Online Safety Amendment (Strengthening Enforcement for the Social Media Minimum Age) Bill 2026
Senator GREEN (Queensland—Assistant Minister for Tourism, Assistant Minister for Pacific Island Affairs and Assistant Minister for Northern Australia) (12:08): by leave—I move government amendments (1) and (2) on sheet ST132: (1) Schedule 1, item 4, page 4 (after line 6), at the end of section 63G, add: (4) However, the notice must not require the person to give information or produce documents by summoning the person to attend before the Commissioner or other person.
Note: See Division 4A for the power to require a person to give information or evidence, produce documents or answer questions relevant to a matter mentioned in subsection (1) by summoning the person to attend before the Commissioner or other person. (2) Page 4 (after line 15), at the end of the Bill, add: Schedule 2 — Amendments relating to examinations etc.
Online Safety Act 2021 1 After Division 4 of Part 4A Insert: Division 4A — Examination powers 63HA Notice requiring appearance for examination (1) This Division applies if the Commissioner has reason to believe that a person is capable of giving information or evidence, producing documents or answering questions relevant to compliance by a provider of an electronic service that is or may be an age-restricted social media platform with section 63D or subsection 63DA(1) or 63DB(1).
(2) The Commissioner may, by written notice given to the person, summon the person to attend before the Commissioner, or a delegate of the Commissioner named in the notice, at a time and place specified in the notice, to do any one or more of the following: (a) give to the Commissioner the information or evidence; (b) produce to the Commissioner the documents; (c) answer the questions.
(3) Without limiting subsection (2), the notice may also require the person to: (a) make relevant documents available for inspection by the Commissioner or a delegate of the Commissioner; or (b) permit the Commissioner or the delegate to make copies of, or take extracts from, those documents. 63HB Examination on oath or affirmation (1) If the person is summoned to attend before the Commissioner or a delegate of the Commissioner, the Commissioner or delegate may examine the person on oath or affirmation and, for that purpose: (a) may require the person to take an oath or make an affirmation; and (b) may administer the oath or affirmation.
(2) The oath or affirmation is to be an oath or affirmation that the statements the person will make will be true to the best of the person's knowledge or belief. (3) The Commissioner or delegate may require the person to answer any relevant question put to the person at the examination. 63HC Examination to take place in private The examination of the person must be conducted in private, but the person is entitled to have an adviser present at the examination. 63HD Record to be made of examination (1) If the person is examined by the Commissioner or a delegate of the Commissioner, a record must be made of the examination and the person is entitled to be given a written copy of the record on request.
(2) If the record of the examination of the person is made in electronic form, the person is, if the person so requests, to be given a copy of the record in that form. (3) If the person requests a copy of the record, the record must be given to the person at a time that the Commissioner or delegate considers appropriate. 63HE Protection of persons attending before Commissioner A person summoned to attend before the Commissioner, or a delegate of the Commissioner, to give information or evidence, produce documents or answer questions under this Division has the same protection as a witness in a proceeding in the High Court. 63HF Non-compliance with requirements Compliance with notice requirements (1) A person contravenes this subsection if the person: (a) fails to comply with a notice under section 63HA; or (b) refuses or fails to answer a question that the person is required to answer under subsection 63HB(3).
Compliance with requirement to take oath or make affirmation (2) A person contravenes this subsection if the person refuses to take an oath or make an affirmation in accordance with paragraph 63HB(1)(a). Offence (3) A person commits an offence if the person contravenes subsection (1) or (2). Penalty: Imprisonment for 12 months.
Civil penalty (4) A person is liable to a civil penalty if the person contravenes subsection (1) or (2). Civil penalty: 1,000 penalty units. Note: For continuing contraventions of civil penalty provisions, see section 93 of the Regulatory Powers (Standard Provisions) Act 2014.
Exception (5) Subsection (1) does not apply if: (a) the person is a journalist; and (b) complying with the requirement of the notice would tend to disclose the identity of a person who supplied information in confidence to the journalist. Note: A defendant bears an evidential burden in relation to the matters mentioned in this subsection: see subsection 13.3(3) of the Criminal Code and section 96 of the Regulatory Powers (Standard Provisions) Act 2014. 63HG Self-incrimination (1) A person is not excused from giving information or evidence, producing a document or answering a question under this Division on the ground that doing so might tend to incriminate the person.
(2) However, in the case of an individual: (a) any information, evidence or answer given or document produced; or (b) the giving of the information or evidence, the production of the document or the answering of the question; or (c) any information, document or thing obtained as a direct or indirect consequence of the giving of the information or evidence, the production of the document or the answering of the question; is not admissible in evidence against the individual: (d) in civil proceedings for the recovery of a penalty, other than proceedings for the recovery of a penalty under section 63HF; or (e) in criminal proceedings, other than: (i) proceedings for an offence against section 63HF; or (ii) proceedings for an offence against section 137.1, 137.2 or 149.1 of the Criminal Code that relates to this Division.
