Andrew McLachlan (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I inform the Senate that the President has received the following letter, dated 18 November, from Senator Roberts:

Pursuant to standing order 75, I give notice that today I propose to move "That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency:

The need to recognise that a blanket ban on social media for children under 16 expropriates parental power, and for the Senate to affirm that parental responsibility rests in the parents, not the Federal Government."

Is the proposal supported?

More than the number of senators required by the standing orders having risen in their places—

With the concurrence of the Senate, the clerks will set the clock in line with the informal arrangements made by the whips.

Malcolm Roberts (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency:

The need to recognise that a blanket ban on social media for children under 16 expropriates parental power, and for the Senate to affirm that parental responsibility rests in the parents, not the Federal Government. The government is proposing a ban on children under 16 accessing social media and justifies the measure because it's supposedly popular. Oh, really? It's ironic that the same parties who accuse One Nation of populism are now promoting a measure not because it's workable but, rather, because it's supposedly popular.

A true conservative, though, would support parents supervising their own children in their own home. That's not what Mr Peter Dutton is doing. A true conservative opposition leader would not be promoting big government replacing parents. Instead, he would be making device supervision easier for parents.

The government repeatedly is giving more power to social media giants under the guise, they say, of transparency. They're not revealing anything. We still don't see the algorithms of the social media giants—international players who have control over our space. What we're doing is not making device supervision easier for parents. We're not making it easier for parents to fulfil their responsibilities as parents. It's time that social media companies—plus Apple, Microsoft and Android—made their parental locks easier and more powerful. So let's start there.

No country in the world has made age limits work, because bureaucrats or social media platforms in far-off countries can't see who's using the computer or phone. The only people who can see what the child is doing with their device are the people in their home with them—the parents. It's a parental duty, a parental responsibility and a parental right to raise their children and to supervise their children. If this proposal from the government goes through, parents allowing their children to watch cartoons and educational shows on free-to-view social media, including YouTube, would be breaking the law. Parents supervising their children would be breaking the law. Watching the same material on Foxtel at $99 a month would be legal. Does that seem right? To me it doesn't.

Essential and YouGov polling showed a majority of Australians support higher age restrictions on social media. This is the same Essential poll which found 17-year-olds should be able to buy alcohol and watch pornography and also recommended the age for criminal responsibility be raised to 14. Who did they ask? Are these next in the uniparty's embrace of populism? My speech earlier today gave information on the unintended consequences of this idea. I will post the speeches together on my website. This problem is as old as the internet, and it's not going anywhere. Let parents parent. That's fundamental to raising children.

We're seeing the opportunity in education now. States and the federal education department, which doesn't have a single school, allow indoctrination programs through the national curriculum. Instead of being education, it's now indoctrination. They're grooming young children for the globalist agenda. They terrorise children: 'The climate is changing. The globe is boiling. The world will end. You've only got five years to live unless we do something.' These are the terrorists for young children today—the globalists who are pushing this agenda and this legislation around the world.

One Nation supports this matter being referred to a Senate inquiry, where technology experts can testify on the harms and unintended consequences of replacing parental supervision with government overreach and government control. We need to let parents parent. Instead of giving more power to the globalist corporations and to the internet behemoths, we need to put the power back with parents and let parents look after their children. As I said before, it is a parental duty, a parental responsibility and a parental right. I am sick and tired, and so are so many parents and grandparents across this country, of the government trying to be a nanny state to protect their kids all while grooming their children for control, whether directly through education or indirectly through social media. What we need to do is actually look at what people need and then act accordingly. One Nation is not in favour of this. We are surprised that the Liberal Party, including their leader, seem to be lining up in support of censoring teens on the internet.

Marielle Smith (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As a parent and as a legislator, I see absolutely nothing wrong with government working in partnership with parents, with families and with the community to keep children safe. Actually, I think it's a fundamental responsibility of government to do everything we can and to pull every lever we can to keep children safe. We know at the moment, when it comes to their online engagement, that children are not safe online, whether that's in terms of the things they're exposed to or in terms of the way certain things are marketed to them, whether that goes to bullying online or to the prolificness of eating disorders and other mental health challenges. We know that our children are not safe online. There is no issue raised more with me by parents in my community than this one. Parents are desperate to keep their children safe, but they feel like this has become too big for them to manage in their homes, and they want the backing and support of the federal government. They want us to do something about this.

