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

“The commissioner is actively investigating the compliance of five platforms: Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, TikTok and YouTube. In considering enforcement action, the eSafety Commissioner has advised the government that it needs stronger investigative powers to build stronger evidence against potentially non-compliant platforms. This bill responds to those challenges by strengthening the enforcement framework so that platforms take their minimum age obligation seriously and do more to comply. With this bill, the maximum civil penalty for noncompliance with minimum age obligations extends from 30,000 to 60,000 penalty units, or it brings that maximum penalty up to $99 million. It's also important that the information-gathering powers of the eSafety Commissioner are strengthened so they can get the information they need from the platforms to access compliance and understand what's going on. In particular, the amendment enables the commissioner to issue notices requiring the provision of information and documents from any person where the commissioner reasonably believes they hold material relevant to compliance with the minimum age framework, including whether a service falls within its scope.”

Australian Labor Party • MP • 30 June 2026

“I call on all members of Parliament to join us in supporting the urgent passage of this Bill so that eSafety holds social media platforms to account as soon as possible.”

Australian Labor Party • Senator • 01 July 2026

“More than five million underage accounts have already been deactivated. That is a huge number, and it shows that these laws are having an effect. The eSafety Commissioner has identified serious compliance concerns and poor practices with investigations now underway into Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, TikTok and YouTube. That is where this bill comes in. The eSafety Commissioner has been doing the job parliament asked her to do and in the process has found places where she needs stronger powers to properly investigate whether these enormous companies are complying with the law, so we're giving her those powers.”

Australian Labor Party • Senator • 08 Sept 2026

“This bill responds to these challenges by strengthening the enforcement framework underpinning the social media minimum age requirements. The Albanese Labor government is on the side of parents and children, not platforms. The eSafety Commissioner's public compliance update shows that social media giants seem to be trying to get away with doing the bare minimum. If these social media companies want to do business in Australia, they must obey Australian laws and they must uphold their social responsibility.”

Australian Labor Party • MP • 30 June 2026

“Online Safety Amendment (Strengthening Enforcement for the Social Media Minimum Age) Bill 2026. This bill is about improving social media and people's mental health. It's about a world-leading protection for children against the largest and most powerful technology companies in the world. The Albanese Labor government's social media minimum age is groundbreaking reform. In spite of what we've just heard in that contribution—on something they did in 2015—it is since 10 December 2025 that age restricted social media platforms have been required to take responsible steps to prevent Australians under 16 from creating or keeping accounts. Millions of young people are now safer online. This bill strengthens that framework by expanding the eSafety Commissioner's information-gathering powers and increasing civil penalties for non-compliance. This is not about punishing children or parents; it's about placing responsibility where it belongs: on the platforms that design these services, profit from that attention and possess that technology and the technical capabilities to make them safer.”

Australian Labor Party • Senator • 08 Sept 2026

“This bill takes aim at these platforms in two ways. Firstly, it will increase the maximum civil penalty substantially. Currently, noncompliance with the minimum-age obligations can result in a penalty of 30,000 units, or a total of $49.5 million. This will increase to 60,000 penalty units, increasing the maximum penalty up to $99 million. This change is designed to increase accountability and send a very clear message that platforms are expected to take the minimum-age requirements seriously and fully meet their obligations. By strengthening the consequences for noncompliance, this aims to deter weak enforcement and encourage more proactive steps to protect our young users. It also brings the penalty framework into line with recent updates to the Competition and Consumer Act 2010, ensuring consistency across Australia's regulatory approach and reinforcing that these are obligations that carry real weight and real consequences.”

Australian Labor Party • MP • 30 June 2026

“Our government is not handing that over to a handful of companies that are more interested in their profits and performance. We have made a cracking start. We are leading the world, and this bill seeks only to make it stronger for parents and safer for our kids. I commend the bill to the House.”

Australian Labor Party • MP • 30 June 2026

“It is incredibly important that we give the regulator the power to enforce, to investigate and to hold big tech to account for laws that were passed by this parliament. I look forward to talking a little bit more about the amendments that the government is proposing. I commend this bill to the Senate.”

Australian Labor Party • Senator • 09 Sept 2026

“The bill before us exists for one reason: it exists purely to frantically patch a massive ban that Labor completely botched. The coalition will always support giving regulators the strong teeth required to take on big tech, but let us be honest about exactly why those teeth are so desperately needed. They are needed because Labor's rushed implementation has been an absolute shambles from day one. Australian families deserve much better than a minister who arrogantly claims credit while leaving the regulator to awkwardly explain why these laws are simply not working. We in the coalition do not just endlessly talk about online safety; we actually built the premier global model for it. Every single major protection that the Labor Party now relies upon was originally legislated by the coalition government.”

