Online Safety Amendment (Strengthening Enforcement for the Social Media Minimum Age) Bill 2026
Senator POLLEY (Tasmania) (12:58): 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.