By Lorraine Finlay and Anne Hollonds
Parents and carers are used to constantly weighing up risk while striving to keep their children safe.
It’s a delicate balance. But we also know that protecting our kids is more complicated than just banning anything dangerous.
While the safeguarding of children is needed and welcomed, the Federal Government’s current rushed plan to ban children under 16 from social media oversimplifies a complex issue and carries the risk of unintended harms.
The proposed law, which has Opposition support, is being pushed through Parliament without adequate consultation. It was only released last Thursday and raises more questions than it answers.
We know that some social media services will be ‘carved out’ to ensure kids can access important health and education information, but the exact details of this are left to legislative rules that are yet to be drafted. We don’t know exactly how the minimum age limit will be enforced, or how the potential privacy risks for all Australians will be managed.
There is a lot of detail that is yet to be worked out, which is why the law proposes a 12-month implementation period before the ban itself commences. Despite this, the legislation is being rushed through the Parliament this week, without taking the time to get the details right. Or even knowing how the ban will work in practice.
The Australian public was given just one day to make submissions to the parliamentary committee considering the proposed laws. The committee held just three hours of public hearings and is required to report 24 hours later. This is not meaningful consultation and does not allow for a thorough consideration of the views of experts, parents or children.
While we all recognise the significant risks that social media can pose for children, an outright ban is a blunt instrument that fails to recognise that social media can also have positive benefits.
For children in marginalised, remote, or vulnerable situations, social media offers a lifeline. It connects children with disability to peers, resources, and communities they may not otherwise access.
It helps LGBTQIA+ youth find acceptance and solidarity. It can improve access to healthcare, particularly for children seeking mental health support. These digital spaces can educate, inform, and remind kids who feel isolated—whether physically or emotionally—that they are not alone.
Children and young people have rights to access information and to freely express themselves as they develop and form their identities. A social media ban directly threatens these rights.
The proposal also carries significant privacy risks. Enforcing a ban would require some form of age assurance, potentially involving biometric data or official identification documents. Social media companies, such as US-owned Meta and Chinese-owned TikTok, would need to collect this sensitive information from millions of Australians. Relying on tech giants to manage sensitive data is a risky gamble, particularly without robust legal protections in place.
The proposed age-assurance measures would affect all Australians, not just those under 16, as everyone might need to prove their age to access social media. Such a requirement undermines the broader right to privacy, raising ethical and practical concerns.
It is clear we must do more to better protect children online and provide more support for parents and carers. Social media can cause real harm and has already had a devastating impact on too many families across the country.
But instead of masking these problems with a ban, we need to treat the underlying causes. This proposed media ban does nothing to make the social media platforms safer for everyone.
A more effective approach would be to hold social media companies to account through a legal duty of care. This would compel platforms to take reasonable steps to ensure their environments are safe for young users, such as moderating harmful content and preventing predatory behaviour. This is a proactive response that forces companies to be accountable and improves online safety for all.
This was one of twelve recommendations recently made by a parliamentary committee that examined the impact of social media on Australians. The committee did not recommend a social media ban, and said any regulatory framework must be co-designed with children and young people. Why are we ignoring this and instead rushing to implement a blanket ban?
Education is also key. Improving education around digital literacy and online safety in schools will equip young people with the tools they need to navigate social media responsibly. Our kids need to be supported to think critically about what they see online and how they engage with social media. Parents and teachers, too, need better resources to guide young people in this space.
If the Government goes ahead with a blanket ban, it threatens to harm the very people it seeks to protect. We will be raising a generation of children, who upon turning 16 will be introduced to the harms of social media without adequate education and critical thinking skills to protect themselves online. Properly considered social media reform that benefits and protects us all is essential.
Prohibition is not the answer.
This is a law that has far-reaching implications. It should not be rushed through Parliament without proper scrutiny.
Australian parents and kids deserve better.
– Lorraine Finlay is Australia’s Human Rights Commissioner.
– Anne Hollonds is the National Children’s Commissioner.
