Andrew Wallace (Fisher, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That this House:

(1) notes that:

(a) anonymous perpetrators of family, domestic and sexual violence use social media to bully, harass, and target their victims;

(b) anonymous predators use social media to groom, traffic and exploit children;

(c) anonymous parties and organised crime gangs use armies of operatives and automated bots to radicalise, terrorise and steal from vulnerable Australians; and

(d) the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs, in 2021 recommended the introduction of identity verification for social media platforms to strip malicious actors of their anonymity in an effort to prevent technology-facilitated abuse;

(2) acknowledges that:

(a) this recommendation was made with bipartisan support; and

(b) the ongoing, and in some cases default, application of end-to-end encryption on social media and messaging platforms risks undermining existing mechanisms to deploy, detect, disrupt, and prosecute harmful and unlawful conduct;

(3) further notes that the Government did not support recommendation 30 of the final report on the Inquiry into family, domestic and sexual violence;

(4) condemns the Government for its:

(a) refusal so far to support the recommendation to implement a mandated social media identification verification regime;

(b) failure to address the child safety, organised crime, and national security risks posed by online anonymity; and

(c) patent fealty to big tech, big porn and the big end of town; and

(5) calls on the Minister for Communications to:

(a) charge the eSafety Commissioner with expeditiously developing a roadmap toward social media identification verification within 12 months; and

(b) commence the implementation of the social media identification verification regime within three months of its release.

I want to acknowledge the efforts of the previous Social Policy and Legal Affairs Committee, of which I was the chair, and I want to acknowledge the shadow minister for communications, who's sitting at the table. He was also the minister for mental health in the former government. There is a lot of discussion at the moment around social media. Mr Speaker, you, quite rightly, threw me out of question time last Thursday because I saw red when the Prime Minister was spruiking what the Labor Party were doing in relation to social media protections. This government has sat on its hands for two years and fought us every step of the way.

The shadow minister for communications and I stood up here in November when he moved a private member's bill to introduce age verification for social media, online gambling and porn, and those opposite rejected it. They fought us every step of the way. Now, without justification, some six or seven months later, they're standing up and crowing about all of these wonderful things that they purport that they're going to do in relation to protecting young people online. They've only done this because parents in Australia have mobilised. They have prepared petitions. Tens of thousands of people have signed these petitions calling on this government to get its act together in relation to social media. They have now finally made a political decision to do something, but, when we start scratching away at the surface of what this government plans to do in relation to age verification, it looks about as useful as—I probably need to be careful what I say. But, when we scratch away at the surface, we can see that there are a lot of holes in what the communications minister intends to do.

In relation to identity verification, I was also the Chair of the Social Policy and Legal Affairs Committee. The good member behind me, the member for Grey, was also on that committee and did some great work on that committee. Domestic violence is a scourge in our community—an absolute scourge—and social media has a significant part to play. But, once again, the government is left wanting. Once again, the opposition has to drag this government kicking and screaming to implement anything in relation to safeguards—in this case, particularly for women who are being abused by their partners or former partners online. This is inexcusable. The member for Jagajaga was also a part of that committee. What we came up with as a committee was a recommendation that, if you want a social media account, you need to be identifiable.

Some people are going to find this very uncomfortable. One of the biggest problems we have with social media is anonymity. If you hide behind anonymity, you can say whatever you like without fear of being sued for defamation or having the police knock on your door. The identification of people who use social media accounts is as important as age verification. If you threaten someone on social media, if you threaten a partner or a former partner, don't you think they should be able to go to the police and say: 'Here's his Facebook account. Here's what he has said to me on social media'? I would have thought that would have been a relatively uncontroversial statement, an uncontroversial principle, but yet again this government is asleep at the wheel, and yet again it continues to be dragged kicking and screaming in relation to introducing social media reform.

I'm going to continue to work with our shadow minister, the shadow minister for communications, to hold the government to account, to implement the recommendations of both the Protecting the age of innocence report and our domestic violence report. We'll continue to do that, and I thank the Deputy Speaker for his indulgence.

