The coalition is strongly focused on putting parents back in control of their children's online safety and forcing greater transparency from big tech, but this bill is flawed and cannot be passed in its current form. Australian families deserve more choice, control and transparency online. There must be much more urgent requirements in relation to combating online harm. Parents should be in charge of how they protect their children online, not Silicon Valley and not Canberra.

I want to say very clearly that the coalition has a strong record of leading on online safety by establishing the eSafety Commissioner in 2015, delivering the Online Safety Act and leading the push for an under-16s social media ban—a ban which in its implementation and design has gone badly awry. Labor's record should give Australians little confidence. The social media ban, despite all the spin that we hear from the government, has seen the proportion of under-16s still using social media platforms fall by just 4.4 percentage points.

I have just been listening—and the press conference is still going on—in relation to the government's digital duty of care and the exposure draft, which I understand is being released right now. Of course, no-one has had an opportunity to even read that document, assuming it has been released. But the Prime Minister continues to mislead Australians in relation to the number of accounts shut down as a result of the social media ban. He just said it again a very short time ago: 'More than five million accounts have been disabled or shut down or closed.' That's not the case, because a very significant number of those five million accounts were, in fact, Google accounts—which include children who have a Gmail account. So the government continues to mislead grossly in relation to its social media ban. We know it's failing; we know it hasn't worked, and it's because it was rushed, badly designed and poorly implemented, and now the government is scrambling to introduce a digital duty of care on the very day that this bill, the Online Safety Amendment (Strengthening Enforcement for the Social Media Minimum Age) Bill, is before the Senate. I don't think it's any coincidence that the press conference has been timed to cut across this debate in the Senate.

I have to say, overnight, we were shocked to see a government amendment to this bill brought forward. Two months ago, disgracefully, the government was urging the coalition to immediately pass this bill—without scrutiny, without any transparency, without giving key stakeholders and other Australians the opportunity to make submissions in relation to the bill. We very, very quickly learnt, in our Senate inquiry, that the bill was flawed, because one of the elements of the bill was additional powers for the eSafety Commissioner, which would give her the power to order the production of documents from any person in relation to compliance with the social media ban—that includes end-user children and their parents. That is wrong at every level, and that received widespread condemnation by the likes of the Australian Human Rights Commissioner, the Law Council of Australia and many others in our Senate inquiry. Even the department itself, as well as the eSafety Commissioner, recognise that there'd been a significant drafting flaw and that it was not the government's intention to extend this power to any person—only to the relevant third-party companies, such as age-assurance providers. So we will be putting forward an amendment to correct that significant drafting error—or, I would say, significant issue—with the bill.

But we were shocked to discover overnight that the government is now putting forward a further amendment to give the eSafety Commissioner draconian powers—powers to interrogate any person, not just the social media companies, in relation to this ban. There is no right against self-incrimination. There are very, very significant fines which would flow if someone did not comply, including potential imprisonment of up to 12 months. These powers have been dropped on the Senate with no notice, no scrutiny, no transparency, and this is after the government, two months ago, urged the parliament to pass this bill without any delay. Now the government is scrambling. But, I have to say, the coalition members and senators are shocked by these draconian powers, and they will not be supported.

What we will be putting forward in this bill is an amendment which reflects our concern about the lack of algorithmic transparency. Big tech has enormous power over what Australians see, read and hear every day, yet the algorithms making those decisions remain largely hidden from view. These systems decide what gets recommended, what gets promoted, what gets buried and what gets moderated. Australians have a right to know how that works, including a right to know what is being censored. What are the hidden harms that are being driven by these various different algorithms? That's why we will be seeking in an amendment that social media companies disclose their algorithms, as X has done in relation to its 'for you' feed, which is publicly available and can be interrogated. Transparency is everything. It's been done by X, and I applaud X. Even the eSafety Commissioner applauded X, but we want to see that level of transparency across the board so that social media platforms' recommendation and moderation systems will be known to Australians while at the same time protecting proprietary information such as source code, personal information and other information relating to security and safety concerns, including in relation to children.

This would mean that journalists, researchers and any Australian could better scrutinise whether their platforms are pushing harmful material, manipulating users, censoring legitimate views or applying their own rules unfairly. Big tech should not be able to operate a black box which shapes what millions of Australians see every single day without proper scrutiny. We will also be putting forward an amendment to give Australians, particularly parents, greater freedom to choose the digital safety services they want to use to protect their children. The big boys in town—Apple, Google and Microsoft—should not be able to lock out competing safety tools while giving their own products privileged access. It is alarming that these safety tools are available to large corporations and government departments through enterprise agreements, yet Australian consumers, particularly parents, are being denied access to these tools, which would allow parents to determine exactly how they control what their children see online right across the digital ecosystem, not just on social media.

