safety and Other Legislation Amendment (My Face, My Rights) introduced text
Context
Broader context for this bill
Australia already had online-safety rules, including an image-based abuse scheme, but rapid advances in artificial intelligence made realistic fabricated faces and voices easier to create and exposed gaps in laws covering deepfakeA realistic but false digital image, video or recording of a person. impersonation, scams and misinformation. Senator David Pocock introduced this private senator’s bill to give people stronger removal and civil-redress options, and the Senate debated concerns about deepfakeA realistic but false digital image, video or recording of a person. harms, particularly sexualised abuse affecting women, in June 2026.
- 24 Nov 2025
Senator David Pocock introduces the bill
Senator David Pocock introduced the private senator’s bill in the Senate, arguing that existing image-abuse, defamation and privacy laws did not adequately address deepfakeA realistic but false digital image, video or recording of a person. harms.
Parliamentary timeline ↗ - 25 June 2026
DeepfakeA realistic but false digital image, video or recording of a person. harms become a focus of Senate debate
Senators discussed the growing use of AI-generated deepfakes, including sexualised material that speakers said was disproportionately harming women.
Hansard ↗ - 25 June 2026
Senate debates stronger deepfakeA realistic but false digital image, video or recording of a person. protections
The bill’s proposed response was debated: complaints to the eSafety CommissionerAustralia’s regulator for online safety. could lead to removal notices and civil penalties, while courts could award damagesMoney a court awards for harm suffered. or injunctions for wrongful use of deepfakeA realistic but false digital image, video or recording of a person. material.
Australian Parliament House ↗
Legislative route
How did it move through Parliament?
House Senate
Introduced 24 Nov 2025
The bill was formally presented to the chamber and read a first time, which starts its parliamentary journey.
Introduced and read a first time
Second reading opened 24 Nov 2025
A minister or sponsoring member moved the second reading, opening the main debate on the bill's purpose and principles.
Second reading moved
Second reading debate 25 June 2026
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
Key criticism
The main case against this bill
Murray Watt (Labor) argued that existing online-safety and privacy laws already covered some AI-made abuse. He said the bill could duplicate the work of the eSafety CommissionerAustralia’s regulator for online safety., the privacy regulator and police. Corinne Mulholland (Labor) similarly argued for broader laws focused on preventing harm, rather than another response after content had spread. Pauline Hanson (One Nation) said the definition was too broad and could restrict legitimate political satire because satire had no clear exemption. David Shoebridge (Greens) supported the bill but warned that suing could require money and lawyers. He also said the removal system might miss encrypted messages, private transfers, closed forums and offshore websites.
Pocock said the bill targeted realistic fabricated material, not satire, art or political commentary. It also included exemptions for professional journalism, genuine medical or scientific work, law enforcement and intelligence work. Shoebridge argued that ordinary political cartoons were outside the definition, while suggesting an explicit satire exemption could remove doubt.
Satire and political commentary
Broad drafting and the absence of a clear satire exemption could expose legitimate political cartoons, parody and commentary to removal or legal action.
Further sources
Votes
Recorded votes
No recorded votes have been found yet for this bill.
Parliamentary debate
Who spoke, and what they said
Start here — lead voices
Sponsor speech Supports
David Pocock
David Pocock supports the bill because it would give Australians stronger rights, remedies and protections against harmful non-consensual deepfakes while preserving legitimate uses of manipulated content.
Read in Hansard ↗ Lead opposing voice Opposes
Pauline Hanson
Hanson says One Nation will oppose the bill because existing powers already cover abusive deepfakes, while its broad drafting and lack of a clear satire exemption could restrict legitimate political cartoons and commentary.
Read in Hansard ↗ Lead supporting voice Supports
David Shoebridge
Shoebridge urges the Senate to support the bill as a meaningful step toward protecting people from non-consensual deepfakes, while calling for committee amendments to preserve satire and broaden remedies and proactive regulation.
