Renee Coffey (Griffith, Australian Labor Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

I have spoken to parents who feel exhausted by this. They want their children to have friends and they do not want them isolated, but they do not want every family dinner to become a fight about an app. They don't want to be the only household saying no. They want a fairer set of rules. The Online Safety Amendment (Strengthening Enforcement for the Social Media Minimum Age) Bill 2026 gives parents backing. It says the burden should not sit on families alone and it says social media companies must take responsibility for the products they put into children's lives.

In my community of Griffith, I see families trying their best every day. I see it at school gates, at community events, in local sporting clubs and in conversations with parents who are proud of their children and worried about them at the same time. Griffith is full of families who care deeply about their children's wellbeing. They want their kids to learn, explore, volunteer, play sport, join a club, get outside and be part of their community. They know technology is part of life. They are not asking for childhood to be frozen in the past. They are seeking for childhood to be protected in the present and that is a fair ask. We can support children to use technology well, and we can set limits where harm is clear. We can value connection, and we can still say that some platforms are not suitable for under-16s. We can back young people, and we can hold companies to account. This bill does just that.

Australia's reform has not stayed within our shores; we are world leading in this area. More than 20 countries have created or committed to creating their own laws to delay access to social media. They include countries across Europe, Asia, the Middle East, South America and beyond. Australia acted first, and others are now watching. Australian parents are watching too. They do not expect perfection overnight, but they do expect persistence. They expect us to keep going, fix weak points and respond when companies drag their feet. That is exactly what we are doing and what we will continue to do. We will continue to prioritise the health of our kids over the interests of these multinational companies.

This government could not be clearer to these platforms: if you want to do business in Australia, you must obey Australian law. The same principle applies to local businesses across our communities. It applies to local shops, cafes, builders, pharmacies and childcare centres, and it must apply to the largest technology companies in the world. It is the principle behind our consumer laws. Australians deserve clear rights, fair treatment and real protection when powerful companies do the wrong thing. For too long, some of these companies have acted as if their size puts them above the rules. They have shaped childhood, friendship, news, entertainment and social life at a speed that the law has struggled to match. That cannot continue.

This bill strengthens enforcement of the social media minimum age, but the work of protecting children online cannot end there. The next step in the government's work is to legislate a digital duty of care. That will put responsibility on digital service providers to build safer systems and protect Australians, especially children, from harm before it occurs.

I recently met with a local mother who told me what happened to her family after her eldest daughter, then just 12, was seriously harmed by an AI companion chatbot. Her daughter was first introduced to an AI roleplay website at school on a friend's phone. From there, she built a relationship with this chatbot AI character over months. The character told her she was worthless and made references to self-harm. Looking back, her mother described the exchanges as having the hallmarks of grooming and gaslighting. This was not a platform her daughter should have been able to access. The app's own terms of service said that it was not for anyone under 16, yet Google Play listed it as suitable for ages 12 and up. Her daughter was 12. Her daughter is now in regular therapy. Her mother describes what they are managing at home as having the features of an addiction.

Parents can do everything right and still find themselves outmatched by products designed to pull children back in. Too often, safety is treated as something to add later. That is just absolutely, utterly backwards. Children should not be the testing ground for unsafe design. Safety must be built in from the start, and that is the work that the government is continuing to undertake.

The Albanese Labor government has already shown that Australia can lead the world in online safety. More than five million underage accounts have been removed, deactivated or restricted. Early signs point to more sport, better sleep, less online bullying and less exposure to harmful content. That is real progress, but it's not the end of the task. It is not enough if platforms still leave doors open for children under 16, and it is not enough if parents are still fighting these battles alone at home. It's not enough for powerful companies to say they are doing the right thing but then refuse to provide the evidence that proves it. This bill strengthens those laws, those important laws, that we introduced in December last year.

Monique Ryan (Kooyong, Independent) | Link to this | Hansard source

Australia's world-first social media ban came into force in December 2025. As of June 2026, seven countries have implemented similar bans, four countries have legislated similar restrictions and 15 countries are actively considering taking stronger action on social media. The aspiration behind this reform is something of which Australia can be proud. We have led the world in recognising that children deserve better protection from the harms of social media. But good intentions don't necessarily produce good policy, and aspiration and goodwill are not the same as keeping children—or adults—safe online.

Immediately following the commencement of the ban, the eSafety Commissioner reported that 4.7 million age restricted accounts had been removed from social media platforms, and she described those early results as being very encouraging. Unfortunately, she spoke too soon. By March this year, eSafety's own data showed that about 70 per cent of children who had accounts prior to that ban were still using restricted platforms.

I'm hearing that in my electorate. In February this year, a group of young constituents from Methodist Ladies' College in Kew visited my office in Kooyong. They said that the ban just wasn't working. They told me that their classmates routinely bypassed its restrictions. Their experiences reflected exactly what the emerging evidence was beginning to show.

Over time, that evidence has only become stronger. This week, researchers from the University of Newcastle published a survey of 408 Australian adolescents which found that 85 per cent were still accessing social media three months after the ban commenced. The researchers, in fact, found very little evidence that this much-trumpeted ban had succeeded in getting young people to stop using platforms like TikTok, X, Facebook or Instagram.

None of this should surprise us. I warned the House about this potential outcome in November 2024. When this parliament first debated the social media ban, I opposed that legislation because I believed that technological workarounds—VPNs, false age declarations and other methods of circumvention—would inevitably undermine the effectiveness of a blanket ban. The data that we've seen this week confirms that those concerns were well founded.

I also warned that a ban could unintentionally increase risks for those children who continued to access social media platforms. A child who lies about their age to access Instagram is no longer recognised by the platform as a child. Whatever safety settings or other protections that might otherwise have applied disappear, and the child is then treated by the platform's algorithms as an adult.

That outcome was entirely foreseeable. It was the predictable consequence of legislating too quickly without sufficient evidence, meaningful consultation or a credible implementation strategy. It was legislation which flew in the face of the expert advice. It turned out the experts were right. We've ended up with a policy that has failed to substantially change children's online behaviour.

This brings me to the bill before the House today, the Online Safety Amendment (Strengthening Enforcement for the Social Media Minimum Age) Bill 2026. On Saturday, the government proposed to double the maximum civil penalty for platform noncompliance, increasing it from $49.5 million to $99 million. The bill also strengthens the powers of the eSafety Commissioner to compel platforms to demonstrate the steps that they have taken to comply with the ban.

Those are sensible measures. We know that the eSafety Commissioner is actively investigating possible noncompliance by five platforms: Instagram, Facebook, YouTube, Snapchat and TikTok. Julie Inman Grant, the eSafety Commissioner, has sent those platforms formal notices demanding information on how they're implementing age checks. Stronger investigative powers and higher penalties will assist that work. For that reason, I support this bill. I want Australian children to be safe in online spaces.

But let's think about those legislative changes in context. Elon Musk is now the world's first trillionaire. The maximum penalty that we're proposing for his platform, X, is approximately US$68 million at the current exchange rate. X's income in 2026 has been estimated at $1.4 billion, so A$68 million would represent about 11 to 12 days of Elon's profits. For the largest technological companies in the world, these bans and fines are still hardly an existential threat. They risk becoming simply another cost of doing business.

More fundamentally, my concerns about the bill from November remain unabated. Doubling fines on a broken system doesn't fix the system. Empowering the eSafety Commissioner with stronger powers helps with monitoring and enforcement, but it doesn't reduce the harm that, as we've heard from both sides of the House today, still exists in online spaces.

In 2024, I asked the House: what is the problem that we are trying to solve with this legislation? Is the problem that children and teenagers are using social media platforms, or is the problem that billion-dollar companies are marketing unsafe digital products in Australia?

I said then and I say now that a ban is not going to address the root causes of online risks. It's not going to make platforms safe for anybody—not for young Australians, not for other Australians. Age-gating will not make an unsafe product safe. If the product itself creates unacceptable risks then regulation should focus on the product and not simply on restricting who can access it. That's why I continue to believe that Australia needs a comprehensive digital duty of care. The government has committed to introducing one later this year, with somewhat less urgency than it has demonstrated in putting this legislation in front of the House this week.

Digital products should be designed according to public health principles, with safety built in from the outset rather than added as an afterthought. The evidence supporting that approach continues to grow. Excessive and addictive use of digital media has been associated with poor physical health, poorer sleep patterns, reduced social connectedness and worse mental health outcomes for many young people. While researchers continue to investigate questions of causation, the evidence is already more than sufficient to justify stronger safeguards.

Those safeguards should apply to everybody. We should require platforms to design products that are safe by default, that are more transparent, that are less addictive and that are more accountable. But, instead, we've created incentives for children to conceal their age, deceive their parents and thereby lose the protections that currently exist.

A digital duty of care would achieve what I argued for when this online safety legislation was first put in front of the House. It would preserve the legitimate benefits that social media provides while making digital platforms safer for everybody. Back then, I said social media is not just entertainment. For many young Australians, including those under 16, it is a source of essential information. It's where they get their media knowledge from. It's a source of education; they all love YouTube videos. It's a source of community and it's a source of civic participation. That is particularly true for LGBTQIA+ young people, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander young people, culturally and linguistically diverse communities, young people living in remote and regional Australia and young Australians with a disability.

For many of those young people, online communities provide communities that are impossible or at least difficult for them to find offline. Access to social media may well be more important than ever for those young people with a disability who will soon be moved off the NDIS by this government. Those who remain in the NDIS will soon have their social and community participation supports cut in half. We know where they'll be turning.

Young Australians also exercise democratic participation online. They increasingly access news, debate public issues and engage in political communication through social media platforms. That makes the constitutional issues raised by this legislation difficult to ignore. Reddit has now challenged the validity of the social media ban in the High Court on the basis of implied freedom of political communication. The government should explain how it intends to respond to those concerns.

Finally, if we are serious about taking on a public health approach to this online environment, then we should apply that principle consistently. A public health approach is not simply about restricting access. It's about reducing foreseeable harm at the source. It's about ensuring that digital products are designed to be safer, that harmful commercial practices are addressed and that companies take responsibility for the risks that they create.

Australia's young people are growing up in a digital environment. It's built for engagement, not for wellbeing. The costs are now plain to see: rising rates of anxiety, depression, sleep deprivation and gambling-related harm in our children and our teenagers.

Social media platforms have been allowed to operate for much too long without a legislated duty of care. They optimise algorithms for time on screen while exposing minors to harmful content, predatory contact and addictive design features that our children are simply not equipped to resist. At the same time, the explosion of gambling advertising and online wagering products has normalised betting for the next generation. It has embedded harm into our homes through kids' phones and screens rather than betting shops. A digital duty of care would shift that legal and moral obligation back onto the platforms. It would require them to proactively identify and mitigate risks to our children rather than just react after the damage is done. Coupled with stronger restrictions on gambling promotion and advertising, it's not about restricting freedom or innovation; it's about ensuring that the platforms that shape our children's daily lives are held to the same standard of care that we would expect of any product or service that was marketed to our young people.

We owe it to young Australians and to their families to act before further harm accumulates, not after. That's why it's difficult to understand why the government has this urgency about social media while it continues to drag its heels on online gambling harm and on other safety concerns in the public space. The Murphy report called for a comprehensive ban on all gambling advertising online that leaves no room for circumvention. But, under the government's reforms, if a person is logged into an account, they'll be exposed to online gambling ads until they opt out. That is not a safe digital environment for Australians, and it's incongruent with the principles that are expressed in this bill.

So, when the government's gambling legislation is introduced into parliament, I will be introducing a detailed amendment that will honour the late Peta Murphy, that will honour her clear recommendation that Australia needs a comprehensive ban on online gambling advertising that leaves no room for circumvention. My amendment will provide for a full ban on online gambling advertising across digital platforms, including social media, streaming services and online video environments, where Australians are now currently routinely exposed to targeted content. My amendment will ensure that Australia's approach to online safety is consistent, that we don't take a strong regulatory approach to one set of harms, as we are here, while continuing to tolerate another source of significant harm to young Australians and their families. If we are serious about an evidence based public health approach to Australia's digital environment, then we cannot be selective in its application. We can't treat social media harm to children as urgent, as the government is doing today, while treating their exposure to gambling harm in online spaces as optional.

