Enforcement may not fix the scheme
Critics warned that higher penalties and wider investigative powers may not stop children circumventing a poorly designed minimum-age system or make it effective in practice.
This bill is currently before Parliament.
Transport & communications
Social media platforms face a maximum penalty of $99 million for breaking key rules, up from 30,000 to 60,000 penalty units.
The government said more than five million underage accounts had been removed, restricted or deactivated in the law’s first six months. However, the eSafety CommissionerAustralia’s national online safety regulator., Australia’s online safety regulator, was investigating five platforms over possible failures to keep under-16s from holding accounts. Minister Anika Wells (Labor) also cited a YouGov survey: 30 per cent of 13- to 15-year-olds reported more sport, 27 per cent better sleep, online bullying fell 9 per cent and harmful-content exposure fell 18 per cent. The government said stronger evidence-gathering powers and penalties were needed to test platforms’ claims and discourage breaches.
Australia had already legislated a world-first minimum age for social media, with the law taking effect on 10 December 2025 and requiring platforms to take reasonable steps to stop under-16s having accounts. After the eSafety CommissionerAustralia’s national online safety regulator. warned that her powers were too limited to enforce the rule effectively, Hon Anika Wells MP introduced this bill to strengthen information-gathering, compliance testing and penalties, and the House passed it on 1 July 2026.
Monique Ryan (Independent) argued the underlying age restriction remained easy to bypass. She cited government data showing about 70 per cent of previous child users were still on restricted platforms, plus a 408-person survey finding 85 per cent still used social media. She warned children who give a false age may lose child safety settings. Melissa McIntosh (Liberal) called the original restrictions rushed and badly implemented. She said stronger fines did not address addictive content-selection systems or give parents effective device-safety tools.
Hon Anika Wells MP introduced this bill. Supportive speeches so far have come from Labor, Liberal Party, Nationals, LNP, some crossbench members.
Did it become law?
Not yet
Final passage
Recorded vote so far
3 recorded amendment or procedural votes were found, but no counted vote on the bill itself was recorded.
Days since introduction
39 days
Updated 07 Aug 2026.
Meaning
Social media platforms face a maximum penalty of $99 million for breaking key rules, up from 30,000 to 60,000 penalty units.
People and businesses holding relevant evidence can be ordered to give information and documents to the eSafety CommissionerAustralia’s national online safety regulator., Australia’s online safety regulator.
Online services can be investigated to decide whether the under-16 social media rules cover them.
People who disobey an information request face a maximum penalty of 1,000 penalty units, up from 500.
Platforms and other evidence holders come under the new rules from the day after the law receives Royal AssentFormal approval that turns a bill into law..
1 Section 63D (penalty) Omit “30,000”, substitute “60,000”. 2 Subsection 63DA(1) (penalty) Omit “30,000”, substitute “60,000”. 3 Subsection 63DB(1) (penalty) Omit “30,000”, substitute “60,000”.Online Safety Amendment (Strengthening Enforcement for the Social Media Minimum Age) introduced text
63G Commissioner may obtain information and documents about compliance (1) This section applies to a person if the Commissioner believes on reasonable grounds that the person has information or documents relevant to compliance by a provider of an electronic service that is or may be an age‑restricted social media platform with section 63D or subsection 63DA(1) or 63DB(1). (2) This section also applies to a person if the Commissioner believes on reasonable grounds that the person has information or documents relevant to whether an electronic service is a service specified in the legislative rOnline Safety Amendment (Strengthening Enforcement for the Social Media Minimum Age) introduced text
(1) This section applies to a person if the Commissioner believes on reasonable grounds that the person has information or documents relevant to compliance by a provider of an electronic service that is or may be an age‑restricted social media platform with section 63D or subsection 63DA(1) or 63DB(1). (2) This section also applies to a person if the Commissioner believes on reasonable grounds that the person has information or documents relevant to whether an electronic service is a service specified in the legislative rules for the purposes of paragraph 63C(1)(b) or (6)(b). (3) The CommissOnline Safety Amendment (Strengthening Enforcement for the Social Media Minimum Age) introduced text
5 Section 63H (penalty) Omit “500”, substitute “1,000”.Online Safety Amendment (Strengthening Enforcement for the Social Media Minimum Age) introduced text
2 Commencement (1) Each provision of this Act specified in column 1 of the table commences, or is taken to have commenced, in accordance with column 2 of the table. Any other statement in column 2 has effect according to its terms. Commencement information Commencement Date/Details 1. The whole of this Act The day after this Act receives the Royal Assent.Online Safety Amendment (Strengthening Enforcement for the Social Media Minimum Age) introduced text
Context
Australia had already legislated a world-first minimum age for social media, with the law taking effect on 10 December 2025 and requiring platforms to take reasonable steps to stop under-16s having accounts. After the eSafety CommissionerAustralia’s national online safety regulator. warned that her powers were too limited to enforce the rule effectively, Hon Anika Wells MP introduced this bill to strengthen information-gathering, compliance testing and penalties, and the House passed it on 1 July 2026.
