Milton Dick (Speaker) | Link to this | Hansard source

I've received letters from the honourable member for Ryan and the Deputy Speaker proposing that definite matters of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion today. As required by standing order 46, I've selected the matter which in my opinion is the most urgent and important. The Speaker cannot be required to give reasons for choosing one proposed topic ahead of another, but, before I give the call to the member for Newcastle, I want to explain that today's selection of the MPI topic was a decision I did not take lightly, because of the compelling nature of both proposals. Both are critical issues to our community, but the issue of online safety is the one that I believe holds the most importance for our parliament today. As required by standing order 46(d), I have selected the matter which, in my opinion, is the most urgent and important; that is, that proposed by the honourable member for Newcastle, namely:

The urgent need to hold big tech companies to account and keep our kids safe online.

I call upon those honourable members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.

More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places—

Sharon Claydon (Newcastle, Australian Labor Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

Speaker, it will be of no surprise to you why I would regard this as a matter of public importance and great urgency to be brought before the House today. Indeed, the work that you pursue internationally and that this parliament has led around the world—we now see 20 countries following the efforts of the Australian government to ensure the safety of children everywhere—is something to be commended and something the Australian parliament should be incredibly proud of.

It's not just that 20 countries are looking at us in order to implement similar laws. It's that the Australian parliament—at least until yesterday, and I'll come to that—had the courage to stand as a collective, in a multipartisan way, to ensure that we stood up to the one challenge that was asked of us by more than 120,000 families across Australia who pleaded with the parliament to show leadership, put our differences aside and put children first. That was a simple ask of this parliament. It should not be beyond us to put children first.

This parliament had, until yesterday, done the right thing, and that's why I stand with such utter dismay at the results of yesterday. The coalition decided to, in the other place, block and delay urgent legislation that, only hours before, they had supported and passed through this House. That's the very legislation that we need to hold big tech to account—to make sure that kids are not left fending for themselves against these giants that have never, ever displayed an intention to change their business model and to do the right thing, which has constantly been asked of them.

I don't think the Prime Minister or our minister could have made the serious nature of this any clearer. Since day one, the message to the big tech guys has been very clear: if you want to conduct business in Australia, if you want to have a social platform in Australia, it comes with social responsibility. They have shown every resistance every step of the way, and that does not surprise anyone on this side of the House. I don't think it surprises anyone in this parliament. We knew the fight we were up against. There was never going to be an easy pathway, but we're not here to make easy decisions. We're not here to do the simple work.

I chaired a committee two years ago in this place, the Joint Select Committee on Social Media and Australian Society. It was when this parliament first started taking a serious look at the impacts that social media was having on our communities. We took a lot of time to undertake the inquiry. We had people from across all parties, from across both houses, who heard the stories from parents about what they felt were unrelenting attacks on their children. These kids were way too young to be making calls about what was appropriate material online.

These families begged us to ensure that we put our differences aside, as I said upfront. They knew that this was going to be a challenging moment for the Australian parliament. They knew it full well. They knew the arguments they were having every day at their kitchen tables and in their lounge rooms about kids spending so much time doomscrolling. But they also knew it wasn't the fault of their kids. They knew straight up that there were algorithms designed to do harm, that there was a business model that in fact ensured the continuity of harmful practices online.

I'm not going to go into all that detail, but those submissions were made. Parliamentarians heard the evidence loud and clear, and we were begged to act. And this parliament rose to that occasion. The ban on under-16s having social media accounts was world leading—just in the same way that the Australian parliament led the world on the banning tobacco advertising. That was not an easy decision back then. We know what happened. We know the litigious nature of big tobacco and big tech, and that's why this is so damn critical right now. That is why every parent in Australia is asking: 'How can this be happening? How is it that the coalition stood here in the morning and backed this in, knowing full well we needed to give the eSafety Commissioner additional powers so she could enforce the will of the Australian parliament and the will of the Australian people, before backflipping in the Senate?' She needed that, and she is on record saying exactly why that was required. So it's no surprise to anybody in this parliament.