So I commend this bill to the House, but I ask the government for more, more quickly and more effectively. In doing so, I move:

That all words after "House" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:

"(1) notes that:

(a) strengthened penalties and expanded information-gathering powers for the eSafety Commissioner are sensible improvements to enforcement of the Online Safety Act 2021;

(b) effective online safety policy requires a consistent approach to harm prevention across digital environments; and

(c) the Government does not plan to implement key recommendations of the House Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs' You Win Some, You Lose More report, including a comprehensive prohibition on online gambling advertising, leaving Australian children and families exposed to significant and well-evidenced harms; and

(2) calls on the Government to apply the same priority to addressing the harms of online gambling advertising as it has demonstrated in relation to social media regulation".

Steve Georganas (Adelaide, Australian Labor Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the amendment seconded?

Sophie Scamps (Mackellar, Independent) | Link to this | Hansard source

I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.

Julie-Ann Campbell (Moreton, Australian Labor Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

On 10 December 2025, the Albanese Labor government launched the social media ban for children aged under 16. It captured global attention. It was lauded by world leaders as world leading, and it was celebrated by many other governments across the globe. But I want to take a moment to highlight how Australian parents and how Australian carers, the drivers of this law, reacted. I think that the quotes, while you may have heard them before, are worth repeating. Shortly after the ban came into effect, one mother said:

Our son can no longer access his apps—this has already had a profound effect. This morning my son said, 'Mum, do you want to do something with me after school today, like putt putt or something else together?' Normally he would be consumed with his phone, watching mind-numbing videos.

Another said:

My daughter is six and she watches YouTube. She is already displaying signs of body issues, not wanting to eat, wanting to be beautiful. The rabbit hole that is available through the algorithms is horrible.

This is the last one:

Now I feel backed by the government and relieved that our country is taking the online safety of our youth seriously. Many parents are blind to what their kids get up to online.

Those last two points are particularly impactful. They reflect a core priority of the Albanese Labor government: keeping Australians safe online and keeping Australian children safe online. That's the reason we're here today debating the Online Safety Amendment (Strengthening Enforcement for the Social Media Minimum Age) Bill 2026.

Since the ban, more than five million social media accounts belonging to under-16s have been removed, restricted or deactivated. Last December's ban, however, was not ever meant to be a one and done, because when you are on the leading edge, as we have been on this important reform, you must always strive to keep getting better. That's what this bill does. We need to keep pushing forward to protect young Australians from the constant and, quite frankly, powerful influence of social media. These days social media companies are big household names. I'm talking about platforms like Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, Snapchat and YouTube. When you chat to young people, it's not long before someone mentions their favourite YouTuber or asks if you've seen a particular reel or TikTok and then shares it with you, much in the way that in the past we used to reference the morning's newspaper headlines in everyday conversation.

The social media companies that we're talking about here are large, influential, big and global. They've got resources, they've got expertise and they have the capacity to meet their obligations to uphold the social media ban for under-16s. However, in March 2026, the eSafety Commissioner, the independent regulator, publicly released a compliance update which highlighted that a significant number of Australian children under 16 still maintain social media accounts or have found ways to create new accounts by circumventing existing age-verification measures, and that's not good enough. The pressure and reach of these platforms are far from harmless. These platforms are designed to draw people in. They're designed to hold attention. They impact lives. When it comes to young people, that impact is not momentary. It can last a lifetime. Algorithm driven feeds, endless scrolling, constant alerts and unhealthy popularity measures all work together to capture and keep young people's focus.

Those of us in this chamber and this place are guilty of sitting up late at night, scrolling through and watching videos; there's no doubt about that. But we did not have the misfortune of growing up in an environment where that was available at the absolute developing moments, the moments when you're deeply impressionable, and this is about safeguarding our children against that. These features are not accidental. They're deliberately engineered to maximise engagement, and this is often at the expense of time; face-to-face socialising; family life, such as playing putt putt with your mum; school work; wellbeing; and development.

Scrolling on social media can consume hours of the day and can continue late into the night. That's why the Albanese Labor government is not leaving this important work unfinished. From the first discussions, Labor has acknowledged that this fast-changing space would require us to adapt accordingly and to make sure that legislation reflected that adaptation and that change. Fighting for the safety of Australian children online is a fight that we are more than willing to have. It's a fight that we should have and it's a fight that we are having.

The eSafety Commissioner is currently investigating the compliance of five platforms: Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, TikTok and YouTube. This bill strengthens the investigation and enforcement framework for the eSafety Commissioner. So what have these platforms in particular been doing? The eSafety Commissioner's compliance update shows that many of them seem to be doing the very bare minimum to comply instead of taking real, robust and strong action to protect young people. This includes practices such as allowing users under 16 to keep retrying age checks until they get through. It could be failing to stop underage users from quickly setting up new accounts after theirs have already been shut down. And we've also seen reporting systems that are difficult to use or ineffective for parents and others trying to flag underage accounts.

When you talk to parents, these algorithms, these platforms are the things that keep them up at night. They're worried about what their children are watching. They're worried about the profound impact it may have on their lives. They've heard the stories and they don't want to be another example. It is one of the defining challenges of modern parenting not just in this country but around the world. These are parents who need someone on their side, and this is a Labor government that is on their side.

The Prime Minister made it clear that the leaders for this reform have been parents who have undergone unimaginable pain, and I was incredibly privileged to meet one of those parents in Mia Bannister recently. She came to my daughter's early learning centre, and her role there was to educate other parents, to explain what had happened to her and to talk about the impacts that social media can have on everyone's lives. This is about backing Mia in and this is about backing every parent like her in.

This bill takes aim at these platforms in two ways. Firstly, it will increase the maximum civil penalty substantially. Currently, noncompliance with the minimum-age obligations can result in a penalty of 30,000 units, or a total of $49.5 million. This will increase to 60,000 penalty units, increasing the maximum penalty up to $99 million. This change is designed to increase accountability and send a very clear message that platforms are expected to take the minimum-age requirements seriously and fully meet their obligations. By strengthening the consequences for noncompliance, this aims to deter weak enforcement and encourage more proactive steps to protect our young users. It also brings the penalty framework into line with recent updates to the Competition and Consumer Act 2010, ensuring consistency across Australia's regulatory approach and reinforcing that these are obligations that carry real weight and real consequences.

The second part of this bill strengthens the information-gathering powers of the eSafety Commissioner, which means the compliance of platforms can be assessed when required. The amendments specifically give the eSafety Commissioner stronger powers to request information and documents from any relevant party where there are reasonable grounds to believe that they hold material related to compliance with the minimum-age framework. Importantly, this extends to information provided by third parties, such as age verification services or app store operators, which can help verify, support or challenge the claims made by platforms about their compliance. This includes situations where it is necessary to determine whether a particular service falls within the scope of the law or is meeting those very important obligations. For instance, information obtained by those third parties could challenge or contradict what a platform has reported about its own compliance efforts. This information could also reveal that measures claimed to be in place are not actually working as intended. This helps ensure that platforms cannot rely solely on their own representations without scrutiny, transparency and accountability.

Overall, these changes will give the eSafety Commissioner a more complete and a more accurate picture of how platforms are operating in practice day to day. With better access to evidence, the commissioner will be in a stronger position to thoroughly investigate potential breaches and, where appropriate, take enforcement action to ensure that this is a law that is properly followed.

Australia is at the forefront globally when it comes to protecting our children and our young people online. Since Labor's ban came into place in December last year, numerous countries have either passed their own legislation or put restrictions in place. There is no doubt that we have been leading the way, but what this legislation shows is that we know there is more to do. Online safety for children is something that resonates worldwide. Malaysia has banned under-16s from accessing social media. Indonesia has applied an age gated approach with restrictions. Brazil has implemented an under-14s ban, and France has an under-15s ban coming into force in September this year. I could go on. As the Prime Minister has said, I'm heartened by the shift in conversation and the global momentum that we've seen since introducing the social media minimum age. But it's clear big tech is not doing enough to comply with the law. There are still too many children on social media.

The Albanese government is utterly serious about enforcing compliance by the big social media platforms, and this bill is a very clear signal to Facebook, Snapchat, Instagram, YouTube and TikTok. It tells them that we expect them not only to do the right thing but to fully comply with the law. Labor is not stopping with this bill. We are driving upcoming work to legislate a digital duty of care, and this will build on the existing reforms and reflects a stronger, more proactive approach to tackling harm in the digital environment. When it comes to a digital duty of care and making sure our children are safe, we will not rest. We owe it to our young people and we owe it to our children.

Zoe McKenzie (Flinders, Liberal Party, Shadow Cabinet Secretary) | Link to this | Hansard source

Is it any surprise that we find ourselves here? Let me start with a history lesson, because, in respect of this reform and its failures which today we are here trying to mop up, a history lesson actually matters. Back in the 46th Parliament, my friend—a strong-minded, most clever coalition MP—the member for Fisher led an inquiry into age verification for pornography and gambling sites. That committee concluded in its report, which was called Protecting the age of innocence, that age verification is not a silver bullet but a useful tool to create a barrier to young people's access to harmful online content.

Protecting the a ge of i nnocence was handed down on the eve of the COVID-19 pandemic, but it set out a future course of conduct, including that the Digital Transformation Agency should lead the development of standards for online age verification, that the eSafety Commissioner should lead development of a roadmap for mandatory age verification for online pornographic material, that the Australian government should implement mandatory age verification for online wagering alongside existing identity verification requirements and, finally, that some educational resources for parents should be prepared. That report was largely bipartisan, but, in Labor's minimal additional comments at the time, they posted a warning to their future selves, where they quoted the eSafety Commissioner:

Age verification is a nascent field, and if it is to be leveraged to protect children and young people from accessing online pornography, then we need to develop a supportive ecosystem, develop robust technical standards and requirements for this type of technology, and better understand the effectiveness and impact of age verification solutions in addressing this policy concern.

They also drew attention to comments by the Communications Alliance:

Translating this objective [of ensuring that Australians younger than 18 years should not have access to online wagering and pornography sites] into a robust and practicable framework that also protects the privacy and cyber security of individual users of an age verification system is, however, a complex task that must be approached carefully and methodically.

Further, they said:

Labor members of the Committee acknowledge that the necessary review and research requires time, expertise and resources to properly examine the complex range of issues that age verification gives rise to, across data security, trust, privacy and freedom of expression.

Many of the members of the then House of Representatives Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs remain on the government's benches today—the members for Newcastle and Macarthur. While the formidable former member for Dunkley Peta Murphy is no longer here, her presence is felt loudly and proudly for her leadership on the topic of age verification and gambling. Her impact remains felt in this chamber each and every day. Learning from his strong leadership in this policy space, the member for Fisher became my firm friend after I got up in my very first speech and discussed the impact of screening and social media on the generation of young Australians that had just come through the COVID era.

In that speech, I reflected on the period the Mornington Peninsula had just passed through and what it had done to the relationship between young people and screens. I said:

The 262 days of lockdown in metro Melbourne, in which the Mornington Peninsula, bafflingly, found itself included, further embedded their generation's relationship with screens, social media and other online content. Whatever systems our households had in place to balance online time with offline time in the form of study, sports, sleep or social activity collapsed during the COVID-19 pandemic. Worse still, the school system became the dealer of the digital drug, putting laptops and tablets into every lounge or bedroom.

I went on:

… increasingly, data shows us that today's adolescents—24/7 connected to devices, addled by algorithms and autoplay—are showing signs of stress and, indeed, in some cases, distress. Self-control difficulties, impulsivity, family conflict, sleep disturbance, inactivity, concentration impairment and poor language development are often observed among those children whose technology use is above the recommended two hours a day. Of highest concern is the well-documented epidemic of anxiety and depression in teenage girls, which we know correlates with high use of social media.

At the time, I admit, no-one much was listening, but it was a conversation I continued with former colleagues in tech and telco from my time on the NBN board, with families and teachers across my electorate, and with researchers and policymakers around the world. The work by Professor Jean Twenge was already detailing the impact of technology on young people.

Published in 2017, her book iGen detailed the impact of technology on the generation who had grown up with it in their hands. She studied the cohort of young people born between 1995 and 2012 and the impact internet enabled devices were having on that generation. Twenge's book iGen provided reams of data on what we were seeing in terms of behavioural change, cultural change, and social and economic change due to social media but also on mental health, social cohesion and to a lesser extent radicalisation. I thank Professor Twenge for the time she has given me personally while being here speaking in Australia. Her work has been pivotal in giving me the data and determination I needed for what I could already see was happening in our homes and communities over the last decade.

