Posts

Parental Rights at Stake: Debate Over Bill is Crucial 

,

The Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Bill 2024 is important for families and parental responsibility, yet we were given only one hour to debate it. It’s another Labor-Liberal stitch-up to control everyone through digital identity and misinformation bills.   

We support the Greens in this, because parents should be the ones to supervise their children, not the government. Age verification and facial recognition have failed globally. We should instead, make device management easier for parents. 

This bill will lead to constant surveillance and push children into unsafe online spaces. We must stop the Uniparty’s globalist agenda and work for our country. We support the referral.

Transcript

Well, isn’t this a wonderful day! The Greens are normally helping the government to truncate debate, to guillotine debate. Now they’re talking about adding more time for debating—and we agree with them this time, because we agree with debate. Debate is the way to truth. We agree with their amendment and we will be supporting their amendment. 

This is a vital bill, an absolutely crucial bill. It has serious consequences, and not just for people under 16 years of age. It has serious consequences for the Australian family and who has responsibility for children in this country. Is it the government, or is it going to remain the parents? Parents have already had their responsibility, their authority, whittled away at state and federal level. We need to enshrine responsibility for children with parents. That’s critical. It’s fundamental. This bill has important social and family consequences, and we’ve been given one hour! 

This is a stitch-up between the Labor-Liberal uniparty, yet again. Digital identity; identity verification bill; misinformation/disinformation bill; working on digital currency; children under 16 banned from the internet—these are all working together to capture everyone in this country; we’ve said it for the last four years. We were the first cab off the rank with regard to the Morrison government’s misinformation/disinformation bill and the same with the digital identity bill. Oh, sorry; they called it the Trusted Digital Identity Bill! It’s a stitch-up. 

We need scrutiny, and we will be supporting the Greens on this. Let me tell you why I’m saying this. Parents must be the ones supervising their children in their own home. It is a parent’s responsibility, a parent’s duty, a parent’s right, and you are affecting those things—parental responsibilities, duties and rights. You’re undermining parents. 

Age verification software and facial recognition must be used in every device, whether it be a phone or a computer. Why do we know that? Because this banning of children under 16 years of age has failed in every country, because the bureaucrats can’t control it. So, as to what you’ve set up with your bills, one of the earliest in this parliament from the Labor Party government was identity verification software. We will need the cameras on all the time. What we should be doing, instead of sidelining parents, is making device management easier. Apple, Microsoft and Android could make parental locks easier and more powerful. 

I want to acknowledge Senator Rennick’s comment a couple of days ago when he said that you can already get apps—some free, some for a price—that enable parents to control the apps that are downloaded onto a child’s phone. They’re already there. We don’t need this bill at all. We notice that opposition leader Peter Dutton has joined in supporting the need for this bill, but there’s no need for it. As I said, no country has made age limits work because bureaucrats cannot see us using the device. That’s what you need and that’s what this bill gives you with your preceding bills. We see Mr Littleproud speaking on Sky News in support of this and a huge backlash—devastating comments against Mr Littleproud. If the bill goes through, parents allowing children to watch cartoons on YouTube will be breaking the law. It will need facial recognition and monitoring of key strokes for content to police this. Hackers and burglars will be in paradise. They will be able to come in and watch your activities in the house through your camera 24 hours a day and find out when you are going to be out of the house. Parents watching a cooking video with their child on their lap will be locked out because the child is under 16. Children will be forced into the dark corners of the web—peer-to-peer messaging—with no protections against illegal material, hate, phishing, sextortion and hacking. 

We have already seen these bills being introduced in Canada, the United Kingdom, Australia and other countries simultaneously. This goes beyond the uniparty in this country; it goes globally. We have seen in the United Kingdom police raiding journalists and commentators who have been criticising the Starmer government and jailed. That is where this is heading. We have seen the digital ID, misinformation and disinformation bill, identity verification started and introduced by the LNP—the Liberal-Nationals. Stop working as the uniparty for globalists and start working for our country. We will support the referral.  

/0 Comments/by

Social Media Age Ban Faces Powerful Testimony in Senate Hearing

,

Today, the Senate held a Committee Hearing on the Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Bill 2024. This expedited inquiry was scheduled with just one day’s notice, as the Liberal and Labor parties want to rush this legislation through. The first witness, Ms. Lucy Thomas OAM, CEO of Project Rockit, delivered six minutes of the most relevant, heartfelt, and inspirational testimony on the issue of censoring social media for those under 16. Her insights demonstrated the benefit of lived experience.

Before taking a position on this bill, take the time to listen to her testimony.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you all for being here. Ms Thomas, there are harms and benefits at school, and there are harms and benefits in life generally. Claude Mellins, professor of medical psychology in the Departments of Psychiatry and Sociomedical Sciences at Columbia University, stated: ‘For young people, social media provides a platform to help them figure out who they are. For very shy or introverted young people, it can be a way to meet others with similar interests.’ She added: ‘Social support and socializing are critical influences on coping and resilience.’ They provide an important point of connection. She then said in relation to Covid: ‘On the other hand, fewer opportunities for in-person interactions with friends and family meant less of a real-world check on some of the negative influences of social media.’ Isn’t the professor making an important point? It’s not about stopping real-world interactions it’s about balancing social media with real-world interactions. Isn’t it about a balance, not about prohibition? Isn’t it also the fact that parents and not governments are best placed to decide how their children develop?