The parents need us to stand up. They haven't gone away. The pain and trauma that we asked people to go through again when they gave evidence to our committees—we asked them to open up. These are parents that lost their kids. These were kids who were victims of addictive design features in social media that led to self-harm, extreme levels of anxiety, depression, eating disorders, body image harm, cyberbullying, misogyny, radicalisation and mis- and disinformation. None of these are things that you want your children ever to have to live with. We heard from those families.

I see the member for Fisher sitting in the room. He's the only member of the coalition—sorry, I am to be corrected there. But I am pleased to see his presence in this chamber because he sat on that committee. He heard that evidence firsthand, and I can only imagine what he feels right now, because we know how important it was. Member for Flinders, also, you know what's at stake.

There was a decision to support those extended powers that the eSafety Commissioner asked us for. She has made very, very clear she needs this to ensure that enforcement actions are taken, including the doubling of those fines. These companies do not want to see these laws enacted. We have to be up for this fight, colleagues. We have to be up for this. Australian kids are relying on us to deliver this. Australian families are relying on us to deliver this. We have a request to strengthen the enforcement framework that underpins that social media minimum age ban, and we cannot deny it. Yet that is exactly what happened in the other place just hours later. What the hell happened there? That's what parents are asking today. What the hell happened there?

I'm going to quote the eSafety Commissioner herself, because this office was stood up by the former coalition government. We backed you every step of the way. She says, 'Any delay in proposed enhancements to eSafety’s powers will also delay enforcement of the social media minimum age, and the improved safety protections for Australian children it is designed to provide.' That is what the delay is putting at risk.

I honestly cannot believe that you did this backflip in a matter of hours, between this place and that place. I don't know what on earth happened in that time, but you've got to change your mind. You have to come back and offer that bipartisan support to put children first again. (Time expired)

Julian Leeser (Berowra, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Indigenous Australians) | Link to this | Hansard source

The first duty of a government is to protect its citizens and, in particular, its most vulnerable citizens, our children. In the course of my service in this place, I've met with people on the front lines of child protection work in various guises and sought to advance their work—people from the International Justice Mission and ICMEC. I've met former AFP officers who've had to spend day after day watching child sex abuse materials online. I think of colleagues like the member for Fisher and the member for Flinders, who've been at the forefront of debates about online child safety. I think as well about people like the member for Fairfax, who, with the member for Fisher, has supported Bruce and Denise Morcombe and the Daniel Morcombe Foundation. I think about the experiences of the members for Wide Bay and La Trobe, who are sworn police officers, and hearing the stories of the member for Wide Bay, particularly, about going to child sex abuse cases and having to confront some of the worst people imaginable.

I've repeatedly raised issues of child protection and child safety in this place. In the recent budgetary consideration in detail, I raised in the Federation Chamber, and not in a political way, a series of questions about whether, under the current implementation of the Hague Convention in this country, we are sending Australian children into harm's way to be abused—questions that the Attorney-General did not answer. When I and the member for Fisher were in the role of shadow attorney-general—we were shadow attorneys-general in succession—we moved private members bills to increase the penalties for child sex abusers in the wake of scandals of paedophile rings in childcare centres and people getting off with too-light sentences for multiple child sex offences. We moved a bill to address that—to have mandatory minimums for first child sex offences—yet the government voted against bringing on that bill for debate. That was not because the government brought on a subsequent bill to protect children but because they didn't like the fact that it was us raising the issue.

As shadow attorney-general in August last year, along with the then shadow minister for education, I called on the government to, within the year, implement a national working-with-children check because they had said, no, it would be implemented in a longer period of time than that, and it just didn't seem right. We're still waiting. The national working-with-children check has not been implemented.

So we on this side of the House are not going to take a lecture from those on that side about child safety. It was our side of the House that devised the national centre for countering child exploitation. It is our side of the House that's been the leader in relation to online safety. We built the global model for it. Every major protection that Labor now relies on was legislated by the coalition.

In 2015, we had a world first. We created the children's eSafety Commissioner, the first dedicated online safety regulator anywhere on earth. The world didn't lead us. We led the world, and other democracies are still copying the coalition's model. In 2017, we dealt with image based abuse. We built the world's first scheme to force platforms to take down intimate images shared without consent and hit perpetrators and non-compliant platforms with real financial penalties. In 2021, we introduced the Online Safety Act, the most comprehensive online safety regime in the nation's history. We codified the basic online safety expectations and created an adult cyberabuse takedown scheme and slashed the time platforms have to strip illegal and terrorist content from their feeds. That's not rhetoric; that's a record. That's the record of the coalition in government.

We support the social media ban. The social media ban was our idea. It was born of coalition conviction that childhood is worth protecting. I've mentioned my friend the member for Fisher. In several committees, he pursued these issues. I've mentioned the member for Flinders. It was Peter Dutton, when he was Leader of the Opposition, and it was David Coleman, as the shadow minister, who first suggested these ideas. In November 2023, a coalition private member's bill forced age verification onto the agenda. Labor knocked it back, then bowed to pressure and funded a trial in the 2024 budget.

In June 2024, we pledged we would deliver an under-16 ban within a hundred days. Only then did the Albanese government try and play catch-up. The 2024 ban passed with our support, because we'd been calling for it all along, but—and this is the issue—having seen Labor's social media ban in place, we've seen it not be effective. What Labor is asking us to do now is to not subject the bill to the ordinary parliamentary processes.

For the first six years of my parliamentary career, I sat on the other side of the House. Again and again I heard Labor members stand on this side of the House and call on the then government to deal with legislation in the ordinary way and to subject it to ordinary parliamentary scrutiny. That is all that is proposed here. The reason it is necessary in this case is that the Labor Party fumbled the ball so badly in relation to the first tranche of this legislation. We need to have another go. We need to hold big tech to account, but we need to make sure that the measures that are being proposed are actually the right ones.

The eSafety Commissioner's own March 2026 compliance update finds that 70 per cent of children are still on social media. A landmark BMJ study has found that 85 per cent of under-16s are still logging in. Its verdict is that there's been limited implementation, incomplete compliance and substantial circumvention. It's in these circumstances that we cannot simply just wave a bill through; we need to use the processes of the parliament. We need to do our job as legislators and apply the ordinary scrutiny to these important bills—and scrutiny of legislation is what we are all paid to provide.

I believe these bills are very important. The social media ban is obviously important because it protects young, vulnerable children from the scourge of child sexual abusers and paedophiles and those people that would seek to prey on them. But, as the shadow education minister, I've another reason for supporting the social media ban. The challenges that the world faces today will require our children, the next generation, to use all the brain power they have available so they have strong concentration spans to ensure that they can address issues of global conflict, economic insecurity and AI.

We're not going to be able to address that properly if we have young children addicted to social media, which ruins their concentration spans. That's why we've been so strong over the years on things like banning mobile phones in the classrooms and reducing the use of technology in the classrooms. We know that this has a very negative effect on children and on their learning and their capacity. It's why we support the social media ban. But we are not going to wave things through carte blanche, given the record of this government and this minister and the failures of the first attempt here. The eSafety Commissioner herself called the original ban a 'very blunt force approach' thrown together 'very quickly' with 'very thin scaffolding' and with 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'.

We want to make sure that we've actually got the right powers to take rapacious big tech on and to make the penalties stick. That's the important thing here. That's what we on this side of the House are trying to do by doing our job—our duty as parliamentarians—of subjecting the bill to the proper scrutiny, hearing from the stakeholders and hearing from people who are advising big tech about what they think of this bill in order that we can plug any loopholes that might be found and make the scheme safer. We don't want to be back here in six months, patching up the scheme again and again. We want to get this right this time. It's already failed once because we have a minister who fumbled this and a government that did not take these issues with all seriousness. Instead, we have an opportunity to get this right, and that's why we are sending these matters to a Senate committee.

These amendments are a confession that Labor should have done the job right from the very beginning, not in the way that they did it, not in a way that was broadly criticised, not in a way where the minister, instead of focusing on the bill and on the detail, focused on selling the bill during her $100,000 New York trip. What we needed to do was to make sure that we focused on the very detail of the bill, and that's what this opportunity gives us.