Parents have got to have the right to choose the tools they trust to block harmful content, to restrict apps and websites, to manage screen time and to keep their kids safe. There are some incredible third-party apps available, including one offered by a large Australian company that's now got global reach in many parts of the world, including the US and the UK, where parents have got complete ability to control what hits their child's phone so that the harm actually never reaches their child's phone. We think that that is very, very important.

Of course, as we have made clear, the jury is very much out on the government's draft digital duty of care laws, which, we have already made very clear, raised serious free-speech concerns. It's no coincidence that the government is scrambling and has brought forward its exposure draft. It was meant to be released at the end of the month. It's now being released today, on the very day that this bill is being debated in the Senate. We have very, very serious concerns. We have seen alone with this bill that the minister, Ms Wells, cannot even get the basics right. In more than four years, the government has delivered only a defective social media ban and is now scrambling to bring forward this far-reaching digital duty of care. While we will consider the government's exposure draft, the proposal for new ministerial powers to make regulations governing categories of online harms without parliamentary oversight is a serious threat to free speech. Labor's disastrous misinformation and disinformation bill demonstrated the dangers of giving government sweeping powers over what Australians can say and see online. This prime minister and this communications minister should not be trusted with another attempt to regulate Australians' freedom of expression.

I was just listening to the media conference and I did hear the minister say, 'You don't expect us to recall parliament every time we want to update the digital duty of care with respect to online harms.' Yes, we do because, if we are going to regulate in relation to online harms, this is a job for the parliament. This is not the job for the minister, for the executive and for the unelected eSafety Commissioner. We have been very strong in relation to tougher action that's required to combat serious online harms and empower Australians to take greater control over what they see online. But the digital duty of care, as we understand it, with these wide-ranging powers of the minister to make regulations without parliamentary oversight is a very significant, dangerous step in the wrong direction.

I also want to raise concerns about this focus on algorithms. Do we opt in or opt out? In fact, there are numerous algorithms or sets of rules which apply to any given social media feed. We have serious concerns about the impact of opaque algorithms and their addictive design features, particularly on children, which can amplify harmful content while stripping users of meaningful control over what they see. But we think we must start with the basics—that is transparency—which is why we are taking action in this respect. We have seen already that many tech entrepreneurs and small businesses raise concerns about rushing to any proposal which would mandate non-profiled social media feeds without proper scrutiny and consideration. So there is a legitimate debate to be had about whether Australians should be able to switch algorithmic profiling on or off, but Canberra should not dictate what Australians see online by replacing one compulsory system with another. That's why we believe that this needs much more scrutiny.

As I say, we, the coalition, have a very proud record of standing up for Australians when it comes to protecting their online safety: the world's first eSafety Commissioner, cracking down on image based abuse, the Online Safety Act and of course leading the charge on the social media ban. But, as we have seen, this is a ban that is not working. It was rushed. What I would say right now is that, if the government is intending to try and rush through the digital duty of care, it has a big fight on its hands because we are not going to allow that to happen.

I rise to speak in support of the Online Safety Amendment (Strengthening Enforcement for the Social Media Minimum Age) Bill 2026. This bill is about improving social media and people's mental health. It's about a world-leading protection for children against the largest and most powerful technology companies in the world. The Albanese Labor government's social media minimum age is groundbreaking reform. In spite of what we've just heard in that contribution—on something they did in 2015—it is since 10 December 2025 that age restricted social media platforms have been required to take responsible steps to prevent Australians under 16 from creating or keeping accounts. Millions of young people are now safer online. This bill strengthens that framework by expanding the eSafety Commissioner's information-gathering powers and increasing civil penalties for non-compliance. This is not about punishing children or parents; it's about placing responsibility where it belongs: on the platforms that design these services, profit from that attention and possess that technology and the technical capabilities to make them safer.

Young people and their families should not carry the burden of outsmarting systems deliberately engineered to keep users scrolling, watching, comparing and returning. It's a platform's choice to operate in Australia. They choose to operate in Australia; therefore, they must respect Australian laws and the standards Australians expect for the protection of children. The minimum age gives children something increasingly precious: time—a few more years to be a kid; a few more years to play sport, to ride a bike, to read, to make music, spend time outdoors, have some arguments with their brothers and sisters and friends, and learn how to make up; a few more years for them to grow in confidence and to also gain the maturity to be able to measure what they're viewing and the shares and the followers that they're participating in. Childhood should not be a contest for attention. It should not be shaped by commercial algorithms that know how to hold a child's gaze before a child has developed the maturity to understand how or why it is happening.

