Why I’m against the Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Bill 2024
I have serious concerns regarding the Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Bill 2024, particularly its potential to require all social media users to provide personal identification for age verification. We should strive to protect young Australians from online harm but the proposed measures could have significant privacy and security implications for all users, without addressing the root causes of online bullying or providing a realistic solution to its prevention.
1. Privacy and Security Concerns with ID Verification for All Users
While the Government has not yet explicitly stated that personal identification will be required from all users, the practical implications of age verification across social media platforms suggest that this will be the most likely outcome. If the Bill is enforced as proposed, social media platforms would likely require all users, including adults, to submit some form of personal identification to verify their age. This raises serious concerns about privacy, data security, and the potential misuse of sensitive personal information.
Multinational social media companies would be entrusted with handling vast amounts of personal data, including government-issued IDs, which raises significant security risks. Even with safeguards like data ringfencing and destruction, the history of data breaches and privacy violations by these companies suggests that such information could still be vulnerable to hacking or misuse. This could lead to identity theft, fraud, and exploitation, which would severely undermine Australians’ trust in digital platforms.
Furthermore, the collection of personal identification data by foreign companies operating in Australia means that Australian users’ privacy could be compromised in ways that would not be regulated by Australian law, leaving citizens vulnerable to international privacy policies that may not prioritize local protections.
2. Existing Parental Controls and the True Intent of the Bill
There are already well-established solutions available to parents who wish to manage their children’s online activities, including software and built-in parental controls on devices. These tools enable parents to set clear boundaries, including age restrictions, time limits, and access to specific apps or content. For example, iOS and Android devices both feature robust parental control settings, while additional third-party apps like Bark offer further options for monitoring and controlling internet use.
These existing systems already allow parents to prevent children from accessing apps that may be inappropriate for their age. They can set restrictions on the installation of social media apps and control which content children can access on platforms like YouTube, Instagram, and TikTok. Given that these tools exist, it raises the question: what is the true intent of this Bill?
If parents are already empowered with tools to protect their children online, why is it necessary to impose sweeping regulations that could compromise the privacy and security of all users, not just minors? This Bill appears to go beyond the reasonable needs of protecting children and instead seems to impose unnecessary burdens on the broader population. This raises concerns that the government’s approach may not be about safety at all, but rather about gaining greater control over personal information and online behaviour.
3. Parental Responsibility and the Importance of Education
The responsibility for teaching children respect, empathy, and the consequences of their actions online should primarily lie with parents and families, not with social media platforms or the government. Parents are the first line of defence when it comes to instilling values of kindness, respect, and understanding in their children. Instead of placing the burden on social media companies to manage age restrictions, we should be empowering parents with the tools and resources they need to help their children navigate online spaces safely and responsibly.
Parents should also be encouraged to teach their children healthy self-esteem, which can act as a shield against the negative impacts of online bullying. When children develop a strong sense of self-worth, they are less likely to fall into bullying traps or engage in harmful online behaviours themselves. Promoting positive, family-led education is the most effective way to address the root causes of online bullying, rather than relying on sweeping age restrictions or invasive verification methods.
4. The Root Causes of Bullying Cannot Be Solved by Age Verification
The Bill’s primary goal—protecting young Australians from online bullying—will not be effectively achieved by age verification alone. Bullying, whether online or offline, often stems from deeper psychological and social issues that cannot be solved through age checks. A focus on age verification fails to address these underlying causes, such as insecurity, lack of empathy, or a lack of understanding about the consequences of one’s actions.
Children should be taught the importance of online etiquette, digital literacy, and conflict resolution, so that they can navigate the digital world in a healthy and respectful manner. By teaching children the value of respecting others, they are less likely to engage in or fall victim to bullying. The government should focus on providing schools, parents, and communities with the resources to teach these important skills rather than relying on age verification measures that are unlikely to directly reduce harmful online behaviour.
5. The Ineffectiveness of Blanket Age Verification
Even if age verification were implemented, there is no guarantee that it would effectively prevent bullying or inappropriate behaviour. Users who wish to bypass the system, including those underage, will likely find ways around the verification process. Furthermore, the risk is that age verification alone does not address online bullying across all age groups. Harmful behaviours and exploitation can happen between users of all ages, and it is not just children who suffer from cyberbullying. The issue of online harassment needs to be tackled through better content moderation, stronger reporting systems, and a focus on digital literacy, rather than restricting access based on age.
Additionally, the practical challenges of implementing universal age verification across social media platforms are immense. Enforcing these requirements would place a significant burden on social media companies to verify the identities of millions of users globally. Given the history of security failures and data breaches in these companies, the risk of mishandling personal data could be far-reaching.
6. Concerns Over the Timeframe for Scrutiny
A significant concern I have with the Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Bill 2024 is the incredibly short timeframe allocated for public scrutiny and feedback. The Bill was introduced on 21 November 2024, and the deadline for submissions is 22 November 2024, only 24. Furthermore, the inquiry into the Bill is scheduled to be held by 26 November 2024.
This extremely tight timeline does not provide sufficient opportunity for the public, experts, stakeholders, or even Parliament itself to thoroughly examine and debate the details of the Bill. Given the profound implications the Bill could have on privacy, security, and the digital rights of millions of Australians, it is crucial that the Government allow more time for consultation and in-depth review. Rushing this process risks passing legislation that has not been fully considered, which could lead to unintended consequences that harm individuals’ rights, undermine privacy protections, and fail to effectively address the issue of online bullying.
A more reasonable timeframe for submissions and a longer period for review would ensure that the voices of those affected—parents, children, digital rights advocates, and privacy experts—are heard and taken into account before the Bill is passed.
7. A Better Approach: Education and Digital Literacy
Rather than imposing blanket age verification requirements, the government should focus on fostering a culture of digital literacy, self-esteem, and responsible online behaviour. Parents and guardians should be given more support in educating their children about online safety and the importance of respectful interactions. Schools should also implement programs that teach children how to manage their online presence, understand the consequences of their actions, and build resilience to online bullying.
Increased focus on mental health and well-being programs, along with greater online reporting mechanisms and stronger content moderation, will have a far more significant impact on reducing the incidence of online bullying than a policy of age verification. Empowering both children and adults with the tools to navigate the online world safely will have longer-lasting benefits than restricting access based on age.
Conclusion
The Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Bill 2024 is well-intentioned but ultimately flawed in its approach. If social media users are required to provide personal identification for age verification, the Bill introduces significant privacy and security risks, creates unnecessary barriers to access, and fails to address the deeper causes of online bullying.
Furthermore, the rushed timeframe for public consultation and review means that the full impact of this legislation has not been properly considered. Instead of focusing on age restrictions, the government should prioritize education, mental health support, and digital literacy programs to help children and parents navigate the digital world safely.
Only through education, empowerment, and a focus on positive behaviour can we create a safer and more respectful online environment for all Australians.
Senator Gerard Rennick
Sign up to help me fight government overreach at peoplefirstparty.au.
Make a submission here.
