Pass the stronger social media enforcement powers now instead of sending them to a Senate inquiry — back it or reject it?

This Matter of Public Importance, moved by Labor's Sharon Claydon, was about "the urgent need to hold big tech companies to account and keep our kids safe online." The fight is over a new bill that would let the eSafety Commissioner compel documents from platforms and roughly double the maximum fine for breaking the under-16 age rules to about $99 million.

Labor wants it passed straight away, saying the Commissioner asked for the powers and any delay delays enforcement. The Coalition, which backed the bill in the House, referred it to a three-month Senate inquiry, arguing the original ban has largely failed and needs proper scrutiny. The debate ran 57 minutes with no vote.

🗳 A public mood-check, not a scientific poll. Vote to see where the room stands.

🗳 be the first to weigh in🏛 57m debated

📄 House Hansard, 2 Jul 2026 — Cybersafety

drill in ▸close ▾

The strongest case each way

For · Government (Labor)Claydon, Clutterham, Jarrett and Soon said the bill is a short, simple measure the eSafety Commissioner specifically requested — power to compel documents from non-compliant platforms and higher fines. They pointed to more than five million under-16 accounts already removed, said five platforms are under investigation, and warned that any delay delays protection for children. They accused the Coalition of siding with big tech.

Against · CoalitionLeeser, Violi, McKenzie and Wallace said they invented and support the under-16 ban but that the first attempt failed — citing figures that 70–85% of children are still on social media. They argued the new bill was rushed through in days and deserves a proper three-month Senate inquiry so the powers actually work, rather than being back patching the law again in six months.