22 November 2024

Social media ban for under-16s a step closer, but it'll be a 'difficult task'

| Chris Johnson
Join the conversation
18
Hands holding mobile phone

Legislation to ban under-16s from using social media has been introduced to Federal Parliament. Photo: Michelle Kroll.

Legislation to ban under-16s from using social media has been introduced to the Federal Parliament, with Anthony Albanese acknowledging it will be a “difficult task” to implement the proposed new laws.

Introduced on Thursday (21 November), the bill is an amendment to the Online Safety Act and has world-leading provisions.

“This is something no government around the world has been able to achieve yet,” the Prime Minister said.

“This is a global problem and we want young Australians, essentially, to have a childhood. We want parents to have peace of mind. I want them to communicate – young person to young person – not just through their devices.

“We know social media is doing social harm. We want Australian children to have a childhood, and we want parents to know the government is in their corner.

“This is a landmark reform. We know some kids will find workarounds, but we’re sending a message to social media companies to clean up their act.”

The bill says little about how social media platforms will be made to comply with the new rules and enforce a ban on under-16s from creating and using an account.

READ ALSO ‘What is wrong with you?’ Senate outrage over lack of staff while Labor rams through legislation

The terms “likely have”, “some form” and “age assurance” (as opposed to age verification) are used.

The legislation does not seek to stop people under 16 from watching videos on YouTube or seeing content on Facebook but is focused on preventing accounts from being created.

The Federal Government says its Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Bill 2024 aims to deliver greater protections for young Australians during critical stages of their development.

It will require social media platforms to take “reasonable steps” to prevent under-16s from having accounts.

The law places the onus on social media platforms, and not parents or young people, to take “reasonable steps” to ensure these protections are in place.

The bill will create a new definition of age-restricted social media platforms, including Snapchat, TikTok, Instagram and X among others.

It seeks to ensure young Australians have continued access to messaging and online gaming, as well as access to health and education-related services like Headspace, Kids Helpline, Google Classroom and YouTube.

Stronger penalties for online safety breaches will be introduced, which will see digital platforms face fines of up to $49.5 million for systemic breaches.

Communications Minister Michelle Rowland said the new law will contain robust privacy provisions, including requiring platforms to ringfence and destroy any information collected to safeguard the personal information of all Australians.

She said the law is designed to be responsive to changes in technology and services and is aimed at supporting parents to keep their children safe online.

“This legislation will go a long way to providing that support and creating a new normal in the community around what age is okay to use social media,” she said.

“Platforms have a responsibility to provide safe products and look after the mental health of young Australians.

“We need to create a strong incentive for compliance and increasing the maximum penalties for online safety breaches to up to $49.5 million brings our penalty framework into line with other laws.

“Keeping children safe – wherever they are – is a collective responsibility, and the Albanese Government is stepping up to play our role.”

READ ALSO No one’s rushing to help Pocock get more senators for the ACT

The legislation was designed following extensive feedback from young Australians, parents, experts, industry, community organisations and state and territory governments.

There are no grandfather provisions in the bill, making it difficult and unclear how the social media platforms will manage their millions of existing young users who must be excluded and “de-platformed”.

Opposition Leader Peter Dutton supports the ban and placed pressure on the government to introduce the legislation now so it can be seated before parliament rises for the year.

Once passed, the new laws would see Australia lead the world in banning social media for children and young teenagers.

Some countries have already set in train laws to curb social media use by children, but none have tried using biometrics or government identification methods as proposed by the Albanese government.

Just how age verification (or age assurance) will be policed remains a mystery. The planned age limit is also set higher in Australia than it is in other countries.

Join the conversation

18
All Comments
  • All Comments
  • Website Comments
LatestOldest

This isn’t about children it’s about censoring voting age adults. Albo is a spineless coward.

@Oscar Mike
Can you explain how a bill which targets social media access for under 16’s, has anything whatsoever, to do with ‘voting age adults’, let alone censorship?

Perhaps you need to actually read the article, and then try to demonstrate some ability to comprehend what you read.

yes, anyone can see that.

How do you think the ban will be enforced? By requiring all people using particular sites to use government approved identification. It’s in the explanatory document, and the tender for building it has already gone out.

@TheSilver
So adults that verify their bone fides will be able to access the sites – how is that censorship?

Well, you’d have to:
a) trust the government; and
b) trust the Social Media platform for a start.