So it's sad today that we are having the matter of public importance on an issue in which there is broad agreement. There is agreement that we need to protect the safety of our children. We need to protect our children. No-one in this place doesn't believe that we need to protect our children. But we on this side believe that we won't get a third go at this. We've got to get this right. We've got to demonstrate that there are proper safeguards in place. We've got to demonstrate that this law is absolutely right. And the way to do that and to put it beyond doubt is to have the parliamentary committee look at it properly.

Claire Clutterham (Sturt, Australian Labor Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

One of the early scenes in the 2010 movie The Social Network depicted young women at Harvard recoiling in disgust as they discover a website created by one of their peers that allowed male students to compare them based on their so-called 'hotness'. The website was a precursor to what would become Facebook. It's a scene that reminds us that, right from the very beginning, these platforms were not necessarily designed to inform, educate or bring out the best in human behaviour; they were designed to attract attention, drive engagement of any kind and keep users hooked at all costs. Back then, it wasn't just harmless fun; it was harmful, hurtful and damaging. Twenty years later, the platforms are bigger, more sophisticated and more powerful than ever before, and so too are the harms. That is why keeping children safe online should be a bipartisan issue.

When the Albanese Labor government introduced the social media minimum age of 16 last year, we did so because we listened to parents, educators, experts and young people. We recognised that, while social media can offer connection and opportunity, it can also expose children to bullying, harassment and harmful content in ways previous generations never experienced. Last December, I visited Morialta Secondary College in my electorate of Sturt with the Minister for Communications and the Premier of South Australia to discuss the social media ban, and what struck me most was how thoughtful and insightful the students were about it. These are young people who have grown up online. Social media is a part of the world they have always known, yet they were remarkably forthright about its downsides. They spoke about algorithms that keep them scrolling, the pressure to seek approval through likes and followers, and the impact social media was having on their confidence, self-esteem and mental health. They understood something that the big tech companies seem reluctant to admit, which is that these platforms are not simply passive products; they are designed to keep people engaged and capture attention. They were not designed to protect our kids, and that is why we introduced the world-leading social media minimum age.

But, six months into the operation of these laws, it's clear that some of the world's largest tech companies are barely bothering to comply. The eSafety Commissioner has identified serious compliance concerns and is actively investigating five major platforms due to their noncompliance. All the Albanese Labor government is seeking to do is to give the eSafety Commissioner stronger information-gathering powers so she can obtain the evidence needed to investigate noncompliance and take enforcement action. The commissioner herself has said that any delay to these powers delays enforcement of the social media minimum age and delays the improved safety protections Australian children deserve. We also intend to double the maximum penalty for noncompliance to almost $100 million. These are some of the richest and most powerful corporations in the world, and, if penalties are to act as a real deterrent, they must be significant enough to get their attention.

But we need action from the entire parliament, in this place and in the other place, for that to happen. I call on all members and senators to walk together to take this action. I do that because this issue is also deeply personal for me. In my first speech to this parliament, I spoke about my own experience of bullying at school. As a shy young girl who moved schools a lot, I was an easy target. School was not always a good place for me, but I could escape from it, to a degree, at home. Now, bullying no longer stops when the school day ends. Children endure it before school, after school and on weekends because of social media, and the harassment is public, relentless and impossible to escape. A cruel comment can be shared instantly. An embarrassing image can spread to hundreds of people. What once happened in a classroom or playground can now follow a child forever. No child should have to face that alone. No parent should be expected to fight some of the biggest companies in the world on their own. That is why I call on those opposite to please put Australian children and families ahead of big tech and support this important work.

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

I think it's really important when we have this discussion, that we separate the intent versus the outcome. Now, it's clear the intent is to make sure all those under 16 do not have access to social media. As a father of a 10-year-old and 12-year-old, as someone that visits many schools, I don't want anyone under 16 to be on social media, and that's not in doubt on this side of the house. But intent is one thing, and outcome is the other. An intent without outcome being delivered is irrelevant, and the reality is that this legislation has not worked. Six months later, we are back again because it has not worked. Those opposite ask what has changed from yesterday and the day before when we supported it in the House to now in the Senate. It's the government guillotining debate and refusing to have an inquiry into this legislation. They weren't prepared to look at the detail and understand.