Twenge's work was followed by Jonathan Haidt's more popular work of 2024, The Anxious Generation, which captured the public's attention. It also captured interest in this place. Many of my colleagues pulled me aside, saying: 'I remember you mentioning this in your maiden speech. Can we have a chat?' It was perhaps helpful that many by then had kids who were in their teens and the battle over iPhones and platforms was real and rife at the dining room table. Haidt's thesis was that we had 'rewired childhood' and that we had let play cede way to phones. Again, Haidt detailed a number of perils—social isolation, sleep deprivation, attention fragmentation and addiction—particularly the trap of the compulsive dopamine driven design of many of the social media platforms.

Early in 2024, my then leader Peter Dutton stood up and said, 'There's an age verification regime which has been recommended by the eSafety Commissioner from 2023. We think that's something that the government should pick up straightaway as well, but the Online Safety Act has significant powers in it, we passed it when we were in government and it needs to be enforced. If the laws are inadequate and they need to be strengthened or added to, then we would support any effort from the government.'

By then, a number of parents groups had already got organised and were running hard, demanding reform, like the Heads Up Alliance, and 36 months and News Corp's Let Them Be Kids campaign had kicked off in May 2024. A local hero from the Mornington Peninsula, dad Wayne Holdsworth, had started his SmackTalk outreach work across the country. All these efforts were getting increased public attention.

Meta whistleblower Frances Haugen visited Australia a number of times. Listeners will recall she was the person who revealed that Meta knew exactly how much damage was being done to young people, particularly girls, on their platforms. I thank Frances for coming to Flinders and for meeting with me and my local schools to talk to young people about their experience with social media.

On 13 June 2024, Peter Dutton made an even clearer statement committing a future coalition government to implementing an age limit of 16 for social media platform use and making it a top priority for his first hundred days in office. Premiers Minns of New South Wales and Malinauskas of South Australia were quick to read the room and held a summit a few months later. But, for months, Australia's Prime Minister remained largely silent on the issue, as was his then communications minister.

In May, the Prime Minister sought to pump the issue into the long grass, referring the matter to a select committee, the Joint Select Committee on Social Media and Australian Society. Unsurprisingly, the member for Fisher and I bullied and begged our way onto that committee. I do recommend the committee report to all and sundry to read, as indeed I did this morning when talking to Senator Julie Miville-Dechêne, an Independent Quebecoise senator in Canada. Julie rounds out conversations and communications I have had with policymakers and influencers in New Zealand, the UK, France, Germany, Belgium, Denmark, the EU and the OECD since 2022 on this issue. It has always been clear to me that Australia will not get there alone—without bigger, more substantive and more lucrative markets getting on board to force change and practice within the social media business model.

But there's another reason why the joint select committee's report is worth reading. That is because, in the final report, called Social media: the good, the bad and the ugly, nowhere in it do the Labor members of the committee recommend a ban on under-16s holding social media accounts, the accounts being the vector for algorithmic push and influence. The coalition members' comments, written by the member for Fisher and me, argued for meaningful measures to address recommender systems, persuasive design features and customised feeds. We demanded that platforms report on foreign interference and transnational crime, as well as intelligence relating to child sexual abuse material, child sexual exploitation material and non-consensual sexual images. We demanded action on scams which flourish on Australian social media platforms but not elsewhere, and we demanded additional resources for the eSafety Commissioner and the Australian Centre to Counter Child Exploitation. We demanded a statutory duty of care on social media platforms, and we demanded concerted action in relation to the possible perils of generative artificial intelligence as well. But, above all, we demanded that Australia create an effective market for safer social media as it concerns young people.

On 8 November, after a National Cabinet meeting, the Prime Minister announced an intention to legislate a minimum age for access to social media, and many of the committee's coalition members' recommendations found their way into a speech given by the then Minister for Communications at the Sydney Institute on 13 November 2024. I sat up the back of the room that night, somewhat flabbergasted to hear her commitment to all the things which the member for Fisher and I had argued for throughout the select committee process but which had gone unsaid, unsought and unfought for by her colleagues on the committee.

The Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Act 2024 was passed on 29 November 2024 with bipartisan support. But, in the eSafety Commissioner's own words, which she has subsequently shared publicly, she was not given the powers she needed to do the job. In a lunch with Jacqueline Maley, eSafety Commissioner Julie Inman Grant said the legislation was drafted 'very quickly' and said:

… if you're going to take on the biggest technology companies in the world … it's not like you're sticking a pink parking ticket on a windshield …

She said:

What you're effectively asking us to do with this is fence the ocean. We might be able to create some friction and some degree of safety but it's a futile exercise if you think you're totally stemming the ocean.

That would all be fair comment if the government who had given her instructions in these tasks without the requisite powers had not been on notice for at least 2½ years, if not, in fact, four. At the time, my side knew the reform was flawed, but we were on the eve of an election and something, anything, was better than nothing. We were comforted that, should we be successful at that election, we'd be able to make the reform more rigorous. Frankly, as we've heard from others, parents were desperate.

When I quietly said to parents groups, 'I cannot promise you yet that this will work,' they would invariably reply, 'I am desperate; you have to give me something to strengthen my arm at the nightly battle at the dinner table,' and so we did. The social media platforms had a year to adapt to the reforms, but, rather than rigorously test the adequacy of the implementation, this government got busy on a world victory tour. It was shameless, it was grandiose, it was decadent, and it was a dereliction of duty. We had the new minister for communications spend some hundred thousand dollars to wear the shiny ribbon of reform at the United Nations General Assembly meeting in New York in September 2025 before a single social media account had been cancelled.

On the weekend just passed, almost out of nowhere, the Prime Minister declared that the reform had failed and recognised that failure by social media companies to comply with our 'world-leading law' needed to be addressed. Then, to double down on this government's ineptitude, this bill was rushed in yesterday afternoon—so rushed that there were no copies of the bill at the table yesterday when the minister god up to give her second reading speech. It seems this government is determined to repeat its mistakes through haste and being seen to address issues rather than addressing them in any meaningful way. We are being asked to pass this bill within 24 hours, and it is not clear from the content of this bill that it will actually bring about change and efficacy in the operation of this reform.

Efficacy here is not optional. The rest of the world is watching us. I addressed a political tech conference in Berlin in January of this year which brought together hundreds of politicians, public policy makers and regulators in the social media space across all continents regarding our laws and especially the importance of the EU, France and Germany following suit to provide ballast and back in the reforms with a 450-million person market.

This time last year, I met with the French president's advisers at the Elysee on this topic, and, in January, France's National Assembly passed a bill to ban social media accounts for under-15s. In February of this year, I met with members of the German Bundestag, looking at this as a possible reform. I was in the room at the CDU national conference in Stuttgart when the then-ruling CDU committed to a ban for under-14-year-olds. I'm proud to say that, unlike the Minister for Communications, the Australian taxpayer didn't need to pay a single dollar for me to have these conversations with policymakers around the world. I do thank the Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung and the Meliore Foundation for their support, and I thank others for agreeing to meet with me and to do work together on my self-funded holidays to get meaningful reform done.

Madonna Jarrett (Brisbane, Australian Labor Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

Growing up, I was spared what we now know as the intrusion of Facebook, Snapchat, TikTok, YouTube and other social media platforms. However, as my sons grew from children to adolescents, technology developed so rapidly. There was a plethora of platforms to engage with friends and others. This included online games they played with their friends and, dare I say, their online acquaintances. Here we are in 2026, where not only is there a plethora of platforms available but there are also algorithms that push content that can be predatory and harmful to young people.

I was concerned about what my sons had access to 15 years ago to the point that we insisted that their online games were played in the living room, where it was possible to keep that little lazy ear on the discussions between them and the people they really didn't know. We didn't know their values either, nor what they may be saying to two very vulnerable young lads, who, like any teenagers, were trying to work out who they were.

As parents, we obviously want our kids to explore, we want them to find their peeps, and we want them to be safe. They are rightly curious. Their brains are sponges, they want to feel part of the community, and they want to feel loved. But those traits, however, also make them vulnerable to pressures in what they see and what they hear. We've seen the worst that this can lead to, which is why keeping Australians safe online, particularly children and young people, is a top priority of the Albanese Labor government.

Last year, we introduced some of the most significant and controversial technology reforms Australia has seen in recent years—to introduce a minimum age of 16 for social media use. This reform did spark debate across the country. Some believe it was necessary to step up and protect young Australians from online harm. Others argued it limited freedoms, is difficult to enforce and may create new problems rather than solve existing ones. On this side of the House, however, we make no apologies for keeping our children safe from online social media harm.

Since the introduction of these reforms in December last year, we have seen over five million accounts belonging to under-16s taken off social media, and that really is a positive development. But it is clear that big tech companies aren't doing enough to keep children off their platforms. That's why this government has stepped in again to do more. With this bill, we are doubling the penalties these companies face when they do the wrong thing, and we're also giving more power to the regulator so they can investigate what's going on.

But why did the government have to act? Social media has certainly transformed the way we communicate. Platforms such as Instagram, TikTok, Snapchat, Facebook and X have become a normal part of our modern life. While these platforms offer opportunities for learning, creativity and connection, they also expose young people to significant risks. As we heard in the chamber earlier, research has linked excessive social media use with increased rates of anxiety, depression, body-image concerns, cyberbullying, sleep deprivation and reduced attention spans amongst teenagers.

Many young people compare themselves to unrealistic online standards, and algorithms often prioritise sensational or emotionally charged content because it keeps the user engaged. This can create an endless cycle of scrolling that is difficult for adults to manage, let alone children. Parents, teachers and mental health professionals have increasingly expressed concern that social media companies have been prioritising engagement and profit over children's wellbeing. In response to this, our government has acted and announced legislation requiring major social media companies to take reasonable steps to prevent Australians under the age of 16 from accessing social media and creating accounts. Importantly, the responsibility takes a bit of the effort away from parents and puts it on technology companies themselves.

What are the benefits of these reforms? The first is improved mental health. Teenagers are still developing emotionally and psychologically, and removing constant exposure to social media comparisons, cyberbullying and addictive algorithms may reduce stress, anxiety and depression. The second is the benefit of increased face-to-face interaction. Young people are spending more time participating in sport and hobbies, outdoor activities and even conversations with friends and family—activities we did as kids—rather than endlessly scrolling through content. The third is better sleep. Many teenagers use social media late into the night, reducing sleep quality and affecting school performance. Less screen time before bed could improve concentration, learning and overall health. The fourth is greater protection from online predators, scams and harmful content. The internet, as we all know, contains misinformation, violent material, gambling promotion and inappropriate content that younger users may struggle to interpret critically. Finally, the reforms send a strong message to technology companies that child safety should be built into platform designs rather than treated as an afterthought or something that they just have to deal with.

When these reforms were first announced last year, there was excitement across the country but also trepidation. 'Will it work?' 'How will it work?' 'What do I need to do?' That's why I decided to hold a social media forum in Brisbane, alongside our state MPs Grace Grace and Jonty Bush, to discuss with parents the reforms and what to expect. This session was designed to give parents the knowledge and confidence to help guide them and their children in the new social media landscape. We enjoyed a presentation from Paul—who was representing the eSafety Commission—which was very informative, and we finished the evening with Professor Morawska from the University of Queensland. She partners with Triple P, an organisation that specialises in child psychology.

But even with our existing historic laws, it's clear that big tech is not doing enough to protect our children from online harm. Social media companies are some of the largest and most influential companies globally. They have the capability and they have the resources to meet their obligations under the social media minimum age framework and protect young users. Speaking of resources, Meta alone has a market cap of more than US$1.4 trillion. In March 2026, the eSafety Commissioner released a public compliance update which found that while platforms have removed, deactivated or restricted access to more than five million accounts there is a substantial proportion of Australian children under the age of 16 who continue to hold or create new accounts or are able to bypass existing age assurance systems. It's just not good enough. The eSafety Commissioner is concerned.

The commissioner is actively investigating the compliance of five platforms: Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, TikTok and YouTube. In considering enforcement action, the eSafety Commissioner has advised the government that it needs stronger investigative powers to build stronger evidence against potentially non-compliant platforms. This bill responds to those challenges by strengthening the enforcement framework so that platforms take their minimum age obligation seriously and do more to comply. With this bill, the maximum civil penalty for noncompliance with minimum age obligations extends from 30,000 to 60,000 penalty units, or it brings that maximum penalty up to $99 million. It's also important that the information-gathering powers of the eSafety Commissioner are strengthened so they can get the information they need from the platforms to access compliance and understand what's going on. In particular, the amendment enables the commissioner to issue notices requiring the provision of information and documents from any person where the commissioner reasonably believes they hold material relevant to compliance with the minimum age framework, including whether a service falls within its scope.

