More government overreach.
This week I spoke against the proposed bill to ban 16 year olds from social media.
A simple search on Google (see attached in comments) shows that it is completely unnecessary for the government to be regulating social media use as there are a range of software programs that can do it.
It goes without saying this is just another way for government to monitor internet usage.
Not to mention it suits the government to force children back onto mainstream media so they can be brainwashed with their fearmongering propaganda.
If the government was actually concerned about bullying which is what the actual problem is, they would encourage a parent to stay at home and be more involved in their children’s schooling and social lives rather than encourage them to go back to work.
Senate on 18/11/2024
MATTERS OF URGENCY
Social Media
Senator RENNICK (Queensland) (16:43): 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.'” I googled this morning ‘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.