You’d also have to use your real name. I like to keep my identity to myself, thank you.

I also don’t like the government possibly knowing what sites I use. It’s not like they are trustworthy in any way, shape or form.

If this gets up, I’ll just tunnel the whole internet link to a better country.

@Tom Thumb
I don’t have a social media account, but my understanding is that you are supposed to give your real name and details. So, it’s hardly censorship if that requirement is enforced?

HiddenDragon9:22 pm 22 Nov 24

The fairly unsurprising announcement today from the Greens that they will not support the enabling legislation for the under-16 ban is going to make this “interesting” for a federal Labor Party which is struggling to keep a 3 in front of its primary vote share.

Anticipation of the Greens’ position might be another reason why Labor have left themselves 12 months worth of wriggle room.

In spite of the (apparent) break-neck impatience of the Coalition and thus certain passage of the legislation, this still has a long way to run (particularly with a yet to be installed Trump likely to be seriously displeased) – but anyone who cares in the slightest about government overreach needs to keep a very close eye on this.

GrumpyGrandpa5:38 pm 22 Nov 24

No one wants to put a child or young person at risk. If anything, I was probably a bit of a “helicopter parent” to ensure our kids were safe, had good values, morals etc. Banning kids under 16 years from social media, I just don’t know? Is it a bridge too far?

There are a lot of things in society that could be criminalised, but governments elect to “educate” people. The relaxation of our drugs laws is a good example.

In general, I believes that laws that don’t have consequences are pointless. If social media users under 16 face no consequences, but the media companies cop big fines, aren’t we just trying to make a overseas multinational responsible for something that parents should be responsible for?

I guess with an election due next year, no party is going to be arguing that it’s the parent’s responsibility and they will wear the consequences.

I am pleased that both sides of parliament are on the same page, meaning this initiative isn’t political, but for goodness sake, it must the workable. Just maybe, this is a good example where some serious “education” is the sensible first approach, aimed at both the under 16s and their parents.

From day dot, our modern society abuses the child, arranging society in such a way that mum has to go to the office and the child has to go to some childcare centre. Studies (as if they were even needed) have shown that such premature separation between child and parent has quite negative effects on the child’s development, and yet instead of taking this seriously – as caring for humanity’s future would demand – moderns simply wilfully turn a blind eye, and rationalise the situation by saying something like “that’s the way life is now, and what can we do?”

I therefore can not take anyone or anything seriously that treats life like it’s a trivial matter; where they’re utterly prepared to devastate the child from early on – and in many ways besides the means mentioned above – and then appear to have deep concern for them all of a sudden, when it suits.

At best, this is all grossly half-arsed at best – but probably much worse – and such indifference or coldness lacks the intensity that qualifies for life, giving every indication we’re now surrounded by zombies

Ugh, there are so many things wrong with this bill. It reads as a thinly-veiled attempt to push through mandatory digital ID. Forcing Australians to hand over sensitive personal information under the guise of safeguarding children is invasive and shameful.

The fact that the government provided such a short timeframe for public submissions is also telling. Rushing through legislation with such far-reaching consequences with next to no consultation is a hell of a power move, not to mention an insult to democratic processes and community input.

Getting a bit tired of this government thinking they can play Daddy. This bill assumes parents are incapable of managing their kids’ social media use, which is not only patronising, but gross. Parents need education and tools to guide their children; not heavy-handed laws that erode privacy and expand surveillance.

If this bill is really about protecting children (which it isn’t, because if it was they’d be banning adult content too), then let’s have an open, thoughtful conversation about meaningful solutions based on correctly interpreted research, not a rushed push to implement dangerous and poorly thought-out policies.

They consulted people. They were told by 90% of the people they consulted that it was a terrible idea. The feedback was overwhelmingly negative, and they ignored it. This has nothing to do with protecting kids. It’s about attaching your real identity to everything you do, say or look at on the internet. Between this and the anti encryption bill, any Australian not already using a VPN that guarantees not to log anything is an oblivious fool at this point.

Spot on. That they ignored the overwhelming terrible feedback makes it clear this is about control, not protecting kids. As an aside, I can’t believe how many people seem ambivalent about protecting their digital freedoms, or don’t believe the government would ever use a bill like this for evil. It’s madness.

More like “Australia a step closer to authoritarian, communist China with mass surveillance plan disguised as child safety measure.”

Xi will be pleased

Well he and Albo are already mates by the sound of it.

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.