For example, there may be situations where information and documents are held by a third party that might refute the information provided by, or claims made by, the age restricted social media platform, or they may show that the steps taken are not operating as claimed. The bottom line is that these changes will provide the commissioner with more information as to how the platforms are complying with the laws, which will support more effective investigation and potentially stronger enforcement action. But the Albanese government is not stopping here. The next step in the government's mission to protect Australians from online harm is to legislate a digital duty of care. That duty of care will put the responsibility on digital service providers to adopt safety by design and have systems in place to protect Australians—and, in particular, young Australians—from harm before it occurs.

However, as we know, every major reform has challenges. I've heard about the previous challenges from some people in my community, and we'll see where we go with this lot. Teenagers are technologically savvy. Some teenagers may simply create accounts using false ages, virtual private networks or accounts registered by adults. Some people think that social media may not be entirely harmful. For many young people it provides friendship, support networks, educational content and opportunities to express creativity. People living in rural areas or experiencing isolation rely heavily on online communities for connection, and critics argue that banning access altogether may remove these positive benefits. There is also concern that responsibility should remain primarily with parents, rather than with government. Some families say they're capable of deciding when their children are mature enough to use social media safely. Other families question whether government intervention is the right approach. But, overall, these reforms raise broader questions about the role of technology companies.

We have to take steps to ensure that our community is safe, so we have to ask ourselves: should companies that make billions and trillions of dollars, whose business model depends on keeping users online, be responsible for protecting children? We argue—yes. For years, platforms have developed sophisticated algorithms that are capable of predicting what users will watch, buy and click, then they push this content to them. If companies possess technology advanced enough to personalise data and advertisements within seconds, surely they can also develop effective systems to protect children. Increasingly, governments around the world are asking technology companies to accept greater responsibility for the products they create. Australia's reforms are already world leading, and they could become even more so with these reforms.

Over the past months, many countries have restricted or announced plans to restrict social media access for children and teens. The UK is the latest country to announce a ban on social media for children; it did that in June, this month. There are 16 other countries: Austria, Brazil, Canada, Denmark, Spain, Vietnam, Türkiye et cetera just to name a few. This is important, and the reason it's important is we know that if we work together around the world, at a global level, we can send a clear and strong message to the tech giants that this is a serious issue and they must act. It was brave for Australia to go it alone, and I am proud that we took the steps to act in the interests of young people. Governments must stand strong, and that's exactly what we are doing.

Of course, legislation alone cannot solve every problem. In this space, digital literacy remains essential. Young Australians still need education about misinformation, online scams, cyberbullying, privacy settings and responsible online behaviour. Parents play a crucial role by maintaining open conversations with our kids about online experiences, modelling healthy technology use and setting clear boundaries. Schools likewise have an important responsibility to teach students critical thinking skills so that they can navigate the digital world safely. Ultimately, protecting young people requires cooperation between families, educators, governments, community and technology companies.

So where does this leave us? Australia's social media reforms represent a bold attempt to address one of the defining public health and technology challenges of our generation, and the strength of their success will depend on how effectively these laws can be enforced, whether privacy can be protected and whether technology companies genuinely cooperate. The debate reminds us that technological innovation should always be accompanied by ethical responsibility and that ethics should be introduced at the start of the development of any product or service that is delivered through the digital space. Just because technology evolves rapidly, it doesn't mean society should accept every consequence without question or without compromise.

As Australians, we must continue asking how we can enjoy the benefits of digital technology—we know there are many—while protecting the wellbeing of future generations. As leaders, we have to have the courage to take on the big issues, and the issue of social media addiction for our young people is one of these big issues. The Albanese Labor government are on the side of parents and kids, not the side of platforms, and we will keep fighting for them every step of the way.

(Quorum formed)

Andrew Wallace (Fisher, Liberal National Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

Unfortunately, the Labor members have all just departed the chamber. It is unfortunate because they could have actually learned something. Between you, Mr Deputy Speaker Freelander, and me, with our experience in this particular area, we could teach them a lesson. But the Online Safety Amendment (Strengthening Enforcement for the Social Media Minimum Age) Bill 2026 is a very important bill, and it's one that I know that you have a great deal of interest in, because you and I have worked very closely together over the years on the protection of young people. No government has any greater responsibility than the protection of its citizens. Drilling down into that even further, that is particularly so when we talk about the protection of its most vulnerable—that is, children. There's an old phrase that goes something like this: you can always judge the state of a society by how it treats its most vulnerable.

The issues that we have looked at together, Mr Deputy Speaker, over a number of years, with the harms that are being caused by social media to young people, are very significant. When the coalition was in government, we led the charge on things such as the implementation of the eSafety Commissioner. When the eSafety Commissioner was first introduced, the role was actually called the Children's eSafety Commissioner, and then the coalition expanded the role across all age groups because we recognised that, unfortunately, bad things were happening online. Not only did we create the Children's eSafety Commissioner in 2015; in 2017 we built the world's first scheme to force platforms to take down intimate images shared without consent, which is sometimes referred to as revenge pawn, and hit perpetrators and non-compliant platforms with real financial penalties. In 2021, the coalition introduced and passed the Online Safety Act. It was the most comprehensive online safety regime in the nation's history. We codified the basic online safety expectations, created an adult cyberabuse take-down scheme and slashed the time platforms have to strip illegal and terrorist content from their feeds.

This wasn't window dressing, Mr Deputy Speaker. This was real reform. You and I both sat on that inquiry of the Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs, which I chaired, and you named the report Protecting the age of innocence. I'll be forever grateful for the work that you and I did because that really kicked off in this parliament the importance of age assurance. In that inquiry, we looked at restricting, with an effort to eliminating, online pornography and gambling for under 18-year-olds, and we wanted to introduce that age assurance. That was the first time that this place had considered that, and, unfortunately, still today, in 2026, those recommendations have not been fully implemented. I lament that. It is very unfortunate that those two issues of online pornography and online gambling for under-18s are still not properly looked after. But I digress.

The social media ban for under-16-year-olds was a coalition conviction. It was a coalition policy born out of the good work that we did on the Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs. In 2023, in November, there was a coalition private member's bill—which, if I remember correctly, was moved by then shadow minister David Coleman—to force age verification onto the agenda for social media, and Labor knocked it back. This Labor government knocked it back. This Labor government has been dragged kicking and screaming to introduce a social media ban. Those members opposite will try and rewrite history, especially those members opposite who are new to the party or new to this place and who are given the talking points by the Labor Party. But the reality is the under-16s ban was born of and from the coalition. The Labor Party wanted nothing to do with it.

That was until a group of parents who had lost children to the sort of abuse that many children experience on social media—mums like Emma Mason, who lost her daughter Matilda to the most wicked forms of online abuse. Mr Deputy Speaker, when you and I were lads—you were a lad a fair bit longer ago than I was a lad.

Mike Freelander (Macarthur, Australian Labor Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

Correct.

Andrew Wallace (Fisher, Liberal National Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

When you and I were lads, bullying stopped at the school gate. But, now, bullying continues day in, day out, 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Poor little Tilly succumbed to that bullying and took her own life in her own backyard. Emma Mason led the charge with a number of other parents to force this government to act. She then went to the UN and did some great work in the UN—if it's possible to do any great work in the UN, but I digress again. The work done by those family members, those parents, brought this to the front of mind of Australians and showed that this is not just some sort of boutique issue; this is something that is costing Australian lives. I want to thank them again for their work.

In May of 2024, there was a parliamentary inquiry which was engaged and begun under this government, but at the coalition's behest, when David Coleman was the shadow communications minister. I remember serving on that committee with the member for Flinders, and we did some really good work once again to look at bringing those age assurance issues into social media. I'm pleased that the government finally woke up to itself and adopted that recommendation. We also made recommendations around the significance of algorithms and recommender systems and how those systems can significantly sway what young people—all of us but particularly young people—see on their screens and how that can have a significant, deleterious impact on their mental wellbeing. I know, Mr Deputy Speaker, how much you, as a renowned paediatrician, take those matters very seriously.

I want to thank the member for Flinders for her outstanding work on that committee because she helped me immeasurably in the recommendations that we ended up putting up. I want to acknowledge the great work of David Coleman and the former opposition leader Peter Dutton, who made a commitment, at the last election, that within the first 100 days of a coalition government we would introduce a social media ban for under-16s.

But things haven't gone so well since then. The Labor Party took what was a good policy and they wrecked it. The numbers don't lie. The eSafety Commissioner's own March 2026 compliance update identified that 70 per cent of children under 16 are still on social media. A landmark British Medical Journal study identified that 85 per cent of under-16s are still logging on. Its verdict was 'limited implementation, incomplete compliance and substantial circumvention'. The eSafety Commissioner herself called the ban a 'very blunt force approach' that was thrown together 'very quickly' with 'very thin scaffolding' and no 'potent powers'. In her words, taking on the world's biggest tech companies is not like 'sticking a pink parking ticket on a windshield'. She also described it as like trying to 'fence the ocean'.

The amending bill before the House tonight is actually a confession of the Labor government. Labor is rushing to bolt on the powers it should have built in from day one. Today, as the law stands, the commissioner can only compel a platform or platform providers. This bill allows the eSafety Commissioner to compel documents from age-assurance providers, app store operators and anyone reasonably believed to hold compliance information. It provides penalties with bite. It provides for the doubling of penalties, up to $99 million for a corporation and up to $19.8 million for an individual. These are all good things, but they are late to the party.

It would be remiss of me not to comment on the sorts of dangers and ills that we are experiencing today on social media. Did you know, Mr Deputy Speaker, that in the 2024-25 financial year the Australian Centre to Counter Child Exploitation received 82,764 reports of online child exploitation? That's 227 reports each and every single day. This is something that we as Australians should be ashamed of, and there is much more work for the minister to do.

There are some really simple things that this government could do. There are, unfortunately, bad actors that are operating in the dark web, which has led to child sexual exploitation being absolutely rife throughout the dark web. There are ways and means that this government should be using to identify perpetrators and victims. I'm not sold on this particular product, but there's a product out there called Clearview AI, which enables law enforcement to identify perpetrators and victims. But we can't use products like Clearview AI which scrape the dark web, because some genius in the privacy commission decided that that was a breach of Australian privacy law. So we are at the mercy of these grubs that operate on the dark web who seek to exploit children in Australia and around the world, and this government won't arm our law enforcement agencies with the tools that they need to identify victims and perpetrators.

I implore those members opposite—the Attorney-General, the Minister for Communications and anybody on the government benches—to have a look at the concept of a proprietary product called Clearview AI. It identifies perpetrators and victims so that we can charge and arrest these grubs and try to identify victims and help them get away from the situations that they're in.

Carol Berry (Whitlam, Australian Labor Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to speak in support of the Online Safety Amendment (Strengthening Enforcement for the Social Media Minimum Age) Bill 2026. This legislation is about one simple but vital principle: when laws are made to protect children, those laws must be strongly enforced. A law without effective enforcement is merely a statement of intent, and this bill ensures that Australia's social media minimum age laws are backed by serious consequences for companies that fail to meet their responsibilities.

Social media has transformed how we communicate, learn and connect. It has brought enormous benefits to society by allowing people to stay in touch across continents, access educational resources, build communities and express themselves creatively. These advantages should not be ignored. However, alongside these benefits come serious risks, in particular, for young Australians. Children today are exposed to cyberbullying, inappropriate content, online predators, scams and unrealistic social comparisons at unprecedented levels. This is completely unacceptable.

These are not isolated incidents; they are systemic problems that demand systemic solutions. Keeping Australians safe online, particularly children and young people, is an important priority for the Albanese Labor government. That's why we've delayed people's access to social media until they're 16 years old. It's to protect young Australians from the pervasive impact of social media. Social media companies are among the largest and most influential digital platforms in the world. They have the capability and resources to meet their obligations under the social media minimum age framework and to protect younger users. We are expecting them to demonstrate their social responsibility to children and young people in our society and to use that capability to protect young people.