We have an opportunity and a chance as a government to say, 'Yes, we see these harms exist; yes, we know these things are hurting our children; yes, we see this is increasing bullying; yes, we see this is increasing eating disorders; and yes, we see that this is causing so much damage to our youngest minds, and we can do something about it.' I think that is a good thing for federal governments to do. In so many other areas of children's safety and supporting children, we expect government, whether it be our state governments or our federal governments, to work in partnership with parents and to work in partnership with families to keep children safe. We cannot be any clearer that, at the moment, they are not safe online. I think this is fundamentally the right thing to do. Parents tell me that they want us to do it—that they want us to reinforce the decisions they are taking in their own homes. They are doing everything they feel they can do to keep their children safe online.

Recent research tells us that the majority of young parents are concerned about the impact of social media on their child's mental health and wellbeing and that 85 per cent of parents have had conflicts with their children over their use of social media. While this is incredibly stressful and concerning for parents, the most severe impacts are on children. We know that one in five young women have had a sexual image of themselves shared without their permission. A recent Australian study has found that the average age of a child's first exposure to pornography is 13.2 for boys and 14.1 for girls.

When I was part of the select committee into social media, I heard about the harmful content that kids are being exposed to online, and eSafeKids told us this content was mainstream, with 62 per cent of young people aged 14 to 17 in Australia exposed to harmful content online. The eSafety Commissioner made clear to us that bullying is a significant concern for younger generations and that much of this happens online. According to the Butterfly Foundation, of the 95 per cent of young people who reported some level of concern about their body image, 62 per cent felt dissatisfied due to social media, and nearly half said body dissatisfaction prevented them from attending school.

We know that children are hurting. We know that this is not good for our kids. We know overwhelmingly—I know overwhelmingly—that parents want us to do something about it. Of course, the ultimate responsibility for our children's safety lies with parents. Every one of us who is a parent knows that. As a parent, it is all you think about all day and all night: How can I keep my children safe? Is there something I'm missing? Is there something I'm failing to do which means my kids are at risk and my kids are going to be exposed to harm? You start feeling that from the moment you're pregnant, and it never leaves you.

We know at the moment parents are worried. We know they feel there is something which is not within their power to control which presents an unacceptable risk of harm to their children. But it is in our control in this chamber. It is in our control to regulate this, to stand with families, to stand with parents and, ultimately, to stand with the young people who are most at risk of harm here. We do it in so many other areas of children's safety. State governments do it. Federal governments do it. This is a new frontier and a new thing for us to navigate, but it is the right thing to do. We have an opportunity to keep our children safer and to stand with parents in that effort, which can feel colossal at times. That's not taking away parental responsibility; that's reinforcing it.

Dave Sharma (NSW, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I welcome the opportunity to speak on Senator Roberts's motion today because it is an important and topical issue. I must confess that I approach this issue as someone who is a liberal—that is, someone who supports the rights of individuals to manage their own affairs, who instinctively mistrusts or dislikes the government interfering in the private lives of individuals and who trusts parents to make their own choices about raising their children, the values they should instil in them and the sorts of technology they should have access to. I approach the issue of regulating access to anything in people's private lives as a sceptic. But I cannot—and I don't think you can—fail to read Jonathan Haidt's The Anxious Generation without being concerned about some of the quite deleterious impacts and at least a high degree of correlation, if not causation, proved between widespread use of social media amongst younger people and social harm.

In his book, Jonathan Haidt talks about four foundational harms. He talks about social deprivation—that is, children being excluded or missing out from social circles or social opportunities because of the ability for people to organise on social media. He talks about sleep deprivation. The straight addictiveness of certain social media and the desire to always get the next dopamine hit, to see the next message, to see the next post and to see how your own posting is trafficking can lead to children staying up all night and staying on their phones.

