I move:

That the amendments be considered immediately.

The question is that the amendments be considered immediately.

I understand that it is the wish of the House to consider the amendments together.

Senate's amendments—

(1) Schedule 1, item 4, page 4 (after line 6), at the end of section 63G, add:

(4) However, the notice must not require the person to give information or produce documents by summoning the person to attend before the Commissioner or other person.

Note: See Division 4A for the power to require a person to give information or evidence, produce documents or answer questions relevant to a matter mentioned in subsection (1) by summoning the person to attend before the Commissioner or other person.

(2) Page 4 (after line 15), at the end of the bill, add:

Schedule 2 — Amendments relating to examinations etc.

Online Safety Act 2021

1 After Division 4 of Part 4A

Insert:

Division 4A — Examination powers

63HA Notice requiring appearance for examination

(1) This Division applies if the Commissioner has reason to believe that a person is capable of giving information or evidence, producing documents or answering questions relevant to compliance by a provider of an electronic service that is or may be an age-restricted social media platform with section 63D or subsection 63DA(1) or 63DB(1).

(2) The Commissioner may, by written notice given to the person, summon the person to attend before the Commissioner, or a delegate of the Commissioner named in the notice, at a time and place specified in the notice, to do any one or more of the following:

(a) give to the Commissioner the information or evidence;

(b) produce to the Commissioner the documents;

(c) answer the questions.

(3) Without limiting subsection (2), the notice may also require the person to:

(a) make relevant documents available for inspection by the Commissioner or a delegate of the Commissioner; or

(b) permit the Commissioner or the delegate to make copies of, or take extracts from, those documents.

63HB Examination on oath or affirmation

(1) If the person is summoned to attend before the Commissioner or a delegate of the Commissioner, the Commissioner or delegate may examine the person on oath or affirmation and, for that purpose:

(a) may require the person to take an oath or make an affirmation; and

(b) may administer the oath or affirmation.

(2) The oath or affirmation is to be an oath or affirmation that the statements the person will make will be true to the best of the person's knowledge or belief.

(3) The Commissioner or delegate may require the person to answer any relevant question put to the person at the examination.

63HC Examination to take place in private

The examination of the person must be conducted in private, but the person is entitled to have an adviser present at the examination.

63HD Record to be made of examination

(1) If the person is examined by the Commissioner or a delegate of the Commissioner, a record must be made of the examination and the person is entitled to be given a written copy of the record on request.

(2) If the record of the examination of the person is made in electronic form, the person is, if the person so requests, to be given a copy of the record in that form.

(3) If the person requests a copy of the record, the record must be given to the person at a time that the Commissioner or delegate considers appropriate.

63HE Protection of persons attending before Commissioner

A person summoned to attend before the Commissioner, or a delegate of the Commissioner, to give information or evidence, produce documents or answer questions under this Division has the same protection as a witness in a proceeding in the High Court.

63HF Non-compliance with requirements

Compliance with notice requirements

(1) A person contravenes this subsection if the person:

(a) fails to comply with a notice under section 63HA; or

(b) refuses or fails to answer a question that the person is required to answer under subsection 63HB(3).

Compliance with requirement to take oath or make affirmation

(2) A person contravenes this subsection if the person refuses to take an oath or make an affirmation in accordance with paragraph 63HB(1)(a).

Offence

(3) A person commits an offence if the person contravenes subsection (1) or (2).

Penalty: Imprisonment for 12 months.

Civil penalty

(4) A person is liable to a civil penalty if the person contravenes subsection (1) or (2).

Civil penalty: 1,000 penalty units.

Note: For continuing contraventions of civil penalty provisions, see section 93 of the Regulatory Powers (Standard Provisions) Act 2014.

Exception

(5) Subsection (1) does not apply if:

(a) the person is a journalist; and

(b) complying with the requirement of the notice would tend to disclose the identity of a person who supplied information in confidence to the journalist.

Note: A defendant bears an evidential burden in relation to the matters mentioned in this subsection: see subsection 13.3(3) of the Criminal Code and section 96 of the Regulatory Powers (Standard Provisions) Act 2014.