In March 2026, the eSafety Commissioner released a public compliance update which found that while platforms have removed, deactivated or restricted access to more than five million accounts—and this is a good start—a substantial proportion of Australian children under the age of 16 continue to hold or create new accounts, or they are able to bypass existing age assurance systems. The eSafety Commissioner is actively investigating the compliance of five platforms: Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, TikTok and YouTube. In considering potential enforcement action, the eSafety Commissioner has advised the government that stronger investigative powers are required to build stronger evidence against potentially non-compliant platforms.

This bill responds to these challenges by strengthening the enforcement framework underpinning the social media minimum age requirements. The Albanese Labor government is on the side of parents and children, not platforms. The eSafety Commissioner's public compliance update shows that social media giants seem to be trying to get away with doing the bare minimum. If these social media companies want to do business in Australia, they must obey Australian laws and they must uphold their social responsibility.

This bill increases the maximum civil penalty for noncompliance with minimum age obligations from 30,000 to 60,000 penalty units. This brings the maximum penalty up to $99 million. These changes are intended to strengthen deterrence and reinforce the expectation that platforms take their minimum-age obligations seriously and do more to comply. Our government will strengthen the eSafety Commissioner's information-gathering powers so they can get the information they need from platforms to assess compliance when they need it. In particular, the amendments enable the commissioner to issue notices requiring the provision of information and documents from any person where the commissioner reasonably believes they hold material relevant to compliance with the minimum-age framework. (Quorum formed)

The next step in the Albanese Labor government's mission to protect Australians from online harm to is to legislate a digital duty of care. A digital duty of care will put the responsibility on digital service providers to adopt a safety-by-design approach and have systems in place to protect Australians—in particular, young Australians—from harm before it occurs. Our original social media minimum-age legislation recognised these dangers by requiring social media platforms to take reasonable steps to prevent children under 16 from holding accounts. Importantly, the responsibility was placed where it belongs: not on parents, teachers or children but on the tech companies themselves.

Today, our proposed amendments strengthen that framework by ensuring those companies cannot simply ignore their obligations. Some of the largest tech companies in the world are impacted by these measures, and they generate billions of dollars in annual revenue. For businesses of this size, modest financial penalties can come become little more than another cost of doing business. This bill addresses that problem by significantly increasing the maximum penalties for companies that systematically fail to comply with Australia's online safety laws, and that's why we are doubling maximum penalties to $99 million while giving regulators stronger investigative powers. That's about ensuring accountability. When multinational corporations profit from Australian users, they must also respect Australian law. No company, regardless of its size or influence, should be above the law.

Critics have argued that these reforms place too much responsibility on social media companies, but we disagree. Technology companies possess some of the most sophisticated data-collection and identity-verification technologies ever developed. These companies know what users watch, where they're located, what ads interest them and even how long they pause while scrolling. If companies possess technology capable of delivering personalised advertising with remarkable accuracy, then surely they possess the capability to implement reasonable age-assurance measures to protect children. The question is not whether or not they can; the question is whether or not they will. This legislation ensures that they must.

This debate is ultimately about protecting children. Parents across Australia are increasingly concerned about the amount of time their children are spending online. Where parents can control this, they do, but there is so much outside of their control because of the content that children can now access online. Unfortunately, this is now a challenging feature of modern parenthood. Many families struggle to monitor social media use around the clock. Children can access content at school, at friends' homes and on multiple devices. Some of the content that children can now access on social media is horrifying and distressing and far from being age appropriate. Parents should not have to fight billion-dollar technology companies alone. Government has a responsibility to create an environment where families are supported rather than undermined.

The evidence surrounding online harms continues to grow. Research has linked excessive social media use among adolescents with increased rates of anxiety, depression, body image concerns, sleep disruption and exposure to harmful content. Young users are particularly vulnerable because their emotional regulation and decision-making skills are still developing. Social media that is designed to maximise engagement does not distinguish between content that is healthy and content that is harmful. Instead, it prioritises whatever keeps users scrolling. For children, this can mean repeated exposure to unrealistic beauty standards, self-harm material, misinformation, disturbing material, cyberbullying or addictive content. No child should become collateral damage in the pursuit of advertising revenue.

Some opponents argue that young people need social media to remain socially connected. That concern deserves consideration. Social connection is important. However, this legislation does not seek to isolate young people from the digital world altogether. The law was designed so that messaging services such as WhatsApp, online education platforms and essential health services could continue to remain available where appropriate. This bill is not anti technology; it's pro safety. It recognises that not every online platform carries the same level of risk.

Some have raised concerns regarding privacy and age verification. Privacy is an important right. Australians rightly expect that any age assurance systems introduced under this legislation will protect personal information and minimise unnecessary data collection. That's why implementation matters. Age verification technology should be proportionate, secure and subject to strong oversight. Protecting children and protecting privacy are not mutually exclusive objectives; both can and must be achieved together.

Australia is starting to be recognised internationally as a leader in online safety regulation. Other countries are closely watching our approach. If these reforms succeed, they may influence similar protections around the world. Leadership requires courage. It requires governments to act in the interests of their citizens and, in this case, their younger citizens. Waiting for technology companies to regulate themselves has not delivered adequate protection for children. This bill represents a recognition that stronger government oversight is now necessary.

There are those who will say that determined young people will always find ways around restrictions, and they likely will. No law achieves perfect compliance. Seatbelt laws do not eliminate every road fatality. Speed limits do not prevent every accident. Yet we continue to support these laws because they reduce harm. Similarly, this legislation will not eliminate every underage social media account, but if it prevents thousands of children from being exposed to harmful online experiences, then it will have made a meaningful difference. Public policy should not be judged against perfection. It should be judged against whether it improves outcomes.

My children are now aged 21, 16 and 15. As a parent, I battled for many years to protect my children from damaging online content. It was important to me to allow my children to have a childhood. I wish that this law had been in place years ago. As a parent, I know we need better protections for children online.

As lawmakers, our responsibility is to safeguard the wellbeing of future generations. Children cannot negotiate terms of service. They cannot fully understand complex algorithms. They cannot realistically challenge multinational corporations. The responsibility therefore lies with us. This legislation reflects a fundamental principle that has guided public policy for generations: that, where there is a risk of significant harm to children, governments both have the authority and the obligation to intervene. We regulate tobacco. We regulate alcohol. We regulate seatbelts. This bill follows in the same tradition. We are seeking to protect children from harm.

I need to fast-forward some of my speech because it was interrupted. To recap, more than five million under-16 social media accounts have now been removed and we really want to strengthen the approach that we've already taken. I sincerely hope that these attempts at protecting children online are effective. We know that we are signalling to social media companies that we are serious about online harm to children, and we expect them to do everything they can to comply.

Zali Steggall (Warringah, Independent) | Link to this | Hansard source

Well, the government is now back in the parliament trying to strengthen enforcement for its social media age ban. The central problems were obvious when the first bill was rushed through this place in 2024: the technology was not settled, the age assurance model was not settled, the privacy implications were not settled and the core legal test of whether the platforms would take reasonable steps was certainly not properly defined. Those problems remain. I support strong enforcements against big tech. Platforms should not be allowed to hide behind vague community guidelines or the usual Silicon Valley playbook of delay, denial and minimal compliance. But let's also be really clear about how Online Safety Amendment (Strengthening Enforcement for the Social Media Minimum Age) Bill 2026 came to play and the selective approach the government is taking in what harms they're protecting children from and what ones they are turning a blind eye to.

I also want to thank the eSafety Commissioner. I know she works incredibly hard in this space as a local constituent. I've met with her many times, and I know how hard she worked in this space. This bill gives the eSafety Commissioner bigger sticks and better evidence-gathering powers. It doubles maximum penalties and allows the regulator to compel documents from platforms and third parties. Those are important tools. The bigger question remains, though, in the billions of dollars of profit these platforms make. Even the doubling of penalties of maximum penalties may be such an insignificant consequence that they are more than likely to want to continue to risk it or use their very deep pockets in circumstances of litigation. I have strong reservations around how much more of a bandaid this is to a bigger problem.

What we know is that this legislation and these amendments do not fix the central weakness in the scheme: what 'reasonable steps' for age verification actually means in practice. The government calls this a world-leading ban. Well, a world-leading child safety framework would start with safety by design, safer algorithms, safer default settings, stronger privacy protections, transparency over recommender systems and a real statutory duty of care on platforms. The Prime Minister and the Minister for Communications are already spruiking this social media age ban as a success on the international stage despite the evidence showing that it has had limited effect in terms of actually keeping young people off and protecting them from harm.

We have other countries now following Australia's lead whilst we're still working on the legislation that would actually make social media safer: a European Digital Services Act-style model focused on platform accountability and safety by design. The government continues to promote this bandaid fix internationally when the evidence so clearly points to a systems focused European Digital Services Act-style model as being far, far superior. This will be what I'll be looking for when the government introduces its long-awaited promised digital duty of care framework later this year—a best practice framework not watered down as we have seen and has occurred in other jurisdictions. A ban can only ever be one part of the answer, or you just push the problem underground.

In Warringah parents, teachers and young people have been very clear with me in their feedback. They're worried about what children are exposed to online. They're worried about the addictive design. They're worried about the algorithms pushing harmful content. They're worried about cyberbullying, eating disorder content, misogynistic material, scams, AI deepfakes and the relentless pressure children feel to post their lives online. But young people have also told us something else: that social media is not only a space of harm. It is also where they communicate, organise, seek, help, build communities and have a voice.

When I spoke to the original legislation in 2024, I referred to Lucy Flynn, a 14-year-old from Warringah who had recovered from an eating disorder and used social media to petition for more public hospital beds for eating disorder treatment. Lucy harnessed the power of social media to tell her story and amplified the issues in the eating disorder funding. Online platforms can provide a platform to reach people outside their geographical communities, provide an avenue for youth leadership on issues that matter to them and provide the ability for young people to feel that they have control over their future.

So I disagree with the government. The answer is not a blanket ban on social media. It is to make social media socially safe by design, fit for the digital age and for young people like Lucy to pursue their passions and find their tribes. A cynical hypocrisy exists when a government lets gambling ads harm the wellbeing of Australian children—children as young as six can identify gambling company brands—while posturing here in this place to be cracking down on social media tech giants with an ineffective and, I would say, disingenuous age ban for social media platforms.

The social media minimum age scheme requires age restricted platforms to take reasonable steps—this is important for people to understand what this legislation actually does—to prevent children under 16 from creating or keeping accounts. The platforms covered include major services such as Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, TikTok, YouTube, X, Threads, Reddit, Twitch and others subject to the statutory criteria. Keep in mind, there are a lot of concerns around gaming platforms that also create cause for harm. What it's really important to understand is there is no narrowing of that definition around reasonable steps, and I'll come back to that in a moment.

The government says this new bill will strengthen eSafety's information-gathering powers and double maximum penalties for systemic breaches from $49.5 million to $99 million. Again, I say, for companies that are making billions of dollars of profit, there is the question of whether that is even meaningful in terms of a stick or a penalty. This amendment will allow eSafety to compel evidence from platforms and third parties, including age assurance and app store providers. That is what this bill provides for. These are simple changes and fine in their own right if one believes that the system actually works.

But the context of this debate does go back to the original bill in 2024. Then, crossbenchers and experts noted that it did not specify how the ban would be implemented and that 'reasonable steps' was not defined in the legislation. It continues to not be defined. I've asked that of the minister, and the explanation was, 'We don't want to be held to it now and to allow for that to continue changing.' But what it does do is create a huge legal grey area. The Senate inquiry into the original bill recommended that the government legislate a digital duty of care, meaning a positive legal obligation on platforms to proactively identify, prevent and reduce online harms.

Instead, the government rushed through a blunt age based scheme before the age assurance trial had reported, before the practical enforcement model was clear and before the parliament had properly tested for unintended consequences. I said at the time that the bill was misguided, that it was window dressing and that it risked driving harms underground while failing to hold platforms properly accountable. I also said the government was putting the cart before the horse by legislating first and working out the detail later. But, of course, here we are, fine-tuning some detail. The recent evidence bears all of those concerns out two years on.

A University of Newcastle study found little immediate evidence that the restrictions had reduced access, with more than 85 per cent of surveyed under-16s still using restricted platforms after the policy began. Young people reported bypassing age checks through fake accounts, friends or family, incognito browsing and other workarounds. Experts have made the same point: a simple ban is unlikely to be enough if the underlying causes of harm, including platform design, algorithms and age-inappropriate features, are left untouched.

