11 September 2024

Laws coming to ban children and young teenagers from accessing social media

| Chris Johnson
Join the conversation
32
teenagers holding mobile phones

Legislation will be introduced to enforce a minimum age for access to social media. Photo: Region.

The Federal Government will introduce legislation ahead of the next election to impose and enforce a minimum age for access to social media.

The age is yet to be announced, but it looks set to be between 14 and 16 years of age.

Anthony Albanese said the government wants to wait to see the results of an age verification trial that is currently underway before it sets the limit.

“We know social media is causing social harm, and it is taking kids away from real friends and real experiences,” the Prime Minister said on Tuesday (10 September).

“Australian young people deserve better and I stand with them and with all Australian parents in protecting our kids.

“The safety and mental and physical health of our young people is paramount. We’re supporting parents and keeping kids safe by taking this action because enough is enough.”

Mr Albanese said legislation would be introduced to parliament this year. The next federal election is due by May next year.

READ ALSO It shouldn’t be too hard to outlaw political AI deepfakes before the next election, right?

Labor wants new laws to apply to set a minimum age for access to social media, as well as what it is describing as “other relevant digital platforms”, which is likely to mean online gaming.

Federal legislation will be informed by engagement with states and territories through the National Cabinet process and will draw upon recent work by former chief justice Robert French.

Mr French’s report was commissioned by South Australian Premier Peter Malinauskas, who favours setting the age at 14.

Federal Labor, however, may impose an even higher age of 15 or 16.

Mr Malinauskas said he wanted to see a legal framework in place across the country. He took the opportunity while in Canberra last week to brief the Prime Minister and other state and territory leaders on Mr French’s considerable work.

“The evidence is clear: social media is causing our children harm,” the South Australian Premier said.

“My intent is clear: we are going to do something about it.”

The French report runs to 276 pages and includes a proposed draft bill for South Australia to consider, but it could also be applied at the federal level.

The former chief justice said he hoped a nationally consistent approach would be pursued.

“The issue of protecting children from the harms of social media is one of global concern,” Mr French said.

“The proposed legislative model to give effect to a ban on access to social media by children under 14 and requiring parental consent for children aged 14 and 15 has regard to the complex and dynamic setting in which the law would operate.

“My hope is that South Australia’s initiative leads to a coherent national approach to this issue.”

READ ALSO Census to get new topic on gender and sexuality

The Prime Minister suggested there will be a national approach to the issue, and it will be led by the Federal Government, even though other states are already moving on the issue.

Describing it as an “important social issue”, the Prime Minister said introducing specific legislation will ensure Australian children are better protected from online harms and parents and carers are supported.

Opposition Leader Peter Dutton has previously announced Coalition policy to ban children and teenagers under 16 years of age from accessing social media.

He said if elected prime minister, he would use his first 100 days in office to introduce legislative bans.

“I think it’s best to look at it from a parent’s perspective, and parents want some rules in place,” Mr Dutton said in June.

Federal Communications Minister Michelle Rowland said the initiative will build on work already underway to address online harms for young people.

The $6.5 million age assurance trial, which is testing different implementation approaches to help inform policy design, is currently entering its final phase.

“As a mother of young daughters and Minister for Communications, I fully understand concerns around harmful online environments and addictive social media behaviour of children,” Ms Rowland said on Tuesday.

“Parents want real solutions and we are taking decisive action to identify and implement these very solutions to help ensure young people can use the internet in a safe and positive way that supports their learning and their lives.

“We are also holding big tech to account because platforms and online services have a key responsibility for the safety of their users.

“We will continue to engage experts, young people, advocates and parents through the age assurance trial, which is an important aspect of this journey.”

Join the conversation

32
All Comments
  • All Comments
  • Website Comments
LatestOldest

Good luck with this… the kids will be using AI to generate fake ID’s to provide long before any kind of ban goes into place. As soon as the first kid figures out how to do it, they will all tell their friends, who will do the same.

