Tech

Toughen enforcement of the under-16 social media rules — back it or block it?

This bill strengthens enforcement of Australia's social media minimum age. Labor says the age rules are world-leading — the UK has announced it will copy the model. The Coalition supported a second reading but moved an amendment calling the scheme poorly designed and badly implemented, and the promised digital duty of care ill-defined. The debate ran more than three hours across the day and was interrupted by the adjournment — no vote yet.

Double the fines and boost the regulator's powers to enforce the under-16 social media ban — back it or block it?

Australia's ban on under-16s holding social media accounts started in December 2025. This bill doubles the maximum fine for platforms that don't comply — from $49.5 million to $99 million — and gives the eSafety Commissioner power to demand documents not just from platforms but from third parties like age-check services and app stores. Labor says more than five million under-16 accounts have been removed but big tech is doing the bare minimum, so tougher enforcement is needed. Coalition MPs back stronger powers but call the original scheme rushed and botched. Several crossbenchers support the bill while arguing a ban alone won't work and a broader 'digital duty of care' is what's really needed. The debate ran nearly three hours and was interrupted — no vote was taken.

Make it illegal to create AI deepfakes of someone's face or voice without consent — back it or block it?

Independent senator David Pocock's private bill would give people the right to control AI-generated fakes of their face, voice or likeness. It would let the eSafety Commissioner run a dedicated complaints system, order platforms and users to take down deepfakes, and fine those who ignore removal notices. It would also create a new right to sue for deepfakes that cause emotional or reputational harm, with exemptions for journalists, law enforcement and medical or legal use.

The Greens backed it strongly. Labor and One Nation opposed it. The debate ran about 69 minutes and was interrupted with no vote taken.

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.

Should AI data centres be legally forced to fund clean energy, water and community infrastructure — or are the government's voluntary rules enough?

MPs debated how Australia should handle the boom in AI data centres — the large industrial sites full of computers that power artificial intelligence, and that draw heavily on electricity, water and land. Independent Zali Steggall, who raised the topic, argued the government's current "expectations" for developers have no legal force and should be made mandatory, enforceable and transparent. Other crossbenchers and the Greens agreed, warning Australia risks repeating the gas boom by giving away resources for little return. The Labor government defended its National AI Plan and five expectations — including an energy "triple lock" requiring centres to bring their own renewable power, pay their own grid costs and adjust demand — and said it is working with states to make these binding. As a Matter of Public Importance, there was no vote.

Is Australia letting US tech giants build AI data centres unchecked — back the charge or reject it?

A Greens matter of public importance (in Senator McKim's name) accused the government of failing to protect Australia's environment, water, jobs, data and national interest from US-billionaire-controlled AI and data centres. Labor called the attack nuance-free and said regulation will evolve; the Coalition asked how Australia gets a reasonable return from the technology. Matters of public importance are debated only — no parliamentary vote is held.