Ms Thomas: Thank you for the question. I think you’re speaking to that idea of balance that a lot of us have been trying to refer to. We are acutely aware of the harms, and I think they’re beautifully captured in that quote, and acutely aware of the risk that we may create new harms by cutting young people off. I think this is a really important point, and I’d like to give you one example, a quote from a young person, Rhys from Tamworth, who commented: ‘Social media has helped me figure out and become comfortable with my sense of self, as there is a large community that is able to connect me with people all over the world. Living in a regional area, it’s difficult to find people dealing with the same personal developments, and social media really helped.’ This is beyond just direct mental health intervention; this is about finding other people like you. This is about finding spaces where we can affirm ourselves, use our voices and mobilise around actions that we care about, just like we’re doing here today. I’d love to point out that the Office of the eSafety Commissioner has done some fantastic research into the experiences of specific groups—those who are First Nations, LGBTQIA+ Australians, and disabled and neurodivergent young people. All of these group face greater hate speech online. Actually belonging to one of those communities, I can say that we also face greater hate speech offline. What was really important is they also found that young people in these communities that already face marginalisation are more likely to seek emotional support—not just mental health support, but connection, news and information, including information about themselves and the world around them. So I take your point.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. I have another quote from Deborah Glasofer, Associate Professor of Clinical Medical Psychology at Stanford University:

Whether it’s social media or in person, a good peer group makes the difference. A group of friends that connects over shared interests like art or music, and is balanced in their outlook on eating and appearance, is a positive. In fact, a good peer group online may be protective against negative or in-person influences.

Is this bill throwing out the good with the bad, instead of trying to improve support in digital media skills to allow children and parents to handle these trials better?

Ms Thomas: I think there is a risk of that, yes. I think we really need to, in a much longer and more thorough timeframe, interrogate and weigh up all of these risks and unintended possible impacts. I’d like to draw another quote from Lamisa from Western Sydney University. You spoke about influencers; we tend to imagine those being solely negative. Lamisa says: ‘Social media has given me creators who are people of colour, and I think it has really allowed me to learn that I don’t have to justify my existence, that I am allowed to have an opinion and that I am allowed to have a voice about who I am.’ So I absolutely think that there is a risk that we’ll throw out these experiences; in our desire to protect people, we create unintended harms that they have to live with.

Senator ROBERTS: I just received a text message from someone in this building, a fairly intelligent person, and he said: ‘I was born with a rare disorder. I spent more than four decades feeling isolated until I discovered people with the same disorder on social media. This legislation would prevent people under 16 from linking with the communities online that can provide them with shared lived experience.’ What do you say?

Ms Thomas: I’m going to give you one more quote. I’m aware that young people aren’t in the room, so I’m sorry I’m citing these references. Hannah from Sydney says: ‘Where I struggled in the physical world thanks to a lack of physically accessible design and foresight by those responsible for building our society, I have thrived online.’ The digital world has created so much opportunity for young people to participate and fully realise their opportunities. We just need to be very careful.

I know in talking about all these benefits, I’m probably going to receive an immediate response about some of the harms. I’m not here to say that harms don’t exist. They do. If anyone is aware of them, it’s me. I’ve been working in this space for 20 years. I started Project Rockit because I wanted to tackle these issues as a young person fresh out of school. We know they’re there, but we have to be very careful not to impact these positive benefits young people face.

Senator ROBERTS: Ms Thomas, isn’t there very important access to parents and grandparents on social media for their support and experiential interaction. A lot of children interact with their parents and grandparents through social media?

Ms Thomas: Am I allowed to answer this one?

CHAIR: Yes.

Ms Thomas: I think one of the big, grave concerns around implementation and enforcement is that it won’t just be young people who need to verify their ages online; it will be every Australian. The methods available, every Australian sharing their biometric data or presenting a government issued ID, are going to pose challenges for those Australians that you are talking about—older Australians who are already facing higher rates of digital exclusion and those from marginalised communities. Absolutely, this is a vital tool for grandparents and kids, for intergenerational play and learning, and we risk cutting young people off but also cutting older people off.

/5 Comments/by

One Nation Defending Free Speech Since 2019

,

It’s often said that success has many parents and failure is an orphan. In that case, I’d like a paternity test on the vote that removed the Misinformation and Disinformation Bill from the Senate Notice Paper. Some Senators now being credited with this move only solidified their opposition last week. Meanwhile, One Nation has stood firmly against this bill since its first iteration was released under the Morrison Liberal Government in 2019.  

One Nation has been the only party consistently campaigning against this bill since 2019. A vote for One Nation is a vote for freedom of speech.   In my remarks, I’ll outline the reasons why One Nation opposed this bill.

Transcript

To the people of Australia, congratulations—you’ve won. You put so much pressure on the ‘uniparty’ that you won; they folded. Four years ago I came out against the Communications Legislation Amendment (Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill 2024, and it’s been a slog ever since. That’s when the Morrison-Joyce Liberal-National government introduced it. I’ll just make some comments there. This is a part of five components—the mis- and disinformation bill; the Digital ID Act; identity verification bill; under-16s banned from social media; Reserve Bank of Australia working on a digital currency that’ll be connected to a global digital currency—of a package towards social credit. The second point is that that package is being put by the major parties—Liberals, Nationals and Labor. The third point is that it’s connected to implementation of a similar package around the world in many other nations right now. It’s led to the arrest of 150 people in the United Kingdom, with jail for some, simply for making comments dissenting against the British government. 

