In a stunning display of bipartisan defiance, Australia's Senate passed a motion on July 29, 2025, to halt mandatory age verification for search engine users, led by United Australia Party (UAP) Senator Ralph Babet. As reported by Natural News and Senate Hansard, the motion united an unlikely coalition, conservatives, One Nation, the Greens, and independents, against Labor's push for what Babet called "creeping authoritarianism." With the Greens, typically champions of progressive control, joining this pro-freedom fight, Babet quipped, "Hell must have frozen over!" This rare victory against digital surveillance signals a broader resistance to the erosion of liberty under the guise of child safety, exposing the dangers of Australia's Online Safety Act and its surveillance-hungry eSafety Commissioner.
The Motion: A Stand Against Digital Tyranny
The Senate motion, spearheaded by Babet, targeted the Internet Search Engine Services Online Safety Code, which mandated age assurance for logged-in users of search engines like Google and Bing. Proposed methods, ID checks, facial recognition, biometric scanning, and data tracking, sparked outrage for their privacy implications. The Guardian reported that these rules, set to take effect by December 2025, aimed to limit children's exposure to harmful content but risked creating a "surveillance infrastructure" by linking personal data to browsing habits.
Babet's speech, recorded in Hansard, was a clarion call: "This is not about protecting children; it is about building a surveillance infrastructure under the cover of safety." He warned of a future where "your face, your ID, and your personal browsing history" are logged, eroding the right to privacy. The motion's passage, with support from the Coalition, One Nation, Greens, and independents like David Pocock and Lidia Thorpe, was a rebuke to Labor's lone dissent and the eSafety Commissioner's overreach.
The Greens' Surprising Pro-Freedom Stance
The Greens' support was the shock of the day. Known for backing regulatory measures, their alignment with Babet's motion marked a rare pro-freedom pivot. Greens Senator David Shoebridge called the age verification rules "staggering" for their privacy implications, criticizing their development without parliamentary oversight. Babet's tongue-in-cheek remark — "Hell must have frozen over!" — captured the improbability of this alliance. On X, users like @FreedomAus hailed the Greens' vote as a "unicorn moment," though some speculated it was less about principle and more about opposing Labor's rushed policies.
This unity wasn't just symbolic; it exposed a growing unease with Australia's trajectory toward digital control. The motion followed November 2024's social media ban for under-16s, which imposed $50 million fines on platforms like TikTok and X for non-compliance. Critics, including Babet, argued that both policies rank surveillance over parental responsibility, setting a precedent for broader censorship.
The Online Safety Act: A Slippery Slope to Control
The Online Safety Act, championed by eSafety Commissioner Julie Inman Grant, lies at the heart of this battle. Initially framed as a shield against online harms, it's increasingly seen as a tool for state overreach. The Epoch Times labelled it "creeping authoritarianism," noting its vague criteria for "harmful content" and lack of public consultation. The Act's age verification rules, co-developed with tech giants, require search engines to enforce "safe search" for minors, but the cost is steep: mandatory logins, biometric data, and potential tracking of all users.
Privacy advocates, like Samantha Floreani in The Guardian, warn that these measures erode online anonymity and risk over-collection of personal data. A government trial into age assurance, costing $6.5 million, found "concerning evidence" of tech providers seeking excessive information, yet the rules were drafted before the trial's completion. On Reddit's r/AustralianPolitics, users decried the "Great Australian Firewall," comparing it to China's censorship regime and lamenting the loss of digital freedom.
The UK Parallel: A Global Trend of Surveillance
Australia's moves echo the UK's troubling slide, as reported by The Telegraph. The UK's National Security and Online Information Team (NSOIT), originally a COVID-era censorship unit, now targets critics of mass migration, flagging posts about "two-tier policing" or asylum hotels as "concerning narratives." The UK's Online Safety Act, like Australia's, empowers the state to pressure tech platforms, raising fears of a global trend toward digital authoritarianism. Elon Musk's X has accused both nations of enacting "Orwellian" laws, with the U.S. Congress probing the UK's censorship of American companies. This parallel underscores the stakes: unchecked surveillance in one democracy emboldens others.
