Online Safety Amendment (Strengthening Enforcement for the Social Media Minimum Age) Bill 2026; Second Reading

Briskey supported the bill, arguing it strengthens the existing minimum age law by allowing the eSafety Commissioner to compel information from platforms and third parties. Briskey highlighted that some companies treat compliance as a cost of doing business and that the increased penalty of $99 million would deter non-compliance. Briskey emphasised that the law protects children from platforms designed to capture attention and noted that parents report improved sleep and reduced bullying since the ban's introduction.

Chaney supported the bill, commending the government's world-leading approach to online safety and the expansion of the eSafety Commissioner's powers. Chaney expressed concern that the original ban had been circumvented by many teenagers and argued that proper resourcing for the commissioner is essential for enforcement. Chaney also advocated for a comprehensive digital duty of care that includes AI models and lowers the harm threshold from 'serious harm' to 'harm' to address broader developmental risks.

Coffey supported the bill, stating it provides necessary backing to parents who struggle to manage children's social media use alone. Coffey cited data showing millions of underage accounts removed and improvements in youth wellbeing metrics such as sleep and sports participation. Coffey argued that the increased penalties and information-gathering powers ensure platforms cannot simply claim compliance without evidence, sending a clear message that Australian law must be obeyed.

Ryan supported the bill's enforcement measures but criticised the original social media ban as ineffective due to widespread circumvention. Ryan argued that doubling fines does not fix a broken system and that penalties remain insignificant for large tech companies. Ryan moved an amendment calling for a consistent public health approach, including a comprehensive ban on online gambling advertising, to address other significant harms to young Australians.

Campbell supported the bill, highlighting parent testimonials about improved family dynamics since the ban's implementation. Campbell argued that the legislation addresses platform non-compliance by increasing penalties to $99 million and empowering the eSafety Commissioner to verify claims through third-party data. Campbell stated that the government is committed to further reforms, including a digital duty of care, to ensure ongoing protection for children.

McKenzie opposed the bill, arguing the government rushed the legislation without adequate consultation or evidence of the original ban's efficacy. McKenzie cited historical committee reports and expert warnings about the complexities of age verification and the need for a supportive ecosystem. McKenzie claimed the government ignored bipartisan recommendations for a duty of care and safer design features, instead pursuing a flawed ban that failed to protect children effectively.

Jarrett argued that the bill strengthens the government's commitment to protecting children from online harm by increasing penalties for non-compliant platforms to 60,000 penalty units, equivalent to $99 million. Jarrett stated that the eSafety Commissioner requires enhanced information-gathering powers to investigate platforms effectively, as current enforcement has been insufficient despite the removal of over five million accounts. Jarrett emphasised that tech companies have the resources to implement robust age assurance and that the reforms signal a global shift towards holding platforms responsible for child safety.

Wallace contended that the bill was a confession of the government's failure, noting that 70 per cent of children under 16 remained on social media despite the ban. Wallace argued that the original policy was a coalition initiative that the Labor government had implemented poorly, lacking necessary enforcement powers from the outset. Wallace called for the adoption of tools like Clearview AI to combat child exploitation on the dark web, asserting that privacy laws were hindering law enforcement efforts.

Berry supported the bill, stating that laws protecting children must be backed by serious consequences for companies failing to meet their obligations. Berry argued that the increased penalties and expanded investigative powers would deter non-compliance and ensure platforms take their minimum-age responsibilities seriously. Berry highlighted that tech companies possess sophisticated data capabilities and should be able to implement effective age verification, asserting that government intervention is necessary to support parents who cannot monitor online activity alone.

Steggall expressed reservations about the bill, describing it as a band-aid fix that fails to address the core weakness of undefined 'reasonable steps' for age verification. Steggall argued that the original ban was rushed and ineffective, with evidence showing high rates of circumvention by under-16s. Steggall advocated for a comprehensive digital duty of care framework focused on safety by design and algorithmic transparency, rather than relying solely on punitive measures against platforms.

McCormack criticised the government for scrambling to fix a flawed policy, citing compliance updates that showed 70 per cent of children still accessing social media. McCormack argued that the coalition had established the foundational online safety regime, including the eSafety Commissioner, and that Labor's implementation had been marked by missteps. McCormack urged the government to take a more bipartisan approach and ensure legislation is properly examined before introduction to avoid repeating errors.

Wilkie stated he would support the bill to improve an existing law he considered ill-conceived and badly implemented. Wilkie cited research indicating that the ban had limited impact on social media use among under-16s, with many finding ways to circumvent age checks. Wilkie argued that the government should be honest about the policy's shortcomings and focus on holding tech companies accountable for making platforms safer, rather than punishing children.

Venning argued that the bill was a desperate admission of defeat regarding a poorly designed and implemented social media ban. Venning claimed the government had failed to provide the eSafety Commissioner with adequate powers initially and that the ban had not significantly reduced teenage social media use. Venning criticised the communications minister's handling of the policy and advocated for alternative measures, such as device safety tools for parents and blocking predatory algorithms.

Spender supported the bill as an overdue step to strengthen enforcement, noting that the eSafety Commissioner needed broader powers to compel information from third parties. Spender highlighted feedback from young people indicating that the ban was easy to circumvent and enforcement was inconsistent, reducing community support. Spender urged the government to progress a digital duty of care framework to address broader online harms, including extremism and algorithmic transparency.

lead

Violi characterised the bill as a significant admission by the government that its initial approach had failed in practice. Violi attributed the origin of the under-16 ban policy to the Coalition in June 2024, noting that the Prime Minister later adopted the stance. Violi argued that enforcing the ban is particularly difficult due to the nature of technology and the business models of social media platforms, which prioritise user engagement over age restrictions. Violi stressed the importance of parental involvement in keeping children off these platforms to create a reverse network effect that reduces the appeal of social media for younger users.