Dear Secretary,
The Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Bill 2024 has the admirable goal of protecting children from online harms. However, the way it intends to do so is deeply flawed and has wide-reaching implications for the children the Bill seeks to protect, and on Australians more generally.
Firstly, while I appreciate the opportunity for public consultation on the Bill the consultation window leaves much to be desired. Much of the prior movement in this area was at events such as the Social Media Summit which was extremely one-sided in favour of the restrictions. This has seen many interests unheard until now, and even then given less than 48 hours over two work/school days for people to submit their thoughts. Given the wide-reaching implications of this legislation that are detailed below, I would hope that at minimum the Government allows more time for all cases to be made.
Secondly I want to examine the implications for the children the Bill seeks to protect, and how this may harm the most vulnerable children more than it helps. While I agree that these children are more vulnerable online than others, for many of these children online spaces serve as a safe space for them to exist away from parents and schoolmates that may be judgemental or abusive, especially for queer children and children in abusive families. Action does need to be taken to protect these children from the harms social media may cause, but a blanket ban risks throwing the baby out with the bathwater, especially as there has been limited evidence that a ban would help in the first place.
I note that some online communities can encourage harmful behaviour among children such as those promoting eating disorders or self harm - platforms should be made to act upon these specific users and communities, not on children broadly. Additionally I note that the most vulnerable children are especially susceptible to blackmail and grooming, and encourage the government to tackle these issues head-on such as by ensuring that these children are adequately supported in schools both to help prevent this from occurring and assist them when it does happen.
I want to note that there has been no clarification on what counts as "reasonable steps" for the purposes of age verification. This means that the Bill will be either ineffective or extremely invasive to all Australian internet users, especially adults. This is especially true if it forces users provide their ID to service providers at a time when trust in these providers is at a low point.
In summary - children need to be protected but shutting them off from the online world entirely will leave them more exposed to harm in the real world, unable to find support groups beyond their local communities and force adults to submit sensitive personal data to all manner of services.
Thanks for reading this submission,
Stuart Rutherford