Online Safety Amendment (Strengthening Enforcement for the Social Media Minimum Age) Bill 2026

Ms JARRETT (Brisbane) (17:27): Growing up, I was spared what we now know as the intrusion of Facebook, Snapchat, TikTok, YouTube and other social media platforms. However, as my sons grew from children to adolescents, technology developed so rapidly. There was a plethora of platforms to engage with friends and others.

This included online games they played with their friends and, dare I say, their online acquaintances. Here we are in 2026, where not only is there a plethora of platforms available but there are also algorithms that push content that can be predatory and harmful to young people. I was concerned about what my sons had access to 15 years ago to the point that we insisted that their online games were played in the living room, where it was possible to keep that little lazy ear on the discussions between them and the people they really didn't know.

We didn't know their values either, nor what they may be saying to two very vulnerable young lads, who, like any teenagers, were trying to work out who they were. As parents, we obviously want our kids to explore, we want them to find their peeps, and we want them to be safe. They are rightly curious.

Their brains are sponges, they want to feel part of the community, and they want to feel loved. But those traits, however, also make them vulnerable to pressures in what they see and what they hear. We've seen the worst that this can lead to, which is why keeping Australians safe online, particularly children and young people, is a top priority of the Albanese Labor government.

Last year, we introduced some of the most significant and controversial technology reforms Australia has seen in recent years—to introduce a minimum age of 16 for social media use. This reform did spark debate across the country. Some believe it was necessary to step up and protect young Australians from online harm.

Others argued it limited freedoms, is difficult to enforce and may create new problems rather than solve existing ones. On this side of the House, however, we make no apologies for keeping our children safe from online social media harm. Since the introduction of these reforms in December last year, we have seen over five million accounts belonging to under-16s taken off social media, and that really is a positive development.

But it is clear that big tech companies aren't doing enough to keep children off their platforms. That's why this government has stepped in again to do more. With this bill, we are doubling the penalties these companies face when they do the wrong thing, and we're also giving more power to the regulator so they can investigate what's going on.

But why did the government have to act? Social media has certainly transformed the way we communicate. Platforms such as Instagram, TikTok, Snapchat, Facebook and X have become a normal part of our modern life.

While these platforms offer opportunities for learning, creativity and connection, they also expose young people to significant risks. As we heard in the chamber earlier, research has linked excessive social media use with increased rates of anxiety, depression, body-image concerns, cyberbullying, sleep deprivation and reduced attention spans amongst teenagers.

Many young people compare themselves to unrealistic online standards, and algorithms often prioritise sensational or emotionally charged content because it keeps the user engaged. This can create an endless cycle of scrolling that is difficult for adults to manage, let alone children. Parents, teachers and mental health professionals have increasingly expressed concern that social media companies have been prioritising engagement and profit over children's wellbeing.

In response to this, our government has acted and announced legislation requiring major social media companies to take reasonable steps to prevent Australians under the age of 16 from accessing social media and creating accounts. Importantly, the responsibility takes a bit of the effort away from parents and puts it on technology companies themselves. What are the benefits of these reforms?

The first is improved mental health. Teenagers are still developing emotionally and psychologically, and removing constant exposure to social media comparisons, cyberbullying and addictive algorithms may reduce stress, anxiety and depression. The second is the benefit of increased face-to-face interaction.

Young people are spending more time participating in sport and hobbies, outdoor activities and even conversations with friends and family—activities we did as kids—rather than endlessly scrolling through content. The third is better sleep. Many teenagers use social media late into the night, reducing sleep quality and affecting school performance.

Less screen time before bed could improve concentration, learning and overall health. The fourth is greater protection from online predators, scams and harmful content. The internet, as we all know, contains misinformation, violent material, gambling promotion and inappropriate content that younger users may struggle to interpret critically.

Finally, the reforms send a strong message to technology companies that child safety should be built into platform designs rather than treated as an afterthought or something that they just have to deal with. When these reforms were first announced last year, there was excitement across the country but also trepidation. 'Will it work?' 'How will it work?' 'What do I need to do?' That's why I decided to hold a social media forum in Brisbane, alongside our state MPs Grace Grace and Jonty Bush, to discuss with parents the reforms and what to expect.

This session was designed to give parents the knowledge and confidence to help guide them and their children in the new social media landscape. We enjoyed a presentation from Paul—who was representing the eSafety Commission—which was very informative, and we finished the evening with Professor Morawska from the University of Queensland. She partners with Triple P, an organisation that specialises in child psychology.

But even with our existing historic laws, it's clear that big tech is not doing enough to protect our children from online harm. Social media companies are some of the largest and most influential companies globally. They have the capability and they have the resources to meet their obligations under the social media minimum age framework and protect young users.