Mike Freelander (Macarthur, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the motion seconded?

Zoe McKenzie (Flinders, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The motion is seconded, and I reserve my right to speak.

Lisa Chesters (Bendigo, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is disappointing to hear the comments of the member opposite in relation to this motion. He hasn't been genuine in presenting the case to the parliament about the recommendation that is so exercised in this motion. To listen to his contribution, you would think that one recommendation would solve all domestic and family violence and abuse. It will not. That's what I think is really disappointing about what the member has put forward.

The motion that has been put forward and the suggestion made by those opposite is dangerous in the sense it is taking the issue of age assurance beyond what was ever recommended by the eSafety Commissioner. It also suggests that one recommendation would stop all online abuse, family and domestic violence and abuse, and it's just not the case. The motion is suggesting all users of social media, social engines and other digital platforms should provide identification documentation to big tech. I want to highlight this point to the member opposite, who, as somebody in this place who voted against the government's proposal, the digital ID, is now suggesting that big tech should be the keepers and the holders of 100 points of identification not just for adults but for minors. We're talking about input age verification and proof-of-age documents—including birth certificates, including licences—to platforms like TikTok. I wonder what Senator Paterson would say about the member's motion! TikTok, Facebook/Meta and Twitter/X would all require that 100 points of identification. Will they store it properly? There are complications with that recommendation which the government is methodically working through.

My real disappointment is the way in which the member opposite has tried to use this motion to completely ignore what we are doing to combat the scourge of family and domestic violence. The government is moving forward in this area, and a number of measures have already been introduced and are being worked on. Particularly in this area, the government has announced it will fund an age assurance trial. The reason it's a trial is to make sure we get the technology right. Its purpose is to prevent minors from accessing online pornography—which is illegal to minors, but they are still accessing it. It will examine how age limits for social media can be better implemented.

The Albanese government is addressing family, domestic and sexual violence through delivering its National Plan to End Violence against Women and Children. This isn't something that appeared in the member's motion. It is addressing the role of pornography and social media in contributing to harmful social behaviours and reinforcing stereotypes and attitudes towards children and women amongst adults, children and young people. The Albanese government is building on the work of the eSafety Commissioner with better support for individuals who are experiencing technology-facilitated abuse. The point I want to make this is that if you are a perpetrator of violence against women, you do it anonymously and you do it just with your own account. That is the reality of the situation we are in. People will use their own accounts. They will use their friends' accounts if they want to perpetrate violence. And that is why we cannot single in on one—let's just get rid of anonymous—it doesn't stop family and domestic violence.

I remember back in the late nineties and early eighties there was this group in Melbourne called the Black Shirts, and they would harass women and their children who had left family and domestic violence. They'd letterbox the neighbourhood, they'd turn up with loudspeakers and they'd harass women who took the brave step of leaving. You don't need 100 points of verification to jump on a megaphone, so to suggest that this one recommendation solves all the problems is really unfair and irrational. In conclusion, this is a complex issue that needs action. That is why this government is implementing the National Plan to End Violence against Women and Children.

Zoe McKenzie (Flinders, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'll start my remarks on this motion by making some observations about the member who moved it. The member for Fisher is one of the true gentlemen in this place—of great intellect and even greater patience. He tackles our society's challenges with curiosity, empathy and a determination shown by few—certainly shown by few on the other side. In this particular area of policy the member for Fisher has been dogged, pushing for reform from the time the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs, which he chaired in the 46th parliament, delivered its report Protecting the Age of Innocence back in March 2020. The member for Fisher and I have become firm friends and collaborators on this topic and the related topic of the danger social media poses as a method of radicalisation and extremism, as well as a vector for foreign interference—matters we considered together in another place as members of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security.

