The Australian government should delay passing legislation banning under-16s from social media until a trial of age-assurance technology is completed, Google and Meta have said.
The federal government is pushing to pass the social media ban legislation by the end of this week, and has been accused of attempting to “ram” the bill through the parliament without appropriate consultation. The opposition leader, Peter Dutton, has indicated the Coalition will support the bill.
No social media platforms are named in the bill, but it empowers the minister to later determine, via legislative instrument, the platforms that will be required to ban under-16s. It is expected that TikTok, Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat and X could all be required to meet the new restrictions, but YouTube would be permitted educational and health support.
Google, and fellow Alphabet company YouTube, told the inquiry that deferring this decision on what to include “fails to provide necessary clarity and certainty to Australian users and industry”.
The “rushing” of the proposed bill failed to take into account the feasibility for services to determine which users are 16 or over, and those younger, the company said. These issues could be determined by the government’s trial of age-assurance technology, before the legislation passes, Google said.
“This includes the viability of age assurance technologies and an appropriate minimum age for access to social media services. The trial is not due to finish its work until mid-2025,” Google’s submission stated.
“It is concerning that this bill is proceeding in advance of the trial’s conclusion.”
The company said this did not reflect good regulatory practice, and consideration of the bill should be delayed until the trial was completed.
Google’s submission was one of more than 15,000 received by the parliamentary inquiry on the bill in the single day it was accepting comment.
Elon Musk’s X warned in a submission that the bill may not be lawful and the company was reserving its legal rights.
“We have serious concerns as to the lawfulness of the bill, including its compatibility with other regulations and laws, including international human rights treaties to which Australia is a signatory.”
The social media platform, which has already had successful legal challenges of the eSafety commissioner’s powers in the past year, said while it was examining age-assurance options for X, the bill would have a negative impact on the rights of children and young people and would not be effective.
X said the ability for the minister to define which platforms the ban applies to at a later date presents “a major threat to freedom of information, speech, and access to the internet” and risks regulatory weaponisation.
Musk posted on X last week that the bill was a “backdoor” to control all Australians’ access to the internet.
Snapchat’s parent company, Snap, said the bill was not backed by experts.
“Many experts have highlighted the significant unintended consequences of this legislation, notably that it could deny young people access to valuable mental health and wellbeing resources, while potentially driving them toward less regulated and more dangerous online spaces than the mainstream, highly regulated platforms covered by the bill,” the company said.
Facebook and Instagram’s parent company, Meta, said the bill would be “inconsistent and ineffective” and fail to achieve its stated goals without more consultation. The company backed Google’s call to delay the bill until the age-assurance trial was completed.
The bill also drew criticism from the Tech Council of Australia, which warned that the bill was being “rushed” through parliament without meaningful consultation, adding “to existing perceptions among investors and entrepreneurs that the Australian technology sector operates in an uncertain regulatory environment that can be subject to rapid legislative change without due consideration”.
The principal commissioner for the Queensland Family and Child Commission, Luke Twyford, said the feedback on the bill from the Queensland Young Person’s Council was that they felt left out of the process.
“There was a real feeling that young people were being punished, while those that created online risks are being left alone,” he said. “Young people spoke about this policy victim-blaming young people, rather than requiring adults and platforms that are creating risks taking responsibility.”
The lack of consultation was a theme of criticism throughout the published submissions, including from the Australian Child Rights Taskforce, Electronic Frontiers Australia, and the Australian Psychological Society – which described the timeframe as “manifestly inadequate”.
“Rushed commentary on such a complex and psychologically nuanced issue risks failing to adequately consider the evidence,” APS said.
The committee is due to report to parliament on Tuesday. The bill will be debated later in the week, which is the last sitting week for 2024.
