Online Safety Act 2021

Senator Henderson opposed the motion, arguing that the current high threshold for adult cyberabuse was a deliberate safeguard against regulatory overreach and speech policing. Henderson cited the Federal Court's ruling in the Celine Baumgarten case, where the eSafety Commissioner was found to have improperly issued takedown notices that did not meet the statutory threshold. Henderson warned that lowering the standard could convert the safety regime into a mechanism for suppressing lawful disagreement and controversial views, particularly regarding gender ideology in schools. Henderson emphasised that criminal law already addresses threats and harassment, and that the civil scheme should remain limited to serious harm.

Senator Hanson-Young supported the motion, criticising the government for failing to implement the 67 recommendations from the Online Safety Act review over 18 months. Hanson-Young argued that big tech companies profit from hate and abuse through algorithms that amplify harmful content, and called for laws allowing users to control their own feeds and data. Hanson-Young advocated for a digital duty of care to hold platforms accountable and prevent the monetisation of fear and misogyny. Hanson-Young rejected the notion that regulating online safety infringes on free speech, framing it instead as a matter of user choice and protection from commercial exploitation.

Senator Tyrrell supported the motion and Senator Payman's bill, stating that the government had failed to act on the independent review's recommendations for over a year. Tyrrell called for the implementation of a digital duty of care to shift responsibility to platforms and adopt a proactive 'Safety by Design' approach. Tyrrell also advocated for mandatory labelling of bot accounts to improve transparency and social cohesion, arguing that this would not censor content but inform users. Tyrrell urged the government to be bold and transparent about its progress on online safety reforms rather than relying on crossbenchers to drive action.

Senator Shoebridge supported the motion, highlighting the urgent need for a digital duty of care in light of rapid technological changes and the rise of AI-driven harms. Shoebridge criticised the government for lacking effective public consultation and for delaying action on online safety reforms. Shoebridge pointed to immediate risks such as AI chatbots facilitating harassment, grooming, and the spread of misinformation, arguing that the current regulatory approach was insufficient. Shoebridge called for concrete proposals to hold platforms accountable and protect ordinary Australians from the dangers of unregulated online environments.

Senator Whitten opposed the expansion of the eSafety Commissioner's powers, characterising the office as a censorship machine that targeted political enemies and infringed on free speech. Whitten cited recent US congressional criticism of the commissioner's global activities and highlighted costly legal defeats in cases involving the takedown of content related to gender ideology and violent events. Whitten argued that the office should focus solely on child exploitation material and that parents, not the government, should decide what is suitable for children. Whitten called for a complete reform or scrapping of the current eSafety framework to prevent ideological censorship.

Senator Roberts stated that One Nation agreed with supporting the core work of the eSafety office regarding child safety but opposed the commissioner's broader role as a global internet regulator. Roberts criticised the expansion of the office's scope beyond its original mandate, viewing it as an overreach into ideological censorship. Roberts did not elaborate on specific policy alternatives but aligned with the party's stance against what he described as the commissioner's crusade to police internet content globally.