There's attention fragmentation. There's, again, the inability to focus on longer term tasks, to do things like read a book, for instance, and even to sit down and watch a movie. If you have young children, you'll know that they're often grabbing for their device to have something that ups their dopamine or attention levels. Indeed, as we all know, we are programmed as humans to be super alert to changes in our environment and incoming pieces of information, which means we are incentivised, psychologically and neurologically, to prioritise newer, novel information over something else we might be doing. Then, of course, there are the addictive properties of social media.

I think it's been well documented and well understood by most people intuitively that social media can supercharge ostracisation and humiliation—especially a problem amongst girls—and that it can lead to behaviours like audience capture, which is you as a social media persona trying to exacerbate the characteristics that seem to be popular with your audience, and prestige bias, which is modelling your behaviour on those who seem to enjoy high social status on social media and whose posts or profiles get high engagement or high content. There are even what people refer to as sociogenic epidemics. It's the idea that there is a viral character to depression, anxiety and mental health, and the ability for it to spread through society can be supercharged by the use of social media.

I think, on balance, the evidence is that social media is not making our children's lives better. It would be difficult to make that case. I think that the evidence, on balance, suggests it's probably making it worse—from the more benign impacts, like irritability, distraction and social ostracism, to some of the more sinister ones, like the development of eating disorders, incessant online bullying, self-harm and suicidal ideation. I think most parents tend to know or intuit this, but they face obstacles in dealing with this themselves. If they take away their children's phone or disable access to their phone, they're worried about isolating their children, because every other child is on the phone, and they're worried about their children missing out on social opportunities and conversations. Even if they do cross that Rubicon, it can be difficult to manage. Parents quite rightly want their children to have phones these days to stay in touch and to let them know where they are. Children are ingenious and very clever at getting around any screen time limitations, app bans or anything else. It's a collective action problem. No parent tends to want to act alone on this, but they would welcome some assistance from government.

That is why I think, on balance, this is the right thing to be doing. I think we need to be careful, firstly, to protect privacy and identity, and I respect that Senator Roberts has legitimate concerns in that regard, which other senators here will share, but also unintended consequences. We don't want to cut children off from sources of information and their ability to feed their curiosity. But I do believe this is an area this parliament should be addressing.

Ralph Babet (Victoria, United Australia Party) Share this | Link to 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.

Tammy Tyrrell (Tasmania, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I can't tell you how many times I've spoken about my opposition to a blanket ban on social media in the past week. As Senator Roberts rightly points out, legislation that bans social media altogether takes away the opportunity for parents to decide when they think their child is ready to use social media and which platforms they can sign up to, plus it takes away a parent's opportunity to teach their children how to use these platforms.

Parents know best how their children tick. I'm a parent. I thought about how I used social media and how my kids might use it. Don't get me wrong, I had the same concerns as parents have now about online content and what they would access. But, when I thought the time was right for them—and for me—I helped my kids set up most social media accounts, and together we worked out how they could use them. They're grown up now, but I believe those early lessons on what to do and what not to do on social media set them up for making good choices down the track. That was my choice as a parent for my children. Taking away that choice is not going to help our kids.

Look, I know there are good intentions behind an imposed ban. I agree there are huge issues around the kinds of content children and teens have been able to access online and how social media platforms can impact their mental health. But, as I said over and over again, a ban isn't the answer; a ban is not going to stop kids accessing social platforms. Trust me: they are clever enough to find ways around any roadblocks put in their way. And a ban doesn't actually address the problems young people are facing online. Has anyone in the government asked our kids what is best for them? If they had, I'm sure they would have been told this is not the silver-bullet solution they think it is. What worries me is that by trying to keep kids safe, you will just create other problems.

Think about how important social media is for some groups. These platforms are a lifeline for many kids living in remote areas or those who can't leave their homes or those who are sick and stuck in hospital for extended periods. It's the way they connect with their friends. It's the way they keep up with what's going on outside. For these kids, going online is their passport to the rest of the world. Good social media access should start with education. When I say 'education', I mean the good in social media, the bad and all that comes in between. The child's education should start with the parent, not the government, and that is a fundamental right when you become a parent. When you conceive, adopt or foster, you treat your children in a manner that you want to raise them.