63HG Self-incrimination

(1) A person is not excused from giving information or evidence, producing a document or answering a question under this Division on the ground that doing so might tend to incriminate the person.

(2) However, in the case of an individual:

(a) any information, evidence or answer given or document produced; or

(b) the giving of the information or evidence, the production of the document or the answering of the question; or

(c) any information, document or thing obtained as a direct or indirect consequence of the giving of the information or evidence, the production of the document or the answering of the question;

is not admissible in evidence against the individual:

(d) in civil proceedings for the recovery of a penalty, other than proceedings for the recovery of a penalty under section 63HF; or

(e) in criminal proceedings, other than:

(i) proceedings for an offence against section 63HF; or

(ii) proceedings for an offence against section 137.1, 137.2 or 149.1 of the Criminal Code that relates to this Division.

(3) If, at general law, an individual would otherwise be able to claim the privilege against self-exposure to a penalty (other than a penalty for an offence) in relation to giving information or evidence, producing a document or answering a question under this Division, the individual is not excused from giving the information or evidence, producing the document or answering the question under this Division on that ground.

Note: A body corporate is not entitled to claim the privilege against self-exposure to a penalty.

2 After section 163

Insert:

163A Amount payable under certain infringement notices

(1) Despite subsections 104(2) and (3) of the Regulatory Powers (Standard Provisions) Act 2014, the amount to be stated in an infringement notice for the purposes of paragraph 104(1)(f) of that Act, in relation to a provision covered by subsection (2) of this section, is the following:

(a) if the notice relates to only one alleged contravention of the provision by the person—one-fifth of the maximum penalty that a court could impose on the person for the contravention;

(b) if the notice relates to more than one alleged contravention of the provision by the person—one-fifth of the amount worked out by adding together the maximum penalty that a court could impose on the person for each alleged contravention.

(2) This subsection covers the following provisions of this Act:

(a) section 63D;

(b) section 63DA;

(c) section 63DB;

(d) section 63H.

3 After paragraph 165(1)(db)

Insert:

(dc) section 63HF;

4 Application

(1) The following apply in relation to notices given under section 63HA on or after the commencement of this item:

(a) Division 4A of Part 4A of the Online Safety Act 2021, as inserted by this Schedule;

(b) section 165 of that Act, as amended by this Schedule.

(2) Section 163A of the Online Safety Act 2021, as inserted by this Schedule, applies in relation to an infringement notice given on or after the commencement of this item.

I move:

That the amendments be agreed to.

Australia's social media minimum age law was the first of its kind in the world, and we were clear from the start that we would need to be flexible as that law was implemented because, as lawmakers, we have to be as agile as the technology we are trying to protect our kids from. It's clear to most Australians that social media companies are pulling out every trick in the global big tech playbook to do the bare minimum. Today the Albanese government has sent a clear message to big tech. If you want to do business in Australia, you must follow Australian laws.

I thank the senators and members who worked constructively with the government to strengthen the eSafety Commissioner's powers to hold these companies to account. Australian families will remember that you stood with them on the right side of history. Australian families will not forget the senators and members who sold them out for political points from the far right. Today the coalition voted against Labor's bill to strengthen Australia's social media minimum age laws. The modern coalition has no shame, putting politics ahead of what Australians have demanded of their elected representatives. The coalition chose to run a protection racket for big tech instead of backing Australian families and kids.

A million views—you wish! Today in question time, the Leader of the Opposition leaned across the dispatch box and accused me of hiding behind grieving parents. He's wrong on that. This government proudly stands with grieving parents. At least we stand for something. Australian families know now that Labor is the only major party who is delivering online safety for young people. We are the only major party left. They know now that the coalition cannot be trusted on online safety. They dawdle, they obfuscate, they cower to One Nation and they refuse to back parents, while Labor works to get the job done and today delivers for Australian families.