This misinformation and disinformation bill had some worthy sections on regulating the tech giants, but it was primarily about censorship and censoring the Australian people. One Nation supports a referendum to enshrine freedom of speech in our Constitution. One Nation supports legislation to mandate and enable free speech and to make free speech sacrosanct so that no state can trump it. One Nation wants to appeal 18C. This has come out of 18C, which is scandalous. They’re some of the basics. I will read part of my dissenting report on the Senate’s inquiry into this bill. It began: 

1.1 I thank the witnesses for their submissions and for attending the hearings. 

There were many, many witnesses. Thank you, Australia. 

1.2 The committee report— 

as it was originally drafted— 

into the Communications Legislation Amendment (Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill 2024 flies in the face of the expert evidence the committee has received across three days of hearings into the bill. 

That evidence just completely smashed it and reversed it. But, with the tidal wave of views from across Australia, the committee changed its view—wonderful. 

1.3 A committee inquiry should not perform the function of gift wrapping a decision which has already been taken. A committee inquiry should have the role of deciding if the decisions taken in the bill are correct. 

The first report did not do that fundamental thing. 

1.4 For three days, the committee heard from human rights advocates and stakeholders who all criticised this bill on human rights grounds, and added warnings the bill would backfire. 

That’s what the committee heard almost unanimously. 

1.5 It is extraordinary the committee would choose to ignore the recommendations of the very people who they invited to attend to advise them on this matter. 

Only when the public turned savagely against the government was the committee report changed at the last minute to reflect today’s motion. The action of the committee to that point would have made it harder: 

… for any Senate inquiry in the future to attract the quality of witnesses this inquiry attracted. 

Censorship was the purpose of this bill. Censorship was the purpose of the committee report. The criticism of the bill was well placed. My comments continued: 

1.7 The Australian Human Rights Commission questioned a basic foundation of the bill—the definition of ‘information’. In the Explanatory Memorandum the term ‘is intended to include opinions, claims, commentary and invective’. 

1.8 The Australian Human Rights Commission stated ‘considerable caution should be exercised before including opinions and commentary within the scope of “information” as this significantly broadens the potential reach of this legislation and increases the risk of it being used to censor legitimate debate about matters of public importance. 

That is profound. That is the bedrock of a democracy.  

1.9 One Nation agrees with this concern. The bill misconstrues human rights as relative, indeed as subordinate to the need of government to suppress opinions they don’t like. 

That’s what you tried to do. 

1.10 The Human Rights Law Centre recommended Clause 11(e) should be amended to reflect a broader commitment to human rights in the bill’s objectives. It also recommended the Australian Human Rights Commission should be consulted on the development of codes. 

‘Consultation’—that’d be nice. 

1.11 Several submissions related to the specific areas of misinformation. The Australian Medical Professional Society submitted: 

By centralising control over what constitutes medical ‘truth’ in the hands of government regulators, we risk creating an even more Orwellian twist in a system that is already subject to manipulation by powerful interests, to further suppress inconvenient facts and legitimate debate. This would be disastrous not only for free speech and democracy, but for public health as well. 

People’s lives depend on this. And you wanted to stop it. 

1.12 The report failed to address a critical failing in the debate around COVID. Namely that information presented as medical truth at the time has been proven to be wrong— 

not only wrong but completely contradicting the truth— 

and information banned as misinformation has now been proven to be true. 

Repeatedly, repeatedly and repeatedly. 

1.13 On the issue of COVID messaging, One Nation has maintained a contrary position to the Government of the day since 2020. This followed expert testimony from multiple specialists, research doctors and whistle blowers which contradicted the official narrative. 

1.14 The implication is simple—what is misinformation one day is truth the next. This is the danger in the Government deciding what is and is not misinformation. The bias will always be in favour of the government’s ‘truth’. 

I asked every witness a fundamental question on the last day of the hearing: who is the arbiter of truth? No-one could say who is specified as the arbiter of truth in the bill. They all said that it would default to ACMA. Other provisions in my additional comments included: religious freedom, inauthentic behaviour and media literacy. But the fundamental thing is this was an attempt by the Labor Party to build on the Liberal Party’s previous attempts at censorship by corralling misinformation under their definition, and then driving the social media organisations, the big tech companies, to ram it down people’s throats. That was what you were doing. I’m pleased to see that the people of Australia have put the brake on you. Now I appeal to the people of Australia to keep a foot on their throat because we must stop the banning of under-16-year-old people from social media. 

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator O’Sullivan): Senator McKenzie, you have 10 seconds. 

/2 Comments/by

U16’s Censorship Bill Fails to Protect Kids from Harm

,

This is the third and final session on the Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Bill 2024 — aka U16’s Social Media Ban – an important piece of legislation being waved through by the Liberal and Labor parties with minimal debate. The Department was called to explain the bill, which of course they defended with responses that would not hold up under closer scrutiny.  If only Senators had time to do this.