This is just the political parties trying to make it look like they are doing something, when anyone with any understanding of the issue or technology can tell you that this will do nothing. How’s that age verification for porn sites that has been flagged for the last decade going?

I wonder how many people in this thread complaining about the government chipping away at our privacy belong to loyalty programs with some of our country’s biggest retailers. These reward programs offer many incentives to induce customers to sign up. The customer’s personal information such as address, phone, age, gender and many other details allow retailers to track transaction history, purchases, frequency and much more.

Have you people ever wondered how those pesky and annoying spammers got your personal information and address details in the first place?

My biggest irritant is subscribers being allowed to retain customers banking details to automatically remove funds when subscriptions lapse. That is why people should regularly replace their credit cards to stop them from doing this.

How many people vote Greens and Labor, whinge about the government, but vote for them again and again

How irrelevant has the Liberals become with their lack of policy substance and nothing to offer, with 4% of their voters switching allegiances to the Greens at the last election!

The Libs still haven’t learnt after three elections of diminishing support! Failing to comprehend that voters are smarter than what they give them credit for, continuing to insult their intelligence by relying on silly stunts and slogans!

It is why the party has been in opposition for over two decades and will continue to do so!

Jack D – for once we agree

I’d want the limit at 18, it’s addictive and has harms on par with alcohol.

But because that’s unlikely, I’ll take 16, it allows a few years of adolescent confusion where they turn to IRL people and professionals about matters of concern, rather than other children and also groomers from halfway around the world.

14 is too low.

Yes, as with other comments here, if the politicians really cared about the kids, there are hundreds of things they’d do first. But because they don’t do these things, and then only bring about measures like this at a time when internet control is generally a thing, in line with our emerging (primacy free) digital ID future, it’s clear that this has nothing whatsoever to do with the kids, but has everything to do with total control.

If the government were actually serious about protecting children, they would be legislating to implement a comprehensive ban of gambling advertising rather than this unworkable populist nonsense that is diverting attention and resources away from constructive solutions that will actually achieve something.

It’s never going to work. Example, kid grabs parent’s phone, unlocks it because kid saw their password, then goes for broke. A lot of new phones allow for facial recognition, biometric, or password. Kid adds app, does their thing, then deletes the app. Does this each time so they don’t get caught. Or they can just borrow sibling’s phone. Kids are smarter than politicians

@Futureproof
… and obviously the kids are smarter than their parents too, FP.

Assuming that parents actually take responsibility and protect their phone from unauthorised access by kids, there are technological solutions that will make it work. For example, secure online verification of licence details with the issuing authority – which many government sites (such as Centrelink) use … no need to upload any personal ID document just provide the exact details.

One comment supporting this ninsense. Imagine my shock at who it’s from. 🤣

Futureproof, same could be said of cigarettes and alcohol…

@Ken M
Imagine my shock at seeing you are incapable of actually comprehending what is written in a comment.

I neither supported nor condemned this “ninsense” (sic) in my response to Futureproof. I simply stated that there are technological solutions which would support it.

Nevertheless, I’m not surprised that the sovereign citizen, who doesn’t see an issue with AI generated fake porn images, would see an initiative to protect children online is a bad thing.

Only a complete idiot believes this has anything to do with protecting children online, when it centers on social media rather than pornography and graphic violence sites that they have seemingly been fine with kids accessing.

@Ken M
Yet another of your moronic rants.

In May the feds announced an online age verification pilot the green light (https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-05-01/what-we-know-about-the-governments-online-age-verification-pilot/103791418) to target, inter alia, kids accessing online porn … so the government is not fine with kids accessing it and is trying to address the issue.

As usual no substance just a feral ‘if you don’t agree with me your an idiot’ tirade.

LOL
Absolutely drowning in the kool aid it is then.

Are you completely oblivious on purpose? Or do you just really love having the government control and monitor everything you do?

