New laws to bolster Australia’s under-16s social media ban should be passed despite “differing views” over the effectiveness of the world-first policy, according to a parliament inquiry.
The legislation would hike fines for tech giants not complying with the restrictions and beef up the powers of eSafety Commissioner Julie Inman Grant to go after them.
Since the ban was implemented on December 10, the internet watchdog has issued a number of warnings for failures to comply and been embroiled in a string of legal action with tech giants.
In May, Ms Inman Grant requested additional powers to obtain evidence from the platforms in her investigations.
Communications Minister Anika Wells had then introduced amendments to harden the ban in June, which had passed the House of Representatives but was sent to Senate inquiry on July 1.
Ms Wells said the changes were in response to concerns tech platforms were trying to skirt the ban.
“The eSafety Commissioner is actively investigating noncompliance by five major platforms: Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, TikTok and YouTube,” Ms Wells said in her second reading speech.
“The commissioner has found these companies adopting a number of dirty tricks to undermine Australia’s law that are straight out of the big-tech playbook.”
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese took the restrictions for under-16s to the world stage last November at the UN General Assembly in New York.
Several countries have announced plans to follow suit, including Spain, France, Malaysia, the UK and European Union.
More recently, New Zealand’s Prime Minister Christopher Luxon also revealed plans to introduce a similar policy across the ditch.
In the report handed down on Tuesday evening, chair of the investigating committee Senator Varun Ghosh has just one recommendation, which was to pass the laws.
The committee as a whole had welcomed increased penalties for tech giants and pointed to the proposed Digital Duty of Care as a priority for the Australian Parliament.
However, Senator Ghosh acknowledged there had been opposing views in the government’s approach to the policy aimed at protecting children online.
Those views had been outlined in lengthy contributions to the report by the Greens, Coalition, and independent Senator Fatima Payman.
“The committee recognises that there remain differing views about the social media minimum age framework, including its effectiveness, the limitations of age assurance and the potential for unintended consequences,” Senator Ghosh stated.
“These issues should continue to be closely monitored as the framework matures, including through the independent review required under the Online Safety Act 2021.”
Additional comment from The Greens, which stated several times that the ban wasn’t working, gave three alternative recommendations.
Greens Senator Sarah Hanson-Young insisted there needed to be great regulation of “toxic algorithms”, and the proposed-but-not-yet-seen Digital Duty of Care be implemented.
“We need to urgently regulate algorithms, and make it clear that social media companies are responsible for the extreme harm their platforms perpetrate,” Senator Hanson-Young stated.
“It’s time to hit Big Tech where it hurts.”
Despite multi-million dollar penalties and a plethora of threats from the Minister, no tech company have so far been fined to for failure to comply with the policy.
The largest contribution had been provided in a dissenting report by Senator Payman, who included 11 recommendations, opening a declaration that the bill should “not be passed”.
Like the Greens, she called for a greater targeting of algorithms and claimed social media was altering users’ “brain chemistry”.
She also urged the government to ban big tech from collecting children’s data, raising concerns over “targeted advertising, micro-targeting, and profiling directed at individuals under 18 years”.
Coalition’s shadow Communications Minister Sarah Henderson expressed disappointment with the government’s approach throughout her contribution, accusing Ms Wells of trying to “rush” through the changes without proper transparency.
The pair have shared contrasting views on the decision to send the amendments to a Senate inquiry.
While Senator Henderson pointed to the importance of scrutiny, Ms Wells had claimed the probe was a deliberate, more than eight-week delay which only gave tech giants more time to shred documents.
“It should be noted the minister had no factual basis to assert that social media platforms were shredding documents,” Senator Henderson stated.
“That said, if the minister was genuinely concerned about the legal strategies of the digital platforms, perhaps she should have ensured that powers with respect to the production of documents were included in the SMAA Act before it took effect.”
While Senator Henderson didn’t list recommendations in her additional comments, the Liberal frontbencher stated it was “most disappointing” that the Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee’s report recommends the bill be passed “without amendment”.
Senator Ghosh had also indicated in his remarks as Chair that members of the committee had lost sight of the scope of its review of the amendments as several members made comment on the Act itself rather than focus on the changes Ms Wells had proposed in June.
“The committee emphasises that the purpose of this bill is not to revisit the underlying policy of the social media minimum age framework or impose new obligations on social media platforms. Instead, it seeks to ensure that the eSafety Commissioner has the regulatory tools needed to investigate and enforce obligations already enacted by the Parliament,” he said.
Federal Parliamentarians will return to Canberra for the next sitting fortnight on September 7.
Get the latest news from thewest.com.au in your inbox.
Sign up for our emails