Several serious revelations emerged during the Department’s testimony, including this little pearl: it’s better for foreign-owned multinational tech platforms to control children’s internet use than for parents to supervise or manage their children’s social media and online interactions. One Nation strongly disagrees.  

I also raised concerns about the YouTube exemption, which is worded in such a way that it could apply to any video streaming site, including pornographic sites. The Department’s response was to point to other regulations and codes that “supposedly” protect children from accessing porn.   What utter nonsense! Any child in this country without a parental lock can access Pornhub by simply clicking the “Are you over 18?” box. Teachers nationwide report that even primary school students are being exposed to and influenced by pornography. If this bill accomplishes anything good, it should be to prevent children from accessing pornography, which it deliberately avoids doing.  

This bill claims to be about many things – keeping children safe is not one of them.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing today. Could you please explain the provisions around exemptions for sites that do not require a person to have an account, meaning they can simply arrive and watch? An example would be children watching cartoons on YouTube. What’s the definition here of a site that can be viewed without an account?

Mr Irwin: I guess it goes to the obligation around holding an account, or having an account, which relates to the creation or the holding of an account. So if there is any process—

Senator ROBERTS: Is it the creator’s responsibility?

Mr Irwin: Sorry?

Senator ROBERTS: Is it the creator’s responsibility? Is the account the creator’s responsibility?

Mr Irwin: No, all responsibility is on the platform. If a platform under this definition has the facility to create an account and/or has under 16s who have an account on there already, then they will have to take reasonable steps.

Senator ROBERTS: What’s the functional difference in your definition between YouTube and Porn Hub?

Mr Chisholm: One contains content that is restricted content that is prohibited to be accessed by children under law. Porn Hub is a pornographic website.

Senator ROBERTS: I understand that.

Mr Chisholm: YouTube has a whole range of information, including educational content and a range of information that doesn’t really match up with a site like Porn Hub.

Mr Irwin: That was the second limb of the age-assurance trial: looking at technologies for 18 or over, looking at pornographic material for age assurance. That also goes to the matter of the codes that DIGI were talking about before. Those codes relate to access to particular types of content including pornographic content.

Senator ROBERTS: Let me try and understand—

Mr Chisholm: The design of Pornhub is to provide pornographic material to people who are permitted to watch it. That’s the difference.

Senator ROBERTS: I guessed that, but I asked for the functional difference. Pornhub is 18-plus, but apparently you don’t have to prove it. Could you show me where in the legislation, in this child protection bill, you’re actually including porn sites?

Mr Chisholm: There are separate laws in relation to pornographic material, which we can step you through. This bill is more about age limits for digital platforms, imposing a 16-year age limit for digital platforms. There are other laws that prohibit access to pornographic material online including the codes process and classification system.

Mr Irwin: That’s correct.

Senator ROBERTS: What’s required for someone aged 16 or 17 to get access to Pornhub?

Mr Irwin: That’s subject to the codes that industry is developing right now, which DIGI talked about, in terms of what specifically is required. There is also a whole system of classification laws that are designed to prevent access to adult content by children. On top of that, there’s the eSafety Commissioner’s administration of things like basic online safety expectations and the phase 2 codes that are under development.

Senator ROBERTS: I’m glad you raised that because I was going to raise it. You exempt gaming sites because they already carry age recommendations. In fact, some video game sites are MA 15+; they’re not 16-plus. What will have to change? Will it be your bill or the MA 15+ rating?

Mr Chisholm: The bill doesn’t require them to change—

Ms Vandenbroek: Nothing will change.

Mr Chisholm: because gaming isn’t caught by the new definition. There’s nothing that requires gaming systems to change.

Senator ROBERTS: So social media is 16-plus, but video games are 15-plus.

Mr Chisholm: The policy here is to treat games as different to social media. For some of the reasons we talked about before, they are seen as a different form of content consumption and engagement to social media.

Senator ROBERTS: Doesn’t this indicate to people that this bill’s intent is not about what the government says?

Mr Chisholm: No, the bill is definitely about what the government says. It imposes a firm age limit of 16 on account creation for social media for all of the concerns and reasons outlined about the damage that’s being done to under-16s through exposure to social media. Games are also subject to classification rules, so they have their own regime they have to comply with now.

Mr Irwin: They’re subject to the broader Online Safety Act as well.

CHAIR: Senator Roberts, I’ll get you to wrap up.

Senator ROBERTS: I have a last question. I understand that there are parental controls that parents can buy—they’re sometimes free—in the form of apps that watch over what children are watching. What alternatives are already available for parents to control children’s social media and control their exposure? Did you evaluate them, and why don’t you just hand the authority back to where it belongs—to parents—because they can do a better job of parenting their child than government can?

Mr Chisholm: The very strong feedback that we received from parents during this consultation is that they do not want to bear the burden or responsibility of making decisions that should be better reflected in the law. At the moment, parents often refer to the 13-year age limit that’s part of the US terms of service—

Mr Irwin: For privacy reasons.

Mr Chisholm: for privacy reasons, that apply in Australia. That’s often used for parents to say to their children, ‘You can’t have a social media account until you’re 13.’ It’s really important for parents to point to a standard law, an age limit, that will apply to everybody. It’s also feedback we’ve received from a lot of children. They would rather have a universal law that applies to all children under the age of 16 instead of a situation where some children have it and some children don’t, and where all of the harms that we’re aware of from exposure to social media continue to magnify. We also don’t want a situation where there is any question the parents have some legal responsibility in relation to an age limit. The very strong view of the government is that that responsibility should be borne by the platforms, not parents.

