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

Senator HENDERSON (Victoria) (18:52): Thanks very much, Minister, for that update. We obviously have expressed some very significant concerns in relation to— Senator Green: Shame on you! Senator HENDERSON: I'll take that interjection—'Shame on you'.

Minister, shame on the government because now that we know what's in the digital duty of care legislation, we are very concerned that this is a serious threat to free speech. I am seeking confirmation that the government will agree to send this exposure draft, once it's introduced into the parliament, to a Senate inquiry because this needs a very significant amount of work.

The minister had a train wreck interview with Laura Jayes on News24 this morning. The minister struggled to explain the very legislation that she released yesterday. She was asked whether this applied to news websites—of course, that is an online service.

Initially, she said no and then she said, 'Oh, yes, it does go to all online services.' In itself, given the incredible powers that have been included in this bill, the ability of the minister to determine categories of either serious harm, in the case of adults, or harm, in the case of children, without any guardrails made by regulation, without any parliamentary oversight, is extremely concerning.

We have no comfort whatsoever that this is not another trojan horse for the misinformation and disinformation bill. Frankly, if the government was concerned about the online safety of Australians, and children in particular, that's what this digital duty of care bill would have been all about. But what's now very clear is that the ministerial power to define new harms by legislative instrument represents a very significant threat to free speech.

What if the minister decided that material which questioned the right of children to know about gender ideology, as one contested issue, was harmful? We have no idea—no guardrails. Unlike in the UK, the ability for the minister to determine what is seriously harmful includes news media websites.

This is not just a very significant risk in relation to the minister's unfettered powers; the government has not even carved out news media, Australian journalists and other voices which have a legitimate role in a democratic society. This was a real shock when this bill was released yesterday. While there was a lot of spin about opting in or opting out of the algorithm—'My Feed, My Way'—there is no provision in the bill which actually allows Australians to so-called turn the algorithm off—but, as we know, that's not a correct characterisation of what would happen if a non-profiled feed was available to Australians.

The government has now jumped on this issue without saying anything over many months. The impact on small businesses has not been properly explained. The voice of tech experts has not been properly explained or even listened to.

We have very, very serious concerns. Minister, going back to my question, can you confirm if the government will agree to send that particular bill to a Senate inquiry? I understand it's a different bill to the one we're discussing.

Senator Green interjecting— Senator HENDERSON: I understand that; we're talking about a different bill. But, given this relates to online safety, are you able to tell us whether the government will agree to send that particular bill to a Senate inquiry? I say this, Minister, because, after the track record of the government in condemning the coalition for wanting to scrutinise the bill before the Senate, I've got no trust in this government.

I think it's important that we understand that, given the two bills are very related—it's very important that we not go through another appalling campaign like the one we saw from the minister, and that there is confidence that the government will agree to send its proposed digital-duty-of-care legislation to a Senate inquiry.