My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, Senator Farrell. At the National Press Club today, Minister Wells insisted Labor's new digital duty of care bill would not be used for surveillance to restrict free speech or target political opinions. When challenged on whether the legislation would enable censorship and propaganda, she declared it cannot, yet Labor's own legislation gives the eSafety Commissioner power to create sock puppet social media accounts to observe, download and record online materials. Minister, if those powers cannot be used for surveillance or political censorship, why hasn't Labor explicitly prohibited those uses in the legislation?

I thank Senator Bell for his question. Our digital duty of care will set basic safety standards for the digital services that we use every day, just like we have for food, for cars and for kids toys. It will provide Australians over the age of 16 with agency over their algorithms. Social media companies will have to offer genuine choice and respect that choice or face significant competition. Our laws will let Australians decide for themselves what they see. So, I think, in fundamental terms, Senator Bell, we would disagree with your characterisation of what the government is doing here. Right now, foreign companies make those choices for you, and they make them without asking. People will still be able to see recommended content if they want to, but they'll also have the option to just see friends and creators that they choose. Parliament should support giving more choice and more control, and I would encourage One Nation to do exactly that.

Senator bell, first supplementary?

Minister, why is Labor giving the eSafety Commissioner these covert powers without requiring detailed independent oversight of what information is collected, and how is it used? What is the government trying to cover up?

Nothing.

Senator Bell, second supplementary?

Minister, this bill does give the eSafety Commissioner power to use fake social media accounts, accounts Minister Wells calls 'mystery shoppers'. If that is all they are, why hasn't Labor limited the legislation to checking compliance? Why won't Labor explicitly legislate against these accounts' monitoring lawful political discussion, or is 'mystery shopper' just Labor's spin for spying on Australians?

I thank Senator Bell for his second supplementary question. No.