There are also now live constitutional challenges in the High Court—one by Reddit, another by teenagers—arguing that the scheme burdens the implied freedom of political communication and that less restrictive alternatives were available, including safety-by-design tools. That doesn't mean the challenges will succeed, but it does show the legal risks were foreseeable in the event they do. The constitutional challenge to the social media minimum age scheme cannot be viewed in isolation from the enforcement issues this amendment bill seeks to address. They're linked by the same unresolved problem: the act still does not clearly define what reasonable steps are actually required of the platforms.

If the Prime Minister thought a royal commission into domestic violence would be a lawyer's picnic, let me tell you that this bill is a lawyer's picnic, especially when you're talking about social media platforms with extremely deep pockets and an extremely well-developed desire to contest these kinds of restrictions. Without a clearer definition of 'reasonable steps', the government is simply inviting exactly the kind of litigation it says it wants to avoid. Platforms will argue over what was reasonable, lawyers will test the boundaries of the act, and the courts will be left to do what the parliament should have done in the first place.

The government should not mistake stronger enforcement powers for a stronger policy. I support giving the eSafety Commissioner the tools it needs to investigate powerful platforms. I support higher penalties where companies fail to comply. I support holding big tech accountable. But I do not accept the fiction that the original scheme was well designed and now merely needs some heavier penalties. The obstacles were obvious then: vague obligations, unsettled technology, privacy risks and the absence of a proper digital duty of care. Parents deserve better than being told that the problem has been solved when they can see every day that it has not. Young people deserve better than a policy that treats them as the problem rather than focusing on the platforms that profit from harmful design.

The proposed digital duty of care must be the centrepiece of the next stage of reform: a best-practice framework that requires platforms to design for safety, gives regulators visibility over the algorithms shaping children's lives and backs prevention with proper enforcement, education and support. If not, it is just more window-dressing.

(Quorum formed)

Michael McCormack (Riverina, National Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

I certainly support the amendment put forward by the member for Lindsay in relation to the Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Bill 2026. Today, I spoke to and listened to the Lutheran School Wagga Wagga, a primary school of children visiting on their excursion to Parliament House in Canberra. I gave to those youngsters, as I do to all school groups, two bits of advice. One of those bits of advice is to not smoke, because it's dumb, it's unhealthy and it's expensive. The other bit of advice I always give the children—these days, the primary school ones are not or should not be on social media, but I always say this to them—is, 'When you do get on social media at a later age, don't write something about someone else that you wouldn't like said about yourself,' because online bullying is every bit as bad as every other type of bullying. Face-to-face bullying, bullying by exclusion, bullying by any means—it is unacceptable in the schoolyard, in the classroom and anywhere else. The difficulty for children these days is that bullying doesn't just stop at the school gate. It doesn't just stop a little bit after three o'clock, when the school bell tolls to end the school day. It continues online. It continues via TikTok, it continues via Snapchat, it continues via Facebook, it continues via any other social media platform for children and for adults. And it's not nice.

Sometimes, when the schoolchildren visit Parliament House, we are hardly an example of good behaviour, I'm sad to say. We should reflect upon that. But this is a robust debating chamber, and there are things said across this table that are contested. Whilst I don't always agree with the members opposite, I respect their views, for them to be able to represent their electorates, their policies and their philosophies—even though I don't necessarily always agree with what is being said.

On other elements to this particular amendment which worry me, I do believe that this is the government scrambling and playing catch-up. I appreciate that the member for Lilley, the minister, has done some good work in this space and place. I appreciate, too, that there are different views on this legislation. I commend the government, of sorts, for some of the elements they've put forward—and the minister too—because our children do matter. Our children do need protection. I grew up in—well, I began reading in the late sixties, and, certainly, by the seventies, I was very much a fan of Enid Blyton.

Julian Hill (Bruce, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Citizenship, Customs and Multicultural Affairs) | Link to this | Hansard source

Hear, hear!

Michael McCormack (Riverina, National Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

I thought you were about to say, 'You probably still are!' and I am. I know that some of the publications of the late Enid Blyton have been banned. But it was an age where children played outdoors and where books were read and enjoyed. It was a much calmer, better stage, I believe, for kids growing up—

Julian Hill (Bruce, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Citizenship, Customs and Multicultural Affairs) | Link to this | Hansard source

The faraway tree!

Michael McCormack (Riverina, National Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

The Magic Faraway Treewith Mr Watzisname and others! I do feel for children these days. I'm now a grandfather. I have two grandchildren. I read to little Adeline down in Melbourne. She loves books. She's probably too young to appreciate fully the books that I'm reading her, but she loves books. I want what's going to be best for my grandchildren, and I know that any parent or grandparent would feel the same. It doesn't matter what you achieve or do in life; it's what you are able to pass on to the next generation that's going to be the most important thing. Long after our time in parliament is finished—and anything else we ever achieve in the workplace—our families are not going to remember or care about it. They're just going to remember that we were 'Dad' or 'Pop' and that we were a good father or grandfather or whatever the case might be.

The coalition has done some good work in this space. We don't just talk about online safety. Our words are also our actions. We built, constructed and established the global model for it. All the major protections that Labor now relies upon were legislated by the coalition. In 2015, we created the Children's eSafety Commissioner. It was the first dedicated online safety regulator anywhere, and we're proud of that fact. The world didn't lead us; we led the world. That's a good thing. Other democracies are following our model. In 2017, we put together the first scheme to force platforms to take down intimate images shared without consent. It's image based abuse. We whacked perpetrators and non-compliant platforms with financial penalties which had meaning—and they can never be too severe, quite frankly.

These tech companies, these big global giants, are making an extraordinary amount of money. I appreciate there are difficulties, but, if they want to do business in Australia, they have to comply with Australian law, whether that's law put in by us in the past or laws put in by Labor presently. I think we would all agree—everyone in this chamber, everyone in this parliament, all 226 of us—that our children are 100 per cent worth it. No big tech company making decisions in some overseas boardroom, with their big tech mogul executives making big tech mogul paycheques, cares about our kids like we do. But we care—the coalition does; the government does.

In 2021, the Online Safety Act introduced the most comprehensive online safety regime in Australia's history. The basic online safety expectations were codified, an adult cyberabuse takedown scheme was implemented and the timeframes for platforms to strip illegal and terrorist content from feeds were slashed. That's a record. That's what we did. It was important work.

The under-16 ban was born of a coalition conviction that childhood is worth protecting. In November 2023, a private member's bill by the coalition brought four-stage verification onto the agenda. At the time, it wasn't agreed to by the government, but it bowed to pressure and it funded a trial in the 2024 budget. And I say thank you, because it doesn't matter who brings the legislation to the parliament. If it's going to protect just one child—if it's going to prevent one child from self-harm or taking their own life, which is such a tragedy—then it's worth it. The parliament agreed that more needed to be done, but Labor's two-year implementation has been marked with missteps, unfortunately.

The eSafety Commissioner's own March 2026 compliance update reported that 70 per cent of children were still on social media. I know it's hard, sometimes, to make kids do what they're supposed to. I'm a parent; I get that. A landmark British Medical Journal study showed that 85 per cent of under-16s are still logging onto platforms that they should not be. Its verdict was limited implementation, incomplete compliance and substantial circumvention—getting around it. I know some will say that kids will find a way, and kids are smart—much smarter than us when it comes to these little devices. But certain actions need to be taken to ensure that children who are under 16 have their minds on something other than a damn mobile device. We have to put in place measures that are going to ensure that the law is not only implemented but also being followed.

Whilst the framework was collapsing in homes across Australia, unfortunately the minister went overseas to talk at the United Nations about the ban. I'm not sure that the trip was entirely value for taxpayer money. That said, I do understand that the Labor government wants to spruik what it's done in this regard. I get that. But whilst this was all happening, children were still circumventing the ban and using social media platforms. This amendment is coming in now because the proper work on the ground—via stakeholders and via any other means to ensure that children would not get around the ban—wasn't done when the ban was introduced in the first place. Politics is like anything: you have to do the groundwork; you have to fully explore every detail before you come into this place, put a bill down, have it read by the clerks and then vote on it. Unfortunately, all too often since May 2022 we have seen rushed legislation.

I say to the government: sometimes you need to calm the farm. Sometimes you've just got to take a breath, take a step back and fully examine the legislation. This might be an idea: have a chat to the coalition about it, or the crossbench—the member for Clark is a smart person—and sometimes, on issues such as this, take on board the views of those opposite, because there are people of goodwill here, particularly on issues such as this, where our children's health and harm is at stake. Be a little bit more bipartisan, because what Labor is doing all too often is bringing legislation into this place, rushing it through—ramming it through, because they've got a 50-plus seat majority—and then going over to the Senate and doing dirty deals with organisations such as the Greens political party. And the Greens, I will warn, do not have the same views or philosophies about a better Australia as the coalition has. So this is a mistake.

We then see Labor playing catch-up. We then see legislation such as this being brought back and amendments having to be put through. I appreciate that this is going to sit and rest, as I'm told, over the recess period. That is good, because it might give the government some time to, again, take a breath, look at it and make sure that the follies and the missteps taken when the legislation was first introduced by the Labor government are not repeated. This is too important to get wrong again. This is too important because children's lives are at stake. It is that serious. We need to make sure that, at every step of the way at the moment, in every measure, we get this legislation right and we protect kids' lives online.

Andrew Wilkie (Clark, Independent) | Link to this | Hansard source

To be clear, I will support the Online Safety Amendment (Strengthening Enforcement for the Social Media Minimum Age) Bill 2026. Although I didn't support the original bill, the Online Safety Bill, legislating the media ban, we have it, it's real, and history can't be unwound. I want to make this law as good as it can be made because I care as much about the safety of our young people as anyone else in this place does.

But I lament, though, that we are trying to put lipstick on a pig, because the social media ban was ill conceived and badly designed and has been badly implemented. If only we could rewind history, go back and think about this from the beginning, start again and listen to all of the people who ventilated their concerns about the bill when it was being designed and legislated. There were a lot of people who voiced a lot of concerns. I note that there were some 13 members—all were from the crossbench, except for the wonderful Bridget Archer, from the then opposition—who voted against the original bill when it came before this place.

We had so many concerns, and they were pretty much all ignored. Probably one of our most significant concerns was we hadn't listened to young people to find out their perspective. The government did, quite rightly, listen to parents and other family members that had been affected, heard of their concerns and tried to respond appropriately to their concerns. That's good in isolation, but it didn't go far enough. I don't know that the government ever actually spoke to people younger than 16 who were using social media, relying on social media, and heard their perspective about why they were on social media, what they found harmful about social media and whether they thought there was anything that could be done to make social media safer. That would have been very, very beneficial.

We were also concerned that it would just be unenforceable—that it wouldn't work. We had concerns that people could just enter incorrect birth dates when prompted by the social media platform. We've learnt, of course, of all sorts of tricks since it was implemented—such as people scrunching up their face and making it look a bit wrinkly—and how they fool the platforms and the software. Young people are actually getting their older sibling, an older friend or a friend who looks a bit older to stand in front of the device's camera at the time they are verifying their age. Of course, it was always going to be the case that some young people would get around the ban using things such as virtual private networks. And there was the fact that there were other platforms that hadn't been legislated against yet and that they would be places that young people would go to.

I'm going to out two of my stepsons. They're both now over 16, but I know that, before their birthday recently, they were both still on social media, and there was nothing I could do to guarantee they would get off it. I hope Bertie and Ru didn't mind me confessing that—they'll probably be boastful of it! In other words, the way it was designed was never going to work. And it's a bad law if it's a law that can't be enforced and a law that doesn't work; that's a bad law. It shouldn't have been brought into law.

Of course, there were so many other issues that were raised by us at the time. It particularly concerned me that the problem here is the behaviour or the misbehaviour of the tech companies and these platforms but that, instead of more rigorously going after them and making them clean up their act and ensure that their online environments were safer—because, heavens, they've got the technology, the know-how, to make them safer if they want; these tech companies can find out any information they want when they apply their mind to it—we were in effect punishing children by trying to take them off social media. We're punishing them when they're not the offenders. They shouldn't be the ones who are punished and denied their social media when it's the tech companies that are the villains and the guilty parties in all this. Didn't we hear from so many experts in youth mental health before the ban and since that there are a lot of young people who rely on social media for connectivity, particularly kids in rural and remote areas for whom it is one of the few ways they can really connect with a large group of their friends? And we're trying to deny them that. I think that's an issue. I think that's a problem.

