The federal government’s social media ban for under-16s has been given the green light by a Senate committee, paving the way for the bill to pass into law before the end of this week.
In a report late on Tuesday, the Labor-led committee reviewing the controversial bill recommended it pass with several amendments to address concerns with the world-first legislation.
It wraps up an inquiry conducted at breakneck speed, with the community given less than 24 hours to respond to the final bill, prompting a storm of protest from tech giants, digital rights groups and academics alike.
The government agreed to two changes earlier on Tuesday to secure the Opposition’s backing, including proposed amendments that bar designated social media platforms from compelling the use of a government Digital ID or other government IDs.
New ministerial powers granting the Communication minister to specify steps that are not required to be taken by social media companies in order to satisfy the ‘reasonable steps’ test were also secured by the Coalition.
Shadow communications minister David Coleman told Parliament the “significant changes” had been negotiated by the Coalition and would be included in the final bill presented to the Senate.
The Opposition has already indicated that it will support the bill, although some Senators broke ranks on Tuesday and flagged plans to vote against the bill when it reaches the Senate.
The Environment and Communications Legislation Committee report into the Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Bill handed down on Tuesday includes a total of nine recommendations.
During the short inquiry, the committee said it heard evidence that there is there is “no robust evidence that social media is safe for children under 16”, with “significant data points to the harms it can cause”.
It recognised the “undeniable benefits of digital engagement”, but said that the bill aims to the “balance this with the need to mitigate the clear harms”, while also acknowledging it is “not a panacea”.
The committee said the recommendations sought to address the “concerns put forward by inquiry participants”, many of whom “support the aims of the bill” but raised concerns about its implementation.
In response to concerns that the ministerial rule-making power could potentially lead to overreach, the committee said the powers were necessary to ensure the “optimum implementation of the bill and avoid unintended consequences”.
It said it was “reassured” that the minister would be expected to seek advice from the eSafety Commissioner before designating social media platforms, but has asked that there be “appropriate consultation on all rule-making associated with the bill”.
The committee rejected the concerns of Meta, X and TikTok that the age assurance trial should be completed prior to passage of the bill, arguing that the 12-month implementation period would suffice.
It did, however, recommend that a progress report on the trial be provided to Parliament no later than 30 September 2025, while baring platforms from compelling the use of a government Digital ID or other government IDs such as passports.
The committee also urged the government to legislate a ‘Digital Duty of Care’, a recommendation of the online safety review that the Communications minister Michelle Rowland has already agreed to adopt.
Despite the Coalition planning to support the bill, Nationals senator Matt Canavan said in a dissenting report that the bill had been “forced through the Parliament with a haste not benefitting its radical and unprecedented nature”, but withheld his voting position.
He said the committee had been unable to examine “even a fraction” of the 15,000 submissions that had been received, despite the report making no other mention of the figure and stating that 107 submissions were received.
“Given that even government senators have found significant defects in this bill in just a few days examination, the prudent approach would be for this inquiry to be extended into next year so a more fulsome examination can occur,” he said.
“There is no great urgency to pass this bill before Christmas. Even if it becomes law, the bill will not take effect until 12 months later. It would be much wiser to use this time to get the law right.”
Senator Canavan recommended a narrower definition of social media platform, mirroring that of the Florida Online Protection for Minors Act, and greater limits on the use of information collected for age verification purposes.
Greens senator Sarah Hanson-Young recommended that the bill not pass and be referred for further inquiry, arguing that the “far reaching consequences for privacy, mental health, silencing young peoples’ voices and online safety” had been made clear.
“These concerns must be appropriately considered before rushing in a ban to lock young people our of social media,” she said, adding that it “appears to be a knee-jerk reaction to a complex problem”.
Independent senator David Pocock, who described the short inquiry as “farcical and an insult to the democratic process”, also made several recommendations, but like Senator Canavan reserved his voting position on the bill.
He said the Senate inquiry should be extended to allow time to properly engage young people, which were not represented at the inquiry, and called “ecosystem approach”, including the Digital Duty of Care.
“Young people may not vote, but they have a right to have a say about the laws that will impact them, including at inquiries of the Senate,” Senator Pocock said, adding that the inquiry would have be “richer” had it had the chance to speak with young people.
Do you know more? Contact James Riley via Email.