Make it illegal to create AI deepfakes of someone's face or voice without consent — back it or block it?
Independent senator David Pocock's private bill would give people the right to control AI-generated fakes of their face, voice or likeness. It would let the eSafety Commissioner run a dedicated complaints system, order platforms and users to take down deepfakes, and fine those who ignore removal notices. It would also create a new right to sue for deepfakes that cause emotional or reputational harm, with exemptions for journalists, law enforcement and medical or legal use.
The Greens backed it strongly. Labor and One Nation opposed it. The debate ran about 69 minutes and was interrupted with no vote taken.
🗳 A public mood-check, not a scientific poll. Vote to see where the room stands.
For · David Pocock (Ind, mover)Existing laws only cover sexually explicit deepfakes, leaving people exposed to impersonation scams and fake political footage. Your face, voice and likeness are yours, and no one should be able to fabricate a realistic AI copy without your consent — victims deserve fast takedowns and the right to seek damages without proving financial loss.
For · GreensDeepfakes cause real, growing harm, especially to women, and platforms profiting from them face no accountability. The bill's definition only captures realistic fakes of a real person's face or voice — not cartoons or satire. Labor should send it to committee and add copyright-style satire exemptions rather than voting it down alongside One Nation.
Against · Government (Labor)Labor shares the bill's intent but says privacy reform can't be done piecemeal. Existing laws already let eSafety act on image-based and AI-generated abuse, and a 2024 privacy tort may already cover deepfakes. The bill would create overlap between the eSafety Commissioner, the privacy regulator and police, so Labor prefers its own holistic reforms and a digital duty of care.
Against · One Nation (Pauline Hanson)The definition of 'deepfake' is too broad and could capture political satire and cartoons, making it a 'lawyers' picnic'. The eSafety Commissioner already has takedown powers, and carve-outs for journalists and agencies raise questions. People should build resilience and be free to laugh at themselves rather than be shielded by more speech restrictions.