Let's look at history. This legislation was introduced on Monday this week. This government wants to ram it through the house on Thursday. But let's look at December when the first legislation was brought in. The government rushed a committee through that allowed four hours—four hours—of public hearings on the social media ban for under 16s in December last year. They rushed through this process. They would not have debate and engagement to understand that this is a technical decision to get right. They rushed it through in December, and we are back here again, looking to make amendments because the legislation hasn't worked. They are doubling down on making the same mistake.

The coalition is saying, 'Let's take the time to have an inquiry, to do the work, to understand why it has failed and why we can get it right the second time.' As the member for Berowra said, we don't want to be back here in six months' time having to amend it again. The detail was wrong the first time. Let's get it—

A government member: Why not?

Why not? Why don't we get it right the second time? The minister is happy to fly to New York, claim 'Mission accomplished' like former president Bush did, and we have not succeeded. We have not succeeded. I will not take moral lectures from those opposite who think Mark Latham is fit to be leader of the Australian Labor Party. I will not take moral lectures from you all. I understand it's a little bit of a nerve for those opposite. You spend a lot of time rushing legislation through this House for political means, but doing your job is getting the legislation right. This legislation is not working. Young—

A government member: How?

How is it not working? I will explain to you if you stop interjecting and listen. Young children are still on social media. They deactivate their accounts and create new accounts. Your minister failed. Your minister rushed this legislation through the house, and we need to get it right. We need to get this legislation right. It was wrong the first time. Six months later, we are seeing that. There was no proper inquiry into this legislation in December, and this government is refusing to have a second inquiry to try and clean up its own mess. I understand it is a sore point for them. We see time and time again that the backbench has to follow orders. They can't get what they want on gambling reform. They have to take the sandwich from those. They have to follow the Prime Minister's lead on a bad budget, and they have to continue to follow the minister that is failing when it comes to social media. The intent is correct; the outcome is wrong.

And we know that the outcome is wrong because the minister is back here trying to fix up the mess that the minister made. If the minister had got it right the first time, we wouldn't be back here the second time. The real question is this: why is the minister not prepared to actually have some scrutiny of the legislation? The reason is that the minister knows they failed the first time and they have failed again the second time by not doing the process. The reality is, as the member for Berowra said, we don't want to come back and have to do it a third time in six months time or 12 months time. Let's let the experts have their say. Let's get it right so we can protect young Australians.

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

Protecting big tech or protecting young children—easy choice. Those opposite have the wrong priorities for this country, and we see it time and time again, whether it's keeping Australians locked out of the housing market, not supporting wage increases, voting against higher taxes or not acting on climate change. Now, they have the chance to come together in this parliament to protect our children. And what have they chosen? They've chosen the interests of big tech ahead of keeping our children safe, with the red herring argument.

On this side of the House, we make no apologies for keeping our children safe on social media. That's why, last year, we introduced some of the most significant and controversial technology reforms in Australia, introducing that minimum age of 16 for social media use. Since the introduction of those reforms, we have seen over five million accounts belonging to under-16s deleted off social media. That's an outcome, Member for Casey. This is a very positive development. However, we know that kids are still getting through, and it's clear that big tech companies just aren't doing enough to keep children off the platforms. That's why this government is stepping in, to get things done and to do more. We announced this week that we will double the penalties for tech companies and give more powers to the regulators so they can investigate what's going on within those big tech companies. It's a pretty simple bill.

Why did we decide to act? We heard from the member for Newcastle why it's so important, but social media really, truly has transformed how we communicate. Platforms such as Instagram, TikTok, Facebook and X are all central to our modern lifestyle. But, while they're great opportunities to learn, to be creative, to connect, they also expose young people to significant risk. I'm going to make a point here: there is research behind this. There are facts that support this. Research has linked excessive social media use with increased rates of anxiety, depression, body image concerns, cyberbullying, sleep deprivation and reduced attention spans, especially amongst teenagers. Many young people, too many, compare themselves to unrealistic online standards. Algorithms, as we know, prioritise and push sensational or emotionally charged content to keep the users engaged, to keep our kids scrolling. They can create endless cycles of that.

