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

Senator HENDERSON (Victoria) (18:17): I want to say the coalition strongly supports stronger protections for children online and holding the world's biggest technology companies to account, but protecting children cannot become an excuse to hand politicians open ended powers over lawful speech or to hand draconian powers to the eSafety Commissioner. This bill before the Senate right now quite improperly, as we discovered in our Senate inquiry, gives the regulator, the eSafety Commissioner, the ability to demand documents from any person who uses social media, including parents and their children.

That is why the bill attracted widespread criticism in our Senate inquiry, where we received multiple submissions, including from the Law Council of Australia and the Australian Human Rights Commissioner, Dr Lorraine Finlay, that this was a case of overreach. In fact, when we debated this in the Senate inquiry, both the minister's own department and the eSafety Commissioner agreed it was not the intention of the government to seek to issue notices in relation to the production of documents to any person.

The target of the government's concern was not just the social media companies themselves but also age assurance providers, app store providers and other relevant providers in relation to the eSafety Commissioner investigation, assuming that it is in the context of possible enforcement proceedings. That is why we have put up an amendment to narrow that particular proposal—so that we have a bill before the Senate which does the job as intended by the government.

It is disappointing that, as we have been advised, the government plans to vote against our amendment, which would properly seek to confine the eSafety Commissioner's powers in a way which reflected the intention of the government and of the eSafety Commissioner. We know, of course, that the eSafety Commissioner raised significant concerns about the operation of the social media ban when she had a lunch with a journalist from the Sydney Morning Herald.

Then, of course, that was subsequently reported in a way that I think probably did cause the eSafety Commissioner—certainly the minister—some embarrassment because the eSafety Commissioner was pretty scathing about how the social media ban was not working. We know that there's a non-compliance rate of at least 70 per cent. Some studies have shown it is more like 80 per cent.

We understand and support the fact that the eSafety Commissioner was seeking these additional powers in relation to issuing notices for the production of documents, but it is absolutely not necessary, it is improper and it is unreasonable to give the eSafety Commissioner more powers than are required for her to do the job. I have to say, in relation to the government's amendment, that the government quite disgracefully called on the coalition to pass this bill more than two months ago.

We were of the view that this needed appropriate transparency and scrutiny. Of course, during our Senate inquiry, we received widespread evidence, not just from grieving parents and not just from other regulators, that the bill was deficient in a number of different respects. This is an amendment that, frankly, the government should have no issue agreeing to—the one that we have brought forward.

Instead, what we have is a dramatic increase to the eSafety Commissioner's powers—compulsory interrogation powers which would apply to any person, not just to those concerned with the direct enforcement of the social media ban. Given the draconian nature of these powers, given that there is no right to self-incrimination and given the manner in which the eSafety Commissioner wants to utilise these powers concerning any person, it could be a child, it could be a podcaster, it could be a parent.

Again, this is significant overreach. We want to see the social media ban properly enforced. We are sick of the deception from the government.

Frankly, I again call out the Prime Minister for continuing to mislead Australians by suggesting that, because of the social media ban, more than five million accounts have been shut down or deactivated. We know that that is just not true because the vast majority of those five million or more accounts are in fact Google accounts. Of course, you cannot have a YouTube account.

They are Google accounts which primarily relate to children who might have a Google account for the purposes of having a Gmail email address. We are seeing significant and overreach, and we are seeing the government making most improper comments in relation to the coalition's position. We just want to see this bill work as intended.

I again condemn the fact that the government has indicated it will not be supporting what is a wholly reasonable amendment which would reflect the government's intent. So I ask the minister: Minister, can you advise why it is that, in relation to the opposition's amendment on sheet 4088, the government will not be supporting that amendment?