Zali Steggall (Warringah, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the government's Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Bill 2024. While I accept that there is a goal of dealing with online harms and protecting young people, I think this is incredibly misguided. It is a window-dressing attempt by the government to look like it is doing something about harm without actually doing anything that is going to be meaningful. I am concerned this legislation will backfire by driving underground the harms of social media, ultimately not preventing how young people access social media; they will find a way. What it will do is fail to hold social media companies accountable for moderating harmful content, which will still proliferate on these platforms.

The potential dangers of social media are undeniable. We're all concerned. I think we've all, in this place, been exposed to the darkness and the black hole of negativity that can exist there, and the anonymity of people dealing through social media, thinking that it's a platform on which they can speak and behave in the most atrocious way. But that doesn't get solved by just banning young people under 16 from these platforms. That gets solved by imposing a duty of care on these platforms, making them responsible for harmful content. That is where the government should be stepping up to the plate and actually doing what may be hard but is necessary to be done if you want to be a government that is taken seriously on protecting young people and all users from harm.

There's no doubt we need to get the balance right. Of course, protecting children is so important. But let's get real about the average age in this place. We are in a whole different age category. Young people have grown up online. For many, social media is not just a pastime; it's an important communication tool that connects them with peers and the wider community. It's been really interesting to listen to some of the justifications by members of government—and the Prime Minister has done it—talking about how they want to see kids back on the footy field and playing and all of those things. Of course, we want them to be active. But the suggestion that somehow banning social media is going to immediately result in this uptick in physical activity or social interaction without additional measures or any real research in how that's even going to happen is just taking Australians for fools, I think, in how this legislation has been drafted and presented and the time in which it has been put forward.

We also know that young people find their communities through social media. It's been fascinating for me as a mum of young adults now watching them being online and being concerned about the harms and influences but also then observing the benefits, seeing how through certain mediums they have had the opportunity to find their peers, find their tribe and feel connected. They are all the things that are at risk of being lost. Young people don't just access services through what the minister is indicating will be some exceptions. They actually also access information and services through their peers and friends relaying their experiences. That will all be lost.

I don't dispute there is a dark side to the internet and social media that urgently needs to be addressed. But we also need to be really clear. Young people tell me about the positive ways they engage on these platforms. They build their communities, they explore creativity, they start businesses, they learn, they get an opportunity to see beyond the boundaries of just the national issues or legacy media's take on events and they can connect with young people all over the world. This is something that has been unique to their generation. We know it also allows them to stay connected with family and friends. As a grandparent, how do you stay connected with a young person? Actually, it's through social media. It gives you a window into their world that you don't have in any other way.

Sadly, the government is not respecting the voices of young people here. I think it's telling to see just how little that's really being reflected in the government speeches. Instead, it is people in this place imposing their will on young people. Rather than representing them, they are imposing their will on them. It's a blunt policy tool that ultimately punishes young people while letting perpetrators of harmful content and the platform that hosts it completely off the hook.

The bill seeks to restrict users under the age of 16 from having a social media account by relying on social media companies to take reasonable steps for the age assurance of their users. In all my queries to the minister and the government as to what those reasonable steps are and how this age-assurance process will work, they've said they don't know. This is a complete unknown. This legislation is completely putting the cart before the horse. The government has no idea how this is going to work and yet it is taking up valuable time.

The bill's intervention is well meaning, as I said, and acknowledges the very real harm of online platforms. I do have concerns about that. But the effectiveness of this bill is highly in doubt and there are serious concerns about unintended consequences from this bill. I move:

That all words after "not" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:

"desire to give the bill a second reading and notes:

(1) the Age Assurance Technology Trial, conducted by the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications, and the Arts, has not yet been finalised and further debate on the bill should only occur when a comprehensive report has been presented to Parliament with the results of the trial;

(2) that the government is wasting the Parliament's time on a bill where the implementation is unclear and the effectiveness remains disputed by experts; and

(3) that the government is being selective on the harms they wish to protect young people from by prioritising the valuable resources and time of Parliament to pass a Bill that is not coming into effect until 2026, instead of introducing and progressing legislation that would restrict gambling advertising, despite having committed to do so, and having being unanimously recommended by a multipartisan House of Representatives committee and having overwhelming public support".

This bill should not be rushed through this parliament the way it has been. We should have a comprehensive understanding of how the measures can be implemented and the unintended consequences of the legislation. We know that the government has just awarded a tender for the age-assurance trial which will inform advice to the government and eSafety Commissioner on the implementation and enforcement of the bans. I ask the government to not call a vote on the second reading until the final report with the results of the age-assurance trial has been presented to parliament, so that parents and users can be informed.

The government is being selective on the harms that it wishes to protect young people from, and it is prioritising a blunt social-media ban over protecting young people from the harm of many real things, such as gambling advertising and the algorithm and how it works. Gambling advertising poses a significant concern for young people, and there are well-documented links to increased gambling participation. So the government is absolutely being selective about which harm it is choosing to prioritise, and I don't think it's a coincidence that it was when the government was under the pump about introducing a ban on gambling advertising that, all of a sudden, we got the posturing and the big announcement around an online age ban. The ban on gambling advertising was unanimously recommended by a multipartisan committee following an in-depth inquiry into the harms of gambling. The government has accepted that recommendation, and, yet, to date, has refused to take action.

