Both the federal government and opposition say they are on board with the idea to ban teenagers under 16 from using social media, but the prime minister set an important qualifier on Thursday when he said he would support such a ban “if it can be effective”.
Guardian Essential poll last week found two-thirds of voters were in favour of raising the age teenagers can access social media from the 13 that the companies have set themselves up to 16.
On Wednesday, Peter Dutton announced the Coalition would implement the ban within 100 days if he wins the next election. The following morning he was asked three different ways by Sunrise host Natalie Barr how it would work.
First he compared it to getting a licence: “There’s a lot of technology in place to help with the age verification that’s not going to take people’s data etc … so I think it’s a well-balanced approach.”
Barr pointed out teens could use VPNs to appear as though they are outside Australia and therefore not subject to Australian rules. Dutton responded that the technology is improving, and suggested Barr could “talk to the providers, as well as Apple and others”.
Barr then questioned how the ban would be enforced, noting that the X owner, Elon Musk, was “laughing at the prime minister”, alluding to the recent case between X Corp and the eSafety commissioner over the Wakeley church stabbing videos.
Dutton said the same rules needed to apply online as in “real life”, adding: “I think we can work with the technology companies, we can work through the tax system or whatever is required to budge these companies into an outcome.”
At a press conference later, the shadow communications minister pointed to age-assurance methods Meta already uses in limited instances as a potential solution.
In the absence of a policy document, the Coalition seems to be suggesting that some kind of as-yet-undefined technology will appear – maybe using something Meta already uses, or maybe requiring Apple to do something.
If the companies refuse to comply, they will face fines, perhaps through the tax system – even though no company has been fined under the existing Online Safety Act since it came into effect.
To date, the eSafety commissioner has dropped one case over the Wakeley stabbing church videos, and a separate case, in which eSafety is seeking penalties against X, won’t be heard until September.
And there are signs that if the tech companies are forced into something impractical, they might revolt. For instance, there are real concerns Meta could permanently block news in Australia, or pull its platforms out of the country entirely, if the government attempts to force the company to continue paying for news under the news media bargaining code.
As Guardian Australia has previously reported, no country in the world has solved the problem of age verification for social media, and not for lack of trying. In places where it has been attempted, the use of VPNs to bypass age checks skyrocketed.
The $6.5m trial of age-assurance technologies announced in May’s federal budget at least seems to understand the hurdles involved.
On Thursday, the prime minister said: “You’ve got to work out how you do it. How you work that out is by having a real trial … with real funding that was announced before the budget.
“And a ban, if it can be effective, is a good way to go on.”
More likely any successful change to social media age access will be led out of the United States where there is growing momentum. In January, Meta’s chief executive, Mark Zuckerberg, told Congress that – as Dutton suggested – age verification should be something left to Apple and Google to prevent children from being able to download the apps on their phones in the first place.
Dutton has said he would implement the ban in the first 100 days of a Coalition government. That’s assuming the technology and companies are all in alignment by then. An announcement is a start, but without any technical detail on how and whether it will work it is just that.
