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) (18:24): Thanks very much for the question, Senator Henderson. Of course, your amendments aren't before the chair right now, but in the interests of clarity I'm happy to move forward to that response. In the first instance, for the benefit of the chamber and for those watching along, I want to make very clear, in relation to the examination powers that are being proposed, that no: children and parents will not be required to give evidence to the eSafety Commissioner.
The examination powers can be used only where the eSafety Commissioner believes, on reasonable grounds, that a person has information relevant to compliance with the social media minimum-age obligation. I just wanted to make sure that that was clear and on the record—that the eSafety Commissioner must have a belief, on reasonable grounds, that a person has information that is relevant to the compliance of the social media minimum-age obligation.
Parents and kids might have their own anecdotal experience about whether the law has worked for their family, but it's fair to say that they won't have evidence of systematic noncompliance by these billion-dollar companies. Big tech tends to keep that information pretty close to their chest, which is why these powers are required. The law is very clear that the obligation relevant to the compliance action is on social media platforms to prevent Australian kids from having accounts.
This is not about targeting parents or kids. On that basis, Senator Henderson, I will seek to jump forward to your amendment, which deals with essentially the same topic. We will not be supporting your amendment, because, although we acknowledge the concerns that the proposed power to enable the eSafety Commissioner to seek information from third parties could unintentionally capture parents, the government can confirm that children and parents will not be required to give evidence to the eSafety Commissioner.
As I said, the powers will be used only where the eSafety Commissioner believes, on reasonable grounds, that a person has information relevant to the obligation. I want to also note that the framing of the power towards a person whom the regulator reasonably believes to hold relevant information is consistent with the Guide to Framing Commonwealth Offences, Infringement Notices and Enforcement Powers, published by the Attorney-General's Department.
As I said, the government has serious concerns that the coalition's proposed amendment could limit eSafety's ability to investigate noncompliance with the law and hold non-compliant companies to account. The proposed amendment to include only a provider of an electronic service or related party of the provider of the electronic services would prevent the eSafety Commissioner from examining former employees, for example, of age-restricted platforms or any service provider, including ones under an NDA who may have critical documents or information.
There are also parts of your amendment, Senator Henderson, that go to administrative review to the issuing of a notice. No other regulator is subject to this limitation.