Pauline Hanson (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) | Hansard source

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.

Senator Watt, who's comments I hardly ever agree with, is right. It is already there in legislation that the eSafety Commissioner can act on this. The commissioner can issue takedown notices, but she can already do that and she's doing it, so we already have these laws in place. The existing powers of the commissioner allow deepfake material to be taken down if it's abusive. Now, it's not protecting people from abuse but there is a strong potential for the bill to stop legitimate satire.

Oh, come on, guys, you know, toughen up. Let's get some political hide about us in this place. If anyone were to complain about satire, after what I've had to deal with over the years, I'd be the first one supporting this bill because nearly 30 years I've been attacked with so much. At the moment, I could complain because they've got me out there as Wonder Woman. My God, they've got me out there with all this deepfake as a band leader singing in a band. I've got to put up with all this going on. I'm not complaining about it. I've toughened up over the years. So let's toughen up. Let's get some political hide about us, shall we? Look, I will acknowledge that deepfakes are a problem and that kids are putting up teachers' heads on porn stars' bodies, but the eSafety Commissioner already has powers to take them down, so it's just ridiculous.

This whole bill is about a carve-out for journalists. Why should journalists be carved out? Are journalists' cartoons also carved out? Now, some of those cartoons can be very offensive. Are they carved out? Why are journalists and agencies of state and territory authorities carved out? Why are they carved out? Why would they need to be carved out for deepfake? Also, law enforcement bodies—what on earth would they be doing to warrant carving them out for deepfake? Also, intelligence agencies—why would they be carved out? You've got to ask yourself these questions. This is a poorly drafted bill with no real understanding. It is going to be a lawyers' picnic. There's no carve-out for satire, yet satire has been a legitimate and widely accepted tool for political commentary for centuries, for a long time. This is the problem with a lot of legislation; laws should not be in subjective language. Language in legislation should be objective and definitive. The High Court has ruled on the implied right of political communication, so that's what's happening.