Liberal Party of Australia • MP • 30 June 2026

“I have to say, overnight, we were shocked to see a government amendment to this bill brought forward. Two months ago, disgracefully, the government was urging the coalition to immediately pass this bill—without scrutiny, without any transparency, without giving key stakeholders and other Australians the opportunity to make submissions in relation to the bill. We very, very quickly learnt, in our Senate inquiry, that the bill was flawed, because one of the elements of the bill was additional powers for the eSafety Commissioner, which would give her the power to order the production of documents from any person in relation to compliance with the social media ban—that includes end-user children and their parents. That is wrong at every level, and that received widespread condemnation by the likes of the Australian Human Rights Commissioner, the Law Council of Australia and many others in our Senate inquiry. Even the department itself, as well as the eSafety Commissioner, recognise that there'd been a significant drafting flaw and that it was not the government's intention to extend this power to any person—only to the relevant third-party companies, such as age-assurance providers. So we will be putting forward an amendment to correct that significant drafting error—or, I would say, significant issue—with the bill.”

Liberal Party of Australia • Senator • 08 Sept 2026

“We then see Labor playing catch-up. We then see legislation such as this being brought back and amendments having to be put through. I appreciate that this is going to sit and rest, as I'm told, over the recess period. That is good, because it might give the government some time to, again, take a breath, look at it and make sure that the follies and the missteps taken when the legislation was first introduced by the Labor government are not repeated. This is too important to get wrong again. This is too important because children's lives are at stake. It is that serious. We need to make sure that, at every step of the way at the moment, in every measure, we get this legislation right and we protect kids' lives online.”

The Nationals • MP • 30 June 2026

“The amending bill before the House tonight is actually a confession of the Labor government. Labor is rushing to bolt on the powers it should have built in from day one. Today, as the law stands, the commissioner can only compel a platform or platform providers. This bill allows the eSafety Commissioner to compel documents from age-assurance providers, app store operators and anyone reasonably believed to hold compliance information. It provides penalties with bite. It provides for the doubling of penalties, up to $99 million for a corporation and up to $19.8 million for an individual. These are all good things, but they are late to the party.”

Liberal Party of Australia • MP • 30 June 2026

“"whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House:”

Liberal Party of Australia • MP • 30 June 2026

“Online Safety Amendment (Strengthening Enforcement for the Social Media Minimum Age) Bill 2026 attempts to correct what, arguably, was Labor's very poor first attempt at legislating in this area. While constituents have concerns about the reach of the eSafety Commissioner's current powers, the coalition supports regulators having more teeth, so long as those teeth are to be used on big tech. We will be vigilant and critical if these powers are misdirected at the Australian people.”

The Nationals • MP • 01 July 2026

“It absolutely has to be a requirement of the technology companies that they uphold the ban. Let's be very clear that, for these social media companies, there is no upside incentive to get children off their platforms. Their business model is predicated on people using their apps and people spending as much time as possible on those applications. They do not care if you are 12, 13, 17, 25, 35 or 50; they want you on there as much as possible so they can sell your attention to advertisers. That is their business model. But we have a responsibility to protect young people, particularly as their brains are forming and they are learning how to survive and thrive in the real world.”

Liberal Party of Australia • MP • 30 June 2026

“I'm not one of those people who come in here and say that everything about online experiences is wrong. I don't conform to that view. Like everything, there need to be appropriate safeguards; there need to be appropriate barriers. That is what we're seeking to achieve here, and I of course support my colleague the member for Lindsay's amendment. But it is important that we understand that, as positive as experiences can be in the digital online environment, there are also substantial risks. Like others, I've read of very tragic circumstances. I've had constituents, parents, come to me concerned about the way algorithms are seeking to lock young people in. In fact, I myself am someone who has to check how long I spend online and how connected I can become to my devices. It's why perhaps I love time on the farm—because you just put the phone away, you get on with life and then you reconnect at some other point.”

Liberal Party of Australia • MP • 01 July 2026

“Online Safety Amendment (Strengthening Enforcement for the Social Media Minimum Age) Bill 2026. Let me say at the outset that the government's social media ban for those under 16 has been an utter failure. It's not just a failure in terms of how the law was drafted, which is why we're here today—this particular piece of legislation has to fix mistakes that were written into the original piece of legislation passed almost two years ago—but a failure because the proof is now in the pudding and we can see that 80 per cent of young people are still online and still accessing social media. Their access to those platforms is now more unsafe than it was two years ago. Social media is more unsafe now than when the government's social media ban first passed this parliament almost two years ago. The reason for that is that the laws never actually made social media companies provide a safer product. They never had to deal with the harms that young people face every day when they're scrolling on their phones, when they're messaging their friends and when they're being bombarded with content that is addictive, that is harmful and that preys on their vulnerabilities and their emotions.”