Speaking of resources, Meta alone has a market cap of more than US$1.4 trillion. In March 2026, the eSafety Commissioner released a public compliance update which found that while platforms have removed, deactivated or restricted access to more than five million accounts there is a substantial proportion of Australian children under the age of 16 who continue to hold or create new accounts or are able to bypass existing age assurance systems.

It's just not good enough. The eSafety Commissioner is concerned. The commissioner is actively investigating the compliance of five platforms: Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, TikTok and YouTube.

In considering enforcement action, the eSafety Commissioner has advised the government that it needs stronger investigative powers to build stronger evidence against potentially non-compliant platforms. This bill responds to those challenges by strengthening the enforcement framework so that platforms take their minimum age obligation seriously and do more to comply.

With this bill, the maximum civil penalty for noncompliance with minimum age obligations extends from 30,000 to 60,000 penalty units, or it brings that maximum penalty up to $99 million. It's also important that the information-gathering powers of the eSafety Commissioner are strengthened so they can get the information they need from the platforms to access compliance and understand what's going on.

In particular, the amendment enables the commissioner to issue notices requiring the provision of information and documents from any person where the commissioner reasonably believes they hold material relevant to compliance with the minimum age framework, including whether a service falls within its scope. For example, there may be situations where information and documents are held by a third party that might refute the information provided by, or claims made by, the age restricted social media platform, or they may show that the steps taken are not operating as claimed.

The bottom line is that these changes will provide the commissioner with more information as to how the platforms are complying with the laws, which will support more effective investigation and potentially stronger enforcement action. But the Albanese government is not stopping here. The next step in the government's mission to protect Australians from online harm is to legislate a digital duty of care.

That duty of care will put the responsibility on digital service providers to adopt safety by design and have systems in place to protect Australians—and, in particular, young Australians—from harm before it occurs. However, as we know, every major reform has challenges. I've heard about the previous challenges from some people in my community, and we'll see where we go with this lot.

Teenagers are technologically savvy. Some teenagers may simply create accounts using false ages, virtual private networks or accounts registered by adults. Some people think that social media may not be entirely harmful.

For many young people it provides friendship, support networks, educational content and opportunities to express creativity. People living in rural areas or experiencing isolation rely heavily on online communities for connection, and critics argue that banning access altogether may remove these positive benefits. There is also concern that responsibility should remain primarily with parents, rather than with government.

Some families say they're capable of deciding when their children are mature enough to use social media safely. Other families question whether government intervention is the right approach. But, overall, these reforms raise broader questions about the role of technology companies.

We have to take steps to ensure that our community is safe, so we have to ask ourselves: should companies that make billions and trillions of dollars, whose business model depends on keeping users online, be responsible for protecting children? We argue—yes. For years, platforms have developed sophisticated algorithms that are capable of predicting what users will watch, buy and click, then they push this content to them.

If companies possess technology advanced enough to personalise data and advertisements within seconds, surely they can also develop effective systems to protect children. Increasingly, governments around the world are asking technology companies to accept greater responsibility for the products they create. Australia's reforms are already world leading, and they could become even more so with these reforms.

Over the past months, many countries have restricted or announced plans to restrict social media access for children and teens. The UK is the latest country to announce a ban on social media for children; it did that in June, this month. There are 16 other countries: Austria, Brazil, Canada, Denmark, Spain, Vietnam, Türkiye et cetera just to name a few.

This is important, and the reason it's important is we know that if we work together around the world, at a global level, we can send a clear and strong message to the tech giants that this is a serious issue and they must act. It was brave for Australia to go it alone, and I am proud that we took the steps to act in the interests of young people. Governments must stand strong, and that's exactly what we are doing.

Of course, legislation alone cannot solve every problem. In this space, digital literacy remains essential. Young Australians still need education about misinformation, online scams, cyberbullying, privacy settings and responsible online behaviour.

Parents play a crucial role by maintaining open conversations with our kids about online experiences, modelling healthy technology use and setting clear boundaries. Schools likewise have an important responsibility to teach students critical thinking skills so that they can navigate the digital world safely. Ultimately, protecting young people requires cooperation between families, educators, governments, community and technology companies.

So where does this leave us? Australia's social media reforms represent a bold attempt to address one of the defining public health and technology challenges of our generation, and the strength of their success will depend on how effectively these laws can be enforced, whether privacy can be protected and whether technology companies genuinely cooperate. The debate reminds us that technological innovation should always be accompanied by ethical responsibility and that ethics should be introduced at the start of the development of any product or service that is delivered through the digital space.

Just because technology evolves rapidly, it doesn't mean society should accept every consequence without question or without compromise. As Australians, we must continue asking how we can enjoy the benefits of digital technology—we know there are many—while protecting the wellbeing of future generations. As leaders, we have to have the courage to take on the big issues, and the issue of social media addiction for our young people is one of these big issues.

The Albanese Labor government are on the side of parents and kids, not the side of platforms, and we will keep fighting for them every step of the way. (Quorum formed)