Online Safety and Other Legislation Amendment (My Face, My Rights) Bill 2025; Second Reading

Hanson-Young commended the bill as necessary to protect individuals and democracy from the monetisation and spread of deepfakes. Hanson-Young cited examples of deepfakes being used for foreign interference and to undermine journalism, specifically mentioning fake posts involving journalist Natalie Barr. Hanson-Young questioned One Nation's involvement with such technology and argued that politicians should support laws that protect the integrity of democratic institutions and individual rights.

Mulholland acknowledged the bill's intent but argued that online safety requires a comprehensive, proactive approach rather than fragmented legislation. Mulholland reiterated the government's commitment to a digital duty of care, which would require platforms to design for safety and mitigate risks before harm occurs. Mulholland expressed concern that the bill would create uncertainty and overlap between regulatory bodies, and she highlighted the personal abuse faced by women in politics as evidence of the need for robust, systemic reform.

Hanson argued that the bill's definition of deepfakes was too broad and could inadvertently capture legitimate political satire and cartoons, such as One Nation's 'Please Explain' series. Hanson contended that existing eSafety Commissioner powers were sufficient to handle abusive content and that the bill threatened freedom of expression. Hanson criticised the legislation as poorly drafted and argued that it undermined Australian larrikinism and resilience by attempting to control public discourse.

Shoebridge supported the bill, arguing that it addresses the essential human right to control one's likeness and voice. Shoebridge disputed Hanson's claims that the bill would ban satire, noting that the definition focuses on realistic depictions and that exemptions for satire could be added in committee. Shoebridge urged the government to allow the bill to proceed to committee for amendment rather than voting it down, warning that opposing it alongside One Nation would send a negative message about addressing online harm.

Whiteaker agreed that the online space had been unregulated for too long but maintained that the government's digital duty of care and existing Online Safety Act provisions provided a more effective framework. Whiteaker criticised One Nation for posting disrespectful content about young politicians, arguing that such behaviour discourages youth participation in democracy. Whiteaker stated that while the bill's intention was good, the government preferred its comprehensive approach to holding platforms accountable for user safety.