Read in Hansard ↗ Lead voice Opposes
Corinne Mulholland
Mulholland says the government will not support the bill because it could create overlapping regulators, enforcement bodies and responsibilities, although it shares the goal of protecting people from online abuse and favours a comprehensive digital safety framework.
Read in Hansard ↗All speeches by bloc
Labor
3 speakers · 2 oppose · 1 unclear
Labor
3 speakers · 2 oppose · 1 unclear
-
Corinne Mulholland ★ Mulholland says the government will not support the bill because it could create overlapping regulators, enforcement bodies and responsibilities, although it shares the goal of protecting people from online abuse and favours a comprehensive digital safety framework.
“The internet has become our modern public square. It's where Australians work. It's where they learn. It's where they connect. It's where Australians participate in democracy, and Australians should be safe there. Just as we work to make our streets safe, just as we work to make our community safe, we must work to make the digital world safe as well, and that is why the Albanese Labor government is taking action. So while the government will not be supporting this particular bill, I want to be clear that we share the objective. We recognise the challenge and we are acting in a comprehensive manner, not with a single measure but with a comprehensive framework, a plan that puts responsibility where it belongs—on the platforms, on big tech, on those who profit from Australians being online.”
Read the full speech in Hansard ↗ -
Ellie Whiteaker Ellie Whiteaker says the bill has a good intention and broadly aligns with Labor's online safety goals, but the supplied speech does not reveal whether she supports its passage.
“I've made my fair share of political ads over my time as a party official. And you know what? We all sometimes like to have a bit of fun. I think that's an important part of engaging people in the political conversation. But there is a line that we, as elected members to this place, with the responsibility of representing Australians, should be held to. So I say to Senator Hanson and to her colleagues in One Nation that that behaviour is absolutely disgusting and disgraceful. Senator Walker can take it. She's tough. I know she can take it. But I don't want other young people to feel discouraged from being part of the political conversation. That is why I say in this place that it is absolutely unacceptable, and we will continue to call Senator Hanson and her colleagues out for doing that kind of absolutely disgraceful online content. I believe we may have met the hard—no? Oh, I've got a bit more time. Okay, excellent. So I think the intention of the Online Safety and Other Legislation Amendment (My Face, My Rights) Bill 2025 is good, and I think broadly we agree on the—”
Read the full speech in Hansard ↗ -
Murray Watt Watt says the government will oppose the bill because its piecemeal approach could create regulatory and enforcement overlap, although the government shares its concerns and supports its intent.
“Privacy is an important and complex policy area, and reform cannot be pursued in a piecemeal fashion, which this bill does. The government has committed to uplifting privacy laws to achieve the right balance between strengthening privacy protections and enabling personal information to be used in ways that benefit individuals, society and the economy. The government shares many of the concerns that Senator Pocock has outlined and the intent of this bill. However, we intend to address these concerns as part of holistic reform rather than through piecemeal reform. We are also concerned that, if passed, this bill would likely increase regulatory and enforcement overlap, including between the functions of the eSafety Commissioner, the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner and law enforcement agencies. This bill does not address the intersection of such overlap, and therefore the government will not support it. For those reasons, while supporting the bill's intent, the government will be opposing the senator's bill. Our government will continue our world-leading action in online safety and ensure that we hold big tech accountable, but we'll do that in a holistic rather than a piecemeal manner.”
Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
Greens
2 speakers · 2 support
Greens
2 speakers · 2 support
-
David Shoebridge ★ Shoebridge urges the Senate to support the bill as a meaningful step toward protecting people from non-consensual deepfakes, while calling for committee amendments to preserve satire and broaden remedies and proactive regulation.
“I say again that I urge the government to vote to put this into committee and then to work on amendments, if they're needed, to put in the copyright provisions to take this forward, because simply voting this down today—walking across and voting with One Nation to vote this down today—will send exactly the wrong message. It will send the message that the deepfakes, the hate, the misogyny and the racism are not going to be addressed under the Albanese Labor government. Let's not get there. Let's support the second reading of this bill. I again thank the mover of this legislation for bringing it to the chamber.”