For all the fine attributes and intelligence of the member for Fisher, it should come as no surprise that he grew up in the great electorate of Flinders, and that he has the good sense to be furthering the high quality of the Wallace family gene pool in Flinders, with the first grandchild recently born there. Our future is safe in Flinders with young Finley.

The Protecting the Age of Innocence report recommended the introduction of identity verification for social media and other internet platforms from which our children should be protected, including pornography. It's a topic on which this side of the parliament has been persistent for some time. The member for Fisher has raised it many times, to the point of being thrown out of the chamber for his persistence. The shadow minister, the member for Banks, has been just as forthright, introducing the Online Safety Amendment (Protecting Australian Children from Online Harm) Bill 2023 to conduct a trial of age verification technologies—a bill which was ignored by this Albanese government until they realised—all too late—they had a crisis on their hands.

When I delivered my maiden speech almost two years ago, I spoke about the impact of technology on young minds. I reflected on both the good and the bad of gen Z's extraordinary digital dexterity and how their smart toys had opened up the world's wisdom to their fingertips. But, having just come out of two years of COVID lockdowns, where we saw our children glued to their screens as their only means of communication with the outside world, it became rapidly clear that the digitisation of the developing minds—and, in particular, their daily disappearance down the social media rabbit hole—was sending our girls down a path to misery and our boys down a path to mediocrity.

The member for Fenner reminded me the other day that when social media began in 2007 it was but an extension of the phonebook; ways of finding each other, like a phonebook but with some photos. Somewhere around 2010 that all change. The smart phone had put social media in our pockets 24/7, and then the social media platforms found ways of getting them out of our pockets and into our faces 24/7. Notifications, like buttons, shares, filters and follows all produce what the US academic and author Jonathan Haidt now calls 'the great rewiring of childhood'. Unwittingly, we have given our children the weapons of self-destruction: high-speed data plans, front-facing cameras, Instagram, Snapchat, reddit, Discord and TikTok, among others. The trees they climbed have been replaced by the keys they tap. And, foolishly, we all think that they're safer because we can see them sitting there on the couch for eight hours a day with their necks permanently bent down to the screens. But they are not safe.

A few months ago, I asked Reset.tech to run an experiment for me, to test how long it would take to get recommended systems or algorithms to recommend Andrew Tate content to someone who was just curious about Jordan Peterson. Reset.tech set up a new 17-year-old male's account on Instagram on a completely fresh handset with a new sim installed. The Instagram account was clean and there were no previous interactions or activity. The new account watched and liked 50 of the top Peterson posts and then scrolled through the content being recommended on Instagram reels while continuing to watch and like posts containing Jordan Peterson. After 70 pieces of content, the fake 17-year-old boy's account was recommended a video of Andrew Tate. The content featuring Andrew Tate grew in frequency over the duration of experiment. Of the last 30 pieces of content that Reset.tech examined, 29 featured Andrew Tate.

This experiment took under two hours to complete, meaning that a teenage boy showing an interest in the work of Jordan Peterson would encounter Andrew Tate within about an hour. If that teenage boy then watches or likes the Andrew Tate content by the two-hour mark, the system will almost exclusively feed him Tate content. So we can see that as our sons or daughters sit on the couch, heads down on social media, they're anything but safe.

I do congratulate this government for setting up the Joint Select Committee on Social Media and Australian Society but, as the member for Fisher said, 'By golly, they were brought to it kicking and screaming,' and much too late.

Kate Thwaites (Jagajaga, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you to the member for Fisher for raising this motion. I know that these are issues he has been concerned about for a long time, and that he has been working on for a long time.

Unfortunately, we didn't see much action on these really important issues from the previous Liberal-National government during their 10 years in office, so there is a lot of work to be done. Indeed, I would hope that all members in this place recognise that there are serious harms associated with social media platforms, including where perpetrators of domestic and family violence lurk. There's vital work to be done to ensure we reduce the harms associated with the use of social media and, unlike the previous Liberal-National government, our government is up to the challenge. We see the challenge and we're working on the challenge of technology facilitated abuse on a number of fronts.

