The Australian government, under the leadership of Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, has announced a significant commitment to enhance child safety online by introducing legislation that proposes a strict age limit of 16 years for social media access. This measure includes imposing penalties on online platforms that fail to adhere to these regulations.
Despite the proposal, the Labor government has faced criticism for not clearly outlining the mechanisms that social media giants such as Facebook, Instagram, and TikTok will implement to enforce this age restriction. The Prime Minister is encountering mounting pressure from the Coalition opposition to expedite the legislative process, aiming to have the bill passed in the next three weeks, even though a federal trial focused on age assurance technology has yet to commence.
Both Albanese and Communications Minister Michelle Rowland left the door open regarding various age verification methods, such as biometric scanning of user faces, the utilization of a government database for identity verification, or imposing age checks on all users regardless of their actual age. They emphasized, however, that the responsibility for establishing these verification processes would ultimately lie with the technology companies.
During a press conference on Thursday, Albanese confirmed the government’s intention to legislate an age limit, marking a pivotal moment in the government’s ongoing scrutiny of major tech platforms. Initially deliberating on the age threshold, the government had considered limits as low as 14 and has now settled on 16 as the final proposal.
Nevertheless, significant questions surround the effective enforcement of this law, leaving many unsure about its practical application. Albanese stated that it would be incumbent upon social media platforms to “demonstrate they are taking reasonable steps to prevent access” for individuals under the designated age. While young users and their guardians will not face penalties for circumventing the age limit, social media platforms that disregard the regulations will be held accountable.
Rowland highlighted that the eSafety commissioner will oversee the enforcement of these new regulations, stressing that there is a necessity for “enhanced penalties” to guarantee compliance. She argued that the current penalties, which are under $1 million as per existing legislation, are inadequate to ensure tech platforms take the new laws seriously.
Albanese expressed his concerns, stating, “They, like me, are worried sick about the safety of our kids online.” He reiterated his commitment to ensuring that Australian parents feel supported by the government, enabling families to confidently assert that certain online activities are illegal.
The government is actively conducting a trial, funded under the May budget, which explores potential options for age verification technologies. The UK has implemented similar age-verification laws, presenting various methods, including using banks or mobile providers to confirm a user’s age, credit checks, facial estimation technology, and a process for users to upload a photo that matches their photo identification.
Reports to the Australian government have indicated that “no countries have implemented an age verification mandate without issue,” highlighting the complexities involved in such legislation. Last year, the eSafety commissioner released a roadmap suggesting a “double-blind tokenised approach,” which advocates for the use of a third-party provider to relay information between websites and age-assurance service providers while safeguarding user privacy.
Shadow Communications Minister David Coleman labeled the issue as “urgent,” urging for the bill to be expedited through parliament by the end of November, even before the age assurance trial delivers its findings on potential enforcement mechanisms.
Despite the government not outlining a specific timeline for when it wishes to see the bill passed, it has not dismissed the possibility of legislating prior to receiving the trial’s complete results. Albanese and Rowland were approached for clarification regarding whether Australians should brace for facial scans or identity document verification requirements to access social media platforms.
Rowland stated that inquiries related to identity verification would be addressed through the ongoing age-assurance trial, but emphasized that “These platforms know their users better than anyone.” Albanese acknowledged the challenges of enforcing the law by citing the example of young individuals obtaining alcohol despite an established age limit of 18. He candidly remarked, “What we are wanting to state upfront, from the very beginning, is we don’t pretend that you can get a 100% outcome here.”
Albanese further emphasized that while the forthcoming legislative changes will not resolve all issues immediately, they will establish critical parameters for society. He stated, “We don’t argue that the changes that we will be legislating will fix everything immediately… But those laws set what the parameters are for our society and they assist in ensuring the right outcomes.”
When asked if social media users of all ages would need to verify their age to access these platforms, Rowland reiterated that this would ultimately depend on the tech companies themselves. In response, Meta, the parent company of Facebook and Instagram, communicated its willingness to comply with the legislation if necessary while expressing doubts about whether the existing technology was sufficiently developed.
Meta’s global head of safety, Antigone Davis, noted, “The idea that somehow you can sort of force the industry to be in a technological place that it isn’t, is probably a bit misunderstood in terms of where the industry is.” Additionally, Meta has suggested that enforcement responsibilities should lie with app stores operated by companies like Apple and Google, citing that teenagers can access up to 40 different apps that would all necessitate age verification.
Davis articulated the challenges, stating that requiring age verification for each app would be complicated, labor-intensive, and could pose risks to user privacy. She explained that “The current state of age-assurance technology… requires a level of personally identified information to be shared,” which commonly includes identification documents, biometric data, and even personal data for parental consent.
Snapchat and Google were also approached for their opinions on the matter, while TikTok declined to provide a comment.
**Interview with Susan Hargrave, Digital Safety Advocate**
**Interviewer:** Thank you for joining us today, Susan. The Australian government, led by Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, has proposed a significant age limit of 16 for social media access. What do you make of this decision?
**Susan Hargrave:** Thank you for having me. This initiative is undoubtedly a crucial step towards enhancing the safety of children online. It reflects growing awareness about the risks posed by social media and acknowledges the concerns many parents have about their children’s digital interactions.
**Interviewer:** Critics are questioning the plan’s effectiveness, particularly regarding how social media platforms will enforce this age limit. What are your thoughts on these enforcement challenges?
**Susan Hargrave:** That’s a valid concern. The government has indicated that the onus of enforcement will fall on the tech companies themselves, which raises questions about their willingness and capacity to comply. Age verification is a complex issue; as we’ve seen in other countries, no system is foolproof. It’s hard to ensure that children won’t find ways around restrictions.
**Interviewer:** You mentioned that other countries have struggled with similar legislation. Can you elaborate on what has been done elsewhere and the challenges they’ve faced?
**Susan Hargrave:** Certainly. For instance, the UK has implemented age-verification laws, experimenting with various methods like banking confirmations and facial recognition technology. However, these systems often face backlash regarding privacy concerns and their efficacy. Many users still find ways to bypass age checks, which diminishes the overall effectiveness of such regulations.
**Interviewer:** The government has outlined some high-level verification methods, including biometric scans and government databases. Do you foresee any potential issues or concerns with these methods?
**Susan Hargrave:** Absolutely. Privacy is one of the biggest concerns with these methods. Many people are uncomfortable with biometric data collection, fearing misuse or breaches of their privacy. There’s also the potential for inaccuracies, as identification processes can sometimes misidentify individuals. Striking a balance between safety and privacy rights is essential.
**Interviewer:** Prime Minister Albanese acknowledged that achieving a perfect solution is unlikely. How do you think the government can improve this legislation moving forward?
**Susan Hargrave:** The government needs to engage with tech companies, child protection advocates, and privacy experts in developing effective, realistic enforcement strategies. Open dialogue and trialing multiple approaches could help find a middle ground that effectively protects children while respecting user privacy. Ongoing evaluation of the legislation’s impact should also be a priority, allowing for adjustments based on real-world results.
**Interviewer:** Thank you, Susan, for sharing your insights on this complex issue. It will be interesting to see how Australia moves forward with this legislation.
**Susan Hargrave:** Thank you for having me. Awareness and ongoing discussions like this one are key to ensuring we create a safer online environment for our children.