Cybersafety

Clutterham argued that social media platforms were designed to maximise engagement rather than protect users, leading to significant harms for young people. Clutterham stated that the government needed to empower the eSafety Commissioner with enhanced authority to collect data for investigating non-compliance by major tech companies. Clutterham highlighted that doubling penalties to nearly $100 million was necessary to deter corporations from ignoring Australian laws. Clutterham called on all members to support the legislation to protect children from bullying and harmful content.

Violi argued that the intent of the ban was correct but the outcome had been a failure, with many under-16s still accessing social media. Violi criticised the government for rushing the original legislation through without sufficient inquiry or debate. Violi stated that the Coalition wanted to use the Senate committee process to understand why the first attempt failed and to ensure the new measures were effective. Violi claimed that the government was avoiding scrutiny because they knew the initial approach was flawed.

Jarrett argued that the government had already achieved positive results, with over five million accounts for under-16s removed from platforms. Jarrett stated that the strengthening bill was necessary because tech companies were not doing enough to comply with the existing ban. Jarrett highlighted research linking excessive social media use to anxiety, depression, and sleep deprivation in teenagers. Jarrett criticised the Coalition for prioritising the interests of big tech over the safety of Australian children.

McKenzie cited the eSafety Commissioner’s description of the original reforms as ineffective and noted that studies showed most under-16s continued to use social media. McKenzie argued that the implementation had been inconsistent and that age verification tests were easily bypassed. McKenzie stated that the Senate’s decision to refer the bill to committee was a necessary step to ensure the legislation would actually work. McKenzie claimed the government had rushed the initial process and now refused to allow proper scrutiny of the amendments.

Soon argued that the social media ban was a world-leading initiative that other countries were now following. Soon stated that the eSafety Commissioner had identified serious compliance concerns and required stronger powers to investigate non-compliant platforms. Soon highlighted that the bill doubled civil penalties to $99 million to ensure tech companies respected Australian law. Soon criticised the Coalition for seeking to delay the legislation by months, arguing this prevented timely protection for children.

Wallace argued that the Coalition had been leading on child safety issues for years, including establishing the eSafety Commissioner and proposing age verification trials. Wallace stated that the government had been slow to act and that the initial ban had failed to stop the majority of under-16s from using social media. Wallace claimed that the Coalition did not trust the government to get the new legislation right without proper scrutiny. Wallace insisted that the bill needed to go through the usual Senate inquiry process to ensure it was effective.

Ryan argued that the strengthening legislation was a short, four-page document that gave the eSafety Commissioner the specific powers she had requested. Ryan stated that the bill allowed the regulator to compel documents from tech companies to investigate non-compliance. Ryan highlighted that the legislation also raised fines for companies that failed to meet their obligations. Ryan criticised the Coalition for suggesting that such a simple measure required a lengthy three-month inquiry.