(3) If, at general law, an individual would otherwise be able to claim the privilege against self-exposure to a penalty (other than a penalty for an offence) in relation to giving information or evidence, producing a document or answering a question under this Division, the individual is not excused from giving the information or evidence, producing the document or answering the question under this Division on that ground.
Note: A body corporate is not entitled to claim the privilege against self-exposure to a penalty. 2 After section 163 Insert: 163A Amount payable under certain infringement notices (1) Despite subsections 104(2) and (3) of the Regulatory Powers (Standard Provisions) Act 2014, the amount to be stated in an infringement notice for the purposes of paragraph 104(1)(f) of that Act, in relation to a provision covered by subsection (2) of this section, is the following: (a) if the notice relates to only one alleged contravention of the provision by the person—one-fifth of the maximum penalty that a court could impose on the person for the contravention; (b) if the notice relates to more than one alleged contravention of the provision by the person—one-fifth of the amount worked out by adding together the maximum penalty that a court could impose on the person for each alleged contravention.
(2) This subsection covers the following provisions of this Act: (a) section 63D; (b) section 63DA; (c) section 63DB; (d) section 63H. 3 After paragraph 165(1)(db) Insert: (dc) section 63HF; 4 Application (1) The following apply in relation to notices given under section 63HA on or after the commencement of this item: (a) Division 4A of Part 4A of the Online Safety Act 2021, as inserted by this Schedule; (b) section 165 of that Act, as amended by this Schedule.
(2) Section 163A of the Online Safety Act 2021, as inserted by this Schedule, applies in relation to an infringement notice given on or after the commencement of this item. I also seek leave to table a supplementary explanatory memorandum relating to the government amendments to be moved to this bill. Leave granted.
Senator GREEN: I will talk to those amendments just briefly for the purpose of the chamber. But, before I do talk more broadly about these amendments, I need to make one comment about what we've just seen in this chamber. What we have seen is the coalition voting against laws that will enforce the social media ban that they supported in this chamber.
They have flipped. They have flipped to the right of this chamber, and they have lined up in this chamber with big tech and with One Nation, and they have stood on the side of big tech and One Nation. On this side of the chamber, we have stood up with parents.
That is who we are standing next to when we vote in this chamber for these changes to this bill. Senator Henderson interjecting— Senator GREEN: You might have your political points to make, Senator Henderson, and you will get the opportunity to do that. But nothing you say will be able to gloss over the fact that the coalition is draining further into the far-right conspiracy that this bill that protects children in our country is somehow about banning free speech.
We know, on this side of the chamber, where we stand. We stand with parents and kids. What the coalition has just done by voting against the second reading of this bill is deny that this is a bill that requires urgent passing in the Senate and deny the eSafety Commissioner further powers to enforce a bill that they passed through this parliament, a law that they said should be enforceable.
Well, we are seeking to increase the enforceability of these laws, and we are seeking to increase the penalties against big tech, who say: 'We don't need to bother with those laws that parliament passed. We're just going to ignore them.' Well, we are increasing the penalties, and we're increasing the powers of the eSafety Commissioner. This important piece of legislation is something that is novel, that no-one in the world had ever attempted to do before, and something that we always said would require more work and more effort, something that is going to change the lives of a generation of children.
That is what we are seeking to do. But what the coalition have done, time and time again, in this parliament of late is that they have looked parents and kids in the eye and have looked at one Nation and said: 'Nuh. We would rather stand next to One Nation and the far right and big tech, instead of standing up for parents.' I'm sure we'll have an opportunity to discuss this during the committee stage, but I am absolutely appalled by the position of the Liberal Party.
We will look back on this decision by them today and the way they dealt with the government's digital duty of care legislation, and they will be on the wrong side, because the wrong side is the side of big tech and the right side is the side of parents. We know that. Everybody knows that.
Everybody knows that these harms to children are unacceptable, that you wouldn't allow them in any other type of regulated system. That's why the government has sought to make these amendments. We are seeking to make more government amendments today that not only allow the eSafety Commissioner to have the information-gathering powers that they have but also apply examination powers.
And we will have nonsensical debate coming from those over on the opposite side—outrageous claims about what these powers do. But these examination powers and information powers are the same as the information powers and the examination powers that were introduced by the coalition when they introduced the Online Safety Act in 2021. These are the same powers, because we know that it is incredibly important that the eSafety Commissioner leaves no stone unturned.
This government will leave no stone unturned when it comes to protecting children. This government will ensure that the eSafety Commissioner has the powers required to enforce the law that parliament passed to ensure that children under the age of 16 do not have access to social media. It's about backing kids and it's about backing parents.
Today, what we've seen from the coalition is a disgraceful decision to walk away from protecting those people in our community. We know that these amendments are incredibly important. Progress reported.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: We will now move to senators' statements.