Bill Debate · Consideration of Senate Message
House of Representatives · Thursday 10 September 2026
Official Hansard for this day (APH) · Read this debate on OpenAustralia
The House of Representatives considered Senate amendments to the Online Safety Amendment (Strengthening Enforcement for the Social Media Minimum Age) Bill 2026. The government argued the changes strengthened enforcement against social media companies and protected children, while the opposition opposed the amendments, citing excessive powers granted to the eSafety Commissioner and lack of judicial oversight. The government moved for the amendments to be considered immediately and agreed to. The opposition argued the bill expanded coercive state power without proper scrutiny. The amendments were passed by the House.
The amendments were passed by the House with votes of 96 to 36 and 95 to 37.
Summary in reported speech - not a transcript. AI-generated, so check the official record before quoting.
Opened the debate
Burke moved that the amendments be considered immediately. The motion facilitated the House proceeding to vote on the Senate amendments to the bill. This procedural step allowed the debate on the specific changes proposed by the Senate to be addressed without delay.
Government response
Wells argued that the government needed to remain agile to protect children from technology risks. The minister stated that social media companies were attempting to do the bare minimum and that the amendments sent a clear message that businesses must follow Australian laws. Wells thanked those who worked constructively to strengthen the eSafety Commissioner's powers. The minister asserted that the government was delivering on online safety commitments while the opposition prioritised political points over family protection.
Opposition response
McIntosh opposed the bill, arguing it granted unprecedented coercive powers to the unelected eSafety Commissioner. The shadow minister highlighted that the amendments increased fines to up to $21.84 million per breach without requiring court proceedings. McIntosh raised concerns about the broad scope of document production powers, noting that submissions from the Law Council of Australia and others indicated the powers were too wide. The opposition argued that the government failed to accept amendments to clarify that documents should not be sought from children or parents.
Tehan raised a point of order regarding the conduct of the minister during the division. The member requested an apology from the minister for what Tehan described as inappropriate questioning of the opposition teller. Tehan sought to resolve the procedural issue for the benefit of the House.