Source : Perth Now news
A Senate inquiry probing plans to massively bolster the powers of eSafety Commissioner Julie Inman-Grant has recommend the legislation be approved, despite “differing views” about the effectiveness of the under-16s social ban.
A report by the Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee on Tuesday found the proposed powers were “necessary to enable the eSafety Commissioner to effectively investigate compliance with the existing law”.
The report also backed an increase to civil penalties against large social media platforms, which the Committee said “must meaningful deterrence and should not be regarded simply as a cost of doing business”.
However, the Committee noted “differing views” on the effectiveness of the under-16s social media ban, and said the proposed reforms were only “one part in improving online safety” alongside the long-awaited Digital Duty of Care.
Issues around effectiveness and “unintended consequences … should continue to be closely monitored as the framework matures, including through the independent review required under the Online Safety Act 2021,” the report stated.
“The Committee emphasises that the purpose of this Bill is not to revisit the underlying policy of the social media minimum age framework or impose new obligations on social media platforms.
“Instead, it seeks to ensure that the eSafety Commissioner has the regulatory tools needed to investigate and enforce obligations already enacted by the parliament.
“The committee acknowledges concerns about the breadth of the proposed information-gathering powers and considers that these powers should be exercised proportionately and with regard to privacy and confidential information.
“The committee notes that comparable information-gathering powers are available to other Commonwealth regulators, including the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission and the Australian Securities and Investments Commission.”
Among critics of the increased powers was X, formerly Twitter, which the report noted had argued expanding powers to compel companies to hand over documents increased risk that commercially sensitive of confidential material might be obtained.
“X also questioned the proposed statutory threshold for exercising the power,” the report stated.
“It noted that the eSafety Commissioner would be able to seek material relating to a service that ‘may be’ an age-restricted social media platform and argued that coercive information-gathering powers should be subject to a sufficiently clear and established statutory trigger.”
The Australian Human Rights Commission supported the Bill, but raised concerns document powers could extend to parents and children.
“The Commission considered that clearer statutory limits would assist in ensuring the power remained proportionate to its intended purpose,” the report stated.
Limitations on age assurance
The report comes just days after New Zealand became the latest country to announce its plan for a similar social media ban, following countries including Spain, Malaysia, and France.
While the report noted it did not seek to reassess merits of the existing ban, it noted “differing views” about the capability of age assurance technology including “the technology itself or the way platforms had deployed it”.
In an additional comment contained within the report, Greens senator Sarah Hanson-Young said “the social media minimum age is not working” and alleged tech companies had not “done everything in their power to keep people under-16 off their platforms”.
“To make platforms safer we need to implement a digital duty of care,” she said.
“This would address the root cause of online harm: algorithms, and big tech’s complete lack of responsibility when it comes to keeping Australians safe.”
Senator Hanson-Young noted the duty of care was still not before parliament.
“It’s time to hit Big Tech where it hurts,” she said.
“We need to urgently regulate algorithms, and make it clear that social media companies are responsible for the extreme harm their platforms perpetrate.”
The report itself noted: “Several submitters argued that the minimum age framework should sit alongside broader systemic regulation of digital platforms.
“This evidence was not directly relevant to the bill under consideration but forms part of the broader debate about this issue.”
Departmental officials told the inquiry work on a Digital Duty of Care was “well advanced”.
‘Most disappointing’
Liberal senator Sarah Henderson, an outspoken critic of alleged failures by big tech to stop children accessing their platforms, said the Bill should not pass in its current form.
She noted in her own additional comment in the report that “it is most disappointing the committee report recommends the bill be passed without amendment”.
“It is no coincidence the eSafety Commissioner’s proposal to the minister for strengthened powers was made on 15 May 2026, ten days after an infamous lunch with a reporter from the Sydney Morning Herald when the eSafety Commissioner was scathing in her criticism about the social media ban as currently legislated,” she said.
“It must be reiterated that the online safety of Australians, particularly Australian children, is of paramount importance and it is incumbent on the parliament to do everything in its power to ensure our online safety laws are fit for purpose. It is clear the Government has much more work to do.”
Senator Henderson noted “with concern” that Ms Inman-Grant had clashed with social media companies in their concern publishing their algorithms “would interfere with their trade secrets’.
“Notwithstanding that the eSafety Commissioner subsequently conceded that ‘more transparency is good. How you do it will make a difference’,” she said.
She said document powers “improperly encroaches on the privacy of children”.
Senator Fatima Payman, who also offered a dissenting view, described the Bill as “a piecemeal attempt to close the gate after the horse has bolted”.
She recommended 11 changes, including that the government progress work on the Digital Duty of Care.