Parents, teachers and mental health professionals have increasingly expressed concern that social media companies have prioritised engagement and profit over children's wellbeing. In response to that, this government has acted and, importantly, has tried to take a bit of the effort away from parents and put it where it belongs—with tech companies.

There are potential benefits in these reforms. Again, the data is there. The first is improved health, improved teenage mental health. Teenagers are still developing emotionally and psychologically, and removing this constant exposure to bullying and addictive algorithms—all that we see online—can reduce stress and anxiety. Second is the benefit of increased face-to-face interactions, participating in sports and hobbies and having conversations with families and friends. Third is better sleep. Fourth is greater protection from online predators, scams and harmful content. Finally, the reforms send a strong message to the technology companies that child safety should be built into platform design rather than treated as an afterthought.

Australian parents and carers have called on this government and those before to act and to look after our young people. And we are. Despite what the member for Bowman says, by voting against this bill in the Senate, turning and pushing it away, they are walking away from protecting our kids online. Increasingly, governments around the world are asking tech companies to accept greater responsibility for products they create and profit from. Australia's reforms are already world leading, and we've got plenty of countries that are following us.

I'm pretty proud that the government is standing strong against big tech because that's what we need to do. We went out alone, but there are 16 more countries that are coming in behind us, which is pretty important. That's a pretty strong contrast to those opposite, who have chosen big tech over Australian kids. I really do feel like it's climate 2.0—when those opposite are presented with facts and research, instead of taking note and showing leadership for change, they fail Australians. They're putting politics over people, ideology over safety, and they're not helping our kids. (Time expired)

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

Wet lettuce. That is the official verdict on this government's attempt to prevent harm to Australian kids via social media regulation. 'Wet lettuce' were the exact words the eSafety Commissioner used to describe the reforms a month ago in an interview with the Sydney Morning Herald.

Government Members:

Government members interjecting—

Lisa Chesters (Bendigo, Australian Labor Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Flinders will pause while I hear the point of order.

Scott Buchholz (Wright, Liberal Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

I have a point of order. The standing orders clearly apply to both sides of the House. We sat here in absolute silence while the last speaker gave her contribution, irrespective of whether or not we supported it. We obliged by the standing orders. Our speaker is a couple of seconds in to a gaggle from the other side. I'm just asking you to enforce the standing orders.

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

Julie Inman Grant compared the government's mechanism for banning social media accounts for under-16-year-olds as the equivalent of sticking a pink parking ticket on a windshield. In March, the Social media minimum age: compliance update report from the eSafety Commissioner reassuringly told us that 4.7 million age restricted accounts were removed or restricted from the designated platforms as at mid-December. It's not bad, given that we only have about 1.5 million 13-to-16-year-olds.

But talk to any parent and they will tell you that the ban's implementation has been far too hit and miss. The University of Newcastle carefully studied the ban's implementation, following around 400 people between the ages of 12 and 17 in the period when the law came into effect. What did they find? More than 85 per cent of adolescents under 16 continued to use the restricted social media platforms, predominantly via their own accounts. Two-thirds may have encountered an age verification test that was easily passed by a self-declared age or by uploading a selfie.

What else did the study find? That this government's attempt to ban social media accounts for under-16-year-olds, which we had supported in 2024, in good faith, because, after all, we had been the original proponents of the ban. But that had largely and unacceptably failed.

During question time today, government members, led by huffer-and-puffer-in-chief, the Minister for Communications, were outraged about the simple act taken by the Senate last night to refer—

Lisa Chesters (Bendigo, Australian Labor Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

The member will pause. I give the call to the Chief Government Whip.

Joanne Ryan (Lalor, Australian Labor Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

I ask that the member refer to members by their appropriate titles.

Lisa Chesters (Bendigo, Australian Labor Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you for the reminder, Chief Government Whip. I remind the member to refer to people by their correct titles.