Social media minimum-age law takes effect
The new rule required age-restricted platforms to take reasonable steps to prevent Australians under 16 from having social media accounts.
Hansard ↗eSafety warns its enforcement powers are too limited
The eSafety CommissionerAustralia’s national online safety regulator. warned that stronger powers were needed after the government identified difficulties enforcing the under-16 social media rule.
ABC News ↗Hon Anika Wells MP introduces the enforcement bill
The bill was formally presented in the House of Representatives to give the eSafety CommissionerAustralia’s national online safety regulator. stronger tools to check platforms’ compliance.
Parliamentary timeline ↗House passes the bill
The House agreed to the bill at third reading, allowing it to continue through Parliament.
Parliamentary timeline ↗Legislative route
The bill was formally presented to the chamber and read a first time, which starts its parliamentary journey.
Introduced and read a first time
A minister or sponsoring member moved the second reading, opening the main debate on the bill's purpose and principles.
Second reading moved
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
The chamber agreed to the bill at second reading, meaning it accepted the bill in principle and allowed it to continue.
Second reading agreed to
The chamber agreed to the bill at third reading, which completed passage through that chamber.
Third reading agreed to
The bill was formally presented to the chamber and read a first time, which starts its parliamentary journey.
Introduced and read a first time
A minister or sponsoring member moved the second reading, opening the main debate on the bill's purpose and principles.
Second reading moved
Referred to Committee (01/07/2026): Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee; Report due 25/08/2026
Report due 25 Aug 2026
APH bill page notesKey criticism
Monique Ryan (Independent) argued the underlying age restriction remained easy to bypass. She cited government data showing about 70 per cent of previous child users were still on restricted platforms, plus a 408-person survey finding 85 per cent still used social media. She warned children who give a false age may lose child safety settings. Melissa McIntosh (Liberal) called the original restrictions rushed and badly implemented. She said stronger fines did not address addictive content-selection systems or give parents effective device-safety tools.
Ryan supported the bill’s stronger powers and penalties despite her criticism. The government said the regulator was investigating five major platforms and needed better evidence to check whether their claims matched their actions.
Enforcement may not fix the scheme
Critics warned that higher penalties and wider investigative powers may not stop children circumventing a poorly designed minimum-age system or make it effective in practice.
Legal duties remain unclear
The bill strengthens enforcement without resolving what platforms must do to satisfy the scheme’s vague obligations, creating a risk of compliance disputes and enforcement challenges.
Broader online harms remain
Several supporters said age restrictions alone do not address addictive algorithms, unsafe platform design or other online harms, and urged a statutory digital duty of care.
Rushed parliamentary scrutiny
The government was criticised for moving the bill too quickly to test whether its expanded powers and penalties would remedy the scheme’s practical weaknesses; the Senate subsequently referred it for committee inquiry.
Further sources
Votes
Recorded amendment and procedural votes grouped by chamber. Expand a vote to see the party breakdown.
House
Defeated 43 to 92. Support came from Liberal, Nationals, Community Strong Australia, Centre Alliance, and minor parties and independents. Opposition came from Labor and Greens. Minor-party and independent votes were split.
The House rejected the statement, and the bill then passed its second reading without it.
Senate
Moved by Henderson. Passed 32 to 20. Support came from Liberal, Greens, One Nation, Nationals, and minor parties and independents. Opposition came from Labor.