@Ken M
Yep – I’m happy with government intercession where needed. And if it upsets your immoral sovereign citizen compass, well that’s just a bonus.

You are exactly the reason society is becoming an orwellian nightmare, and you’re not bright enough and completely lack the forethought to realise somebody you don’t like will eventually be elected, and use these new powers against you, rather than people you disagree with.

It would be nice if we could gather you all up and send you to North Korea so you can see just what you are ushering in.

@Ken M
“You are exactly the reason society is becoming an orwellian nightmare …”
Yeah, I guess anything even marginally progressive is anathema to you and your fellow sovereign citizens – and if I’m the reason it’s causing you so much angst, then you are welcome.

“… completely lack the forethought to realise somebody you don’t like will eventually be elected …”
I don’t need forethought – as I have the benefit of hindsight. While you were asleep, during the 8+ years before the May 2022 election, I endured a conservative government and guess what? I survived, because, like it or not, I understood that that’s how democracy works.

Progressive? LOL
Since when did authoritarian surveillance and information control become a progressive thing? That’s something the most regressive and tyrannical regimes in history do. You’re really grasping at straws to justify your insatiable craving for being told what to do now.

The “anybody who values their basic right to privacy is a sovcit crackpot” thing is just as laughable, and pathetic. Again, you’d have to be a complete idiot not to see where these recent policies and legislation lead. The anti encryption bill, the “misinformation and disinformation” bill, and now, what will turn out to be “everybody has to link their ID to their internet usage”. That means privacy is not allowed, only the government opinion is allowed, and anything you say or look at will be catalogued and possibly used against you. And we have absolute dullards going “oh this is fine”, while our government behaves exactly like North Koreas with smaller steps.

@Ken M
Unlike North Korea, you have the right to air your “sovcit crackpot” views … and you certainly make use of this right at every available opportunity – to the amusement of those of us who enjoy seeing you let the bats in your belfry out for a run.

Maybe go take a look at the misinformation bill, genius. It makes criticising the governments financial policies a crime.

You’re not bright enough to understand this though. I’ll be laughing so hard when Dutton or somebody worse gets elected, and you have the AFP at your door over your left wing extremist criticiams of government. Maybe at that point you’ll pull your head out.

LOL
More like “Digital ID being enforced under the guise of child safety”.

It’s about control and surveillance. Removing anonymity from the internet. More authoritarian BS that must be strongly opposed.

Alice Thoreau10:31 am 12 Sep 24

Ken if you really wanted to use the internet anonymously you can – and at this moment the government has done nothing to stop you. There are plenty of resources on the internet where you can learn how! The social media businesses that this is targeting (I.e. Facebook etc.) have built online empires based on advertising from tracking you online. Surely if you cared about online privacy you would encourage changes that make it harder for these businesses to track people?

Alice, if you aren’t bright enough to see where these changes are heading, I really can’t help you. This proposal has absolutely nothing to do with social media platforms use of tracking cookies to deliver targeted advertising though.

People with your attitude are exactly why our society is becoming more and more Orwellian. You take no notice of governments slowly chipping away at peoples privacy. It’s sheer ignorance. Maybe have a think about what would be required for this to work. I’ve even called it out directly in my initial comment.

Wow – Ken

I am actually in 100% agreement with you!

Alice and many others don’t seem to appreciate these risks.

The common misapprehension seems to be that only kids will have to provide id to get into social media, it’s everyone.

Above and beyond which is the requirement that personal ID be provided to a range of companies that may, or indeed may not (example Optus), actually care about securely maintaining the

What happened to Bernard?!

Daily Digest

Want the best Canberra news delivered daily? Every day we package the most popular Riotact stories and send them straight to your inbox. Sign-up now for trusted local news that will never be behind a paywall.

By submitting your email address you are agreeing to Region Group's terms and conditions and privacy policy.