The Public Backlash and Political Stakes
Public support for child safety is undeniable, 77% of Australians backed the social media ban, per a 2025 YouGov poll, but the age verification push has sparked resistance. On X, users like @OzLibertyWatch called it a "power grab disguised as protection," while Reddit threads on r/australia slammed the eSafety Commissioner as an "eKaren" pushing centralised control. The Senate's bipartisan vote reflects this unease, with even conservative senators like Alex Antic breaking ranks to oppose the social media ban, citing rushed legislation and privacy risks.
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, facing sagging polls ahead of a 2025 election, has leaned into these policies to appeal to parents, backed by News Corp's "Let Them Be Kids" campaign. But the backlash, amplified by figures like Elon Musk and Pauline Hanson, who shared the Senate inquiry link to millions, shows a growing divide. A Senate inquiry into the social media ban received 15,000 submissions in 24 hours, signalling public alarm.
The Senate's rejection of search engine age verification is a rare win for liberty, but the war isn't over. The Online Safety Act's broad powers remain, and the eSafety Commissioner's influence, bolstered by a staff growth from 7 to 125 since 2015, continues to expand. Babet's call to empower parents over state surveillance offers a better path: enhance safe-search filters, promote parental controls, and restrict harmful content without mandating biometric tracking. As The Epoch Times noted, the solution lies in "restoring common sense" before tech giants and bureaucrats tighten their grip.
Australia stands at a crossroads. The Greens' unexpected support, alongside conservatives and independents, proves that resistance to tyranny can transcend ideology. But Labor's isolation in opposing the motion suggests a government wedded to control, not freedom. The UK's parallel descent into censorship serves as a warning: unchecked surveillance erodes democracy. Australians must demand transparency, repeal the Act's overreach, and support parental responsibility over state overreach. Hell may have frozen over for this victory, but the fight for liberty burns on.
https://www.naturalnews.com/2025-08-03-australian-senate-rejects-age-verification-search-engine.html
Australia's Senate passed a motion to halt proposed mandatory age verification for search engine users, citing serious privacy concerns.
The motion, led by UAP Senator Ralph Babet, drew rare bipartisan support from parties across the political spectrum, except Labor.
Babet warned that the proposed verification methods, such as ID checks, facial recognition and data tracking, would erode civil liberties under the guise of child safety.
The motion follows legislation passed in November 2024 banning under-16s from social media, which includes AU$50 million (US$33 million) fines for non-compliant platforms.
Critics argue that both the age verification proposal and the social media ban set dangerous precedents for surveillance and undermine parental responsibility.
An urgent motion to block the rollout of mandatory age verification for search engine users has passed Australia's Senate with overwhelming cross-party support.
The motion, spearheaded by United Australia Party Senator Ralph Babet, stems from a recommendation by the federal eSafety Commissioner, who in early July urged the government to consider age verification requirements for users signed into search engines like Google and Bing. Verification methods under discussion included ID checks, biometric scanning, credit card authentication, parental vouching, AI-powered estimations or third-party verification services, raising immediate red flags for privacy advocates.
In a speech to the Senate on July 29, Babet acknowledged the importance of child safety but warned that the proposed measures posed a fundamental threat to Australians' civil liberties.
"Let me say from the outset that protecting children online is a moral imperative," he said. "Measures like safe-search filters for minors, better parental controls and the restriction of harmful content are of course welcome, but let's not kid ourselves – this is not about protecting children, it is about building a surveillance infrastructure under the cover of safety."
Babet condemned the use of facial recognition, ID linkage and browsing history tracking, calling the measures "data mining" and a step toward "creeping authoritarianism."
"That's biometric scanning. That's data mining. We're rapidly marching towards a society where privacy online is not just frowned upon but perhaps going to become illegal. That's what's going on," he said. "Imagine this: your face, your ID and your personal browsing history all linked, logged and stored in the name of keeping kids safe. But I ask you this: who is keeping citizens safe from this creeping authoritarianism disguised as policy?"
While the current plan would only apply to users signed into search engines, Babet warned it sets a dangerous precedent.
"I cannot stress enough that we are not, nor do we want to become, China or North Korea. We're Australians. Australians have a right to privacy, to autonomy and to live free from constant digital scrutiny," he said.
