Cybersafety

Mulholland defended the code as a vital tool for protecting children from pornography, violence, and terrorism material, noting it was developed under the Online Safety Act 2021. The senator highlighted that the government had quadrupled the eSafety Commissioner's funding to enforce these protections and educate the public. Mulholland argued that the code requires search engines to implement safe search defaults for underage users and restrict access to harmful content. The senator dismissed criticisms as paranoid and insisted that the measures were common-sense protections for vulnerable citizens.

Shoebridge rejected the notion that the code was the only alternative to an unregulated internet, arguing that it bypassed parliament and ignored evidence from government trials showing age verification technology was unreliable. The senator warned that requiring face scans or ID checks for basic infrastructure like search engines verged on digital surveillance and would harm vulnerable groups seeking health information. Shoebridge advocated for pausing the code and implementing a statutory duty of care for platforms instead of surveilling users. The senator emphasised the need for a transparent process that balanced child safety with privacy rights.

Payman commended the motion and raised concerns about the technical flaws and security risks of age assurance technologies, citing past data breaches by major tech companies. The senator questioned how the government planned to address virtual private networks and the storage duration of age assurance data. Payman argued that the code lacked clarity on whether checks would apply to logged-out users and raised broader questions about future identification requirements. The senator stressed the need to balance safety with privacy and security, noting that no other country had adopted similar measures.

Roberts described the code as government overreach, noting that the eSafety Commissioner rejected industry proposals in favour of stricter, flawed provisions. The senator argued that the code effectively extended social media age verification laws to search engines without parliamentary reference, requiring biometric data for all users. Roberts highlighted specific provisions, such as promoting eating disorder crisis partners in search results, as irrelevant to the core mission of protecting children from exploitation. The senator called for repealing the code and returning the eSafety Commissioner's focus to child abuse and revenge porn.

Antic argued that the code would lock out Australians from their accounts until they verified their age, effectively targeting everyone rather than just children. The senator claimed the measure was a Trojan horse for increased government surveillance and intervention, driven by a desire to control alternative views online. Antic warned that the system would erode privacy and move Australia towards a digital dystopia similar to surveillance states in China. The senator asserted that once the infrastructure for mass identification was in place, it would be impossible to reverse.