Read the full speech in Hansard ↗ -
Sarah Hanson-Young Sarah Hanson-Young supports the bill because it would give Australians legal protection against deepfakes used to abuse individuals, impersonate journalists and undermine democracy.
“I rise to contribute to this debate this morning on a bill that's really important, the Online Safety and Other Legislation Amendment (My Face, My Rights) Bill 2025, and I commend Senator Pocock for bringing this bill to the chamber today. It's a good bill and it's an important bill that brings forward changes that we actually need to the law. It is time for real laws to protect real people. For too long, big tech companies have been making megaprofits off the rubbish that is spread and created on their platforms. For too long, big tech has allowed deepfakes to spread, to be created and to be monetised.”
Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
One Nation
1 speaker · 1 oppose
One Nation
1 speaker · 1 oppose
-
Pauline Hanson ★ Hanson says One Nation will oppose the bill because existing powers already cover abusive deepfakes, while its broad drafting and lack of a clear satire exemption could restrict legitimate political cartoons and commentary.
“Well, One Nation will not be supporting this Online Safety and Other Legislation Amendment (My Face, My Rights) Bill, but I do appreciate Senator David Pocock coming up and having a discussion with me about it. The bill allows a person to complain to the eSafety Commissioner about their face being used as a deepfake without their permission. The definition of 'deepfake' is so broad that it could capture many things, including our Please Explain cartoons. This is a lawyers' picnic and that concerns me greatly. The cartoons, yes, they depict many of our political people in this place. They've been going for four years and are well received by the Australian public. I think they've learnt more about politics watching our cartoons. It would devastate so many people if this piece of legislation was to capture and get rid of our cartoons, which I think are more informative to the public than what would be warranted with this bill.”
Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
Minor parties and independents
1 speaker · 2 contributions · 1 support
Minor parties and independents
1 speaker · 2 contributions · 1 support
-
David Pocock ★ 2 contributions Pocock urges the Senate to pass his bill, arguing that Australians need enforceable rights over their face, voice and likeness as increasingly convincing AI deepfakes threaten privacy, safety and democratic trust.
Hansard records 2 separate contributions by David Pocock on this bill. They are grouped here so the speaker is listed once.
Second reading speech
David Pocock supports the bill because it would give Australians stronger rights, remedies and protections against harmful non-consensual deepfakes while preserving legitimate uses of manipulated content.
“With this bill, we take an important step toward ensuring that Australians have the rights, the remedies, and the protections they need in a world where the line between real and artificial grows thinner every day.”
Read this contribution in Hansard ↗Second reading speech
Pocock urges the Senate to pass his bill, arguing that Australians need enforceable rights over their face, voice and likeness as increasingly convincing AI deepfakes threaten privacy, safety and democratic trust. He says it would provide removal powers, penalties and civil remedies while preserving legitimate journalism and other public-interest uses.
“This is not the world we want to live in, and we have an opportunity as a parliament to change that. We have an opportunity as a Senate to send a very clear message that we will not stand for this. We actually want an Australia where people can believe what they see, where people can engage in good faith. And so I would commend this bill to the Senate in good faith. If there are issues that people have with it, I am obviously very open to discussing amendments and really trying to ensure that we have something that every senator in this place says is the right direction for our country. These are the right rules and safeguards that we need to have against the misuse of artificial intelligence. Again, we hear so much about the benefits. This is about saying, 'Yes, there are benefits, but we have to guard against the harms and guard against the misuse of this technology'. And so I commend this bill to the Senate.”
Read this contribution in Hansard ↗
Record
Full record
- Status
- Before Senate -- Collected from the APH bill page.
- Originating house
- Senate
- 24 Nov 2025
Senate · Introduced and read a first time
Introduced
The bill was formally presented to the chamber and read a first time, which starts its parliamentary journey.
- 24 Nov 2025
Senate · Second reading moved
Second reading opened
A minister or sponsoring member moved the second reading, opening the main debate on the bill's purpose and principles.
- 25 June 2026
Senate · Second reading debate
Second reading debate
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.