On top of this, we know that polling shows that over 70 per cent of Australians want a ban on gambling advertising. If you want to win the favour of voters, act on banning gambling advertising. The message couldn't be any clearer. Instead, the government is focusing on a minimum-age bill, which was originally drafted, as I said, just in September. It's a distraction from their promise to ban gambling advertising. It ultimately won't be implemented until 2026, so why is this being rushed through without proper scrutiny, with only a couple of days in this parliament? This is bad government and bad governance.

When the bill was introduced last week, it was the first time we were able to read and understand the details of the proposed legislation. Now, in the last week of parliament, the government's expediting this bill and limiting the availability of parliamentary scrutiny and oversight of its effects.

We have serious concerns around privacy consequences. Ultimately, this bill will impact all users. It's not just the under-16s that will be banned. All users of social media will, to some extent, have to be assessed by those platforms as to whether or not they fall foul of it. What we know is that this bill requires much more scrutiny.

Last week, the bill was sent to the Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee. The committee accepted submissions for only 24 hours. If that is not a joke when it comes to public consultation, I don't know what more can be said. In that time, the inquiry was inundated with over 15,000 submissions. Clearly the public feels strongly about this issue—even more reason the bill should be subjected to proper scrutiny. Only yesterday morning were the committee able to hear from the community on the wide-ranging impacts of the bill. The committee will publish their recommendations today, but here we are debating the bill and shortly we'll be asked to vote on it. This is all only five days after the bill was sent to committee.

The government has even acknowledged that this is a short-term approach to protect young people whilst they continue to work on longer-term solutions for protecting people from harms online. The member for Goldstein has already introduced to the parliament her private member's bill that addresses much of those harms. If the government is not capable of coming up with proper legislation, then let's adopt the work that the member for Goldstein has done and get on with the real protection of people online through a duty of care.

There are no details from the government about any of their plans to legislate further protections. It's, 'Trust us; we've got this. We'll get to this.' But all we've got is a bandaid solution of just imposing a ban on under-16s.

If the government were serious about safeguarding young people from harms online, they could have introduced a temporary ban or fast-tracked work to implement a statutory duty of care for online platforms. Start dealing with bots online. Start dealing with anonymous accounts. Force some accountability and some monitoring of harm. Do something about the algorithm.

So I ask the government why it's prioritising this legislation, rushing it through parliament, knowing that it won't be implemented for a time and it doesn't even have a proper process. In contrast, gambling advertising is something that needs to be done.

When we talk about harm from online platforms, we know it's ever present, and certain groups, such as children and young teenagers, are at greater risk of this harm. Young people more than ever are feeling isolated and excluded, and some teenagers who use social media platforms have regularly reported finding lower life satisfaction than those who don't use online platforms. But we also know that others who feel isolated find their tribe and find great comfort in social media. We know that online platforms enable young people to endure cyberbullying, hate speech and online abuse, as well as harmful content.

All these potential harms are not to be understated, and they create a real and ongoing threat to their mental health. I agree that online platforms must be made to be responsible and to keep everyone safe on their platforms. They should be forced to promote respectful, honest, authentic content, a responsibility that these platforms often fail to fulfil. But nothing about this proposal does this. A blanket ban on social media is not the answer. In fact, the Butterfly Foundation, who represent Australians impacted by eating disorders and body image issues, have stated that a blanket ban takes the onus off platforms to do better and that it could negatively impact people looking for help who are socially and physically isolated. In restricting access for those under 16, the government has neglected the opportunity to regulate platforms to materially improve online safety for everyone. So I really ask the government to do better. Surely you can do better than this—than trying to just grab a headline and look like you're doing something about online, when really you're not.

I appreciate that for young parents this is incredibly distressing, and it's easy to think that banning it will be the solution. The reality is that it's just going to push it underground. It's still going to happen. I have a modern family of five. They're all adults now, but I know how tech savvy they are and what they do. For me, what is needed is legislation that would allow them to reset their default settings and that would make sure that the algorithms are much safer and that there is a responsibility and a duty of care. These are all things that would make a difference.

Of course, we also need greater education. Young people, and all users, need to understand how to be safer and more responsible digital citizens. This is an important piece of the puzzle to keep young people safe, but the government is not focusing on that—on what could actually be done.

I think of where kids have found their tribe online—for example, School Strike 4 Climate. Young people's lives have been online, and social media has played an important role in amplifying young people's voices when they might otherwise have been excluded, with their voices not being reflected in mainstream media. For example, Lucy Flynn is a 14-year-old from my electorate who, after recovering from an eating disorder, decided to make her own petition to call on the government to provide more public hospital beds for treatment of those with eating disorders. She harnessed the power of social media to tell her story and amplify the issues in eating disorder funding. So online platforms can provide a platform to reach people outside their geographical communities, provide an avenue for youth leadership on issues that matter to them, and provide the ability for young people to feel that they have control over their future. The government don't even want to be saddled with a duty of care to young people when it comes to the environment, and now they want to take away their capacity to mobilise and to have a voice when it comes to climate issues. School Strike 4 Climate is a classic example where thousands of young people came together to march on the environment minister's office and demand real and substantive climate action. This provided an invaluable opportunity for young people to have a voice and be heard in a way— (Time expired)

See this speech in context