Rebekha Sharkie
by leave—I move amendments (1) to (5) as circulated in my name:
(1) Schedule 1, item 7, page 4 (after line 21), after the paragraph beginning "Providers of certain kinds" in section 63A, insert:
(2) Schedule 1, item 7, page 6 (line 23), omit "penalty", substitute "penalties".
(3) Schedule 1, item 7, page 7 (after line 13), after section 63E, insert:
63EA Civil penalty for requiring identification documents
(1) A provider of an age-restricted social media platform must not require an individual to produce an identification document for the purposes of verifying the age of the individual.
Civil penalty: 500 penalty units.
(2) In this section:
identification document means a document or other thing that:
(a) contains identification information; and
(b) can be used to identify an individual; and
(c) is issued by or on behalf of a government authority.
(4) Schedule 1, item 7, page 10 (after line 2), after paragraph 63J(a), insert:
(aa) has contravened section 63EA (requiring identification documents); or
(5) Schedule 1, item 13, page 11 (after line 3), after paragraph (da), insert:
(daa) section 63EA;
I will not hold the House for long. The amendments seek to address age verification, and this bill explicitly defers the commencement of age verification to provide the industry and the eSafety Commissioner with sufficient time to develop and implement appropriate systems. My amendment would prevent social media platforms and other tech giants from requiring personal ID documentation for the purposes of age verification. Personal data is highly valued by corporations and particularly by social media companies, and so I think it's incredibly important that we do not provide an environment that greenlights the harvesting of personal data under the guise of protecting under-16s. I therefore call on the House to support these amendments to provide some safety around this bill for the personal data of millions of Australians with social media accounts.
Sharon Claydon
The question is that the amendments be agreed to. All those of that opinion—do you wish to have the call, Assistant Minister?
Kate Thwaites
I move:
That the question be now put.
Sharon Claydon
The question is that the question be now put.
A division having been called and the bells being rung—
What is the member for Warringah after?
Zali Steggall
I just want a clarification. The member for Mayo moved her amendments. I understood the Deputy Speaker to have put the question on the amendments. The assistant minister—
Sharon Claydon
No, I stated the question; I didn't put the question, and the assistant minister has moved that the question be put now. If it helps the House, the question before us is that the question be put.
Summary
Date and time: 10:20 AM on 2024-11-27
Allegra Spender's vote: No
Total number of "aye" votes: 49
Total number of "no" votes: 16
Total number of abstentions: 86
Related bill: Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Bill 2024
Adapted from information made available by theyvoteforyou.org.au