Online Safety Amendment (Strengthening Enforcement for the Social Media Minimum Age) Bill 2026
Mr VIOLI (Casey) (19:25): This is a very important piece of legislation that is before the House. It is a clear admission of error from the Albanese Labor government and Minister Wells, but you have to give them credit, even though they won't say that they made a mistake. It's clear that the intent was good at the start, but the practice and the reality have not lived up to it six months later.
So I'll give them credit, even though they won't say the words, 'We made a mistake.' They're at least acknowledging that by bringing this Online Safety Amendment (Strengthening Enforcement for the Social Media Minimum Age) Bill 2026 to the House. It is important legislation, and, as I said, the intent is very good. It was the coalition in June 2024 that announced our policy to ban under-16s from social media.
It was months later—after the coalition led the way and South Australian premier Peter Malinauskas talked about doing his own banning in South Australia—that the Prime Minister had a change of tune and followed us into this policy. Governments have always had a history of protecting children, whether it's banning children from smoking, drinking or driving. There are many things governments do to protect children, and this is another important step in this conversation.
But it is the most challenging ban that we have to put in place when it comes to young people, because it involves technology and they have ways and means to get around the system. It absolutely has to be a requirement of the technology companies that they uphold the ban. Let's be very clear that, for these social media companies, there is no upside incentive to get children off their platforms.
Their business model is predicated on people using their apps and people spending as much time as possible on those applications. They do not care if you are 12, 13, 17, 25, 35 or 50; they want you on there as much as possible so they can sell your attention to advertisers. That is their business model.
But we have a responsibility to protect young people, particularly as their brains are forming and they are learning how to survive and thrive in the real world. At high school, that's challenging enough without social media. I'm grateful every day that I'm old enough to have gone through high school when social media didn't exist, and I am stressed every day when I think about my 12-year-old son starting high school this year and navigating high school with social media.
He assures me that, even though some of his friends are on social media, he is not, and I have complete confidence that he would never mislead me at all. But that is the reality and the challenge we face. One of the opportunities is obviously if more young people come off social media through their parents, because, ultimately, the best way to keep young children off social media is when their parents make a decision to really talk to them about the dangers and why they want to keep them off social media.
That's a conversation we've had with our son and with our daughter. And, as more young children stay off social media, it then creates a reverse network effect; they realise that their mates aren't on it, and then it's not as attractive as it was—because one of the real challenges parents have had and are still having is when their children come to them and say, 'Everyone else is on it, so I want to be on it as well.' So this battle, and it is a battle for our young people, is ongoing and continuous.
I've had the opportunity to visit a lot of schools, and there is a level of frustration among young people who really want to continue to be on the app, particularly the cohort between 13 and 16, who were on it and have been taken off. They have a real frustration. But, particularly for the new generation, those younger children who are below 10, we can keep them off it ongoing.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Scrymgour ): Member for Casey, you can continue your remarks at another time. Debate interrupted.