What the Senate Debated on 25 June 2026: Deepfake Laws, Online Safety and Political Clash

The short answer

the Senate Debated on 25 June 2026: Deepfake Laws, Online Safety and Political Clash

On Thursday 25 June 2026, the Senate's main debate centred on the Online Safety and Other Legislation Amendment (My Face, My Rights) Bill 2025, a private senator's bill introduced by Senator David Pocock (Independent, ACT) to regulate deepfakes and AI-generated content. The Government, represented by Senator Murray Watt, opposed the bill on the grounds that it would create regulatory overlap between the eSafety Commissioner, the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner and law enforcement agencies, while supporting its intent. One Nation's Senator Pauline Hanson also opposed the bill, arguing existing eSafety powers were sufficient and that the bill risked curtailing satire and free expression. The Greens' Senator Sarah Hanson-Young supported the bill and used the debate to accuse One Nation of being connected to deepfake content being generated from overseas. Senator Corinne Mulholland (ALP) also spoke, defending the Government's 'digital duty of care' approach. These are claims made by senators during debate, not verified facts.

This is a method for assessing public claims, not a verdict on a party or a direction on how to vote. Conclusions should change when the underlying law, data or implementation evidence changes.

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

The My Face, My Rights Bill: what Senator Pocock proposed

Senator David Pocock (Independent, ACT) moved the second reading of his Online Safety and Other Legislation Amendment (My Face, My Rights) Bill 2025. In his speech, Senator Pocock argued that Australia's laws are 'falling dangerously behind' on regulating artificial intelligence, with no regulatory guardrails to stop malicious use of AI to generate deepfakes other than for sexually explicit images.

Senator Pocock said the bill operated on a 'simple commonsense principle: an individual's face, voice and likeness are intrinsic to their identity as a human and should not be used without their consent.' He proposed two key pillars: amending the Online Safety Act to give the eSafety Commissioner a dedicated complaints system for non-consensual deepfake material with removal notice powers and civil penalties of 500 penalty units for users who post deepfakes without consent; and amending the Privacy Act to create a new statutory cause of action for wrongful use or disclosure of deepfake material, allowing victims to seek damages for emotional distress without needing to prove financial loss.

Senator Pocock included exemptions for journalists acting under professional standards, law enforcement acting in good faith, individuals under 18, and material used for genuine medical, scientific or legal proceedings. He stated he was 'open to discussing amendments'.

Evidence review

The Government's position: opposing the bill while supporting its intent

Senator Murray Watt (ALP, Queensland), Minister for the Environment and Water, stated that the Government shared the concerns Senator Pocock had outlined and supported the bill's intent, but would oppose it. Senator Watt argued the Government was taking a 'holistic rather than piecemeal' approach through its planned digital duty of care, which would put responsibility on digital service providers to protect users from harm before it occurs.

Senator Watt pointed to existing measures including the eSafety Commissioner's powers, the 2024 statutory tort for serious invasions of privacy (which may cover deepfakes as misuse of private information), and the social media minimum age of 16 — which he said had resulted in five million accounts being deactivated. He said the bill would likely increase 'regulatory and enforcement overlap' between the eSafety Commissioner, the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner, and law enforcement agencies.

Evidence review

Greens support the bill, accuse One Nation of benefiting from deepfakes

Senator Sarah Hanson-Young (Greens, South Australia) spoke in support of the bill, arguing that deepfakes are 'undermining the very essence of democracy' and that 'every politician in this place should be calling it out.' She cited a report from The New Daily about deepfake posts of journalist Natalie Barr clashing with politicians that were allegedly run by operators in Vietnam.

Senator Hanson-Young then directly accused Senator Pauline Hanson and One Nation, stating: 'I am very concerned that there are some in our political class who are benefiting from the foreign interference of this type of deepfake technology.' She said One Nation was 'up to their neck with foreign interference and political meddling in this country.' These are claims made in parliamentary debate — Hansard records them as spoken but does not verify their factual accuracy.

Evidence review

One Nation opposes the bill; Senator Hanson defends satire

Senator Pauline Hanson (One Nation, Queensland) opposed the bill. She argued that the eSafety Commissioner already had powers to issue takedown notices for abusive deepfake material, and that the bill risked stopping legitimate satire. Senator Hanson said: 'Oh, come on, guys, you know, toughen up. Let's get some political hide about us in this place.'

She noted she had been the subject of deepfake content herself — including being depicted as Wonder Woman and a band leader — and said she was 'not complaining about it.' Senator Hanson argued: 'Language in legislation should be objective and definitive,' and warned the bill would be 'a lawyers' picnic.' She also argued the bill's carve-outs for journalists and law enforcement agencies were questionable, asking: 'Why would they need to be carved out for deepfake?'

Evidence review

Government backbench perspective and the digital duty of care

Senator Corinne Mulholland (ALP, Queensland) also spoke, acknowledging that as a woman in politics she had seen 'the abuse, the intimidation that women face simply for participating in public life.' She noted that some colleagues had 'personally fallen victim to deepfakes.' However, she defended the Government's position, arguing that 'responding after harm occurs is simply not enough' and that the planned digital duty of care was '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.'

Evidence review

Other business and procedural matters

At the opening of the sitting, the President (Senator Sue Lines) acknowledged country and tabled documents. Committee meetings were notified: the Economics Legislation Committee met privately, the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee held a public hearing on the effectiveness of sanctions against the Russian Federation, and the Select Committee on Productivity in Australia met privately. The second reading debate on the Online Safety bill was the primary legislative item on the Senate's agenda for that day.

No votes or divisions were recorded in the portion of the Hansard examined. The debate was part of a continuing second reading consideration.

Common questions

Before you rely on the answer