Senator ROBERTS: We’re not going to have—

Mr Chisholm: The platforms are in a much better position to control their services than parents are.

Senator ROBERTS: So we want to put parenting in the hands of social media platforms?

Mr Chisholm: The parents have said to us that they have a very strong view that they want a 16-year age limit, and that the platforms are better placed to enforce that because it is their platforms.

Senator ROBERTS: How much notice did the parents get to give their comments? Because we got 24 hours notice of the closing of submissions.

Mr Irwin: We’ve been consulting, and I will add we do have evidence that 58 per cent of parents were not aware of social media parental monitoring, and only 36 per cent actually searched for online safety information.

Senator ROBERTS: So wouldn’t it be better to educate the parents?

Mr Chisholm: We are educating parents, too. That’s part of the digital literacy and other measures we are undertaking. Education is important, but it’s not enough.

Senator ROBERTS: I meant educating parents about the controls already available to keep the control over their children in parents’ hands, not usurping it and putting it in the government’s hands.

Mr Chisholm: I think it comes back to the point that we’ve made that the very strong view here is that platforms should bear the responsibility for imposing or following an age limit, not parents, who don’t have as much information about how these platforms operate as the platforms themselves.

/0 Comments/by

U16’s Censorship Bill Flawed and Overreaching

,

The Inquiry into the Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Bill 2024 — aka U16’s Social Media Ban – heard testimony from the Digital Industry Group (DIGI), the industry body for social media companies such as Google, Meta, and X (formerly Twitter). During the session, the witness was given a torrid time by some Senators who were not receiving the answers they wanted. I commend the witness for her patience.

My questions focus on the bill’s wording, which fails to clearly define core concepts. This lack of clarity makes it impossible for social media companies to implement the legislation. Instead, what it will do is grant massive power to the eSafety Commissioner. The bill is so broadly written that the eSafety Commissioner can just about do anything she wants. This is not how legislation should be drafted.

One Nation agrees with DIGI’s testimony and supports the bill being withdrawn and redrafted with proper checks and balances, clear definitions, and then subjected to proper debate.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing today. I’m trying to understand if YouTube will or will not be included in this bill. Section 63C defines age-restricted social media platforms as ones where the service allows users to interact, which YouTube does in the comments, or allows users to post material, which YouTube does, ora significant part of the purpose is to allow interaction, which YouTube does in some channels. Do you consider that YouTube is included in this bill?  

Ms Bose: This underscores the broader challenge of this broad definition that encompasses a range of services and also the discretion it affords the minister in relation to making those determinations. I might hand to my colleague, Dr Duxbury, who may have more to add around some of the questions we have around that discretionary determination of what is in scope.  

Dr Duxbury: Senator, you are absolutely right that the bill doesn’t make clear who is in or out of scope. To us, that is a really serious flaw in the bill. It is absolutely unclear who is in or out, and we don’t know what criteria willbe used to determine these exemptions. The explanatory memorandum suggests that some services will be out of scope, but that will not occur until a future date, and that date is unknown.  

Senator ROBERTS: Speaking of the explanatory memorandum, page 21 says that children can visit sites that do not require an account. Is that your understanding?  

Dr Duxbury: That is my understanding.  

Senator ROBERTS: You said in point 3 of your submission that parliament is being asked to pass a bill without knowing how it will work. No regulator worldwide has done age assurance successfully yet—nowhere. We’ve got almost no time to discuss this in public, so I don’t know how you are even here. Thank you for being here. You say, though the government’s trial exploration of age assurance in the bill is not yet complete, only a year ago the government concluded that these technologies were ‘immature’. Could you expand on that, please. 

Dr Duxbury: The conclusion was not only that the technologies were immature but also that there were risks about the reliability of the technology and their impact on digital inclusion. We heard earlier the fact that, because these requirements will apply to all Australians, the impact will be felt not only by young people but also by other Australians, who will be required to age-verify before they get access to a very broad range of services.  

Senator ROBERTS: This is quoting from your tabled opening statement: ‘If we are proceeding on this fasttracked timetable, what is most important is that the bill contains structures for future consultation.’ You go on to say: ‘As drafted, the bill only requires that the minister seek advice from the eSafety Commissioner before making legislative rules. However, given these expert warnings of youth harm from a social media ban, the unknown technology and the privacy implications, further consultation with the community and technical experts is vital.DIGI suggests amending section 63C of the bill to include an additional requirement for a minimum 30 days of industry and public consultation before making legislative rules.’ Could you expand on that, please. 

ACTING CHAIR: As quickly as you can. 

Dr Duxbury: Sunita, did you want to take that? 

Ms Bose: Jenny, I will hand over to you, but there is an additional reflection we had over the weekend that we didn’t have a chance to include in our submission issued on Friday evening that we might touch upon here in addition to what you’ve read there, Senator Roberts, around the need for reasons for a decision. Let me hand over to you, Jenny, to elaborate. 

