Kylea Tink (North Sydney, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

In the 2½ years I've been in this place I have learned good government policy is created collaboratively, while poor policy is developed 'for others' through a top-down approach that does not involve those who stand to be most affected. Policy developed this way is frequently a recipe for disaster as unintended consequences swamp a good intention. I fear that's exactly what we are seeing in this Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Bill 2024, a piece of legislation that may be well intentioned but ultimately fails to deliver on its promise.

Rather than you taking my word for it, I want to share with you the words of one of my youth forum participants. He compared this ban to a mayor of a city who, in response to high rate of car crashes, decides to simply ban cars rather than fix the potholes, make seatbelt laws or provide more driver education. In his exact words, he said:

While that probably sounds silly, to young people like me, the government's plan to ban social media for under 16's applies the same logic—it doesn't fix anything and fails to recognize the benefits of social media for my generation.

With those words ringing in my ears, then, I stand today to put forward a contention that the policy that the government is moving appears to be more about quick political wins than doing something meaningful for our kids. They are not fixing the potholes; they are just telling our kids there won't be any cars. In pushing this legislation, the government has shown it's not prepared to listen to the voices of countless human rights groups and mental health experts who are concerned that a social media ban will not only be ineffective but will be harmful to many young people. They are also indicating that they do not care that this reform threatens to stop young people accessing much-needed mental health services and information and to isolate them from social community, all while driving them to less-regulated services. Perhaps even more galling, the legislation relies on the promise of an age assurance that would be unenforceable and could require all users, including adults, to share highly confidential and private information with platforms. While this legislation claims to be about protecting young Australians, it doesn't hold platforms to account to make their systems or their content safer for younger people.

It is not just the contents of this bill that is problematic, however; my community of North Sydney is equally frustrated by the government's determination to rush this legislation through parliament without proper scrutiny, particularly as this idea of a social media ban for under 16s was originally a thought bubble offered by the Prime Minister during a press conference where he was being peppered with criticism on why we are seeing inaction around the legislation for a ban on gambling advertising. While this legislation was rushed into the House last Thursday, was referred to a one-day Senate inquiry and will be pushed through the Senate this week, the gambling reform legislation is still nowhere to be seen.

Insultingly, those who wished to make a submission to the inquiry were given just 24 hours and a two-page limit. Despite this, media reports today suggest over 15,000 submissions were received. But with just three hours to hear the evidence, even if just one per cent of the people who submitted were invited to give their evidence, they would have just two minutes to speak. That's not a proper inquiry; it's a tick and flick.

The whole process around this legislation is disrespectful to the community and the experts in this space, and with more Australians than ever saying they do not trust our government, processes like this will not help. Trust is restored when you earn it by enabling transparency, deliberation and due process—all ideals from which the basis of a healthy democracy stems.

I turn to the bill itself. This bill sets a minimum age of 16 for social media users. It defines an 'age-restricted social media platform' as one where a significant purpose of the service is to enable online social interaction between two or more users, where users can link to or interact with other users, and where the service allows users to post material. The bill gives the minister the power to create additional conditions that could narrow the definition of an 'age-restricted social media platform', and the government has proposed using this power to exclude services such as WhatsApp, YouTube, certain educational and mental health services, and online gambling services, yet the reasons these platforms are exempt are opaque.

The bill establishes an obligation for providers to take reasonable steps to prevent under-16s from holding an account, with platforms expected to introduce systems and processes to meet that standard, while the eSafety Commissioner will be given powers to obtain information about compliance, with penalties of up to $49½ million for noncompliance. The ban will commence no sooner than 12 months from royal assent, while the government continues to fund an age-assurance technologies trial. The bill aims to prohibit platforms from using information collected for age assurance for any other purpose. Finally, it will be subject to an independent review within two years of the ban taking effect to consider necessary changes.

As the mum of three young adults, I'm very aware of the negative impacts of social media and the challenges of parenting in this digital world. However, I also recognise my children are digital natives and are very literate about how these platforms work. For this reason, I encourage everyone involved in this debate to ensure they are listening to the voices of young Australians when it comes to this decision-making process, rather than assuming that the grown-ups in the room know best.

Prevention United's recent news survey found that young Australians rated fears about the future and cost of living as the largest negative influences on their mental health, while social media was ranked only 12th out of 20 factors evaluated. For this reason, I fear we are grabbing at this as the simple answer to a challenge that is far more complicated. After all, young people understand the good and the bad of social media better than anyone.

Surely the issue here is not that social media as a whole is harmful but that these tools are designed to be addictive and that young people can be exposed to inappropriate content. If we want to solve that issue, then we need to do more than just impose an age ban. Ultimately, the addictive nature of social media platforms, coupled with the fact that there's no regulation governing their content, means that inappropriate content, harmful body images and mis- and disinformation will still be dished up, whether someone accesses that platform when they're 14 or 17.

We also can't ignore the fact that social media is being used by young people in positive ways, including to help them find community around shared interests or problems in fostering belonging. In fact, a recent study by the Black Dog Institute found these platforms offer adolescents opportunities to enhance wellbeing by strengthening existing relationships and reducing loneliness.

Crucially, social media is also increasingly being used as a gateway to access mental health services and information, with research conducted by ReachOut finding that nearly half of their youth service users access their services via social media, while the same number of young people use social media as a substitute for professional support. In this context, I can understand why many from the mental health sector are alarmed by the proposed ban.

The truth is that the demand for these types of services already far outstrips supply, and closing an important substitute pathway could be disastrous. As the bill's own explanatory memorandum says, young people 'vary substantially in how they use social media'. I ask, then: why is the government introducing such a blunt instrument that fails to differentiate between positive or problematic uses of social media? It's difficult to see this bill as doing anything other than avoiding dealing with the problems of social media head on, as it ultimately fails to hold platforms accountable for their online environments.

Separately, the government has announced plans to develop a duty-of-care framework to keep users safe, prevent online harm and hold platforms accountable.

See this speech in context