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

Mrs McINTOSH (Lindsay) (16:14): The coalition cannot support the Online Safety Amendment (Strengthening Enforcement for the Social Media Minimum Age) Bill because this is another example of dramatic overreach giving unprecedented powers to the unelected eSafety Commissioner. After demanding the coalition pass this legislation through parliament more than two months ago, the Minister for Communications added sweeping new interrogation powers at the eleventh hour—backed by heavy fines and the threat of up to 12 months in jail.

This shows she couldn't even get her own bill right. But, more concerningly, these are serious coercive powers which Labor is trying to ram through without proper scrutiny. We cannot support that.

This amendment also includes new powers which dramatically increase the fines the eSafety Commissioner can issue for breaches of the social media ban without instituting court proceedings. This is completely unprecedented. Under this bill, as amended in the Senate, the eSafety Commissioner now has the extensive power to issue fines of up to $21.84 million per breach of the social media ban by a corporation, one-fifth of the 60,000 penalty units that totals $109.2 million.

Previously, the maximum infringement penalty for corporate bodies was 60 penalty units, or $21,840. This penalty was previously governed by the Regulatory Powers (Standard Provisions) Act 2014. If the commissioner wanted to seek a higher penalty, she would be required to issue court proceedings.

Now she has these extraordinary fines at her very fingertips, at her disposal, without a court determination, without a judge, without an independent arbiter. This is too much power in the hands of one person. This is not acceptable.

We've also raised serious concerns about proposals allowing the eSafety Commissioner to compel documents from virtually anyone, including children and their parents. In our Senate inquiry, we received compelling evidence that the scope of the commissioner's powers with respect to the production of documents was too broad. The Law Council of Australia, the Human Rights Commission's Dr Lorraine Finlay and the Institute of Public Affairs all submitted that the bill needed to be amended to confine the eSafety Commissioner's powers to their intended purpose.

Even the minister's own department and the commissioner herself conceded, under questioning, that it was not their intention to seek the production of documents from children or their parents and agreed this should be clarified. The opposition proposed an amendment to fix this defective part of the bill, but, despite all this evidence, the government said no.

It was more interested in playing politics itself than in fixing this deficient legislation. Protecting children online matters enormously. We all agree on that.

But this does not give the government a blank cheque to radically expand the coercive power of the state or to set up the regulator as a judge and jury. When it comes to online safety, Labor keeps reaching for more power for government while failing to get the very basics right. It was no coincidence the minister released her draft digital duty of care laws that raised serious free speech concerns on the very day her defective online safety laws were being debated in the Senate.

Serious online harms require serious action, but Australians should not have to surrender basic freedoms in the process. The coalition's approach is to protect kids, empower parents, shine a light on big tech and protect the freedoms Australians expect. Labor's digital duty of care bill is a dangerous step in the wrong direction.

In more than four years, the government has delivered only a defective social media ban and it is now scrambling. Labor's disastrous misinformation and disinformation bill demonstrated the dangers of giving government sweeping powers over what Australians can see and do online. The Prime Minister and his communications minister should not be trusted with another attempt to regulate Australia's freedom of expression.

A division having been called and the bells being rung— Ms Wells interjecting— Ms Aldred: Mr Speaker, she's having a crack. I'm just doing my job. The SPEAKER: Order!

I just invite all members during this division to refrain from commentary, to allow the whips to do their job. As the tellers are doing their job, there are to be no interactions with them, as they need to concentrate, and they are acting on my instructions. Everyone remain silent during this division.

The question is that the Senate amendments be agreed to.