We know social media can connect people, open doors to creativity, provide access to support and information, but we must also be honest about the risks. People in this chamber, too many people in this chamber, use clickbait—the algorithms—to make political points without thinking about the impact on and the mental health of their target. I'm not talking about when they target other politicians; I'm talking about other targets.

We believe that it is essentially important that we protect young people. Many platforms are not neutral notice boards; they are sophisticated systems designed to maximise engagement and to get you addicted. Their recommender system learns what provokes a reaction and serves more of it. For young person, that can mean relentless comparison, pressure to present a perfect life, exposure to harmful material, sleep disruption, compulsive use and the sense that they are never quite good enough.

Mental health is shaped by many factors. No responsible government would pretend that there is one simple cause or there is one simple cure. But government does have a duty to act where product design can magnify distress, insecurity and isolation. Delaying access to social media accounts gives young people breathing space to develop digital literacy, critical reasoning, impulse control and resilience. It gives families and schools more time to help children recognise online risks and seek support. Most importantly, it tells young Australians that their wellbeing matters more than technology, more than a technology company's next dollar.

The first months of a framework have shown why strong enforcement is essential. The eSafety Commissioner has reported significant concerns about compliance by some platforms. Under-16 users have in some cases retained accounts, created new accounts or passed age-assurance systems. The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Law Enforcement held an inquiry into child sexual exploitation. Not all the platforms that we invited would come along and give evidence or front up to our inquiry, but one that did said they already controlled access to under-14 -year-olds. Then, during that inquiry, a member of the committee tested the system, registered as a 12-year-old, and got through—and I can assure you he's not all that literate in technology—so they failed even in an inquiry into the most horrendous circumstances of child sexual exploitation. We know through our other inquiries the number of young men, in particular under the age of 16, that have been coerced into rooms and groomed to commit some horrific crimes. That's why this legislation is so important.

Under-16 users have, in some cases, retained accounts, created new accounts or passed age-reassurance systems. Some services appear to have allowed repeated attempts at the same age-assurance method, while pathways for parents to report underage accounts have not always been accessible or effective. A law protecting children cannot depend on the voluntary goodwill of companies whose commercial incentives point the other way, because the dollar is so mighty. That's why this bill matters.

It equips the eSafety Commissioner to obtain the information needed to determine whether platforms are genuinely taking reasonable steps. It strengthens the consequences for failing to comply. Effective regulation requires evidence, transparency and meaningful penalties. Without those things, the most powerful platforms can conceal weak systems behind broad assurances and treat penalties as merely another cost of doing business. Parliament must ensure that compliance is real, measurable and enforceable. We should be clear that age restrictions are not the end of this work. They're a vital first step in a broader reform agenda.

Building on the social media age, the Albanese government will, later this year—as we've heard already—introduce a digital duty of care. An exposure draft was made public today. That duty will require digital service providers, including some social media platforms, to adopt safety by design, maximise user choice and transparency, and put systems in place to prevent harm before it occurs. I repeat: it is to make sure there are systems in place to prevent harm before it occurs. The central question must no longer be whether a company reacted after harm became visible. It must be whether that company took reasonable steps to stop foreseeable harm in the first place. So no 'oops, I didn't realise that was going to happen,' not when even someone like me understands algorithms. We understand what motivates them and what works, and that's why clickbait and these media companies rely on them.

Safety by design means considering users' wellbeing at the beginning of product development, not adding a complaints process after the damage is done. It means giving people meaningful control over what they see and how their data shapes recommendations. It means clear explanations about why content is being presented, practical ways to change the settings and systems capable of identifying and reducing foreseeable risks. Responsibility should sit with those who build and operate the service, not be outsourced to a child, a parent or a distressed user.

The digital duty of care must address personalised algorithmic recommender systems that maximise engagement and profit before user wellbeing. These systems can amplify extreme content, entrench social biases and drive harmful comparisons. They can send users down rabbit holes and into echo chambers, repeatedly reinforcing one view of the world until difference feels threatening and division becomes normal. They can reward outrage, emotional intensity and conflict because these reactions keep people engaged. In doing so, they cause psychological harm not only to individuals but to families, communities and our democratic culture.

We have regulated other products when their design created foreseeable risks. We established safety for cars, medicines, workplaces and consumer goods, because companies should not be free to externalise harm onto the public. Digital services should not be exempt simply because their machinery is software and their harms can be difficult to see. When a system is designed at extraordinary scale, small design choices can affect millions of people. That reach must always come with responsibility.