The coalition cannot support the Online Safety Amendment (Strengthening Enforcement for the Social Media Minimum Age) Bill because this is another example of dramatic overreach giving unprecedented powers to the unelected eSafety Commissioner. After demanding the coalition pass this legislation through parliament more than two months ago, the Minister for Communications added sweeping new interrogation powers at the eleventh hour—backed by heavy fines and the threat of up to 12 months in jail. This shows she couldn't even get her own bill right. But, more concerningly, these are serious coercive powers which Labor is trying to ram through without proper scrutiny. We cannot support that.

This amendment also includes new powers which dramatically increase the fines the eSafety Commissioner can issue for breaches of the social media ban without instituting court proceedings. This is completely unprecedented. Under this bill, as amended in the Senate, the eSafety Commissioner now has the extensive power to issue fines of up to $21.84 million per breach of the social media ban by a corporation, one-fifth of the 60,000 penalty units that totals $109.2 million. Previously, the maximum infringement penalty for corporate bodies was 60 penalty units, or $21,840.

This penalty was previously governed by the Regulatory Powers (Standard Provisions) Act 2014. If the commissioner wanted to seek a higher penalty, she would be required to issue court proceedings. Now she has these extraordinary fines at her very fingertips, at her disposal, without a court determination, without a judge, without an independent arbiter. This is too much power in the hands of one person. This is not acceptable.

We've also raised serious concerns about proposals allowing the eSafety Commissioner to compel documents from virtually anyone, including children and their parents. In our Senate inquiry, we received compelling evidence that the scope of the commissioner's powers with respect to the production of documents was too broad. The Law Council of Australia, the Human Rights Commission's Dr Lorraine Finlay and the Institute of Public Affairs all submitted that the bill needed to be amended to confine the eSafety Commissioner's powers to their intended purpose. Even the minister's own department and the commissioner herself conceded, under questioning, that it was not their intention to seek the production of documents from children or their parents and agreed this should be clarified. The opposition proposed an amendment to fix this defective part of the bill, but, despite all this evidence, the government said no. It was more interested in playing politics itself than in fixing this deficient legislation.

Protecting children online matters enormously. We all agree on that. But this does not give the government a blank cheque to radically expand the coercive power of the state or to set up the regulator as a judge and jury. When it comes to online safety, Labor keeps reaching for more power for government while failing to get the very basics right. It was no coincidence the minister released her draft digital duty of care laws that raised serious free speech concerns on the very day her defective online safety laws were being debated in the Senate. Serious online harms require serious action, but Australians should not have to surrender basic freedoms in the process.

The coalition's approach is to protect kids, empower parents, shine a light on big tech and protect the freedoms Australians expect. Labor's digital duty of care bill is a dangerous step in the wrong direction. In more than four years, the government has delivered only a defective social media ban and it is now scrambling. Labor's disastrous misinformation and disinformation bill demonstrated the dangers of giving government sweeping powers over what Australians can see and do online. The Prime Minister and his communications minister should not be trusted with another attempt to regulate Australia's freedom of expression.

A division having been called and the bells being rung—

Mr Speaker, she's having a crack. I'm just doing my job.

Order! I just invite all members during this division to refrain from commentary, to allow the whips to do their job. As the tellers are doing their job, there are to be no interactions with them, as they need to concentrate, and they are acting on my instructions. Everyone remain silent during this division. The question is that the Senate amendments be agreed to.

on indulgence—Mr Speaker, after you'd appointed tellers, the minister was asking a series of questions of our teller in what looked like—I couldn't hear it—an inappropriate way.

I'm just trying—

Order! We'll deal with this matter carefully and respectfully.

I'm trying to resolve this—

Order, the member for Isaacs! I'm just going to resolve this matter quickly and respectfully.

I was just going to ask the minister if, for the benefit of the House, she could just apologise, please.

Look, there was far too much noise during that debate. I wasn't happy with the level of interjections when the member for Lindsay was on her feet and equally when the minister was on her feet, with people interjecting outside their seats. I understand that it's almost to the close of parliament, but I just invite all members, if people are doing their jobs and they're on their feet as tellers—I didn't witness anything that happened, but if the minister—

Order! I remind the House that the tellers have their job to do, so I just want to give a general advice to the House: when divisions are occurring, the debate is concluded, and that is the time when people should sit in silence and allow the division to occur.