Scott Buchholz (Wright, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Speaker has received a message from the Senate transmitting a resolution agreed by the Senate relating to a proposed joint select committee on social media and Australian society. Copies of the message have been placed on the table for the information of all honourable members. The terms will also be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.

The resolution read as follows—

(1) That a select committee, to be known as the Joint Select Committee on Social Media and Australian Society, be established to inquire into and report on the influence and impacts of social media on Australian society, with particular reference to:

(a) the use of age verification to protect Australian children from social media;

(b) the decision of Meta to abandon deals under the News Media Bargaining Code;

(c) the important role of Australian journalism, news and public interest media in countering mis and disinformation on digital platforms;

(d) the algorithms, recommender systems and corporate decision making of digital platforms in influencing what Australians see, and the impacts of this on mental health;

(e) other issues in relation to harmful or illegal content disseminated over social media, including scams, age-restricted content, child sexual abuse and violent extremist material; and

(f) any related matters.

(2) That the committee present an interim report on or before 15 August 2024, and its final report on or before 18 November 2024.

(3) That the committee consist of a total number of 12 members, as follows:

(a) four nominated by the Government Whip or Whips in the House of Representatives;

(b) two nominated by the Opposition Whip or Whips in the House of Representatives;

(c) one nominated by minor party and independent members of the House of Representatives;

(d) two nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate;

(e) two nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate; and

(f) one nominated by the Leader of the Australian Greens in the Senate.

(4) That every nomination of a member of the committee be notified in writing to the President of the Senate or the Speaker of the House of Representatives.

(5) That the committee may proceed to the dispatch of business notwithstanding that not all members have been duly nominated and appointed and notwithstanding any vacancy.

(6) That the members of the committee hold office as a joint select committee until presentation of the committee's report.

(7) That 5 members of the committee constitute a quorum of the committee, provided that in any meeting of the committee, one member nominated by the Government and one member nominated by the Opposition shall be present.

(8) That the committee elect as chair a member nominated by the Government Whip or Whips, and as deputy chair, a member nominated by the Leader of the Australian Greens in the Senate.

(9) That the deputy chair shall act as chair when the chair is absent from a meeting of the committee or the position of chair is temporarily vacant.

(10) That, in the event of an equality of voting, the chair, or the deputy chair when acting as chair, have a casting vote.

(11) That the committee have power to:

(a) call for witnesses to attend and for documents to be produced;

(b) conduct proceeding at any place it sees fits;

(c) sit in public or in private;

(d) report from time to time; and

(e) adjourn from time to time and to sit during any adjournment of the Senate or the House of Representatives.

(12) That the committee be provided with all necessary staff, facilities and resources and be empowered to appoint persons with specialist knowledge for the purposes of the committee with the approval of the President and the Speaker.

(13) That the committee be empowered to print from day to day such papers and evidence as may be ordered by it, and a daily Hansard be published of such proceedings as take place in public.

Michelle Rowland (Greenway, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Communications) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the message be considered immediately.

Question agreed to.

I move:

(1) That the House concur in the resolution of the Senate relating to the establishment of a Joint Select Committee on Social Media and Australian Society; and

(2) That a message be sent to the Senate acquainting it of this resolution.

Social media has a civic responsibility to its Australian users and our society more broadly. Social media is part of everyday life in Australia, and social media companies play a role in determining what content Australian adults and children are exposed to online. Meta's recent decision to withdraw from paying for news in Australia demonstrates the negative impact these companies can have on Australian news businesses and our democracy. The Albanese government is committed to making social media companies more transparent and accountable to the Australian public, and the joint committee we seek to establish today will enable the entire parliament to undertake this task.

These companies have enormous control over what Australian citizens and consumers see and hear online. Their corporate decision-making impacts the sustainability of Australian public interest journalism and news media. Their business models incentivise maximising attention and screen time to drive profits, often at the expense of public interest objectives such as quality and accurate information and the best interests of children. We know algorithms and recommendation systems dial certain content up and down, often putting on repeat dangerous material, like misogynistic material that reinforces stereotypes counter to the interests of society. The spread of harmful or illegal content, like scams, age-restricted content, and child sexual abuse and violent extremist material, causes harm. The lack of action on misinformation and disinformation sows division, undermines trust and tears at the fabric of society.

The committee will also examine age assurance on social media, something the government has confirmed will be part of the trial funded in this week's budget. This is an important opportunity to scrutinise developments given its widespread interest to Australians. We want Australians to participate openly and safely in society with the same standards and expectations reflected online as well as offline. Social media platforms have immense power and influence, and parliament has a stake in ensuring this is deployed in accordance with our public interest objectives as a nation. Elevating issues in this way is when the parliament is at its best, working together with a common purpose. With the right incentives, social media can contribute more to the welfare of society, enhancing access to trusted sources of news and information and expanding participation in civic life. I call on the House to support this referral.

David Coleman (Banks, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Communications) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What we need in relation to social media is action, and unfortunately what we have seen from this government on the totemic issue of age verification for social media is inaction—so much so that in the motion establishing this inquiry into social media there was no reference to either age verification or age assurance. That is appalling, because the single most important issue facing Australian families when it comes to social media is what is happening to children in that environment.