I've got to say—excuse me for harping on about one of my favourite subjects—but we're going straight to this unachievable social media ban and ignoring the achievable ways of making the online environment safer, for example, banning gambling advertising. On one hand we're saying, 'We'll try and get kids off social media,' but, in our next breath, we'll say, 'We can have ads on streaming services, ads on websites, three ads an hour on the telly and ads for gambling in the print media,' and so on. We're turning a blind eye to the things that can be achieved and racing to something that, frankly, is very appealing politically.

I'll admit, when the government first announced the social media ban, my instinctive response was that's great and that's a really good idea. I have five teenage children—two teenage daughters and three teenage stepsons. You can imagine how, a couple of years ago, my first response was that this is a great idea. So I could see how the government scored a lot of political points with this. At first glance, for a lot of parents and a lot of other people, it's very appealing, but, of course, when I started to do my research and started to speak to subject-matter experts and technical experts—child psychologists and others—I did a backflip, and I said as much in an opinion piece in the Guardian newspaper. I was the first to admit that those of us who were jumping to applaud it hadn't actually done our homework and that it wasn't going to be as simple or as effective as was suggested.

When I'm talking about what I think is the failure of it so far, I've got some pretty good research to draw on. In fact, these are very recent figures. In May this year, research by Western Sydney University found that 61 per cent of under-16s who had previously been using banned platforms reported little or no change in their social media use. That's 61 per cent of under-16s who said it hadn't made much or any difference to their social media use. That's a pretty damning figure. That same research by Western Sydney University found that only 26 per cent of people under 16 who were in the research reported that their social media use had been significantly affected. That's all the evidence you need—that, up until this point in time, it has not worked. I could refer you to a University of Newcastle study in June this year. They found that, on a positive note, around two-thirds, or 66 per cent, of adolescents reported encountering some form of age-verification requirement. That's good. But, of course, we've already spoken about how easy it is to get around the age verification. For some of these platforms, you just enter a different date and you're in. But that's the end of the good news from the University of Newcastle. It generally found that the early impact on access and behaviour has been limited. It found that around 86 per cent of under-16s reported accessing at least one restricted platform in the past week. It found that most adolescents continued accessing platforms through their own accounts. That included 54 to 68 per cent of users under the age of 16. In fact, it found little significant change in daily use or time spent on social media, particularly for that younger cohort, in particular, under-13-year-olds. Now, you know, we have this ban. It's been legislated. I actually want it to work. I wish the government well, and I'll support this bill today because, hopefully, it will go some small way, at least—hopefully it goes a long way—to addressing that point I made about how we've got to stop punishing the kids and that we've got to start going after the tech companies who have the know-how to make things such as age verification or facial recognition more effective. They have so far chosen not to.

When you look at figures like that, heavens, you've got to be very concerned. I get it. I know the government has got to get out there and crow about their achievement. I know that it's the job of the Prime Minister and the minister to boast about how many countries overseas are following this very closely and have expressed an interest in implementing a similar or, in the British case, an hopefully even better system. They're not going to come in here and say, 'It was ill considered and ill implemented, and we failed.' I know that politics don't allow that.

But I think the government could be a bit more honest with people and, instead of crowing so much about the success of this, say: 'Okay, these are small steps. We've learned a lot, it's not working nearly as effectively as we hoped, and we're going to bust our boiler to remedy the shortfalls in this.' The substance of this bill would be one small step of a raft of reforms to try and make this work. Just cracking down on the tech companies in some way—increasing fines—is a fraction of what's needed to turn around these figures. It really is a fraction of what is required. If we can't turn around these figures, then I suspect we should stop giving parents a false sense of confidence that their kids are now safe.

According to these figures, their kids are not safe. I'd rather parents know their kids are not safe and for the parents to be more involved in remedying the situation than to have given parents a false sense of security so that parents can say: 'Oh, governments have solved that problem. We don't really need to be alert to what our kids are seeing online on social media.' Sometimes it's better to do nothing than to do something which fails and gives people a false sense of confidence. I won't detain the House any longer. I will support it. I hope it actually achieves something, but I am comfortable with my opposition to the bill, along with 12 of my colleagues—11 from the crossbench and Bridget Archer, who was then the member for Bass. I tell you what, I'll work with the government. We'll all work with the government to try and make this work, but, at some point, if they can't make it work, they should ditch it and stop giving parents that false sense of security.

Tom Venning (Grey, Liberal Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

The Albanese government has delivered a social media ban that gives parents false hope and fails to keep children safe online. This is not a passing critique; this is a stark reality.

Today, the coalition stands before you to expose the glaring deficiencies in their approach. We are witnessing a monumental failure of administration that directly compromises the safety of our most vulnerable Australians. The announcement to drastically double the penalty to massive financial extremes is a desperate admission of defeat. It confirms our deepest concerns regarding this flawed framework we see today. Labor completely botched this policy. The ban, while well intentioned, is poorly designed, dangerously rushed and badly implemented. The eSafety Commissioner was never given the necessary powers to enforce compliance against multinational technology giants.

This glaring omission highlights that Minister Anika Wells is highly unqualified to be in the world of tech billionaires and their businesses. Rather than flying around the world attempting to take credit for coalition policy, the minister should have stayed home. She needed to do the hard work required to ensure this policy was properly designed and implemented. Today, we see an embarrassing admission that our oversight has been totally flawed, chaotic and ultimately harmful to our young children.

Keir Starmer used a ban as a high-stakes distraction to try and save his crumbling leadership; Prime Minister Anthony Albanese plays the same card. He is using this to distract the Australian people from his disastrous budget of endless mistruths, broken promises and higher taxes. It's quite funny, really; if the Prime Minister were to spend half as much time fixing the economy as he does looking for a convenient political distraction, we might actually see inflation drop. Instead, he treats online safety like a shiny object designed to trick frustrated voters.

There is shockingly little evidence to suggest that teenagers have turned away from social media as a genuine consequence of this minimum-age law. The laws are failing in real time across our country, at all levels. In March this year, the eSafety Commissioner released a compliance update that revealed the age ban is dramatically failing. A staggering number of children are remaining on social media without any barriers. We have seen platforms added at the last moment, causing widespread confusion over the very definition of an age restricted social media platform. Reports of kids easily getting around age verification are rampant.

The government proudly claims that millions of accounts belonging to young people have been removed, deactivated or restricted. However, this is misleading on a multitude of levels. We know for a fact that a huge proportion of those supposedly removed accounts are actually just Google accounts used for basic email and everyday purposes, completely unrelated to social media. The government are padding the numbers to hide their own immense legislative failures.

The online safety of children is of critical importance to families, yet Australian parents and their children are being badly let down by a lazy government which has badly dropped the ball. They are being led by a communications minister who is seriously out of her depth and completely unable to deliver real results.

Recently, the eSafety Commissioner provided criticism of Labor's exact design of the ban. It is further evidence of another monumental policy failure by this government. During a reported lunch meeting over a lovely beef cheek ragu and delicious swordfish, Ms Julie Inman Grant revealed her genuine thoughts to a journalist. She explicitly stated that the ban was a 'blunt-force approach' which was developed too quickly. Her damning appraisal shows once again that communications minister, Anika Wells, is not up to the essential job of protecting young Australians from predatory online environments. In comments which laid bare the incompetence of the minister, the commissioner said the ban was flimsy 'scaffolding' that simply did not provide her with any potent powers. She added that she was 'not really keen on it when it was first discussed'.

Taking on the biggest technology companies in the world is not like sticking a parking ticket on a windscreen. It is not easy. Actually, given how this government manage their projects, they would probably accidentally stick it on their own forehead and then hold a press conference to brag about it. The commissioner noted:

… a regulator is only as good as the tools … that they're given.

These are certainly not the comments of a confident person who feels she has been provided with a workable implementation framework by a capable minister. These admissions completely undermine the minister and her ridiculous claim in January that early figures were showing that this law is making 'a real, meaningful difference'. Instead, they indicate a deteriorating relationship between the independent eSafety Commissioner and the minister.

The fundamental implementation of this critical policy has been chaotic from the start. The government's absolute first duty, absolutely, is to aggressively protect its citizens. Above all, it must protect its children. The sandpit and the playground of old moved online long ago, and, online, it is highly predatory, unpoliced and getting exponentially more dangerous for young people.

The bill before us exists for one reason: it exists purely to frantically patch a massive ban that Labor completely botched. The coalition will always support giving regulators the strong teeth required to take on big tech, but let us be honest about exactly why those teeth are so desperately needed. They are needed because Labor's rushed implementation has been an absolute shambles from day one. Australian families deserve much better than a minister who arrogantly claims credit while leaving the regulator to awkwardly explain why these laws are simply not working. We in the coalition do not just endlessly talk about online safety; we actually built the premier global model for it. Every single major protection that the Labor Party now relies upon was originally legislated by the coalition government.

Back in 2015, we created the Children's eSafety Commissioner. This was the first dedicated online safety regulator anywhere on earth. The world certainly did not lead us in this critical endeavour. We proudly led the world, and many other advanced democracies are still closely copying our incredibly successful legislative model to protect everyone. In that year, we boldly built the very first scheme to forcefully compel platforms to take down intimate images shared without consent. We hit predators and completely non-compliant platforms with real penalties. Then we proudly passed the massive Online Safety Act. It remains the most comprehensive online safety regime in our national history. We confidently codified the Basic Online Safety Expectations, we created a powerful adult cyberabuse take-down scheme and we drastically slashed the time platforms have to strip illegal content from their feeds. This is not just empty political rhetoric; this is a very solid historical record. Furthermore, the proposed ban itself was born of a deep coalition belief that every childhood, and the innocence it comes with, is genuinely worth protecting.

A coalition private member's bill initially forced strict age verification onto the national agenda. Labor knocked it back, then eventually bowed to immense public pressure and funded a trial in their federal budget. The coalition then formally pledged we would quickly deliver an effective ban within exactly 100 days. Only then did the Prime Minister scramble to catch up. The subsequent legislation only managed to pass both houses with our support. The parliament agreed on the fundamental goal, but Labor's execution has been a disaster. The numbers absolutely do not lie. We have a regulator who was sent into battle unarmed. While the entire framework collapsed at home, Communications Minister Anika Wells was in New York. She was burning massive sums of taxpayer money just to arrogantly boast about this broken ban to the United Nations. She allowed platforms to bolt on compliance measures at the last minute. Key definitions were left in absolute confusion. Circumvention remains rampant because of Labor's failures.

The current government has completely dropped the ball, actively failing Australian parents and their children. But simply increasing financial penalties cannot magically cure extreme administrative incompetence. The Prime Minister must stop governing by hollow press releases and taking international victory laps for completely broken promises. Everyday Australian parents and vulnerable children deserve highly competent administration, and they are certainly not getting it from this disorganised government. We are witnessing a terrifying trifecta of continuous foot dragging, unbelievable incompetence and dangerous legislative overreach happening all at once. This government displays completely backwards priorities when protecting our future digital generations today. They persistently let down children on social media, while relentlessly chasing widely condemned misinformation laws that threaten free speech across this nation.

We also hear about phantom digital duty of care. This has involved big talk but absolutely zero delivery. More than a year ago, not a single line of legislation regarding this duty had been brought before this parliament. We just received the vague promises of a draft, followed by a further 12-month transition period before even one obligation takes effect. After four long years in power, they are still scrambling around. The political spin from Labor never stops, but the vital protection of our children never actually arrives. Consequently, our children remain exposed to online dangers every single day.

We urgently need a different approach to solve this escalating national crisis. Much more needs to be done right now to keep children truly safe online. What we in the coalition would do is fundamentally different. We would immediately put robust, built-in device safety tools directly into the capable hands of parents everywhere. We would aggressively hunt down predatory algorithms deliberately engineered to trap children. These toxic algorithms fuel highly addictive doomscrolling on endless social media feeds, destroying young minds. We must act now and comprehensively block livestreaming features to prevent the absolute horrors of child abuse material from spreading.

The coalition demands real action, potent regulatory powers and competent ministerial leadership. The time for empty promises is completely over. The online playground is far too dangerous for half-baked measures and chaotic strategies. The coalition will continue fighting fiercely to ensure our children are permanently protected from these severe harms.