We have provided $16.6 million in funding to the eSafety Commissioner, providing a team of experts to support victim-survivors of technology facilitated abuse, and we're extending the national online safety awareness campaign to help protect Australian women from severe online abuse, including the sharing of explicit images without consent, illegal and violent content, and severe harassment and threats. We're funding an age assurance trial to prevent minors from accessing online pornography, and examining how age limits for social media can be better implemented. Just this week, the Attorney-General announced new laws to ensure that people who share deepfake pornography face serious issues. So there are a number of fronts on which we're working on this. And this isn't a challenge that Australia is grappling with alone: governments and communities worldwide are trying to find a way through from what, essentially, has been a Wild West of online social media platforms being allowed to do what they want to regulating them in a way which regulates harmful behaviours with appropriate controls and safeguards.

We need to get the policy settings right for all Australians. Social media platforms, deservedly, should be held to account for their role in all of this. We need to act thoroughly and effectively, and we also need to make sure, as part of that action, that we aren't exposing people, especially young people, to privacy risks. There are risks with big tech being provided with someone's identity and private data. We know, certainly, that big tech does not have a good track record in protecting people who use their platforms. In fact, they're much more likely to spread data to places that people have no idea about than they are to protect it. Of course we have a number of foreign companies involved in this space particularly, and there's a lot of discussion in this parliament, especially by those opposite, about the owners of TikTok being based in China. So we have to acknowledge the harm but we have to do the work thoroughly, because we do not want to expose people, especially young Australians, to further harm at the hands of big tech companies which are just looking to make a quick buck from them.

So I look forward to working with the member for Fisher and the member for Flinders and other members of the parliament as part of the new inquiry our government has initiated into the influence and impacts of social media on Australian society, which I will chair. Our inquiry will seek to hear from a range of experts as well as media and social media outlets, but importantly we will also get feedback from a wide range of Australians about the role that social media plays in their lives and the need to address the harms that we are seeing. We are clear that the way social media operates in Australia right now cannot continue as it has been. We need to see change for all Australians. We need to have a safer online environment, including for young people.

I really hope and expect that we can do that work in a way that works across this parliament to protect Australians, without hurling inflammatory language and accusations at each other, actually recognising that it is our duty to work together to protect Australians and young Australians and to hold big tech to account for the harms that they have too long washed their hands of, to look to how we build better online spaces and places. This is work that falls on all of us in this parliament. It is best done constructively, without insulting each other.

There is a lot still to be done. There is a lot of work underway. The role that social media is playing in our society and others is rightly being put under a microscope right now. I look forward, through the inquiry that we will have, to bringing together experts and other Australians to find a way through, to prepare for a reasonable, implementable way to protect Australians from social and online media harm.

David Gillespie (Lyne, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This motion by the member for Fisher is very important—in fact, one of the more important private member's motions that have come to this chamber. Identity verification is the root issue, and the need to install it into social media. Social media is an essential evil, almost. It's part of life now. We all have horror stories of what happens on social media to young people, naive people, old people. There are scammers. There are people who used to be burglars at night or violent offenders in the general public. They are the highwaymen of the digital age. They prey on the assumption that they are never identified as the real perpetrator, so identity verification is everything. The rule of law depends on identity. If you don't know who is doing something wrong, how do you sue them or put them in jail or charge them? It is fundamental. How do legal titles exist unless, at the end of the chain of legal titles, you have a real person?

Identity is everything, and identity verification on social media is key to stopping all the social media ills that we're all familiar with. We operate in that field, as active politicians, and we've had to identify ourselves and go through lots of hoops to convince Facebook and Instagram that we are real people. If it can be done for us, why isn't it done for everyone on social media? We need to get into the social media space—not through the eSafety Commissioner; this should be an international movement. We can do our bit, but, as we have all seen, our eSafety Commissioner is like a mosquito bite to social media giant companies. They just brush us off. Admittedly, we can do stuff within our digital boundaries—geolocking—but we need to get identity confirmed so that we can defend our young people, older people and naive people from scammers, grifters, people grooming children, child abusers, violent offenders and the mid-African scammers, who seem to have a field day in Australia.