Creating a digital duty of care is complex policy and must not be rushed. I take on board what the senator said before. But, for every piece of legislation that is enacted, we know how fast technology can move. We know that there are great benefits to the internet, but, believe you me, there are a lot of dangers out there, particularly for immature young people, who do not have the capacity to make the right choices. People, particularly young people, want to be engaged. That's what these algorithms rely on. That's why criminals and organised crime rely on it. That's why paedophiles rely on it. They engage with children to make them feel that they belong. Children are the most vulnerable people in our community, and we will do them a great disservice if we do not support this legislation.

This isn't really about whether it's a Labor government introducing this. This is about protecting young people. It's about protecting our children. It's about protecting their wellbeing and their mental health and allowing them to grow and to experience life before they become engaged with computers and in the online society that we all know. We can see the benefits, but as adults we can also see the failings and the concerns. As a senator in this place, I know the impacts that it has on Tasmanian families, I know the children that have committed suicide because of the bullying that's taken place on social media and I know the devastation felt by those families and the communities. I don't think it's unreasonable at all to make changes as we go through and to build on this legislation.

After this legislation and the duty of care legislation pass this place, with amendments, there will always be more to be done because there are always those companies that will put the dollar first. They always have. That's what happens in society each and every day, and they will continue to do that. So we have a duty of care to continue to monitor this legislation and any future legislation to ensure we protect the most vulnerable. In this case, it is our children. But the warning is still there for everyone in our community. It's so easy to be scammed and it's getting easier and easier with AI. The message here is: take responsibility; support this legislation.

I rise to contribute to the debate today on the Online Safety Amendment (Strengthening Enforcement for the Social Media Minimum Age) Bill 2026. Let me say at the outset that the government's social media ban for those under 16 has been an utter failure. It's not just a failure in terms of how the law was drafted, which is why we're here today—this particular piece of legislation has to fix mistakes that were written into the original piece of legislation passed almost two years ago—but a failure because the proof is now in the pudding and we can see that 80 per cent of young people are still online and still accessing social media. Their access to those platforms is now more unsafe than it was two years ago. Social media is more unsafe now than when the government's social media ban first passed this parliament almost two years ago. The reason for that is that the laws never actually made social media companies provide a safer product. They never had to deal with the harms that young people face every day when they're scrolling on their phones, when they're messaging their friends and when they're being bombarded with content that is addictive, that is harmful and that preys on their vulnerabilities and their emotions.

When the social media ban was first put to this parliament almost two years ago, I stood in this exact place and said it would fail to keep people safe and that we needed a digital duty of care and legal requirements on these platforms to provide a product that is safe to use and to ensure that the product that is promoted and pushed into the community is one that is based on safety first, not profits first, not addiction first. I said to the government at the time that we needed to regulate algorithms—the technology that is kept behind closed doors, kept secret, but uses individuals' data to feed addiction and to manipulate. The government refused to do either of those things. However, today we see the Prime Minister standing up in the Prime Minister's courtyard, announcing that this government will finally move on putting in place a digital duty of care. Years later, the government has finally seen the warning signs and can see the writing on the wall that just trying to kick young people off social media has failed to keep them safe. All of the experts were telling the government this years ago, consistently.

I'm looking forward to being able to go through the details of the exposure draft, as announced by the government today. The Greens are prepared to roll up our sleeves and make sure legislation can pass this place if it actually protects people. We need legislation in this place that holds big tech to account and that makes sure their product is safe to use and not designed purely to make maximum profit off of harm and addiction.

Big companies, like Meta in the United States, have just had to settle huge, multibillion-dollar court cases because their product has been found to be deliberately designed to be addictive. Their product grooms people. It takes private data, puts it into the algorithm and uses the algorithm to force-feed content that feeds people's insecurities, feeds their fears, feeds their anger and feeds their desire. The way the technology is designed to work is that it keeps you scrolling through this cesspit of outrage, depression, horror and emotion. Big tech doesn't care what content is being force-fed into the hands and the devices of our young people. All they care about is that it will spread like wildfire because every click, every share and every view makes big tech more money.

We have an opportunity to fix this today. We have an opportunity to look at how we can hold big tech's feet to the fire. We've got to hit them where it hurts, and that is their business model. Their business model is these addictive algorithms—design features that are deliberately designed and tailored and tweaked to keep people addicted, to use people's data to manipulate them into staying online longer and isolating themselves from their real friends, and to suck them down rabbit holes into places where no child should go.