Dr Duxbury: We have recommended additional consultation because we think that, in the current context, it’s quite likely that the bill will proceed and proceed quickly. We understand that this committee will only have one day to basically ponder that question. If the bill is going to proceed on its current timetable then, frankly, adding in a consultation requirement seemed to be the only thing that was likely to improve it, given the complete absence of detail as to how it will be implemented. However, another possible improvement to the bill would be to require additional transparency regarding the making of these decisions. I believe the minister has the power both to include particular services within the scope of the bill and also to exclude them. To the extent that legislative instruments are going to be made to flesh out the detail of the bill, I think additional transparency could be very helpful. 

Senator ROBERTS: ‘A complete absence of detail’—thank you. 

/0 Comments/by

Social Media Ban or Big Brother Control?

,

The government, with support of the Liberals, is proposing a ban on children under 16 accessing social media, justifying the measure by claiming it’s “popular.”  Oh, really? It’s ironic that the same parties that accuse One Nation of populism are now pushing a measure not because it’s workable, but simply because it’s supposedly popular!   

A true conservative party, Mr Dutton, would support parents to supervise their own children in their own homes. A true conservative, Mr Dutton, would not be promoting big government replacing parents.   

The eGovernment is also trialling age-assurance technology, which uses facial scans of every social media user to confirm they are over 16. If there’s any doubt, the system will cross-check the person’s Digital ID for verification to ensure it matches. In addition to facial scans, the “Assurance AI” will monitor keystrokes, audio patterns and “other measures” to determine the user’s age.   

By now you may conclude, as I did, that enforcing a social media age limit of 16 would require verifying everyone’s age using the device camera and their Digital ID—which everyone would be forced to have. So much for Digital ID being voluntary. Even adults will need one to continue using social media.   

In the unlikely event they can actually make this work, children would move to other platforms that are less regulated, less safe and more prone to child exploitation.   

Even more alarming is the fact that conversations would be monitored for signs of age, yet what happens to the voice prints and keystroke logs this system collects?   

To make this work, cameras on devices would need to run constantly to ensure a new user hasn’t hopped on to an existing computer session. This means cameras would always be on, capturing everything – video and audio – that is happening in the room.   

This creates a perfect scenario for hackers to access the feed. 

One Nation opposes this legislation. The best people to monitor and regulate children’s internet use are parents—not a Big Brother government. 

Transcript

I move: 

That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency:  

The need to recognise that a blanket ban on social media for children under 16 expropriates parental power, and for the Senate to affirm that parental responsibility rests in the parents, not the Federal Government. 

The government is proposing a ban on children under 16 accessing social media and justifies the measure because it’s supposedly popular. Oh, really? It’s ironic that the same parties who accuse One Nation of populism are now promoting a measure not because it’s workable but, rather, because it’s supposedly popular. 

A true conservative, though, would support parents supervising their own children in their own home. That’s not what Mr Peter Dutton is doing. A true conservative opposition leader would not be promoting big government replacing parents. Instead, he would be making device supervision easier for parents. 

The government, repeatedly, is giving more power to social media giants under the guise, they say, of transparency. They’re not revealing anything. We still don’t see the algorithms of the social media giants—international players who have control over our space. What we’re doing is not making device supervision easier for parents. We’re not making it easier for parents to fulfil their responsibilities as parents.  

It’s time that social media companies—plus Apple, Microsoft and Android—made their parental locks easier and more powerful. So let’s start there. No country in the world has made age limits work, because bureaucrats or social media platforms in far-off countries can’t see who’s using the computer or phone. The only people who can see what the child is doing with their device are the people in their home with them—the parents. It’s a parental duty, a parental responsibility and a parental right to raise their children and to supervise their children. If this proposal from the government goes through, parents allowing their children to watch cartoons and educational shows on free-to-view social media, including YouTube, would be breaking the law. Parents supervising their children would be breaking the law. Watching the same material on Foxtel at $99 a month would be legal. Does that seem right? To me it doesn’t. 

Essential and YouGov polling showed a majority of Australians support higher age restrictions on social media. This is the same Essential poll which found 17-year-olds should be able to buy alcohol and watch pornography and also recommended the age for criminal responsibility be raised to 14. Who did they ask? Are these next in the uniparty’s embrace of populism? My speech earlier today gave information on the unintended consequences of this idea. I will post the speeches together on my website. This problem is as old as the internet, and it’s not going anywhere. Let parents parent. That’s fundamental to raising children. 

We’re seeing the opportunity in education now. States and the federal education department, which doesn’t have a single school, allow indoctrination programs through the national curriculum. Instead of being education, it’s now indoctrination. They’re grooming young children for the globalist agenda. They terrorise children: ‘The climate is changing. The globe is boiling. The world will end. You’ve only got five years to live unless we do something.’ These are the terrorists for young children today—the globalists who are pushing this agenda and this legislation around the world. 

One Nation supports this matter being referred to a Senate inquiry, where technology experts can testify on the harms and unintended consequences of replacing parental supervision with government overreach and government control. We need to let parents parent. Instead of giving more power to the globalist corporations and to the internet behemoths, we need to put the power back with parents and let parents look after their children. As I said before, it is a parental duty, a parental responsibility and a parental right. I am sick and tired, and so are so many parents and grandparents across this country, of the government trying to be a nanny state to protect their kids all while grooming their children for control, whether directly through education or indirectly through social media. What we need to do is actually look at what people need and then act accordingly. One Nation is not in favour of this. We are surprised that the Liberal Party, including their leader, seem to be lining up in support of censoring teens on the internet. 

