Online Safety Amendment (Strengthening Enforcement for the Social Media Minimum Age) Bill 2026; Second Reading

Polley supported the bill, arguing it placed responsibility on technology companies to protect children from harmful algorithms and addictive design features. Polley stated that the legislation strengthened the eSafety Commissioner's ability to investigate compliance and increased penalties to ensure they were meaningful for large corporations. Polley also announced the upcoming introduction of a digital duty of care framework to further regulate online safety.

Hanson-Young argued that the social media ban had failed to keep young people safe and had driven them to less regulated platforms. Hanson-Young supported the need for a digital duty of care to regulate algorithms and hold big tech accountable for harmful product design. While critical of the ban's implementation, she indicated the Greens were prepared to work on legislation that genuinely protected users from addictive and harmful content.

Walker supported the bill, emphasising that social media platforms are designed to maximise engagement and that responsibility for safety must lie with the companies, not just parents or children. Walker noted that the eSafety Commissioner had identified serious compliance issues and required stronger powers to investigate and enforce the law. Walker argued that increased penalties were necessary to ensure companies took their obligations seriously.

Payman opposed the bill, arguing the social media ban was ineffective and had been rushed through parliament without proper scrutiny. Payman criticised the government for secrecy regarding the ban's implementation and for introducing late amendments that granted the eSafety Commissioner disproportionate powers. Payman stated that the ban failed to address risks on smaller platforms and chat services, and that increasing penalties was a superficial response to a broken policy.

Smith opposed the bill, arguing that the proposed powers for the eSafety Commissioner were too broad and lacked sufficient safeguards. Smith highlighted evidence from the Senate committee inquiry showing concerns about the impact on parents and children. Smith outlined coalition amendments focused on parental control tools, algorithmic transparency, and stronger action against serious online harms, arguing these were more effective than expanding state coercive power.

Shoebridge criticised the social media ban as ineffective and argued it had driven young people to less safe online spaces. Shoebridge stated that doubling penalties was insufficient and that meaningful penalties tied to global turnover were needed to hold platforms accountable. While acknowledging some useful provisions in the bill regarding information gathering, he argued the overall approach failed to address the root causes of online harm.

Roberts opposed the bill, arguing that parental responsibility, not government regulation, should determine children's online access. Roberts criticised the new powers granted to the eSafety Commissioner as draconian and a violation of human rights, particularly the right against self-incrimination. Roberts stated that One Nation would seek to abolish the eSafety Commissioner role if elected, while maintaining functions related to removing abuse material.

lead

Faruqi argued that the legislation did not adequately address the harmful impact of algorithms on young people, citing rapid exposure to misogynistic and extremist content. Faruqi stated that social media platforms function as radicalisation machines that profit from user engagement with dangerous material. Faruqi supported stronger enforcement measures but warned that penalties must be significant enough to alter corporate behaviour rather than serving as minor costs. Faruqi emphasised the need for a duty of care model that prevents harmful algorithms from being the default setting. Faruqi expressed scepticism regarding the government's willingness to prioritise public wellbeing over corporate interests.