Lisa Chesters (Bendigo, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

It is disappointing to hear the comments of the member opposite in relation to this motion. He hasn't been genuine in presenting the case to the parliament about the recommendation that is so exercised in this motion. To listen to his contribution, you would think that one recommendation would solve all domestic and family violence and abuse. It will not. That's what I think is really disappointing about what the member has put forward.

The motion that has been put forward and the suggestion made by those opposite is dangerous in the sense it is taking the issue of age assurance beyond what was ever recommended by the eSafety Commissioner. It also suggests that one recommendation would stop all online abuse, family and domestic violence and abuse, and it's just not the case. The motion is suggesting all users of social media, social engines and other digital platforms should provide identification documentation to big tech. I want to highlight this point to the member opposite, who, as somebody in this place who voted against the government's proposal, the digital ID, is now suggesting that big tech should be the keepers and the holders of 100 points of identification not just for adults but for minors. We're talking about input age verification and proof-of-age documents—including birth certificates, including licences—to platforms like TikTok. I wonder what Senator Paterson would say about the member's motion! TikTok, Facebook/Meta and Twitter/X would all require that 100 points of identification. Will they store it properly? There are complications with that recommendation which the government is methodically working through.

My real disappointment is the way in which the member opposite has tried to use this motion to completely ignore what we are doing to combat the scourge of family and domestic violence. The government is moving forward in this area, and a number of measures have already been introduced and are being worked on. Particularly in this area, the government has announced it will fund an age assurance trial. The reason it's a trial is to make sure we get the technology right. Its purpose is to prevent minors from accessing online pornography—which is illegal to minors, but they are still accessing it. It will examine how age limits for social media can be better implemented.

The Albanese government is addressing family, domestic and sexual violence through delivering its National Plan to End Violence against Women and Children. This isn't something that appeared in the member's motion. It is addressing the role of pornography and social media in contributing to harmful social behaviours and reinforcing stereotypes and attitudes towards children and women amongst adults, children and young people. The Albanese government is building on the work of the eSafety Commissioner with better support for individuals who are experiencing technology-facilitated abuse. The point I want to make this is that if you are a perpetrator of violence against women, you do it anonymously and you do it just with your own account. That is the reality of the situation we are in. People will use their own accounts. They will use their friends' accounts if they want to perpetrate violence. And that is why we cannot single in on one—let's just get rid of anonymous—it doesn't stop family and domestic violence.

I remember back in the late nineties and early eighties there was this group in Melbourne called the Black Shirts, and they would harass women and their children who had left family and domestic violence. They'd letterbox the neighbourhood, they'd turn up with loudspeakers and they'd harass women who took the brave step of leaving. You don't need 100 points of verification to jump on a megaphone, so to suggest that this one recommendation solves all the problems is really unfair and irrational. In conclusion, this is a complex issue that needs action. That is why this government is implementing the National Plan to End Violence against Women and Children.

See this speech in context