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

Continued the debate

Whitten opposed the bill, arguing that granting the eSafety Commissioner powers to summon individuals under oath and demand documents represented an unacceptable expansion of state control over online speech. Whitten contended that these enforcement mechanisms threatened civil liberties and parental rights, citing previous instances where the commissioner had overstepped its remit in cases involving political expression. Whitten asserted that the amendments transformed the legislation from a child protection measure into a tool for government compulsion, warning that such powers could be used to silence dissent. Whitten concluded that the bill should not pass without further committee scrutiny due to the significant changes introduced by the amendments.

Government response

Green supported the bill, stating that it provided the eSafety Commissioner with essential tools to investigate compliance with the social media minimum age law. Green highlighted that the amendments would double maximum civil penalties for non-compliance, raising the cap to $109.2 million for corporations, and increase penalties for failing to comply with information notices. Green argued that these measures were urgent and necessary to ensure well-resourced companies adhered to their obligations. Green referenced advocacy from parents who had lost children to online harms, emphasising the need for robust enforcement to protect young Australians.