Australian Greens • Senator • 08 Sept 2026

“That being said, when you pull apart the bill and you have a look at it—you look at its entrails—there are little bits that are useful. Empowering eSafety to get additional information and actually create a good precedent to get some additional information from some of these platforms is useful. That's good. We can see some sense in that. Although many of the powers that are being granted now in this bill are needed only because of the rush job that happened when this legislation was first rammed through, I can see sense in those. The Greens can see some sense in those, and I acknowledge the comments and the work of my colleague Senator Hanson in addressing that—”

Australian Greens • Senator • 08 Sept 2026

“The Greens support stronger enforcement against corporations that break the law, but taking on this crisis means taking on some of the richest and most powerful companies and billionaires on earth. Let's be real. Labor hasn't got a great track record of taking on corporations and billionaires, but the community advocates and Greens have pushed them all the way to take the steps that they have announced today. The details of the proposed duty of care model will be a test of whether Labor backs the people or the corporations in the struggle for our attention and wellbeing. To start, we can't have a situation where harmful algorithms remain the highly addictive default. Then we have to make sure penalties for social media oligarchs are more than a slap on the wrist or just another court settlement for them. We won't change their behaviour until we threaten their noxious business model.”

Australian Greens • Senator • 08 Sept 2026

“But there's no question that the implementation of the under-16 ban has been questionable. The vast majority of teenagers I speak to have made their way around the ban. Studies show around 80 per cent have found their way through the ban. And part of the reason it's not working is because our eSafety Commissioner hasn't had the powers or the resourcing to properly enforce the ban. The eSafety Commissioner herself described it as trying to fence the ocean. This bill will make a difference here. It gives the eSafety Commissioner expanded powers to compel documents from digital platforms and other related stakeholders to assess whether the social media companies are actually doing as much as they can—and I have no doubt that they're not. These companies want this ban to fail. If it fails here, it means other countries won't pursue the same policy. If it works here—and we can make it work—we set an example for the rest of the world to follow. So I strongly support the greater empowerment of the eSafety Commissioner. I also support the doubling of penalties for noncompliance, although I don't think a $100 million fine is a huge deterrent for some of the world's wealthiest companies.”

Independent • MP • 30 June 2026

“When I'm talking about what I think is the failure of it so far, I've got some pretty good research to draw on. In fact, these are very recent figures. In May this year, research by Western Sydney University found that 61 per cent of under-16s who had previously been using banned platforms reported little or no change in their social media use. That's 61 per cent of under-16s who said it hadn't made much or any difference to their social media use. That's a pretty damning figure. That same research by Western Sydney University found that only 26 per cent of people under 16 who were in the research reported that their social media use had been significantly affected. That's all the evidence you need—that, up until this point in time, it has not worked. I could refer you to a University of Newcastle study in June this year. They found that, on a positive note, around two-thirds, or 66 per cent, of adolescents reported encountering some form of age-verification requirement. That's good. But, of course, we've already spoken about how easy it is to get around the age verification. For some of these platforms, you just enter a different date and you're in. But that's the end of the good news from the University of Newcastle. It generally found that the early impact on access and behaviour has been limited. It found that around 86 per cent of under-16s reported accessing at least one restricted platform in the past week. It found that most adolescents continued accessing platforms through their own accounts. That included 54 to 68 per cent of users under the age of 16. In fact, it found little significant change in daily use or time spent on social media, particularly for that younger cohort, in particular, under-13-year-olds. Now, you know, we have this ban. It's been legislated. I actually want it to work. I wish the government well, and I'll support this bill today because, hopefully, it will go some small way, at least—hopefully it goes a long way—to addressing that point I made about how we've got to stop punishing the kids and that we've got to start going after the tech companies who have the know-how to make things such as age verification or facial recognition more effective. They have so far chosen not to.”

Independent • MP • 30 June 2026

“The government should not mistake stronger enforcement powers for a stronger policy. I support giving the eSafety Commissioner the tools it needs to investigate powerful platforms. I support higher penalties where companies fail to comply. I support holding big tech accountable. But I do not accept the fiction that the original scheme was well designed and now merely needs some heavier penalties. The obstacles were obvious then: vague obligations, unsettled technology, privacy risks and the absence of a proper digital duty of care. Parents deserve better than being told that the problem has been solved when they can see every day that it has not. Young people deserve better than a policy that treats them as the problem rather than focusing on the platforms that profit from harmful design.”

Community Strong Australia • MP • 30 June 2026

“We already know that the eSafety Commissioner is examining whether several major platforms are meeting their obligations under the law. Strengthening the commissioner's investigative powers and increasing the consequences for noncompliance will better equip the regulator to hold companies to account. For those reasons, I support the bill, but supporting this bill does not mean pretending it solves every problem. There remain important questions about the broader impacts of minimum age laws themselves.”

Independent • MP • 01 July 2026