It has been alleged by several speakers that we did nothing about this. We put up a committee of inquiry into this very issue and made many recommendations. In an attempt to prevent technology facilitated abuse, the Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs, in 2021, did recommend the introduction of identity verification for social media platforms to strip malicious actors of their anonymity. We have now the emergence of artificial intelligence. That is yet another critical issue that will make everyone vulnerable if the person getting the fake persona on social media isn't verified.

Mr Deputy Speaker Freelander, you could appear in an AI generated video soon, as could senators in this building. You don't just have to be highly known actors or billionaires to get scammed. Everyone could scam anyone if we don't have proof of identity. We have the technology. We can't say it's too hard or too difficult. We have this thing—blockchain. Why can't we all get a digital blockchain badge that we have to submit to social media so that users knows if we're a real person. Then they'll know you are a real person. Unless we really get more technologically advanced than blockchain, we should be able to have a way of making it quick and easy without displaying all our details. It's just that rubber stamp: yes, that's a real person. A lot of these problems will then vanish because, if you're known and you're saying outrageous, libellous stuff or you're running a scam, people can track you down.

This is a really important issue. I'd like to thank the member for Fisher for putting it up. We want our children to be safe on social media. We've got to realise that, for kids, social media is not your friend. Wait till you grow up. Like driving and voting and serving your country, you have to be over a certain age.

Luke Gosling (Solomon, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think we all, in this place, want to protect our kids from online harm. So, when members opposite say that that's not the case or suggests that they're morally superior, it brings them some deep shame. I'm so happy to hear that my friend and colleague, the member for Jagajaga, is going to be chairing an inquiry.

The coalition, through this private member's motion, are taking the issue of age assurance to a dangerous extent, well beyond the recommendations of the eSafety Commission, the experts in the field. They are suggesting that all users of social search engines and other digital platforms should provide identity documents to big tech. We know this because the member himself, when chair of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs in 2021, recommended the introduction of identity verification for social media platforms. This has the potential to require children—minors under the age of 18—to use their birth certificates to access the internet.

The coalition's approach has serious implications for minors' privacy. It enables big tech to access our children's private identity information. I'm confident that my constituents in Solomon will not want their children providing this sort of information to big tech.

Our government continues to address these issues in a coherent and integrated way rather than by relying on dangerous, broadbrush identification processes. The government has funded an age assurance trial with the express purpose of preventing minors from accessing online pornography. We are committed to trialling technologies for age assurance that are effective, that meet community standards around use and privacy and that can be enforced.

The Albanese government has also committed to addressing family, domestic and sexual violence through the delivery of the national plan to end violence against women. This plan includes key actions that address the issues raised in this motion, including the following: addressing the role of pornography and social media in contributing to harmful sexual behaviours and reinforcing stereotyped attitudes among adults, children and young people; and building on the work of the eSafety Commissioner to better support individuals when they experience technology facilitated abuse.

The member for Fisher and the coalition, those opposite, through this motion are saying that social media companies should require all users, including minors, to input age verification or proof-of-age documentation to establish and maintain a social media account, regardless of age. This ignores the government's response to the inquiry into family, domestic and sexual violence and makes online safety a partisan issue. Keeping our communities safe online in an effective way should be the priority of all members of this House.

A great example of the coherent and integrated approach of the Albanese government is the Stop it at the Start initiative. A new phase of Stop it at the Start will launch in mid-June and run until May next year. This new phase will be a counterinfluencing campaign in online spaces where violent and misogynistic context thrives to directly challenge the material in the spaces it's being viewed. The campaign aims to counter the corrosive influence of online content targeted at young adults that condones violence against women, raise awareness about a proliferation of misogynistic influencers and content and really encourage conversations within families about the damaging impact of the material.

