MANY PEOPLE HAVE responded angrily to the government’s bill to ban children from social media platforms, and yesterday Senator Matt Canavan offered some clarification on the parts which should be amended, and which parts may not work.

He wrote:

Here is an update of where things are at:

 

At this stage there is a HUGE majority of the Senate in favour of passing the social media ban next week.

 

While I share concerns about the impact of social media on young children, I am not sure that an age verification system can work.

 

I would have liked to have a proper Senate inquiry to investigate these issues. Unfortunately there was nowhere near the support for that. Instead, we ended up with a 3 day inquiry – this is FAR from ideal but it is better than nothing. I plan to be involved in the Senate hearing which will occur on Monday.

 

Please also feel free to send me suggestions in the comments of this post. There is no deadline for that. I will monitor them. You can also email me at senator.canavan@aph.gov.au.

 

There is some good news. The Government has said that YouTube will be excluded although this will be done through Ministerial declaration – it is not in the Bill itself. I will be seeking more clarity on this and other exclusions at the public hearing.

The age verification requirements in the Bill are broad and only require social media companies to take “reasonable steps” to verify someone’s age. There is nothing explicit in the Bill to require Digital ID or any other form of ID to establish age.

 

Less good is that the eSafety Commissioner will be tasked with formulating guidelines about what are the reasonable steps required to prevent under 16s using social media. (See extract attached.)

 

An obvious amendment to the Bill is to explicitly rule out any use of Digital ID to verify age. The Liberal and Nationals voted against the Digital ID Bill earlier this year.

 

I am also uncomfortable with the eSafety Commissioner having this responsibility. Whatever you think of her the fact is she has not established widespread trust and support for her role. She has too often veered into opining about what she thinks the world should look like. Such discretionary, political rhetoric reduces trust in public officials who should simply and dispassionately apply the law.

 

Please speak up if you have concerns. A few months ago I thought the misinformation laws would sail through the Senate, and now – thanks to all of your efforts – 100% of the Senate crossbench is against them. There is always hope as long as we fight.