As parents, one of our most constant concerns is the wellbeing of our children. From their first moments through schooling and into adulthood, we give our hearts and minds into caring for them, loving them and helping them develop to their full potential. There are so many experiences we want them to have, and, in parallel, we seek to protect our kids from things that we are worried about.

I’m sure most parents would agree with me that being a parent is a lifetime gig. We shelter our kids as best we can and then we learn to gradually let go as they make their own way in life. Every parent knows there are many challenges in raising a family and obstacles along the way that are constantly changing. And we second-guess ourselves. We ask ourselves: are we getting it right?

Every generation has faced challenges. There’s no doubt about that. But today we’re navigating incredible challenges posed by social media and the online world. We face dangers as well as opportunities in that world. But these dangers and opportunities are ones that no generation before us has faced, and what’s abundantly clear is that the online world is a world where the rules and mores of the cultures we’ve relied on for generations to guide us no longer apply. As parents, we simply don’t have the tools to keep our kids safe in this space. Yes, social media has been a part of our lives now for many years, but it’s more omnipresent than ever in our lives. It’s more addictive, more divisive and more harmful. The optimism of the noughties has made way for the harsh realities of the 2020s.

I speak with parents, who often tell me stories of children exposed to pornography through social media, of primary school aged children relentlessly bullied and tormented online, of teenagers struggling with eating disorders being bombarded with dieting advice and of spiralling declines in mental health and increases in suicide. We’re all now so familiar with these stories. One mother told me that her young family had travelled around Australia camping and engaging in nature. She and her husband worked hard to instil the love of the natural world in their kids, to know and love the real rather than the virtual. Years later, she’s now in utter disbelief that her teenager is addicted to social media.

Another parent wrote to me saying she was ‘crying out’ for my support for this ban on social media. I’ve heard from parents imploring me to support this bill to ban social media full stop because they’re living with the consequence of these harms to their children and scared for the future of our broader society. And I don’t blame them. But I’ve also heard from parents saying the absolute opposite. I’ve heard from people worried that the government is interfering where it shouldn’t and from others begging me for government intervention. There truly are mixed feelings about this.

The reality is that right now parents and teachers are shouldering all the burden. While a child’s online life might be out of sight, it’s certainly not out of mind. It’s reasonable to say that we feel helpless because we’re up against the full weight of social media and big corporate tech. But can we put the genie back in the bottle?  Should we just accept this as the new world and keep trying to guide our kids and ourselves? Should we try to educate more? Should we cave to the cult of inevitability, that this is way out of control and anything we try to do to curb and control social media will not work?

We’ve heard about the difficulties of implementation. We’ve heard the question: will it work? The member for Hinkler has just expressed those reservations. I get it. I ask those questions, too. Alongside that, for young people today, this online world is the only one they’ve known. They grow up seeing every adult around them with a mobile phone. Young people communicate with their friends and find entertainment across the internet. They organise meet-ups and sports trainings. Kids with niche interests find their tribes. Let’s be clear: there are true perceived benefits of social media.

Yesterday, Project Rockit gave evidence to the last-minute Senate inquiry into the bill that gave voice to the under-16s who were not in the room to speak for social media, for whom social media has helped them figure out and become comfortable with their sense of self, for whom social media has given them a voice when they might not otherwise like they do or to find like-minded people they might not otherwise meet. This is especially true for young people living in regional areas, for a person of colour or for queer kids. I acknowledge this, and I have heard and considered the words of mental health experts who speak to this. The benefits feel like they are not outweighing the harms. If they did, we would see social media companies creating safe online spaces, but that’s not what we’re seeing. Instead, we’re seeing platforms where children experience addiction, distraction, alienation and polarisation.

Interestingly—and maybe others have read this—earlier this year, the Guardian reported on parents working at large tech companies saying that they did not trust that their industry would prioritise child safety without public regulatory pressure. That’s pretty telling—if you want to know who a good surgeon is, ask the theatre nurse. This is the world that children face. We know parents are doing their best, but they cannot protect their kids or change social media platforms on their own. So, as legislators and as a parliament, we have to back our parents—the parents of Australia. That brings us to the bill today.

The bill before us seeks to significantly limit children’s access to social media. But how should we tackle this problem? There’s no clear consensus on the right approach and whether a blanket ban is the right or best response for Australia. As an Independent member of the parliament, I am forced to review every single bill that comes before me on its merits, but, to be honest, this one is incredibly difficult to assess. The evidence base is complex to interpret, and, in this case, the time to do so is extremely rushed. I acknowledge I knew this bill was coming, even though I only had it in my hands for a matter of days. Knowing it was coming, I sought to understand the views of my community, both for and against this vexing issue. I’ve heard and listened to the perspectives of people across my electorate. I have listened to my parliamentary colleagues. I’ve been briefed by the minister in the department. I’ve attended many briefings from other groups here in the parliament. Importantly, I’ve spoken with young people who will be affected by this bill, and their voices really matter in this debate.

The Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Bill 2024 would require social media platforms to take reasonable steps to prevent children under the age of 16 from accessing their platforms. The bill will do this by defining an age-restricted user, meaning an Australian child under the age of 16. The bill will also introduce a new definition for an ‘age-restricted social media platform’ as one whose sole or significant purpose is to enable users to post material online and interact socially.

The bill then introduces an obligation on providers of an age-restricted social media platform to take reasonable steps to prevent age-restricted users from having an account with the platform. The proposed model will include platforms such as Facebook, Instagram, TikTok and Snapchat. The government says it intends to prescribe rules that exclude messaging apps, such as WhatsApp, online gaming platforms and services with the primary purpose of supporting the health and education of end users. Civil penalty provisions will enable fines of up to $50 million to apply to age-restricted platforms that fail to prevent children under 16 accessing their platforms.

That’s what’s in the bill, but there are many questions we still don’t have answers to. For example, it’s unclear how platforms will manage existing users under 16. We don’t know how the requirement to take reasonable steps will be assessed or defined. My office has heard from many constituents concerned about how age verification will occur. Will all users be required to upload identity documents? Will digital ID services be used or required? I raised these concerns with the minister’s office and I understand the government intends to make amendments in the other place that will clarify that digital ID services will not be a mandatory part of online verification or assurance, However, the government’s age-assurance trial, meant to investigate best-practice age-assurance technology hasn’t even begun yet. Departmental officials tell me that this trial will inform the government’s rules for social media platforms. But we don’t know what this will look like.

There’s also no certainty about how these bans will operate in practice, and there’s a consensus that they will not be fully effective. No matter how tightly designed, some young people will circumvent restrictions to access social media. Some will do this with parental approval and some without. Some will use VPNs. One constituent wrote to me, concerned that a rushed social media ban will result in underground sites filling the void. There will be zero transparency and zero control for parents or authorities. This raises important questions: If we know there will be gaps, will teens who bypass these restrictions be vulnerable to even greater harm? Will the benefits outweigh any negative consequences? That is why the government must commit to robust ongoing scrutiny of this bill’s implementation. We must be alive to the impacts of this bill on children and on the wider population, both positive and negative, and be prepared to adapt as circumstances change and more evidence becomes available. We need to be a flexible respondent to this.

It also raises the question of whether this policy, this blanket ban, is the best way to reduce the harms young people experience on social media. For example, if addictive algorithms are the main problem, could they be targeted or regulated in another way? If exposure to violent content is the problem, how could we ensure young people see less of this while remaining on platforms and enjoying the benefits that social media can provide if properly designed?

These are important questions that have not been adequately addressed in the public sphere. Both the government and the opposition are quick to call for a total ban because it’s easy to communicate. It’s decisive. It seems to be popular. But this doesn’t mean it’s the best or only solution to the problem. That’s why we must consider this proposal alongside other key reforms, many of which were put forward by the Joint Select Committee on Social Media and Australian Society. For example, I welcome the government’s intention to legislate a statutory duty of care for online platforms to reduce harms for all Australians, a key recommendation of the inquiry. I agree with the minister that we must move away from simply responding to harms and embrace systems based prevention that requires the big tech companies to design platforms that are safer for not only children but all of us. It’s why we must consider reforms that give users, young and old, more control over the sharing and use of their online data, and it’s why we must prioritise reforms to the Privacy Act, which is something I’ve said time and time again. The social media ban for children cannot exist in a vacuum.

Unfortunately, the major parties seem disinclined to properly scrutinise this bill, and it appears likely to pass the House imminently. The Senate inquiry into this bill had just a single day for submissions and a single hearing yesterday of only a few hours. This is to our detriment. When bills are properly scrutinised they’re improved, and for such significant legislation and such profound trade-offs there must be adequate scrutiny. It’s just another example of where this government will seek to ram things through the parliament when there’s a political imperative.

This bill is a bold step, and we don’t have a full picture of what the unintended consequences may be, whether good or bad. We must be vigilant as the social media ban is implemented and be prepared to change course if necessary. Where I’ve landed is that there is a cause for intervention. We’ve put in a limit on cigarettes and drinking, but we continue to minimise harm, to educate and to inform. We know it hasn’t fixed it completely, in those cases, but it has reduced harm. We can protect children and continue to educate.

I hope this bill will prompt more conversations at dinner tables and school gates across Australia about online spaces, finding our way in worlds physical and digital and how we can make social media safer for all of us. Here, in this place, we must continue to pursue reforms that require the social media companies to design better and safer platforms. If we get that right, we will all benefit.

This has been one of the most difficult bills to make a decision on. Quite frankly, standing here right now, I could go either way because there are strong arguments to be made for banning social media for under 16s, through legislation, and there are strong arguments to be made for not doing that and for taking another course. I go back to my fundamental public health training, where I have seen harm minimisation through the legislative work of a government. In this case, my decision is that I will support this bill reluctantly because we must start to act as a parliament to protect our children in the online spaces. I wish it had more scrutiny, I truly do, but that’s where I land.