Popularised negative and misogynistic voices are rising in support and influencing younger people, predominantly males, on digital platforms where adults and the government are not engaged. Recent research has indicated that around 25 per cent of teenage boys in Australia look up to social media personalities who perpetuate harmful gender stereotypes and condone violence against women. The marked contextual shift has driven a significant knowledge and understanding gap for adults and a generational divide in how Australians feel and experience disrespect.

It's important that we have evidence based policy as part of a systematic approach to address digital safety and domestic violence in our community rather than trying to wedge it as a partisan issue.

Garth Hamilton (Groom, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will begin my comments by thanking the member for Fisher for raising this motion. It is important. It does speak to so many issues that are coming to the forefront of the national conversation today as we look across this nation to the level of lawlessness and social discord that we haven't seen for years. It is tearing at the fabric of our society and it's causing a lot of people concern and grief.

What I really want to thank the member for Fisher for is not what he is doing today but what he has done over a long period in this place on committees. He's been speaking on bills like this for a prolonged period of time. He's been advocating on this issue that's been important to him and that's been important to his community. His community and the people of Australia need to know. If you're concerned about these issues, if you're worried about what's happening online, if you think your kids are getting exposed material they shouldn't be, if you think your kids are responding or reacting to pressures that they shouldn't be experiencing, it's important that you know that people like the member for Fisher and others have actually stood up on this and they've done something about it. I thank him for it. Its been an important contribution to this place over a long period of time. It's a difficult conversation to talk to young men about the impact of pornography and violent imagery on their mobile phones and on social media. He's been willing to have it.

I raise this because so often when the member for Fisher has been advocating for change in this area, he hasn't had support. I have to push back. This is such an important issue facing the country at the moment. I'm not going to launch into attacks, but I will point out that under the last term of government there were significant changes to the Online Safety Act. There was the establishment of the eSafety Commissioner. There were steps taken forward to address this issue. Unfortunately, far too many times this place, bipartisanship means us supporting Labor when they're in government. But their support was not there on age verification. It was not there when the member for Fisher was raising it.

I want to raise another issue that is very relevant to this motion today, and that's the impact of social media in spreading violent images and acts of violence and crime amongst young children. This was something that was raised with me by a local community group in Toowoomba who had seen far too often, as we saw growing crime in our community, something that was new for us to experience, that what sat behind it was a recording of these crimes on social media. What sat behind them was a recording of these crimes on social media. Not only was it an affront for people to have their possessions taken from them; unfortunately, we also saw theft move into violent crimes such as assaults and, in some cases, now murder cases going through the courts. All was recorded on social media.

What was confronting was that people would have these things happen to them and then someone would show them the video clip on TikTok, Instagram or Facebook of the crime being committed. That was confronting, but what was worse was that we were finding copycat videos being produced by younger kids. These videos were coming out and they weren't just direct videos. These were videos with the crime being committed, with great graphics, with pumping soundtracks, making this life of crime look attractive. Unfortunately, to some very vulnerable people in our community, it did look attractive. They perpetuated this cycle of violence, so younger and younger kids were seeing this and getting involved.

When I raised this in the parliament—I brought my private member's bill in March 2023—and I wrote to the Minister for Communications, asking her to address and saying this was happening and was going out of control, the response in the statement was, 'If you come across material you think goes against the terms of service of a platform, you should report it to the platform in the first instance and, if it isn't removed, you can make a report to the eSafety Commissioner.' Nothing to see here. Nothing wrong at all. We didn't need to make a single change back then, because it wasn't on the front page. It wasn't in the national conversation. It wasn't popular to talk about then, so dismiss it and walk away.

Unfortunately, what's happened since that time is these crimes have got worse and worse. They've spread right across our community and they are unavoidable now. The minister has to act. Member for Fisher, you stood there all the way through. Congratulations for your conviction.

Debate adjourned.