We know that these social media companies are going to arc up. They're going to push back really hard on any suggestion of a digital duty of care because they know that if the law is put in place properly, if it's to actually do what it needs to do, it will impact on their profits. Their profits, billions and billions of dollars worth of profits, are generated from a product that is not safe, that is causing harm and that is designed to be addictive and to use people's vulnerabilities even when it is harmful. That's why we need the digital duty of care legislated. But we need it to be right, we need it to be strong, and we need to make sure it actually puts the safety of Australians first, not the profits and the concerns of big tech.

We need to make sure that for individual users—whether we're young, old or in between—it's our choice what we want to follow, what's in our feeds, what information we consume and what we seek out and that we choose our own feeds, not big tech. It's a basic freedom-of-choice argument. If I'm a customer, I should be able to choose what it is that I want to see, what it is that I want to purchase and what it is that I want to consume. But the way social media currently runs and the way big tech have manipulated current laws is not about individual choice. It doesn't give any individual user the right to choose. You're spoonfed and force fed content even when you don't want it.

Back in the days when social media first started about six years ago, not that long ago at all, the majority of social media feeds were the people who you chose to follow, the accounts that you liked, the holiday destinations you wanted to dream about, the businesses that you wanted to follow and buy things from, the friends you had, the family members you wanted to stay in contact with and the celebrities you wanted to follow. What content you wanted to see and who you wanted to associate with as an individual user was based on your choice, but that is all gone.

It is now near impossible sometimes to even find in one's social media feed anybody you do follow, because people's feeds are full of what the tech companies think you should see—suggested content, content recommended by big tech. And why is that particular feed being recommended by big tech? It's because every time you scroll on it, every time you click play, and every time you go back and watch it again it makes them money. Big tech uses addictive technology and personal data to keep us scrolling for longer even when the content that we are seeing is harmful. It's disgusting, actually. It's disgusting that an entire industry now consumes so much of how we communicate in our lives with each other, how we do our jobs and how we find out about information. It is actually disgusting that the manipulation of the technology and the data is used to addict and feed harmful content.

It's true that social media is an unsafe place, particularly for young people. Children are still, despite the ban—because it doesn't work—being force-fed misogyny, extremism and violence. Young men are being fed information to make them feel bad about themselves, suggesting that, unless they take certain steroids, they're never going to get a girlfriend, that it is somehow the female teacher in the classroom's fault that they've done badly on their English exam or that the girl sitting next to them in the classroom doesn't deserve their respect.

The coalition on that side of the chamber, the Liberal Party, the National Party and One Nation, are all lining up to attack further regulation on big tech under some false premise that this is somehow a freedom of choice argument. It's just utter rubbish. Their talking points are directly from big tech. This isn't about silencing anybody's point of view or stopping lawful content from being shared or posted; it is simply saying that big tech must not be able to use dangerous and harmful techniques to keep us addicted and being force-fed extremist and harmful material. It says that, if we had serious duty of care legislation with strong provisions and proper regulation of algorithms, each individual Australian who has a social media account would be in charge of their own social media. This is actually about freedom—freedom to choose and freedom from the tricky, manipulative techniques of big tech.

I know there are a lot of parents in the building today who have sadly and tragically lost their sons and daughters who've taken their own lives after spending time online and being harassed and bullied and manipulated. To those parents I say thank you for being here. What we now need to do is to put in place laws that will actually protect young people and that will actually stop big tech from preying on their emotions and insecurities and using their emotions for profit. That's why we need a proper duty of care bill. (Time expired)

I realise we're about to hit a hard marker in about a minute and a half, so I'll save my substantive points on the Online Safety Amendment (Strengthening Enforcement for the Social Media Minimum Age) Bill 2026 for when we return. I take exception to the point that Senator Hanson-Young was making that the coalition is just taking from the talking points of big tech. The reality, and the reason we are concerned about this bill, is that it's not actually fixing the issue that we all in this place, hopefully, agree needs to be fixed, and that is that it isn't protecting children. There is no more important role for this parliament than to protect the welfare and the safety of children and to put forward the best possible policies that will in fact do that.

What is being proposed here is not going to deal with those issues. The bill before us is actually fixing up the design mess of the government's bill that was first here. The very things that we said were a problem with the bill still exist now. This bill doesn't actually deal with those issues at all. We call on the government to support our amendments—which I'll detail when we return to this debate—that will actually go to fixing the issues. As I said, nothing is more important than the welfare and the safety of children. We need to make sure that legislation actually suits that.

Debate interrupted.

We've now hit the hard marker of 1.30, and we will move to two-minute statements.