I rise to speak to the amendment that I've moved. A duty of care is only as strong as the consequences for breaching it, and, under this bill, the maximum penalty for a company that breaches its duty of care is around $109 million. For almost any Australian business, this would be ruinous, but we're not talking about almost any business. Last year, Meta took in more than US$200 billion in revenue. That means it brings in $109 million in about three hours. If a company can earn back their fine before lunch, it doesn't deter any behaviour; it's just a small additional cost to doing business. This amendment lifts the maximum penalty for a company that breaches the duty of care or fails to meet its risk assessment and user empowerment obligations to the greater of around $109 million or five per cent of annual global turnover. This isn't radical; it's catching up. In the EU, fines can reach six per cent of global turnover; in the UK, it's 10 per cent of worldwide revenue. Canada is proposing up to three per cent and five per cent for criminal fines. New Zealand is proposing up to 10 per cent of worldwide revenue. Australia has led the world on online safety. We shouldn't now be too soft on these companies when they breach their obligations.

I've heard three objections to this amendment. Firstly, it's the reputational risk, not the dollar figure, that drives compliance. Well, I can say that social media companies are among the least trusted industries in the world. They have gone through scandal after scandal, and their behaviour hasn't changed. Reputation clearly isn't doing the work. Secondly, there is no precedent for penalties based on global turnover. Well, courts in the UK and Europe are already working through exactly these cases. The point of these penalties is not to raise revenue; the point is to encourage and drive compliance. The bigger the stick, the less likely we are to ever need to use it. And thirdly, this could strain our relationship with the United States. This is a maximum of up to five per cent. The courts keep full discretion to impose lower penalties. It applies to every company equally, wherever it's headquartered, and it's entirely reasonable for Australia to set Australian laws to protect Australian children. So, paired with a private right to action, which I urge the government and the Senate to take up, enforcement would rest with Australians themselves, not just the government.

I would like to commend the member for Curtin for leading the charge on the crossbench's advocacy on this issue. She was initially going to introduce this amendment alongside the range of other amendments that she's proposing but was generous enough to suggest that I introduce it instead. Parents in my electorate tell me they feel powerless against these platforms. This bill tells those parents that the platforms now owe their children a duty of care. This amendment makes sure that the platforms take that duty seriously. I commend the government's work on this critical legislation, and I urge the government to adopt and implement my amendment.