Allegra Spender (Wentworth, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

I move:

(1) Schedule 1, item 16, page 11 (after line 21), at the end of section 239B, add:

(4) If the report of the review sets out one or more recommendations to the Commonwealth Government, the Minister must, within 6 months after receiving the report:

(a) cause to be prepared a statement setting out:

(i) the Commonwealth Government's response to each of the recommendations; and

(ii) if the Commonwealth Government has not accepted a recommendation—the reasons for not accepting the recommendation; and

(b) cause copies of the statement to be tabled in each House of the Parliament.

The evidence is clear that social media platforms are not safe for our kids, and the community wants action. While I have great concerns around the process around the Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Bill 2024, I will be supporting this bill. In Wentworth, more than nine in 10 people who responded to my community survey said they were concerned about the impact of social media on young people, highlighting issues like online bullying, screen addiction and exposure to harmful content. Parents in my community want their kids growing up playing outside with their friends, building real relationships with real people, rather than being stuck inside staring at a screen. As a parent myself, that is what I want for my children too. But, even if it is done right, imposing a minimum age of 16 for social media is a blunt instrument and an unprecedented intervention into the lives of our young people.

For such a profound piece of legislation, the haste with which the government has rushed this through the parliament, the lack of engagement that has been undertaken with certain affected stakeholders and the unanswered questions that remain for many parliamentarians is concerning, including what happened in the House just now, where the minister did not even deign to reply to the issues raised in consideration-in-detail amendments by the member for Goldstein. This is absolutely riding roughshod over parliament in a completely unacceptable and unaccountable way.

I want this legislation to work, but the jury is out in terms of whether it will actually be able to have the impact that people want it to and the practicality of whether it can be put in place. That is why I believe it's absolutely critical that, after the ban has been implemented, we have a robust process in place to assess its effectiveness and adjust our approach accordingly. We need to be guided by the evidence, not by obstinacy. Clause 239B of the bill requires the government to commission an independent review of the social media minimum age ban two years after it comes into effect. The independent review is welcome and important. It gives the government of the day the chance to review whether the plan is working and adapt its approach if not. It will have the benefit of evidence from the government's age-assurance trial, the duty of care for social media companies hopefully having been legislated and the two years worth of data on the effectiveness of the ban. However, on the way the review provision is currently drafted, my understanding is that there is not currently a requirement for the government to respond to the review's recommendations. This creates the potential for a scenario like we have with gambling ads, where a detailed inquiry has made clear recommendations to the government and yet we are still waiting for a proper response.

My amendment would ensure that this does not happen by requiring the government to formally respond to any recommendations made by the independent review within six months of receiving it. It is a modest and commonsense amendment that reflects similar requirements in places like New South Wales, where the government of the day is required to provide a formal response to certain inquiries within six months. I understand that the government does not intend to support any amendments in the House, but I would request that the minister commits today to provide a formal response to the independent review as and when it is presented in a few years time.

See this speech in context