The Senate agreed to add the gambling legislation to the proposed committee referral by 32 votes to 20.
Passed 32 to 20. Support came from Liberal, Greens, One Nation, Nationals, and minor parties and independents. Opposition came from Labor.
The Senate approved the expanded referral package by 32 votes to 20, sending both subjects to committee inquiry.
These are amendment votes, not the final passage vote on the bill itself.
Parliamentary debate
Start here — lead voices
Wells urges parliament to pass the bill urgently, arguing that stronger information-gathering powers and much higher penalties are needed to make social media companies comply with the minimum-age law.
Read in Hansard ↗Webster supports the bill because stronger investigative powers and penalties will help the eSafety CommissionerAustralia’s national online safety regulator. hold social media companies accountable, but says enforcement must be followed by a broader digital duty of care that makes platforms safer by design.
Read in Hansard ↗Spender supports the bill's stronger information-gathering powers and doubled penalties, arguing that better enforcement is needed to protect children from social media harms.
Read in Hansard ↗Zoe McKenzie criticises the government for rushing the bill through Parliament without adequate scrutiny and questions whether it will make the social media minimum ageRules requiring platforms to prevent under-16 accounts. effective, but does not clearly state whether she will support or oppose it.
Read in Hansard ↗All speeches by bloc
8 speakers · 10 contributions · 6 support · 2 unclear
“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.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“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.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“I rise today to speak in support of the Online Safety Amendment (Strengthening Enforcement for the Social Media Minimum Age) Bill 2026. This legislation is about one simple but vital principle: when laws are made to protect children, those laws must be strongly enforced. A law without effective enforcement is merely a statement of intent, and this bill ensures that Australia's social media minimum age laws are backed by serious consequences for companies that fail to meet their responsibilities.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“The idea behind it is as simple as it gets: keeping kids safe from these platforms should not be the job of 14-year-olds or their parents around the kitchen table; it should be the job of the people who have built the platforms in the first place. We did not undertake these measures because we thought badly of young people or we didn't trust them. We did it because they had been allowed into a world that had been designed to target them, not to support their development, and today with the Online Safety Amendment (Strengthening Enforcement for the Social Media Minimum Age) Bill 2026 we make that law stronger, and I'm very proud to support it.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“The second part of this bill strengthens the information-gathering powers of the eSafety Commissioner, which means the compliance of platforms can be assessed when required.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
Hansard records 2 separate contributions by Renee Coffey on this bill. They are grouped here so the speaker is listed once.
Second reading speech
Coffey supports the bill because it doubles maximum penalties for social media platforms that breach minimum-age rules and gives the eSafety CommissionerAustralia’s national online safety regulator. stronger powers to obtain evidence and enforce compliance.
“The bill doubles the maximum penalty for breaches of the minimum age obligation, bringing the maximum penalty to $99 million. That is a serious penalty, and it needs to be serious for these multinational tech companies to take it seriously. The increase brings these penalties into line with recent changes to competition and consumer law, and it reflects the scale of the companies this parliament is regulating. A small penalty can become just the cost of doing business; a strong penalty sends a different message. We are firmly signalling to these multinational tech companies that, if you want to do business in Australia, then you must comply with Australian laws. It says children's safety cannot be treated as a public relations issue. It says platforms cannot make promises in public then do too little in private.”Read this contribution in Hansard ↗
Second reading speech
Renee Coffey speaks to the bill, focusing on in my community of Griffith, I see families trying their best every day. The speech also says that this bill strengthens enforcement of the social media minimum ageRules requiring platforms to prevent under-16 accounts., but the work of protecting children online cannot end there.
“In my community of Griffith, I see families trying their best every day. I see it at school gates, at community events, in local sporting clubs and in conversations with parents who are proud of their children and worried about them at the same time.”Read this contribution in Hansard ↗
Hansard records 2 separate contributions by Anika Wells on this bill. They are grouped here so the speaker is listed once.
Minister's second reading speech
Wells urges parliament to pass the bill urgently, arguing that stronger information-gathering powers and much higher penalties are needed to make social media companies comply with the minimum-age law.
