Terry Young (Longman, Liberal National Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Bill 2024 before us today. Let me say from the outset I fully support the intent of this legislation, which is to protect our young people from the harms of online bullying—a scourge not only in our society, but globally. I'm sick and tired of hearing of another teenager who has taken their life due to online bullying. I'm tired of watching grieving parents plead for action on this serious issue. It is a common belief amongst those of us who have the privilege of being elected to serve that our first duty is the protection of all Australians.

My issues with this legislation are, as I said, not around intent, but I do have a problem with the mechanics and the rushed manner in which it is being rammed through. I suspect that it's for vote-grabbing reasons. Why else would you rush legislation through that doesn't take effect, if passed, until 2026? Could it be that there's an election in the first half of next year?

The Leader of the Opposition first announced this as coalition policy over 12 months ago, saying we would implement it within 100 days after the election should we have the privilege of winning government. This government have latched onto the Leader of the Opposition's initiative, but, as usual, they have done the headline vibe thing but haven't thought through the process. In contrast, the coalition have been methodically working through the many inevitable questions that arise from proposed legislation like this so that, should we win the election, we'll have a sensible, well thought out methodology that addresses all aspects of the bill, including keeping children safe as well as parents, social media and device hardware supply roles in the initiative while also considering protecting Australian citizens' privacy.

I was pleased to see that the government agreed to the coalition's amendment where social media companies cannot force people to upload their digital ID, driver's licence, passport or other government issued identification to verify their age. This is definitely a step in the right direction. However, I wasn't pleased to discover that some of the proposed methodology to age-verify users relies on social media companies effectively using data they accumulate on us by using algorithms and the like, such as determining that someone is under 16 from their posts for something as simple as having a 13th birthday party. The retort to this, of course, is that they already do it. By the way, I hate the fact that they collect all this data on us. But knowing about, condoning and even being complicit in encouraging their use of AI to monitor and collect data on us is something I simply cannot in good conscience support.

There is also talk of using facial recognition software for age identification. I know about this, but the thought of these companies capturing images with goodness knows what in the background doesn't inspire me with great confidence either. The other issue is that these social media companies can—and, I suggest, will—simply change algorithms so they begin to miss people's ages, as, make no mistake, they will lose revenue and profits if this legislation passes through, as they will enjoy a smaller market and customer base.

We haven't even spoken about the parents' roles in this. Why can't we legislate that the manufacturers of devices of anyone under 16 have to be tethered to their parents' device, through their Apple ID, family sharing, iCloud or other forms, so that the parents have the final say on what apps their kids can use? This also removes financial incentives for social media platforms, who, from what I can see, don't currently make the hardware that people use.

No solution is a silver bullet, and people always find ways around laws when they really want to. But that's no reason governments should not pass laws intended to protect people. Otherwise, we might as well have no age restrictions on alcohol, tobacco, gambling or movies. As we know, most Australians are law-abiding citizens and will comply with the laws of the day.

Having a legislated age restriction also gives parents the added ammunition to say to their kids when they inevitably ask, nag or beg to have a social media account: 'Sorry, it's against the law.' Sure, there are those who would say, 'That is weak parenting,' but not all families with children are the same for myriad reasons, and governments must try to consider all family dynamics and personalities when they are legislating, knowing full well that we will never be able to appease everyone or receive everyone's approval. But we must attempt to address the concerns and needs of as much of the population as possible.

As a father of four and a grandfather of five—I've got some boys, some girls, some under 16 and some over 16—I've seen firsthand the trauma and harm that social media does to our youth. My personal observation has been that, generally, once people reach the age of 16, they have the emotional stability and maturity to make better decisions about what they put on social media and what they read on social media. There are exceptions both ways, of course, but this age seems pretty right for most.

As I said at the beginning of my contribution, I absolutely support the intent of this bill in protecting and in some cases saving the lives of our young people, but I have reservations due to the rushed manner and lack of detail and methodology that is currently proposed in enforcing the legislation should it become law. I believe that the lives and mental health of our youth outweigh any possible implications around privacy, but I would much rather see this legislation be postponed until a full and proper process has been able to be completed, when we can actually see the detail of how the ID process will be enforced. It is far too important to be rammed through willy-nilly to try and win a few votes.

See this speech in context