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

The minister was outraged by the simple act taken by the Senate last night to refer the legislation to the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee for investigation, with a reporting date in August—a three-month inquiry—acting like we, working with their bedfellows in the Greens, personally put Australian children at risk because we dared to demand a modicum of scrutiny for this legislation. We dared to demand an investigation into whether the flimsy measures contained in the bill will, in fact, do what we all want to see—meaningful barriers between young people and the most dangerous aspects of social media to mitigate its negative effect on mental health and wellbeing, to close it down as a means of transmission for child sexual abuse material and to block it as a vector for extremism.

A few days ago, I gave my speech in the second reading debate on the government's strengthening bill, and in it I provided a brief history lesson for those on the other side, reminding them that they failed repeatedly to pick up and act on our determination to do something about the harm social media was doing to young Australians—harm I had raised in my maiden speech in September 2022, harm which is detailed repeatedly in the books of Jean Twenge and Jonathan Haidt and by local researchers like Brad Marshall, harm which the then leader of the opposition committed to investigate back in April 2024 and then to act on a few days later, and harm the premiers of New South Wales and South Australia had agreed they would act on by mid-2024, frustrated by this government's failure to actually act.

When the Prime Minister did finally relent and agreed this government would act, the draft legislation was introduced into this place in a rush, and the Senate was given four days to conduct an inquiry—four days. And now this government dares to throw a hissy fit because the Senate demands a three-month inquiry. 'Trust us,' the government says. 'Trust us. We failed the first time, but this time we won't. You don't need an inquiry. You don't need to test the efficacy.' Well, guess what? Trusting you didn't pay off last time. Australia ended up with a legislative framework that didn't do the job.

Lisa Chesters (Bendigo, Australian Labor Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Flinders will pause. I give the call to the Chief Government Whip.

Joanne Ryan (Lalor, Australian Labor Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

I'd ask you to remind the member to address their remarks through you.

Lisa Chesters (Bendigo, Australian Labor Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

I remind—time has expired, so we'll move on to the next speaker.

Zhi Soon (Banks, Australian Labor Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to support this profoundly significant matter of public importance put forward by my friend the member for Newcastle—not least because this is an issue that matters to so many people across our great country but also because it matters to so many parents in my electorate of Banks. It is also pertinent to the many young children we have up in the gallery today.

My sister and I are raising our own families in the area where we grew up, but times have changed a lot since then. While each of our children is still a little too young to understand social media fully, they deserve to grow up without the constant, pervasive pull of social media. When I'm speaking to locals in my community, parents share the same concerns with me. They are worried about the type of content that is out there online that their children could inadvertently be exposed to. They want to see greater protections for their children online.

Keeping Australians safe online, particularly children and young people, is a top priority for this government. Our social media ban for under-16s is aimed at delivering the protection our parents want to see and our young people need. It is a world-first initiative and it is lighting the way for other countries, with Brazil, Indonesia, Malaysia and the United Kingdom among 20 other countries implementing legislation or announcing plans to follow Australia's lead.

We have seen progress. Already more than five million social media accounts have been removed, deactivated or restricted. Unfortunately, though, in March of this year the eSafety Commissioner published their first compliance update, which contained some unwelcome news. The commissioner had serious concerns about compliance and the practices of some of the platforms in the tech industry. The eSafety Commissioner made it very clear that, while they are actively investigating the compliance of five different platforms, when considering potential enforcement action in response to this noncompliance they required stronger investigation powers.

The government made it clear at the outset that we would not hesitate to take further action to ensure the effectiveness of these reforms and to hold big tech to account if we needed to, and this is what we are trying to do. As the compliance update demonstrates, the need exists, and the legislation passed by this House earlier this week is the consequence of big tech failing to respect Australian law and uphold the standards Australians expect. The legislation ensures that eSafety has every tool available, with stronger information-gathering powers, so that big tech can't avoid providing the information needed to assess important compliance. Additionally, the bill doubles the maximum civil penalty for noncompliance with minimum-age obligations to $99 million, strengthening deterrence and aligning it with recent changes to other consumer laws.

