Criminal Code Amendment (Using Technology to Generate Child Abuse Material) Bill

The short answer

Criminal Code Amendment (Using Technology to Generate Child Abuse Material) Bill

The Criminal Code Amendment (Using Technology to Generate Child Abuse Material) Bill 2025 is a private member's bill introduced by Independent MP Kate Chaney (Curtin, WA) on 28 July 2025. It would amend the Criminal Code Act 1995 to create new Commonwealth offences for generating child abuse material using a carriage service — conduct that includes using artificial intelligence and other technology to produce synthetic material. As at the 13 September 2026 source check the bill remains before the House of Representatives: it was introduced and read a first time on 28 July 2025, the second reading was moved, and it has not been debated to a vote, has not passed either chamber and is not law. The change recorded in this batch is source_presence — the bill left the daily selection feed's current snapshot — not a change of parliamentary stage. Re-opening the official bill page on 13 September 2026 found no record of passage, withdrawal, discharge or Royal Assent. The bill is not government legislation and its passage is not assured.

This is a federal system guide. State constitutions, parliaments and local-government laws can allocate comparable functions differently.

The useful question is not only “what is the rule?” but also “who administers it, which document controls it, and when might it change?” That distinction prevents an accurate general explanation from becoming wrong advice in a particular election, chamber or policy setting.

Evidence review

Chamber-record cross-check for this update

This update was triggered because the Criminal Code Amendment (Using Technology to Generate Child Abuse Material) Bill 2025 stopped appearing in the daily selection feed's current snapshot (recorded as a source_presence change). A bill leaving a list is only a prompt to re-check the official record; it is not evidence that the bill passed, was withdrawn, lapsed or became law. The bill page and the current Bills before Parliament list were re-opened on 13 September 2026.

The official record re-checked on 13 September 2026 shows the bill as a private member's bill originating in the House of Representatives, introduced and first read on 28 July 2025, with the second reading moved and the bill listed as "Before House of Representatives". There is no record of second reading debate to a vote, no committee referral, no passage in either chamber, no Royal Assent and no Act number, and no record of withdrawal or discharge. The bill's substance and stage are therefore unchanged from the site's previous review.

Evidence review

What the bill proposes

The bill would amend the Criminal Code Act 1995 to create new Commonwealth offences specifically targeting the generation of child abuse material using a carriage service. A "carriage service" in Commonwealth law encompasses telecommunications networks, the internet and other electronic communications services, giving the offences broad jurisdictional reach.

The Criminal Code already contains offences for possessing, accessing, transmitting, making available and producing child abuse material using a carriage service (Division 474, Subdivision D — for example sections 474.19, 474.20, 474.22 and 474.23). The bill's proponents argue those provisions were drafted before generative artificial intelligence and image-generation tools became widely accessible and that a specific "generation" offence gives clearer coverage. The distinction they draw is that AI generation need not involve traditional "production" such as filming or photographing — it can be as simple as entering a text prompt into an online service.

As a private member's bill introduced by an Independent MP, the bill reflects concerns raised by parliamentarians, the eSafety Commissioner and the Australian Federal Police about the proliferation of AI-generated child sexual abuse material. It is not government legislation.

Evidence review

The legal gap the bill addresses

Under the current Criminal Code, section 474.22 makes it an offence to use a carriage service to access child abuse material, section 474.19 covers transmitting or making material available, section 474.20 covers possessing or controlling material obtained using a carriage service, and section 474.23 covers producing child abuse material.

The definition of "child abuse material" in the Criminal Code is broad and includes material depicting a person who is, or appears to be, under 18 in a way that reasonable persons would regard as offensive. Importantly, the definition can cover representations of fictional or computer-generated persons who appear to be children; it does not require the person depicted to be real.

The bill's supporters argue that while section 474.23 may cover some AI-generation scenarios, a dedicated generation offence removes ambiguity about conduct that produces new synthetic material through a prompting or tooling step rather than through conventional production. Comparable jurisdictions, including the United Kingdom and several US states, have moved to address AI-generated child sexual abuse material specifically; this article reports that as context for the debate, not as an assessment of the bill's merit.

Evidence review

How the proposed offences would work

The core offence is expected to require that a person intentionally uses a carriage service and, by doing so, generates child abuse material. Consistent with the existing Part 10.6 framework, the fault element for the circumstance that the material is child abuse material would be recklessness — the person must be aware of a substantial risk that the generated material would constitute child abuse material and, having regard to the circumstances known to them, it would be unjustifiable to take that risk.

The bill relies on the existing definition of "child abuse material" in the Criminal Code dictionary (section 473.1). Because the offences use a carriage service as the jurisdictional hook, they would be Commonwealth offences triable in federal courts. Existing maximum penalties for the most serious comparable child abuse material offences under the Criminal Code are severe — up to 15 years imprisonment — reflecting the seriousness with which the Commonwealth treats child exploitation material.

Whether a particular synthetic image falls within the definition depends on the reasonable-person standard applied to all the circumstances. That is ultimately a question for courts, not something a legislative summary can determine in advance.

Evidence review

Sponsor and parliamentary context

The bill was introduced by Kate Chaney MP, the Independent member for Curtin in Western Australia, first elected in 2022 and a crossbench member who has been active on technology policy and online safety.

As a private member's bill it does not represent government policy and its passage is not guaranteed. Private members' bills in the House of Representatives face significant procedural hurdles and are typically not debated unless the government provides time or a member uses allocated private members' business time. As at the check date the bill had not been debated to a vote and the government's formal position had not been stated to Parliament.

Evidence review

Broader policy context

The bill sits against a backdrop of growing concern about AI-generated child sexual abuse material. The eSafety Commissioner and the Australian Federal Police have both publicly identified it as an emerging threat, and the Commonwealth's child exploitation material offences in the Criminal Code have been progressively amended over two decades to address new forms of technology-facilitated offending.

The specific aspect this bill targets is the creation of entirely new, synthetic abuse material that may not involve the direct abuse of an identifiable child at the point of creation, but which the bill's proponents argue still contributes to the market for and normalisation of child sexual abuse material. This article describes the proposal and the surrounding debate; it does not take a position on the bill.

Common questions

Before you rely on the answer