Dan Tehan (Wannon, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Immigration and Citizenship) Share this | Hansard source

I want to start by highlighting what the coalition has negotiated when it comes to the Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Bill 2024. It has negotiated some incredibly important amendments which we expect to see reflected as amendments in the Senate debate. These were important changes which all members in this House should note. In our view, they have significantly strengthened this planned piece of legislation.

The first area where we have improved this legislation is in relation to privacy, and I can't be clearer as to how important this is. There will be new provisions stating that people cannot be compelled to provide digital ID. That's worth repeating. People cannot be compelled to provide digital ID. They cannot be compelled to provide government-issued identity documents such as a driver's licence or a passport. Under this legislation, you cannot be compelled to provide a driver's licence or a passport, and you cannot be compelled to provide digital ID, full stop, period. That is what the legislation will say when it is amended in the Senate.

Secondly, following our discussions with the government, changes will be made so that the communications minister will be able to make rules specifying actions that social media platforms are not required to take in order to comply with the legislation. The minister can make sure that they can set rules that will dictate to the social media platforms the things they do not have to undertake. This means that these rules and the person who governs these rules will not be the eSafety Commissioner. It will be the minister. The minister can be held to account by the Australian people, and, if the minister doesn't do the right thing and doesn't instruct the social media platforms accordingly, then we have a way to deal with that, which is an election. If the minister cannot justify what they've done, then the minister obviously will be held to account by the Australian people.

These are incredibly important changes to an issue which is incredibly important. It's one that goes back a long way. It's not like we've come to this chamber today dealing with this issue for the first time. When I was education minister, now some six or seven years ago, Jonathan Haidt from the US, a well-known and well-regarded professor, came to this country, detailing the issues that he was already starting to see that social media was having on young people. He started talking about the harm that it was causing, in particular the mental health issues—the anxiety, depression, bullying and all sorts of other issues that were the impact social media was having on young people's minds. The statistics then were so staggering that it led me to push at an Education Ministers Meeting with all the state and territories for them to ban phones at schools. Sadly, it took many years after that for that to occur. But even then the data was so compelling that it became obvious that we had to start taking action to protect children.

We've gotten where we are today because of the evidence base that has been presented about the harm being caused. We've seen it in newspaper articles in the last five to six years or more, whether it be regarding the impact of bullying, youth suicide—young people, sadly, taking their lives—eating disorders or anxiety. Through all these things, we've seen that there is harm being caused. The question that we all have to answer is: why would you give young people under the age of 16 access to information and sites that we prevent them from having in the real world? Why would we allow them a mechanism where they can see child pornography at the age of 16 or below when you can't see that in the real world—when it's banned? Child pornography is obviously banned full stop—illegal. Pornography is only available to those over 18, yet we're providing the mechanism for those under 16 to see it.

Parents absolutely have a role to play, but parents also need help and some guidance from lawmakers—from us, a lot of whom are parents. We have to play our role to support parents. Parenting is critical in this. Parenting has the primary role, but we help parents by saying, 'The law backs you in saying that your child, if they are under 16, shouldn't get access to social media.' Let's not fool ourselves. The big social media companies can put in place the mechanisms to deal with this, and to deal with it in a way that doesn't mean you need to provide digital ID or government sanctioned ID. We have the tools to deal with this.

As with any law, what we also need to do is to assess its impact over time and to modify and change it over time—as we do with all laws. That is what this will enable us to do as well. We will be able to have committees look at it; have further advice given to us as legislators; and continue to take steps to keep children safe—to make sure that we're doing everything we can to stop the bullying and the eating disorders, and to basically make sure that young kids aren't getting access to gambling or pornography, which they shouldn't be getting access to.

Will it be perfect? No. Is any law perfect? No, it's not. But, even if it helps in just the smallest of ways, it will make a huge difference to people's lives. It will make a huge difference to the lives of families and to parents in how they're parenting their children, because if they're able to say, 'The law is on our side,' then it will help them to enforce the guidance that they want to give their children.

While we're on the subject of the large social media platforms, I want to talk about the impact that they're having more broadly on society, particularly when it comes to how news is generated in this country. Last week we had the very, very sad news that the Hamilton Spectator, the Portland Observer and the Casterton News will be closing down. To give you a sense of the history that we are losing in western Victoria as a result of this, the Hamilton Spectator was first published in 1859. It is definitely one of the longest-running newspapers in this country. There are many reasons why it is closing, and my hope is that someone might still come along and purchase it, but I wanted to take this opportunity to thank Richard and Nola Beks for everything they've done to make sure that the newspapers, since their first time taking over the Hamilton Spectatorwhich was in 1985—have been the distinguished newspapers that they are.

As we all know in this place, newspapers sometimes give us as MPs a good, positive run. At other times, they'll ask serious questions about why we've voted this way or that way. But I have always found the Hamilton Spectator, the Casterton News and the Portland Observer have had absolute integrity in the way they've gone about their journalism. They've done the best they possibly can to make sure they've advocated on behalf of their local communities, and have ensured that those communities have a voice. I want to thank the Beks family, and can I take this opportunity to thank, in particular, Richard Beks, for his stewardship of these newspapers, as well as all the journalists that have worked for the newspapers over a long period of time.

I was in Casterton recently. They were hit by a huge hailstorm. Who was there? The local journalist, making sure that the reporting of what was happening was accurate and that the community was being heard. Thank you, Kristy. The Hamilton Spec has always done that on behalf of their community, as has the Portland Observer. I was in Portland recently with the head of Alcoa. There was wonderful reporting on what was happening out at the smelter—an incredibly important business for Portland and its future. In the same way, the Spec has done it year in, year out for all that time, dating back to 1859. Thank you to the Beks for what you have done. Thank you to all those journalists who have worked for those three newspapers over this long and distinguished period. It is a sad day for our community and, as I've said, my hope is that someone might step in and purchase them so that that community presence that those newspapers represent can continue.

Debate adjourned.

Leave granted for second reading debate to resume at a later hour.

See this speech in context