The compliance update shows that big tech is trying to get away with doing the bare minimum and failing to meet their obligations to our communities. Let's be clear: if these companies want to do business in Australia, they must obey Australian laws. It is important to note that the legislation passed by the parliament to institute this ban was the beginning and not the end of this reform. The same is true of the legislation passed yesterday. Being the first in the world to institute these reforms means we have to create our own road map to success. Taking on tech giants means we have to be responsive. We have to be adaptable. This is exactly what we are doing.

When the need to hold big tech accountable and keep our children safe online arises, this government is not afraid to take action—unlike some others. It is inexplicable that those opposite are seeking to delay the important legislation not by days or by hours but by months. I'll let them explain to Australian parents this choice of theirs. (Time expired)

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

On 3 January 2018, Dolly Everett passed away at the age of 14. She was a young woman, a young lady, who had been bullied mercilessly. Sadly, she took her own life as a result of the bullying she encountered on social media. That happened not long into my parliamentary term in this place. As a result of Dolly's passing, I travelled down to Sydney and held a meeting with all of the social media companies that were presently in existence, or the main ones anyway, as well as Google and Microsoft. I walked out of that meeting with the express understanding that I had just spent the last two hours or so with big tobacco in the late 2000s.

These companies gave me every reason under the sun for why they were protecting young lives—which was all rubbish, and we all know that. Based on that meeting, I worked pretty closely with the former shadow minister for communications David Coleman, and I was the chair of the Social Policy and Legal Affairs Committee when, with the member for Newcastle, we held an inquiry into protecting the age of innocence. Some of the recommendations in the report from the inquiry called for an age restriction for pornography and gambling. The member for Newcastle would remember this well. It was a well-respected inquiry.

Fast forward to November 2023, when the then shadow minister for communications David Coleman—we'd lost government by that stage—introduced a private member's bill that required the government to conduct a trial for age verification technology on pornography and social media platforms. That bill was not supported by the government. Later, in June 2024, the then opposition leader Peter Dutton pledged that a coalition government would implement a ban on social media for under-16s within 100 days of taking office. The Labor government did not introduce a bill to protect under-16s from social media until 12 months after we introduced our private member's bill. The Prime Minister was dragged, kicking and screaming—you can shake your head; you probably weren't even here then—to introduce a bill 12 months later.

The Prime Minister has made a big fanfare, and those members opposite try to rewrite history. But the reality is that history has always been on the side of the coalition when it comes to the protection of children. We established the Australian Centre to Counter Child Exploitation. It was the coalition that consistently led the charge on the protection of children. We actually set up the eSafety Commissioner—and what we now know, from the eSafety Commissioner herself, is that 70 per cent of children are still on social media as a result of this government's flawed legislation.

So you will excuse us if the opposition say we don't trust the government to get this next tranche right. That's why we are saying that this legislation needs to follow the usual course. It needs to go to a Senate inquiry because we don't trust that Labor have got this right. The government stuffed it up last time. Chances are it will continue to stuff it up again. (Time expired)

Joanne Ryan (Lalor, Australian Labor Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

I understand how difficult it is for those opposite. Having voted in support of this legislation, they've seen their vote overturned by their Senate colleagues. I understand that they're disappointed. To the children in the gallery and the families that are with us today: we're debating something we call a matter of public importance, and today it really is a matter of public importance, because we are debating why the Senate has voted to prolong or delay the enactment of this piece of legislation—which is an addition, if you like, to Australia's world-leading bipartisan legislation that was designed to make big tech companies responsible for enacting— (Quorum formed) This is the legislation that those opposite are suggesting is really difficult and needs a three-month inquiry. Front cover, table of contents—it's a four-page document! It's a four-page document that does two clear things. It gives the eSafety Commissioner something she has asked for. She has asked for a law that will allow her to compel documents in her investigation as to why big tech companies are not complying with the laws set by this country, set by this House and the other place. She's asked for that. It does one other thing. It raises the fines for big tech if they're found guilty of being noncompliant with Australian law. This is world leading legislation that had bipartisan support, driven for a long time. This is not rushed. Nothing about this has actually been rushed. There was a joint inquiry.