/13 Comments/by

Social Media Ban for Under 16’s: A Gateway to Government Surveillance and Control

,

We all know the real intent of the Digital ID agenda. The United Kingdom, with laws similar to ours, has shown alarming developments. In the last two weeks, British police have visited and advised hundreds of journalists and commentators to stop criticising the Starmer government’s policies. Some have even been arrested and imprisoned merely for expressing their opinions.  

The Digital ID, misinformation laws and facial verification systems are all part of the control mechanism that facilitates government surveillance and tyranny. The mask has come off quickly. Only recently, Minister Gallagher reassured Australians that digital IDs would not be compulsory. Yet, without one, life will become impossible.  

Now, there is a proposal to introduce age verification for social media. This would require every user—not just adults, as initially told to us, but also children—to have a digital ID.  

Age verification has never been successfully implemented anywhere in the world. The only way it can function is through a Digital ID with facial recognition, which would require constant re-scanning of the user’s face, potentially every minute, to confirm identity. This setup would necessitate keeping the computer camera permanently on, exposing children to significant privacy risks, including hacking.  

One Nation firmly believes that the best person to oversee internet use is the one present in the room with the children: their parents. We oppose intrusive government and support the primacy of the family in raising and protecting their children.

Transcript: Question Time

My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, Senator McAllister. During Senate estimates on 5 November, the age assurance verification trial and social media age verification proposals were examined. For those who missed it, let me see if I have this correct. The system the government is considering will require two things: firstly, a digital ID to access social media for all users and, then, to make sure nobody is using a dodgy digital ID, age verification assurance technology, which will scan the user’s face, monitor their key strokes for content and technique and calculate their age. If it finds the person might be underage, it will compare it back to the biometric data in the person’s digital ID and check their identity and date of birth. Is that an accurate, concise explanation of the system being examined? 

Senator McALLISTER: No. I suppose I could sit down, but, no, that is not accurate. We are obviously engaged in an important policy reform process to protect children from some of the harms that they are exposed to on social media. I would be really surprised, Senator Roberts, if you hadn’t heard about this amongst the people that you talk to in your constituency. I think every senator in this place has had a conversation with a parent or perhaps with a teacher who was concerned about the kind of information that children are seeing online and accessing online and the inability of parents to actually engage and protect their children from some of those harms. 

We want Australian parents to actually know that we’ve got their backs. That is the underlying motivation for embarking on the reform. It’s, of course, about protecting kids. We still want them to be connected. We don’t want to punish children. We don’t want to isolate them. But we do want them to operate in an environment that is safe, and that’s the reason that we have committed to bringing forward legislation for a minimum age limit for social media this fortnight. We have worked with a pretty wide range of stakeholders, and we’re very grateful for the support that we’ve received in doing this work. Obviously, the National Cabinet has taken a very strong interest in this, and first ministers in that forum have agreed that the Commonwealth will legislate a minimum age of 16. 

I think one of the implications of your question and the way that you framed it was a concern around privacy, and that’s a legitimate question to ask. We will not put at risk the personal information of Australians, and the regulations will include robust privacy protections for personal information with significant penalties for platforms that breach— (Time expired) 

The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, first supplementary? 

I predicted during the digital ID debate that one person could sign a younger person into social media, and the only solution is keeping the device camera on permanently, which is an outrageous breach of trust and privacy. While you’re peeping into the camera feed of all social media users, hackers will have an easy hack to spy on families in their bedrooms, to learn daily routines and to work out when the home can be safely burgled. Minister, in the name of supposedly keeping children safe, are you building a surveillance apparatus for perverts and thieves? 

Senator McALLISTER: No. 

The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, second supplementary? 

The government’s solution still requires a camera to be permanently on. There will be continuous surveillance of the computer user in their own home by the government. If a parent has a child on their knee watching a children’s video or a cooking video on social media, will the system lock them out because the child is under 16? Minister, in your brave new world of internet regulation, do parents have any rights over their children’s lives or is the Albanese government cancelling parents? 

Senator McALLISTER: Almost nothing in the set of propositions put forward by Senator Roberts in his question to me were accurate, true or based on anything that has been said publicly by the minister or anyone in the government, and I want to make that very, very clear. Our focus is, in fact, on protecting children from an environment that has not been designed to secure their safety, and the reason that we know that is we hear that all the time from the parents that speak to us. 

Our interest, in fact, is in creating an environment that is supportive of parents who are trying to engage in a constructive way to deal with the information that their children are exposed to. Our interest is in supporting those parents who say, ‘We wish to do better in terms of the harms our kids are experiencing, but we don’t have the tools.’ That is the focus of our legislative— (Time expired) 

Transcript: Take Note of Answers to Question Time

I move: 

That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Emergency Management and Minister for Cities (Senator McAllister) to a question without notice I asked today relating to age verification on social media: 

We all know the real intent of the digital ID agenda. The United Kingdom has almost the same laws that we have here, and in the last two weeks the British police have visited and advised hundreds of journalists and commentators that they should stop criticising the Starmer government’s policies. Some were arrested and imprisoned for nothing more than an opinion. The digital ID, misinformation laws and facial verification laws are all part of the control mechanism that facilitates government surveillance and tyranny. The mask has come off quickly. Only recently, Minister Gallagher reassured Australians that the digital ID was not compulsory, yet, without it, life will be impossible. 

