Bill Debate · Second Reading
House of Representatives · Wednesday 1 July 2026
Continued from Tuesday 30 June 2026.
Official Hansard for this day (APH) · Read this debate on OpenAustralia
The debate centred on strengthening enforcement powers for the eSafety Commissioner regarding the social media minimum age ban. The government and an independent member supported the bill to increase penalties and investigative capabilities, while opposition members argued that current enforcement was weak and called for broader accountability measures. The government rejected an opposition amendment unrelated to the bill's core purpose. The bill was ultimately defeated in the House of Representatives.
The bill was not passed, with a division result of 43 votes against and 92 votes for.
Summary in reported speech - not a transcript. AI-generated, so check the official record before quoting.
Continued the debate
Pasin acknowledged the risks of online algorithms and the need for safeguards, supporting an amendment moved by the member for Lindsay. Pasin argued that while digital platforms offer benefits, substantial risks exist for young people, including algorithmic engagement traps. Pasin emphasised the need to balance these risks with appropriate barriers, noting that current safeguards were insufficient to protect children from harmful content and addictive design features.
Government response
Wells stated the government would not support the opposition's second reading amendment, describing it as unrelated to the bill and aimed at political point-scoring. Wells highlighted the government's commitment to introducing a digital duty of care later in the year to address systemic harms from algorithmic systems. Wells urged members to support the bill to ensure accountability for social media companies, citing parent advocates who called for unity on children's safety rather than political division.
Opposition response
Webster argued that the current framework had failed to protect children, citing evidence that most under-16s continued to access platforms despite the ban. Webster supported stronger enforcement powers for the regulator but warned against misdirecting these powers at Australian citizens rather than big tech companies. Webster called for broader accountability mechanisms, including dispute resolution for businesses harmed by platform actions, and referenced international legal precedents regarding platform liability for addictive design.
Scamps supported the bill, welcoming stronger investigative powers and increased penalties for non-compliant platforms. Scamps noted that while the bill improved enforcement, it did not solve the underlying issue of unsafe platform design. Scamps urged the government to pursue a comprehensive digital duty of care that would require companies to prevent harm proactively and allow users to control their algorithmic feeds.