Fatima Payman (WA, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Australian government are trying to regulate an internet that they do not understand. The most obvious evidence of this was a line from Minister Rowland's speech at the Sydney Institute last week. The minister in a speech no doubt pored over by her sage advisers said, 'In 1985, Bill Gates brought us the Microsoft operating system.' For the benefit of those not as learned as Minister Rowland, Microsoft is the company; Windows is the operating system. The government's proposal to outlaw social media for kids under 16 is the legislative equivalent of this ill-considered speech.

The government has two options when it comes to age verification and assurance. The first option, verification using biometrics like face scanning, will make the ban a joke. The only effect of this version of the ban will be to create a new household phrase: 'Mum, can I scan your face?' The other option is to use ID to verify age. This will require every Australian on almost every social media platform to provide ID, which will need to be stored for an unknown period idea of time. In an age of unceasing data breaches, we need to store less personal information online, not more. Remember Optus and Medibank? How will the government stop kids using VPNs to access social media? If the minister is listening, that stands for 'virtual private network'.

Restricting the internet is an old fascination for Labor. Recall the Rudd government, when that reconstructed grouper, Stephen Conroy, pushed to filter internet content deemed offensive. The idea would have had the government dictate what you could and could not see but was abandoned in 2012. Once the government sees how comprehensively skirted their social media ban is by young Australians, legislation will meet— (Time expired)

Gerard Rennick (Queensland, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise in this urgency motion to speak against the government's proposed bill. I think the intention of it is admirable. We don't want to see our children being bullied on the internet but, as Ronald Reagan once said, 'The nine worst words in the English language are "I'm from the government and I'm here to help."' This morning I googled this: 'Are there software programs that can help stop children from accessing apps?' I googled this because we have a program at home—I say 'we', meaning my wife and I—whereby our children can't download apps unless they get permission from their parents. There are a number of apps you can purchase or get online, as a parent, to stop children from accessing apps. I will read a few out. Google Family Link is a free app that allows you to set screen time limits, block apps and filter content on your child's android or iPhone device.

Qustodio is a third-party parental control service that gives you a lot of control over your child's devices. Bark is a parental control app that monitors your children's texts, emails, web browsing and use of over 30 social media platforms. Bark's AI scans your children's activities for risks like cyberbullying, online predators or signs of depression. So there are a number of programs that parents can buy or access online so that they can monitor their children's behaviour.

The other thing about this is that you can ban children from using social media, but that still doesn't address the underlying issue of bullying. People can still access text messages and WhatsApp messages, so you can bully children that way. I noticed a previous speaker mentioned the concern of anorexia. Kate Moss was on magazine covers back in the 1990s. That was an issue long before the internet came along. I'll concede that the internet can fuel that, but we as parents need to take active responsibility for the way our children are bullied online. We need to do that here in the chamber as well. I, myself, have been called a cooker, an antivaxxer and a climate denier—all of these things—in this very chamber by those on the other side of the chamber, the Labor Party, who are now proposing to care about the welfare of our children. So I think there's a large degree of hypocrisy in this bill as well.

Yet again I ask: why is Labor doing this? By all means, the intention's good, but we really want parents to stay active and understand what their children are doing. We don't want parents to just switch off from what's going on around their children's lives. I think that's what we need to be focused on here today. I've mentioned many times in this chamber the importance of having a stay-at-home parent to help with that particular responsibility.

Alex Antic (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think we all want to see our children protected from harm online, but what's the real cost of a social media ban for children? Firstly, it's not clear to me how an age-specific ban could actually be enforced, short of requiring all Australians to prove their identity, and therefore their age, before using their social media accounts. How would it be done? The only reliable methods that are likely to work are those which require social media accounts to be linked to either a government certified ID, digital ID or biometric data. Immediately, we've gone from talking about a law protecting children under 16 from online harm to proposals potentially requiring all Australians to submit personal identification as a condition of using social media. This is how concerns over safety—in this case, children's safety—convince people to hand over their freedom, to hand over their personal information.

Of course, this has nothing to do with the fact that a generation of young people are starting to unpick the lies of the corporate media online, does it? Well, of course it does! What a great way to ensure that young people only get a left-wing government message approved to them via their devices. Frankly, the words 'ban' and 'media' should never exist in a sentence together, and parents should always be in charge of what their children watch and what their children watch online.

Marielle Smith (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the motion moved by Senator Roberts be agreed to.