Allegra Spender (Wentworth, Independent) | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Online Safety Amendment (Strengthening Enforcement for the Social Media Minimum Age) Bill 2026, which strengthens enforcement of the social media minimum age. This reform is overdue, and I do support it. In 2024, I spoke in support of the original minimum-age bill, which restricted access to social media for those under 16. I commended the bill then and I do support again the intent of the bill today, though I will continue to reserve judgement on its effectiveness until it is implemented and I continue to urge the government to move on duty of care, because, until it moves on an online duty of care, these are just bandaids and are not dealing with the broader ecosystem and protecting not just our children but others from online harms.

The social media ban was a significant step towards addressing the concerns about social media impact on our young people: the addictive design of these platforms, exposure to extreme and distressing material and a growing sense of disconnection among young Australians. In the lead-up to that legislation, I spoke with countless parents and families who are genuinely frightened about what social media was doing to their kids: the bullying, the threats, the abuse and the sheer volume of harmful content these platforms had consistently failed to remove. We had seen this play out as close to a game of whack-a-mole, with platforms removing harmful material only after the damage was done. That concern has since been vindicated. Meta and Google were recently found liable in a US trial for deliberately designing addictive products and for misleading consumers about the safety of their platforms. We do not allow people to put unsafe items on our supermarket shelves—physical products. We should not allow that. We should expect safety in our digital products as well.

But we should also be honest about how this first phase of the ban has gone. The eSafety Commissioner has raised serious concerns that Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, YouTube and Snapchat are not properly complying with the minimum-age restrictions. Research from the University of Newcastle found that more than 80 per cent of under-16s in Australia were still using social media three months after the ban took place, and I have seen this reflected closely in my electorate. One school in Wentworth ran an internal survey of students in years 8 to 10, receiving 142 responses. Of these students, only just under half—49 per cent—reported losing access to at least one social media account because of the ban. Of the rest, 45 per cent said their social media use stayed the same; 37 per cent said it had decreased; and a small number said it had actually increased. Sixty-five per cent of students believed it remained easy for under-16s to access restricted platforms. Only a quarter thought the ban had reduced social media use overall. So students were not sure that it had worked significantly at all. There has been a shift, but nowhere near what a ban would imply.

I've also run leadership forums across my electorate to hear directly from young people on this issue. At a senior school forum of students aged between 15 and 17, opinion was genuinely split, with nine students still supporting the ban, seven opposing it and several remaining undecided. Among supporters, the common view was that the ban came perhaps too late for their own cohort because they were already on social media, so it was harder to get off, frankly, and they were able to get around it. But they did see that a real opportunity lay in protecting the next generation of 13-year-olds coming through. Several noted that parents were already shifting younger siblings onto basic non-smart phones without access to social media apps, and that this approach seemed to be working well for that age group.

Among those opposed, the concerns were consistent and specific—that the ban is easy to circumvent, that age verification doesn't work and that new accounts can be created in minutes. Enforcement felt inconsistent. A 15-year-old was blocked, while a 14-year-old in the same friendship group was not. One student described how a single student in a friendship group was banned from their social accounts, leading to that student's social exclusion. Another had run a campaign against the ban and met with politicians directly, telling me he believed that the intention was right, but the execution was poor. Several made the point that the ban, as it currently operates, targets a minority who are already addicted or being bullied while restricting everybody else and question whether this is the right way to design the policy.

At a junior school forum I ran with students around the ages of 11 and 12, the response was more positive. Twenty-three students supported the ban, eight did not. Those in favour shared positives about communicating more with friends in person, feeling more included and a reduction in cyberbullying. One of my favourite comments was from an 11- or 12-year-old, who didn't have social media on her phone. She said, 'But my older brothers now talk to me more, and that is a good thing, and I appreciate that.' That was probably the most heartwarming story I heard. Those opposed to the ban pointed out how easy the restriction was to get around and the difficulty it created for friends who lived further apart geographically. That was a real concern for students who board.

I raise these voices because they matter. These are the young people who are intended to be protected by the legislation and their lived experience tells us that enforcement to date has fallen well short of the policy's intent, and that, because of this weak enforcement, it actually reduces the community support for the legislation because it's seen as too easy to get around and therefore not really making the difference that it wants to, or only punishing certain people but not being consistent. The overwhelming feedback was that they do want this to work.

Separate from these general harms, our community has also lived through profound tragedy. Graphic footage was livestreamed and shared online during and after the Bondi Junction attack in 2024 and two years later in Bondi Beach. Children across the country have been exposed to this content. For children in my electorate, it is deeply personal. Despite the best efforts of the eSafety Commissioner, young people are still encountering this material. This goes to the hatred that is spread through social media, the radicalisation that goes on through social media and the polarisation that is driven through social media.

This is why I support the ban for under-16s. This is why I think this is important, despite the genuine challenges of its implementation. I have seen the hate that is spread about different parts of our community and the vitriol that is directed towards the Jewish community. I have seen the antisemitic attacks that are directed online and how that drives hate and polarisation. I have seen this in my community and in other communities of other faiths and different backgrounds. It is important that we regulate social media. It is important that we protect our children. And it is absolutely critical that we ask and, frankly, demand social media and digital firms to take responsibility for the harms that they facilitate through their platforms. Even if they don't direct or create that content, it's certainly facilitated and exacerbated through the algorithms and the business models these businesses undertake. It is time to step up. I support this part of this legislation for what it does. But, again, I come back to the point that it needs to go further. We need to have a digital duty of care that protects all Australians and protects, in particular, against the online hate, vitriol and extremism that we see on our online platforms today.

Why do I welcome the bill? Firstly, the bill expands the eSafety Commissioner's information-gathering powers. The existing section 63G is repealed and replaced with a broader provision allowing the commissioner to compel any relevant party—meaning not only platform providers—to produce information or documents relevant to compliance with the minimum-age obligation. This will capture the securing of evidence from third parties such as age-assurance providers and app store operators, something the commissioner has directly requested. Entities that fail to comply face penalties of up to $1.65 million. This could include internal emails, implementation directions to company branches or board minutes—material that would allow the commissioner to properly assess whether reasonable steps are genuinely being taken, rather than relying solely on the limited monthly reporting that platforms choose to provide.

Secondly, the bill doubles the civil penalties under sections 63D, 63DA and 63DB, lifting the maximum penalty from 30,000 to 60,000 penalty units. That's from $49.5 million to $99 million. I support both these measures. I do, however, hold reservations that even the double penalty represents sufficient financial disincentives for platforms at this scale. Once again, I outline that I remain concerned with how this regime will be enforced in practice and believe that the eSafety Commissioner may need greater resourcing to be able to make full use of these powers.

There are other concerns I have with this bill. The bill does not clearly define what constitutes 'reasonable steps'. There is a balance to be struck here. We want to encourage platforms to innovate in age-assurance technology while ensuring there is a clear, measurable standard the commissioner can rely on when bringing enforcement action once she has obtained the relevant documents. Again, I'm not sure that we really have the incentives right yet to get these companies to innovate on age-assurance technology. There's a distance to go there. Perhaps, with changes around the world, that innovation will step up. But I think not seeing this is going to be a continued weakness, and it is a concern I have in this space.

There are also gaps that the bill does not address. Children can still view social media content without logging into an account at all. Platforms like Roblox sit outside the current framework in ways that warrant greater scrutiny. I also remain concerned about generative AI chatbots, which can offer unfiltered advice to young people on their lives, their schoolwork and their mental health, with no safeguards in place. I've said that the government needs a clearer plan on how children are interacting with artificial intelligence, and that remains true today.

It is also worth remembering that these harms do not end at age 16. Those for whom the ban has been effective will log on for the first time as 17-year-olds with no transitional support. Adults, too, continue to experience real harm from these platforms. This includes people in their 20s and 30s who are being radicalised online by extremists, terrorists and misogynistic content, as ASIO Director-General Mike Burgess shared in his annual threat assessment just last week. I have long advocated for greater transparency and stronger regulation of the algorithms that quietly determine what content we see and how much we are shown. An opt-out system like Teach Us Consent's Fix Our Feeds initiative would put choice about what they see and when they see it back in the hands of every single Australian, and I do support that.

But we need a broader framework: a digital duty of care that this parliament has been waiting for. The government has said it's forthcoming. The government has been slow to the party. It has been in government for four years now. The online harms are not new and its not that they are not yet understood. We are completely aware of them, and this legislation should have been in the parliament before now. Holding technology companies accountable for building safety into their platforms by design is desperately needed—for our children and for our adults.

In conclusion, I am hopeful that this legislation will aid the work of protecting our young people from social media harms. I recognise the challenges and imperfections of trying to do this work, but I still think it is worthy. I do support the government's actions and work in this space. But I urge the government to move more swiftly and decisively on not just a digital duty of care for our young people but also to combat extremism and to combat polarisation—and to keep our adults safe as well, including from online radicalisation. I think that is absolutely critical.

I still raise questions as to whether this is going to deliver what we want. I believe that we need to work out how to incentivise our social media companies to provide safe places—to provide safe types of social media. If they are incentivised to innovate in that space, we may get better outcomes. I do hope that this sort of ban that is in place will help these platforms and others develop safer types of social media structures. I think we need to get there too, because otherwise we'll always be playing whac-a-mole. I think we need to work out how to incentivise them. I hope that these laws help drive those companies to develop what we need, as well as help to just ban them outright among our 16-year-olds.

I will continue to support this legislation, but we will have to see how it goes. I think clear reporting on its success or not is absolutely critical if we are going to deal with online harms and manage the impact on our young people.

Aaron Violi (Casey, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for the Digital Economy) | Link to this | Hansard source

This is a very important piece of legislation that is before the House. It is a clear admission of error from the Albanese Labor government and Minister Wells, but you have to give them credit, even though they won't say that they made a mistake. It's clear that the intent was good at the start, but the practice and the reality have not lived up to it six months later. So I'll give them credit, even though they won't say the words, 'We made a mistake.' They're at least acknowledging that by bringing this Online Safety Amendment (Strengthening Enforcement for the Social Media Minimum Age) Bill 2026 to the House.

It is important legislation, and, as I said, the intent is very good. It was the coalition in June 2024 that announced our policy to ban under-16s from social media. It was months later—after the coalition led the way and South Australian premier Peter Malinauskas talked about doing his own banning in South Australia—that the Prime Minister had a change of tune and followed us into this policy.

Governments have always had a history of protecting children, whether it's banning children from smoking, drinking or driving. There are many things governments do to protect children, and this is another important step in this conversation. But it is the most challenging ban that we have to put in place when it comes to young people, because it involves technology and they have ways and means to get around the system.

It absolutely has to be a requirement of the technology companies that they uphold the ban. Let's be very clear that, for these social media companies, there is no upside incentive to get children off their platforms. Their business model is predicated on people using their apps and people spending as much time as possible on those applications. They do not care if you are 12, 13, 17, 25, 35 or 50; they want you on there as much as possible so they can sell your attention to advertisers. That is their business model. But we have a responsibility to protect young people, particularly as their brains are forming and they are learning how to survive and thrive in the real world.

At high school, that's challenging enough without social media. I'm grateful every day that I'm old enough to have gone through high school when social media didn't exist, and I am stressed every day when I think about my 12-year-old son starting high school this year and navigating high school with social media. He assures me that, even though some of his friends are on social media, he is not, and I have complete confidence that he would never mislead me at all. But that is the reality and the challenge we face.

One of the opportunities is obviously if more young people come off social media through their parents, because, ultimately, the best way to keep young children off social media is when their parents make a decision to really talk to them about the dangers and why they want to keep them off social media. That's a conversation we've had with our son and with our daughter. And, as more young children stay off social media, it then creates a reverse network effect; they realise that their mates aren't on it, and then it's not as attractive as it was—because one of the real challenges parents have had and are still having is when their children come to them and say, 'Everyone else is on it, so I want to be on it as well.' So this battle, and it is a battle for our young people, is ongoing and continuous.

I've had the opportunity to visit a lot of schools, and there is a level of frustration among young people who really want to continue to be on the app, particularly the cohort between 13 and 16, who were on it and have been taken off. They have a real frustration. But, particularly for the new generation, those younger children who are below 10, we can keep them off it ongoing.

Marion Scrymgour (Lingiari, Australian Labor Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

Member for Casey, you can continue your remarks at another time.

Debate interrupted.