MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE
Ms McKENZIE (Flinders) (16:10): Wet lettuce. That is the official verdict on this government's attempt to prevent harm to Australian kids via social media regulation. 'Wet lettuce' were the exact words the eSafety Commissioner used to describe the reforms a month ago in an interview with the Sydney Morning Herald. Government members interjecting— The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Chesters ): The member for Flinders will pause while I hear the point of order.
Mr Buchholz: I have a point of order. The standing orders clearly apply to both sides of the House. We sat here in absolute silence while the last speaker gave her contribution, irrespective of whether or not we supported it.
We obliged by the standing orders. Our speaker is a couple of seconds in to a gaggle from the other side. I'm just asking you to enforce the standing orders.
Ms McKENZIE: Julie Inman Grant compared the government's mechanism for banning social media accounts for under-16-year-olds as the equivalent of sticking a pink parking ticket on a windshield. In March, the Social media minimum age: compliance update report from the eSafety Commissioner reassuringly told us that 4.7 million age restricted accounts were removed or restricted from the designated platforms as at mid-December.
It's not bad, given that we only have about 1.5 million 13-to-16-year-olds. But talk to any parent and they will tell you that the ban's implementation has been far too hit and miss. The University of Newcastle carefully studied the ban's implementation, following around 400 people between the ages of 12 and 17 in the period when the law came into effect.
What did they find? More than 85 per cent of adolescents under 16 continued to use the restricted social media platforms, predominantly via their own accounts. Two-thirds may have encountered an age verification test that was easily passed by a self-declared age or by uploading a selfie.
What else did the study find? That this government's attempt to ban social media accounts for under-16-year-olds, which we had supported in 2024, in good faith, because, after all, we had been the original proponents of the ban. But that had largely and unacceptably failed.
During question time today, government members, led by huffer-and-puffer-in-chief, the Minister for Communications, were outraged about the simple act taken by the Senate last night to refer— The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member will pause. I give the call to the Chief Government Whip. Ms Ryan: I ask that the member refer to members by their appropriate titles.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you for the reminder, Chief Government Whip. I remind the member to refer to people by their correct titles. Ms McKENZIE: The minister was outraged by the simple act taken by the Senate last night to refer the legislation to the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee for investigation, with a reporting date in August—a three-month inquiry—acting like we, working with their bedfellows in the Greens, personally put Australian children at risk because we dared to demand a modicum of scrutiny for this legislation.
We dared to demand an investigation into whether the flimsy measures contained in the bill will, in fact, do what we all want to see—meaningful barriers between young people and the most dangerous aspects of social media to mitigate its negative effect on mental health and wellbeing, to close it down as a means of transmission for child sexual abuse material and to block it as a vector for extremism.
A few days ago, I gave my speech in the second reading debate on the government's strengthening bill, and in it I provided a brief history lesson for those on the other side, reminding them that they failed repeatedly to pick up and act on our determination to do something about the harm social media was doing to young Australians—harm I had raised in my maiden speech in September 2022, harm which is detailed repeatedly in the books of Jean Twenge and Jonathan Haidt and by local researchers like Brad Marshall, harm which the then leader of the opposition committed to investigate back in April 2024 and then to act on a few days later, and harm the premiers of New South Wales and South Australia had agreed they would act on by mid-2024, frustrated by this government's failure to actually act.
When the Prime Minister did finally relent and agreed this government would act, the draft legislation was introduced into this place in a rush, and the Senate was given four days to conduct an inquiry—four days. And now this government dares to throw a hissy fit because the Senate demands a three-month inquiry. 'Trust us,' the government says. 'Trust us. We failed the first time, but this time we won't.
You don't need an inquiry. You don't need to test the efficacy.' Well, guess what? Trusting you didn't pay off last time.
Australia ended up with a legislative framework that didn't do the job. The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Chesters ): The member for Flinders will pause. I give the call to the Chief Government Whip.
Ms Ryan: I'd ask you to remind the member to address their remarks through you. The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I remind—time has expired, so we'll move on to the next speaker.