“I call on all members of the 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.”Read this contribution in Hansard ↗
Second reading speech
Wells urges the House to pass the bill, arguing that stronger enforcement is urgently needed to hold social media companies accountable and protect children.
“I call on all members to rise to Emma's call to action and support the bill. We must come together and stand on the side of parents and kids, not platforms. Delaying or blocking passage means delaying or blocking accountability of the social media companies. I thank the House.”Read this contribution in Hansard ↗
“The original question was that this bill be now read a second time, to which the honourable member for Lindsay moved as an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The honourable member for Kooyong has moved, as an amendment to that amendment, that all words after 'House' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The immediate question, therefore, is that the amendment moved by the honourable member for Kooyong be agreed to.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
8 speakers · 6 support · 2 unclear
“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.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“On the weekend just passed, almost out of nowhere, the Prime Minister declared that the reform had failed and recognised that failure by social media companies to comply with our 'world-leading law' needed to be addressed. Then, to double down on this government's ineptitude, this bill was rushed in yesterday afternoon—so rushed that there were no copies of the bill at the table yesterday when the minister god up to give her second reading speech. It seems this government is determined to repeat its mistakes through haste and being seen to address issues rather than addressing them in any meaningful way. We are being asked to pass this bill within 24 hours, and it is not clear from the content of this bill that it will actually bring about change and efficacy in the operation of this reform.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“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.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“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.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“I certainly support the amendment put forward by the member for Lindsay in relation to the Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Bill 2026. Today, I spoke to and listened to the Lutheran School Wagga Wagga, a primary school of children visiting on their excursion to Parliament House in Canberra. I gave to those youngsters, as I do to all school groups, two bits of advice. One of those bits of advice is to not smoke, because it's dumb, it's unhealthy and it's expensive. The other bit of advice I always give the children—these days, the primary school ones are not or should not be on social media, but I always say this to them—is, 'When you do get on social media at a later age, don't write something about someone else that you wouldn't like said about yourself,' because online bullying is every bit as bad as every other type of bullying. Face-to-face bullying, bullying by exclusion, bullying by any means—it is unacceptable in the schoolyard, in the classroom and anywhere else. The difficulty for children these days is that bullying doesn't just stop at the school gate. It doesn't just stop a little bit after three o'clock, when the school bell tolls to end the school day. It continues online. It continues via TikTok, it continues via Snapchat, it continues via Facebook, it continues via any other social media platform for children and for adults. And it's not nice.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“"whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House:”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“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.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“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.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
5 speakers · 4 support · 1 mixed
“I will continue to support this legislation, but we will have to see how it goes. I think clear reporting on its success or not is absolutely critical if we are going to deal with online harms and manage the impact on our young people.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“Those are sensible measures. We know that the eSafety Commissioner is actively investigating possible noncompliance by five platforms: Instagram, Facebook, YouTube, Snapchat and TikTok. Julie Inman Grant, the eSafety Commissioner, has sent those platforms formal notices demanding information on how they're implementing age checks. Stronger investigative powers and higher penalties will assist that work. For that reason, I support this bill. I want Australian children to be safe in online spaces.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“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.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“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.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“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.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
Record
House · Introduced and read a first time
Introduced
The bill was formally presented to the chamber and read a first time, which starts its parliamentary journey.
House · Second reading moved
Second reading opened
A minister or sponsoring member moved the second reading, opening the main debate on the bill's purpose and principles.
House · Second reading debate
Second reading debate
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
House · Second reading debate
Second reading debate
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
House · Second reading agreed to
Second reading agreed
The chamber agreed to the bill at second reading, meaning it accepted the bill in principle and allowed it to continue.
House · Third reading agreed to
Third reading agreed
The chamber agreed to the bill at third reading, which completed passage through that chamber.
Senate · Introduced and read a first time
Introduced
The bill was formally presented to the chamber and read a first time, which starts its parliamentary journey.
Senate · Second reading moved
Second reading opened
A minister or sponsoring member moved the second reading, opening the main debate on the bill's purpose and principles.
Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee
Report due 25 Aug 2026
Referred to Committee (1 July 2026): Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee; Report due 25 Aug 2026
APH bill page notes