The motion gained unlikely allies from across the political spectrum, including the conservative Coalition, the right-wing One Nation, the far-left Greens and several independent left-leaning senators, such as David Pocock, Lidia Thorpe and Fatima Payman. Notably, the Labor Party stood alone in opposing the motion.
Babet challenges Australia's social media ban for under-16s
The proposal builds on legislation passed in November 2024 that bans children under the age of 16 from accessing social media.
The legislation targets platforms including TikTok, Instagram, Snapchat, Facebook, Reddit and X (formerly Twitter). It imposes fines of up to AU$50 million (US$33 million) on companies that fail to prevent underage users from creating accounts.
All major political parties backed the legislation, which supporters claimed is a vital step in protecting children from online harms. Once enacted, platforms will have 12 months to comply before enforcement begins.
Since then, lawmakers from smaller parties and independents have accused the government of rushing the bill and questioning both its effectiveness and unintended consequences.
Senator BABET (Victoria—United Australia Party Whip) (17:47): I move:
That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency:
The need to recognise that the Internet Search Engine Services Online Safety Code which requires age assurance measures for account holders of search engines must be amended as it represents another layer of digital surveillance, dressed up as child protection and raises many privacy issues.
This urgency motion seeks to defend a fundamental right of the Australian people: the right to privacy. The privacy implications of the Internet Search Engine Services Online Safety Code are nothing short of staggering. It is alarming, but the government remains silent, leaving it to me to stand here against the steady advance of the surveillance state. First it was a social media ban for under-16s, followed by a YouTube ban, both of which require mandatory IDs for all users of all ages. Now the focus has shifted to search engines. What comes next? This government has consistently failed to defend Australians' civil liberties. Week after week, we see new efforts in this place to erode our right to privacy and our personal freedom online. Let me say from the outset that protecting children online is a moral imperative. No-one in this chamber is going to question that. Measures like safe-search filters for minors, better parental controls and the restriction of harmful content are of course welcome, but let's not kid ourselves—this is not about protecting children; it is about building a surveillance infrastructure under the cover of safety.
Under this new code, Australians who are logged into search engines like Google, Microsoft and others will be required to undergo age assurance. That's not a polite, 'How old are you?' at the cinema; that's government ID checks. That's biometric scanning. That's data mining. We're rapidly marching towards a society where privacy online is not just frowned upon but perhaps going to become illegal. That's what's going on. Imagine this: your face, your ID and your personal browsing history all linked, logged and stored in the name of keeping kids safe. But I ask you this: who is keeping citizens safe from this creeping authoritarianism disguised as policy?
Let's be clear, most Australians are already deeply embedded in these platforms, Gmail, YouTube, Outlook et cetera. This is not a niche issue. This affects the vast majority of Australians and their right to explore the internet freely without facial recognition or ID uploads. It hangs in the balance. Even more alarming is that this framework wasn't designed by us here in this place; it was co-developed by the tech giants themselves and registered by our eSafety Commissioner, Julie Inman Grant. For now this code only applies to logged-in users, but we all know it's just the beginning. The slippery slope of Canberra and its bureaucracy is very, very real.
I cannot stress enough that we are not, nor do we want to become, China or North Korea. We're Australians. That's what we are. Australians have a right to privacy, to autonomy and to live free from constant digital scrutiny. The solution to unsafe content online is simply empowering parents, not expanding government backed surveillance. If this code continues in its current form, it's going to set a dangerous precedent that everyone's search history, browsing behaviour and identity can be monitored so long as it's done under the label of safety. It is a slippery slope, like I said before. No good will come of this.
Yes, we've got to protect kids online, but not by sacrificing the freedoms of every Australian adult in the process. The code has to be amended. We have to remove the age assurance requirement and restore some common sense before the only thing that's going to be safe online is big tech's grip on all of our lives. To the Greens I say thank you for supporting my motion in defence of privacy and against creeping surveillance. I never thought I would say that, but thank you. Hell must have frozen over! To the Liberal Party, your 'we believe' statement says that you support the inalienable rights and freedoms of all peoples. Here is your chance to show it. Stand on the right side of history and join me in defending the Australian people. All senators, support my motion. Let's see what the Libs do."