Corinne Mulholland (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak against the MPI moved by Senator Babet. We all know that the digital age we are living in is complicated, fast paced and potentially dangerous, especially online and especially for the most vulnerable, our kids. I am proud to be part of a government that has not only stepped up to the challenge of better protecting Australians in these unprecedented times but that is acting quickly to put those protections in place.

The Albanese government is a world leader in online protections for its citizens, and we are taking our responsibility to reduce online harm and exposure for young people very seriously. That's why last year we passed historic legislation to delay access to social media until the age of 16, a campaign that was echoed by parents in the pages of our national newspapers, the Let Them Be Kids campaign. This decisive action by our government was celebrated by parents across the country, so much so that there is now growing international pressure on governments around the world to follow Australia's lead.

We make no apology for prioritising the safety of Australian kids online. In fact, it is incumbent on governments to accept some responsibility for helping Australians mitigate those dangers. It is our responsibility to do whatever we can to protect them. That's why we have quadrupled the eSafety Commissioner's base funding to ensure that they can enforce the law. We have equipped the commission to better help Australians who face serious abuse online and to also better educate Australians about those online risks. We must particularly do that for our children, and I am not sure why you wouldn't want to protect our kids online.

That's exactly what the Internet Search Engine Services Online Safety Code does. The code was developed under the Online Safety Act 2021 and plays a vital role in protecting citizens, especially our kids, from harmful online content. The code requires search engines to implement measures to detect and remove harmful content like child sexual abuse, pornography, domestic violence and terrorism material. I'm not sure why you would be against that. It specifically requires the industry to implement age-appropriate assurances for account holders by no later than six months after the code comes into effect. The code mandates that search engines take steps to reduce the risk of children being exposed to harmful content by applying a 'safe search' functionality as the default for underage account holders. Again, I don't know why you would be against that. The code emphasises user empowerment by requiring search engines to help users manage their online exposure to potentially harmful content. Again, I'm not sure why you would be against that. The code helps to prevent illegal content from spreading by restricting access to harmful content and by restricting the distribution of harmful content, so it's harder to access or share illegal material online. Again, I don't know why you would be against that.

Best of all, the code has real power. It's backed by the Online Safety Act, which provides for civil penalties and injunctions to ensure compliance, and the eSafety Commissioner can investigate potential breaches. To me, it all just makes common sense, so I'm not sure why it's so controversial on the other side of the chamber.

I will give the senator the benefit of the doubt in assuming he also wants to protect kids from sexual abuse and terrorism material online, but we need to be clear about what the senator is arguing for here. He's squibbing about an obscure technicality. That, frankly, seems a little bit paranoid. He is arguing that, for the benefit of adults, there should be no protections against children accessing online pornography that depicts specific fetish practices or fantasies. He is arguing that, for the benefit of adults, there should be no protections against children accessing pornography that depicts sexual activity between adults. He is arguing that, for the benefit of adults, we shouldn't be protecting children from high-impact material, which includes violence, drug use, suicide, death, alcohol dependency and racism, all of which I personally find repugnant beyond description as an Australian and especially as a new mum. It's not something I want my child to be accessing online—I'm not sure about those across the chamber. The most ludicrous thing is wasting our time in the Senate when we could be getting on with the real business of debating legislation.