The digital ID started life under the Morrison Liberal government. As recently as April, the opposition leader, Peter Dutton, championed the Communications Legislation Amendment (Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill 2024, and the Liberals support social media age verification. Age verification means the government forcing the digital ID on everyone, paired with frequent facial scans from the camera on your device. That means the camera on your internet enabled device will be on permanently. One Nation opposes a world where children become hackers and subversives before they’re old enough to drive, just so they can keep in contact with their friends and relatives on social media. Children will be forced into the dark corners of the web like peer-to-peer messaging, where no protections exist against illegal material, hate, phishing, hacking and sextortion. Adults will no longer express their opinions for fear of that 4 am United Kingdom-style raid from the thought police. Australians should have the option of a regulated private verification service if they see fit, because mandating digital ID is an unacceptable infringement of personal sovereignty. The government running the scheme and having all your data in real time is absolutely terrifying. 

Senator Hanson and I tried to move a Senate inquiry into the referendum to enshrine freedom of speech in our Constitution—it was opposed. One Nation will repeal the digital ID and related bills. We will protect free speech, protect the rights of parents and defend the human rights of all Australians. 

/by

Government Ducks for Cover on Misinformation and Disinformation Bill

,

The government is trying to rush through the Misinformation and Disinformation Bill at all costs. It seems they’ve seen this week what happens to their side of politics when voters are presented with the facts and are allowed to make their own decisions.

Despite the government’s claims, it’s not out of the ordinary to talk about Bills at Senate Estimates. I’ll be at the hearing on Monday with my questions.

(And Heston Russell hasn’t received an apology from the ABC for their misinformation).

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: ACMA is appearing in the committee hearing on Monday?

Ms O’Loughlin: With my colleagues on Monday, yes.

Senator ROBERTS: We’ll do it then. That’s fine. I want to look at a particular case study. It is the case of special forces veteran Heston Russell. The ABC said it was inadvertent and that it wasn’t a calculated, deliberate manipulation. They deny manipulating a video to make it look like multiple gunshots were fired at a person. Heston Russell was a victim of disinformation from the ABC. Under the proposed misinformation and disinformation laws, the ABC would be exempt from punishment by spreading disinformation. Correct?

Ms O’Loughlin: I don’t think I can form a view on that, Senator.

Senator McAllister: Senator Roberts, I think this goes to the point Senator Grogan was making. You are really asking how the bill will operate in practice. This is a question that has been referred to this committee. You have scheduled hearings to deal with it on Monday.

Senator ROBERTS: I think that is drawing a long bow, Minister, but I’m happy to leave it until Monday.

Senator McAllister: It is an unusual Senate rule, but it is a very longstanding one, Senator. It has been like this the whole time we’ve been here together.

Senator ROBERTS: I accept that. As I’ve said, I will comply with it for the other questions. I didn’t think that one was about—

Ms O’Loughlin: The only thing I would add to that is that obviously the ABC needs to comply with its own code of practice around things like factual accuracy.

Senator ROBERTS: Yes. And we’ve seen how that goes. This is my final question. It is about the digital restack. I looked through your annual work program report and found this comment regarding the digital television channel restack. I quote:

Exploring possible parameters and solutions for channel planning relevant to possible new shared multiplex arrangements. This work will provide evidence to inform any future restack—

The restack was to be a closing up of digital TV channels. This sounds like you have something else in mind for the sixth channel, the gap between each station. What is the plan for the restack now?

Ms O’Loughlin: The Minister for Communications gave a speech a couple of weeks ago at our RadComms conference. They were talking about a program of work that needed to be done around the future of television. Her emphasis in that was that free-to-air television is incredibly important in Australia because it reaches 99 per cent of the population. It is free to air. How is that going to evolve over the next 10 years? Will it be terrestrially driven or will some of it go online? The minister was talking about a managed and staged process of thinking about the future of broadcasting, including the broadcasters, ourselves, the department and the audiences for those programs. It is looking at how that future state of broadcasting can be managed. A small part of that is what happens to the spectrum that may be freed up over that process. Part of our job is what that might be and when that might occur. The annual report says that requires channel planning. A whole lot of spectrum planning would have to be done to facilitate any movement of the broadcasters and the freeing up of that spectrum over time.

Senator ROBERTS: What does that mean in English, so that people can understand? What is the reality? You have said managed and staged, which indicates to me that it is more than just a premonition of an idea that something might happen. Something is happening.

Ms O’Loughlin: The minister’s announcement was about some things that have happened recently. For example, in Mildura, the Channel 10 services were turned off because the local providers who provided that service didn’t think it was financially feasible to continue it. It has an impact on consumers. WIN has made some changes to its arrangements in other parts of the country, where it is sharing its own infrastructure. That has an implication. That has actually not affected those audiences very well. I think what the minister is saying is that if there is going to be an end state where broadcasting wants to go, we need to think about all the steps that have to take place for that to get there effectively. That is what is alluded to. There is what is called a future broadcasting working group, which the minister has asked to be reinvigorated, to start thinking about these issues for the next 10 or 15 years, not the next two or three.

/2 Comments/by