This is an issue that is something of a defining issue for this era, because we're seeing incredibly disturbing things in the mental health outcomes of Australian children, especially girls. There is no more important issue than this, and we have to act. That's why in November—so, six or seven months ago—the coalition brought to this chamber legislation to act on the eSafety Commissioner's recommendation of March of 2023—so, 14 months ago—to get moving on a trial of age assurance technology for social media. It's right here on page 3 of the legislation that the coalition introduced to this chamber, where it includes establishing a minimum age for using a social media service. That's what we said, and the government actually came into this chamber and voted against it. That was a shameful thing for this government to do, and the government presumably did that on the instructions of this minister. It was a shameful and disgraceful decision that flies in the face of all the evidence about the need for action.

This is a government that never met a roundtable it didn't like—so many inquiries, consultations and roundtables. What about actually doing something about this issue? This is an issue that worries every Australian family, and this government's persistent inaction, right up to and including the terms of reference it proposed for this committee, betrays that lack of action. It's not surprising, because we've got a letter here from the minister to the Prime Minister, Anthony Albanese, in July of last year. Julie Inman Grant, the eSafety Commissioner, a widely respected public official, spent two years looking into the issue of age verification, protecting children online from pornography, social media and other things online.

The commissioner said, very sensibly, 'Let's trial this technology before mandating it and getting on with it.' That's what the commissioner said in March 2023—quite some time ago. In July 2023 the minister wrote a letter to the Prime Minister—and I have the letter here—saying that the pilot program, which is what the eSafety Commissioner recommended, would be 'an unnecessary distraction'. It says that here on page 2 of the letter. In other words, don't do it—don't do what the eSafety Commissioner, our top expert in this field, wants to happen, even though she's been working on it for two years. I'm speechless, but that's what this government did.

Then, a couple of weeks ago—14 months after the original recommendation—the government said, 'Actually, we will conduct this trial; we've wasted 14 months but we will conduct it now.' The language about that trial is pretty vague. It specifically mentions pornography, but it doesn't mention any other specific platforms. And when the minister was directly asked, on ABC radio last week, 'Will the trial include an age for social media?'—that is, Instagram, TikTok, Snapchat—and, 'Will there be age verification for social media as part of that trial?' she refused to answer that question directly. She has referred to age-restricted content, which is a completely different concept to age verification. This ongoing inaction is completely inexcusable. It makes no sense whatsoever. The coalition has been talking about this issue and calling for action for months and months. This government, has been in a position to act upon the recommendation of the eSafety Commissioner after the inquiry was commissioned by the previous government, but this minister said, 'No; we're not going to do it,' and that is patently wrong. We need a minister who can do more than simply read out talking points. We need actual leadership and action. Australian families are demanding it, and we are not seeing it.

If you think about the substance of this, we have a classification system for movies and TV shows. We never said, 'Let's get rid of the classification.' Nor should we, because nobody thinks a 10-year-old should be watching R-rated movies, presumably. Yet we know that on social media that and worse happens every single day. So why on earth would we embrace a system under which this happens when we have a clear recommendation from our top expert to do something different? That is the question.

We know that so much is happening around the world. Facebook has been using age verification for its Facebook dating product in the US for more than two years. They don't tend to publicise that because the social media companies don't want age verification to happen because it's probably not going to be good for their businesses, but Facebook has actually been doing this for more than two years for its dating product in the US. On 5 December, Ofcom, which is the regulator in the UK, published detailed guidance as to how age-assurance technology should be implemented for the purpose of the UK Online Safety Act. We've had Florida pass a law on this a few weeks ago along with numerous US states, and there's a lot of action in Europe as well, but there's ongoing inaction in this country.

This is a totemic issue. The data we're seeing about the mental health of Australian children is really disturbing. Some people—and some of those people work for social media companies—say: 'You know what? It's all a coincidence.' The fact that over the last decade we've seen extremely concerning rises in the mental health outcomes for Australian children, and the fact that that has coincided, effectively in a straight line, with the adoption of social media by Australian children is a complete coincidence. I don't buy that at all, and I don't think any sensible person does.

Between 2008-09 and 2021-22, we saw a 275 per cent increase in the rate of self-harm hospitalisations of Australian girls under 14. For girls and young women aged 15-19 over the same period, we saw a 71 per cent increase in those hospitalisations. These are hard things to talk about, but we must talk about them because they are very important. The US Surgeon General, who's the nation's top doctor, has had a bit to say on this. He said in March:

What's happening in social media is the equivalent of having children in cars that have no safety features and driving on roads with no speed limits. No traffic lights and no rules whatsoever. And we're telling them: "you know what, do your best—figure out how to manage it." It is insane if you think about it.

And he's right. It is insane if you think about it.

I spent the vast majority of my career before coming to parliament in technology. I was head of digital for Nine, and I was the chairman of Nine MSN. I think that technology generally has been very positive for our economy and for our society, but, if 99 per cent of technology has been positive, we need to have intellectual clarity and honesty and strength about the one per cent that is not. This issue is very much in this category. This is not business as usual. This is not about roundtables and consultative process. This is about getting stuff done to protect Australian children.

The world is moving on this issue. The evidence is very clear that action needs to be taken. Our top expert was ignored for 14 months, shamefully, by this minister. Now the minister needs to get on with it. The past doesn't matter. What matters is the future. Get moving on this age verification process to protect Australian children from social media, because there is no more important issue facing this minister and this government than this issue.

Question agreed to.