Get Involved - Parliament

Crimes Amendment (Intimate Image and Audio Material) Bill 2025

Published on: September 2025

Record: HANSARD-1323879322-157340

Crimes Amendment (Intimate Image and Audio Material) Bill 2025

Consideration in Detail

Consideration resumed from 16 September 2025

Ms FELICITY WILSON (North Shore) (12:22:26):

I resume my contribution to the adjourned consideration in detail debate on the Crimes Amendment (Intimate Image and Audio Material) Bill 2025. The amendments seek to expand the bill presented by the Attorney General to include sexually explicit text. I have explained in reasonable detail why sexually explicit text should be included. As I noted yesterday, these amendments are not just about the primary impact of sexually explicit deepfakes. The underlying principle is to ensure that when we pass legislation about changing technologies, we are as up to date as possible in our understanding of the technology at that point in time.

Additional technologies will challenge us; the risk is that, comparatively, we are Luddites. As an older millennial, I straddle the analogue and digital native worlds, yet I still find that the pace of technological advancement and change takes me by surprise. Parliaments around the world—not just this one, and this is not a partisan reflection—are slow to change. Governments are particularly slow at addressing technological advancements so, at this moment in time, we should make decisions that are as up to date as possible. In his speech in reply, the Attorney General acknowledged that his department is looking into the use of sexually explicit texts and deepfakes and considering whether these can be incorporated into the bill. There will also be a review of the legislation to consider whether that can be incorporated in the future. I am encouraged that the Attorney General is taking those steps. Regardless, I think it is important for this House to include it so that the legislation passed today is up to date.

I spoke yesterday about a range of applications and behavioural changes around the use of technology to engage in sexually explicit conversations, and the use of tools that are sexually explicit or adjacent to romantic or sexually explicit conversations. One area of real challenge is the representation of individuals and the misquoting of sexually explicit language to infer that an individual made use of that language. I reflect on the member for Granville's contribution to the debate yesterday. She said that we as members of Parliament—particularly the women—have a significantly higher burden and risk of being sexualised and being subject to sexual violence and sexual representational damage. She is right. She is factually correct.

The evidence around sexually explicit deepfakes shows that it is public figures generally who are most likely to be attacked and abused in this way. Around the world deepfakes are being used to reputationally damage people and put words into people's mouths. Passing this legislation without covering text runs the risk that words will be put into people's mouths that they did not say. That could include us as females in the political sphere, or sporting leaders, teachers, actors or singers. It could include prominent people, as well as ordinary people across the community. I encourage the Government to reconsider and support the amendments before the House today.

Mr MICHAEL DALEY (MaroubraAttorney General) (12:26:01):

— As I indicated yesterday, the Government opposes these amendments to the Crimes Amendment (Intimate Image and Audio Material) Bill 2025. The amendments seek to expand the capture of the bill's amendments to include purely text-based sexually explicit materials. As I mentioned in my speech in reply, whilst we appreciate the general sentiment and aim, and the way in which this debate has been conducted, the effect of these amendments is too blunt and raise significant risks of unintended capture. The framing of the amendments also gives rise to some structural issues with respect to the division, including that the amendments seek to both insert a definition of "intimate text material" and incorporate that definition into the definition of "intimate audio or audio material", and the amendments add "creation or alteration" into provisions where these terms do not appropriately fit, or are duplicative.

Unlike visual material, imitating a person's likeness, or audio material, imitating a person's voice, individuals would rarely have a writing manner that could be uniquely attributed. This means that text-based deepfakes would appear to require some form of direct attribution to the person being imitated. As such, text- based scams can be more easily refuted. It is not a new phenomenon, for example, for a person's account to be hacked and then spam emails sent from that account. The risks of humiliation or embarrassment arising from sexually explicit text are different to those arising from a hyperrealistic sexual image or audio.

In the event of non-consensual distribution of sexually explicit text deepfake material through a carriage service, including through the internet, Commonwealth offences under sections 474.17A and 474.17AA of the Criminal Code would apply. This includes, for example, material distributed through sexting chat rooms or through dating apps. Moreover, when created without distribution, the harm of sexually explicit deepfake text material is more challenging to articulate. Criminalisation of such content has to be approached cautiously to avoid unintended capture and significant impacts which could include, for example, the exposure of teenagers who engage in this conduct to the possibility of three years imprisonment. Some examples we have heard relating to sexually explicit deepfake text arise in the context of young people sharing material, person to person, at school. There is a serious and important question to be asked about whether the imposition of a criminal offence with a three-year maximum penalty is the right way to deal with that conduct in the first place.

There are risks of unintended capture with these types of offences, particularly in relation to children, as already shown by the fact that there is a requirement with respect to most of these offences for the Director of Public Prosecutions to approve proceedings to be commenced against persons under 16. I also note that there are already existing offences with a different focus that may well capture the type of conduct that is sought to be addressed by the amendments. In particular, for repeated conduct or conduct that forms part of an ongoing campaign of torment or bullying targeting one individual, an offence under section 13 of the Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007 may apply. That offence applies to stalking and intimidation. Intimidation includes cyberbullying, including by the transmission of offensive material over social media or via email.

Finally, I note that the effect of the Opposition amendments would be to capture deepfake sexually explicit text material but would not cover the distribution of real sexually explicit text material. The exposure of genuine sexually explicit texts, essentially revenge porn but through the distribution of real texts rather than real images, could be damaging or distressing. The omission of that from the Opposition's amendments highlights the complexity and challenging nature of amendments in this area and the need to tread carefully and cautiously in this space.

As I noted in my speech in reply, our Government understands that technology continues to evolve at a rapid pace, which is why the reforms introduced by the bill will be subject to a statutory review 12 months after commencement, with a report to be tabled within a further six months. In addition, I have asked my department to specifically look into sexually explicit text material, including deepfake material, to determine the scope and nature of the issues in this space and how best to address them.

The Government is always willing to keep looking at improvements to keep the community safe, but it is crucial to approach the matters carefully and in consultation with key stakeholders. The Parliament needs to make sure that it strikes the right balance between anticipating the future state and ensuring that the criminal law is appropriately targeted and precise, imposing on our civil liberties no further than is necessary. That is what the Government has done with the bill, and that is what it proposes to do about the issue. The Standing Council of Attorneys-General examines and talks about those sorts of issues regularly to get consistency across the nation.

Ms TAMARA SMITH (Ballina) (12:32:05):

I contribute to the debate on the Opposition amendments and provide The Greens position. We are sympathetic to the intent of the amendments, which is to capture sexually explicit deepfake texts shared without the consent of an individual who is the subject of the texts. I note that the member for North Shore is doing excellent work in that space. However, The Greens are not inclined to support the amendments at this stage. We believe they require further consultation with stakeholders and work on the ground to determine whether sexually explicit deepfake texts are causing particular harm, where that is happening and to whom.

TEMPORARY SPEAKER (Mr Clayton Barr):

The question is that Opposition amendments Nos 1, 4 to 9 and 11 to 13 on sheet c2025-184B be agreed to.

The House divided.

Ayes35

Noes48

Majority13

Amendments negatived.

TEMPORARY SPEAKER (Mr Clayton Barr):

The question is that clauses 1 and 2 and schedules 1 and 2 as amended be agreed to.

Clauses 1 and 2 and schedules 1 and 2 as amended agreed to.

Third Reading

Mr MICHAEL DALEY:

I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Motion agreed to.