A pioneering law prohibiting children under 16 from using social media passed the Australian Senate on Thursday and is set to become a landmark regulation.
The Senate approved the bill with 34 votes in favour and 19 against, following an overwhelming endorsement from the House of Representatives, which passed the legislation with 102 votes to 13.
The legislation mandates that platforms such as TikTok, Facebook, Snapchat, Reddit, X, and Instagram will face fines of up to 50 million Australian dollars for failing to prevent under-16s from creating accounts.
Although the House must still ratify amendments proposed by the Senate, this is expected to be a formality as the government has indicated its support. Social media companies will have one year to devise methods to enforce the ban before penalties are applied.
The amendments also enhance privacy protections, prohibiting platforms from requiring users to provide government-issued identity documents or digital identification through government systems. The House is set to finalise the amendments on Friday.
While the major parties back the ban, some child welfare and mental health advocates worry about potential negative effects. Senator David Shoebridge of the Greens party expressed concerns that the ban could isolate vulnerable children who rely on social media for support.
Opposition Senator Maria Kovacic defended the bill as necessary and reasonable, stating, “The core focus of this legislation is simple: It demands that social media companies take reasonable steps to identify and remove underage users from their platforms.
“This is a responsibility these companies should have been fulfilling long ago, but for too long they have shirked these responsibilities in favour of profit.”
Christopher Stone, executive director of Suicide Prevention Australia, criticised the legislation for ignoring the positive aspects of social media in supporting young people’s mental health.
Social media platforms argued that the law would be impractical and had urged the Senate to delay the vote until at least June next year when a government-commissioned evaluation of age assurance technologies is due.
Critics suggest the government is trying to reassure parents of its commitment to protecting children ahead of a general election due by May, hoping for voter support in response to concerns about children’s social media addiction. Some argue the legislation may cause more harm than good.
Opponents highlight that the bill was rushed through Parliament without sufficient scrutiny, is ineffective, poses privacy risks for all users, and undermines parental authority.
They also contend the ban could isolate children, deprive them of the positive aspects of social media, drive them to the dark web, discourage children from reporting harm, and reduce platforms’ incentives to improve online safety.
Frances Ibiefo
Follow us on:
