Ralph Babet (Victoria, United Australia Party) Share this | Hansard source

I'm here to call out big government and to expose its encroachment into the lives of Australian parents and their kids. I get it: social media is a double-edged sword. On one hand, it can potentially cause harm to children but, on the other hand, it's also entertaining, informative and educational.

Could it be that the whole reason we're trying so hard to ban social media for under-16s is so that they don't get exposed to alternate points of view that the schooling system or this big government that we have here today don't want them to see? Social media: it's a way to stay in touch with the people that you love. Should under-16s be able to access it? Obviously, it depends on many factors. Who is best placed to make that decision? It is their parents. Not only are mums and dads the best people to raise their kids but it is also their right and their responsibility to do so without overreach from the government.

The government's insistence on doing the job of parents by blanket banning under-16s from social media is massive overreach—massive. It undermines the primacy of parents in their children's lives. It's not the state's responsibility or roleto go around telling under-16s if they can have friends on TikTok, what family photos they can see on Instagram or what news they can view on X. Those decisions are for parents. Any argument to the contrary is a gross violation of parental responsibility and represents a massive intrusion of the state. I am in this place to empower parents, not to replace parents. I'm in this place to strengthen the family unit, not to replace or undermine it.

My mission is to get government out of all of our lives. I hate the government. It is too big. It is too bloated. Enough! For that reason, I'm asking my colleagues in this place to recognise that a government-imposed blanket ban on social media for under-16s comes at the expense of parents and privacy. The argument over the ability of young people to access social media sites is ultimately an argument about content and it's an argument about parental rights, and parental rights must be sacrosanct.

Now, some parents don't want their children on social media—and rightly so. I don't disagree. But those parents are perfectly capable of not providing a smart phone to their kids. They're also perfectly capable of saying no to their own children—just as the Australian people will undoubtedly say no to this government at the ballot box in 2025. Other parents, whose teenagers may be more mature or able to exercise discretion, will be perfectly happy for their teens to be on social media. As so often happens when a state tries to do what individual citizens should themselves be trusted to do, the government solution only creates more problems. Age verification for under-16s becomes age verification for everybody. How will they know who's under 16 if they can't prove the age of those who are over 16? The ban is fast becoming a national social media age-verification scheme. How else would they enforce it? Could this be used as a lever to increase eventual digital ID uptake? How will they punish offenders? The problems with this proposed legislation are legion.

But that's what happens when the government tries to do what parents can and should be empowered to do. Parental responsibility rests with parents, not with an overbearing federal government. Obviously, I'm going to ask my fellow senators to join me in affirming that principle. I'm going to ask them to reject big daddy government. I'm going to ask them to make parenting great again. But you know what? I don't think they will, and that's a real problem.

People at home, pay attention. Your governments are authoritarian. The opposition are acting like authoritarians as well. Reject these people and their ideas at the next election. Choose freedom instead. Choose the ability to make your own decisions.