Bill Debate · In Committee
Senate · Thursday 10 September 2026
Continued from Wednesday 9 September 2026.
Official Hansard for this day (APH) · Read this debate on OpenAustralia
The Senate considered amendments to the Online Safety Amendment Bill during committee stage. The Australian Greens moved to increase penalties to a percentage of global turnover and demanded transparency for researchers, arguing current fines were insufficient deterrents. The government opposed these changes, citing implementation difficulties and stating that transparency issues would be addressed in separate digital duty of care legislation. The Coalition moved amendments to clarify enforcement scope and introduce provisions for third-party digital safety services, which the government rejected due to security concerns. The bill passed with government amendments agreed to, while Greens and Coalition amendments were defeated.
Government amendments were passed, while the Greens' and Coalition's amendments were not passed; the bill was agreed to as amended.
Summary in reported speech - not a transcript. AI-generated, so check the official record before quoting.
Continued the debate
Brockman opened the committee stage by addressing the deferred vote on government amendments. The member noted that the previous debate had been interrupted and sought to resume consideration of the opposition amendments. Brockman facilitated the procedural steps required to move the bill through the committee stage.
Government response
Green stated that the government was committed to passing the bill and opposed the Greens' amendments regarding revenue-based penalties, citing challenges in determining global revenue for overseas companies. Green confirmed that transparency commitments for researchers would be addressed in upcoming digital duty of care legislation following a consultation period. The minister also opposed the Coalition's amendments, arguing that forcing device manufacturers to open access to third-party safety services would create security vulnerabilities and potential backdoors for malicious actors.
Opposition response
Paterson moved opposition amendments on behalf of the Coalition, referencing rationale previously provided by Senator Henderson. The member sought to insert provisions clarifying the scope of enforcement notices and introducing a new part to the Competition and Consumer Act regarding consumer choice of digital safety services. Paterson did not elaborate further on the policy details, relying on the earlier explanation of the Coalition's position.
Hanson-Young argued that big tech companies kept their algorithms and tactics secret, hindering effective regulation. The senator tabled a letter from the government committing to transparency rules in future legislation but maintained that independent researchers needed access to data to hold companies accountable. Hanson-Young moved amendments to increase penalties to 10 per cent of annual global turnover, stating that fixed fines were insufficient deterrents for profitable multinational corporations.