The Hon. David Coleman MP
Shadow Minister for Communications
Federal Member for Banks
7 November 2024
Subjects: Government Follows Coalition Plan on Social Media, Coalition’s Opposition to Exemptions
E&OE…
Michael McLaren: The Federal Government, as you know, 1:10 by the way, has announced their big plan for teenagers using social media. Well, they’ve announced the plan, but there’s not many details. The new rules proposed by the Government would see children under the age of 16 blocked from signing up to social media platforms. That’s the meta. The micro, we don’t know, as in what technologies are the Government planning to use? Key details. The extent or the scale of penalties for the social media firms that breach the rules. We don’t have any exemptions. We don’t have detail. The Government may, we don’t. Now we know why this is happening and in principle, I think most Australians support this. There is stacks of data out there, anecdotal and now recorded empirical. We’ve heard the stories that access to these apps has harmed the mental health of so many of our young people. We were all like this when we were young. We’re just not mentally equipped to be able to navigate this effectively. And in so many young people’s lives, it is ubiquitous. It’s everywhere. And so, it is having a disproportionate effect. Now, I think there’s no doubt we have problems here. But as we’ve already discussed on the show, and your feedback has been very instructive, there are many elements to this idea that we need to dissect now. The Opposition are on board in principle. They, of course, have been advocating similar proposals. An age ban, a minimum age, as it were, to access social media. In principle, I support this. In practice, however, can it effectively be done? Well, David Coleman is the Shadow Communications Minister. Looking at the trajectory of the polls this time next year, he may well actually be the Communications Minister and has to enforce this if it comes through. He’s on the line. David, thank you for your time. I do appreciate it.
David Coleman: Good afternoon, Michael.
Michael McLaren: Okay. Commonality first, you and the Government, unity ticket, something’s got to be done about social media and under eighteens access, right?
David Coleman: Well, yeah. I mean, Peter Dutton stood up in June, Michael and said within 100 days of coming into office, if successful at the election, we would put in place an age limit of 16 for social media. So the Government’s been pretty slow on this, to be frank, and there’s been a lot of to-ing and fro-ing about all sorts of different details and issues. But today they have said they will put in place and an age limit of 16, we definitely welcome that, but we are concerned about some of the details. For instance, they’re saying that there will be a system of exemptions, and we don’t see how you can possibly exempt companies like Instagram or TikTok or Snapchat, no matter what they do. As you say, there’s more details to work through but we definitely want to see action in this area.
Michael McLaren: Okay. So exemptions, let’s talk about that. As far as, I don’t have a document in front of me, so I don’t know what the legislation is looking like. You may behind the scenes have started having conversations. The Government had a press conference today. We got a sense of where this might go, but what are these exemptions we’re hearing about?
David Coleman: Yeah, what they seem to be saying is that the regulator will be able to say to a tech platform, if you do A, B and C, you’ll be exempt. Now, we don’t know what A, B and C are. And the problem with that is it creates a lot of grey areas and wiggle room for these tech platforms. And these are highly sophisticated companies, Michael, and they will do everything they possibly can to try and get around these rules. So once you start a negotiation with them about exemptions, I think that ends up in a pretty bad place. We know that, how can you possibly make TikTok safe for young kids? You can’t. So let’s just make very clear that there won’t be any exemptions for these social media platforms. We should define in the legislation who’s in, but we shouldn’t leave it up to a discretionary decision, for instance, to exempt Instagram or TikTok, because these guys have had more than a decade to act on this. They haven’t done it. They have abrogated their responsibility to Australian children. We have been calling for action on this for a very long time, as have, frankly millions of Australians and we want to get this done and we will facilitate getting this through the Parliament this year. We need to see the legislation. We need to ensure there aren’t exemptions for the big tech platforms. But we do want to get this done and this needs decisive action.
Michael McLaren: Okay, my suspicion is the exemptions are being floated because deep down the Government knows it’ll be nigh on impossible to enforce this without exemptions. In other words, a little like what the UK did to the sugar, the soft drink industry. So look, we’re going to bang a sugar tax on you because you know you’re pumping a lot of sugar into the bellies of increasingly fat kids, a lot of diabetes. We’re going to do something about you, you are the catalyst. But if you change your recipe and we’ll give you a little bit of time, we’ll leave you alone. They all change the recipe. So people over there still are glugging on soft drink, it’s just got aspartame in it or something, not sugar, right? So I suspect it’s a bit like that. They know in principle, everyone, a lot of people back them here, but in practice they can’t enforce the principle. And so, let’s put a few exemptions on the table and make the good not be the enemy of the perfect.
David Coleman: Yeah look, I think a couple of points on that. So firstly, it won’t be perfect because nothing, no regulation is, is perfect. And as a Coalition, we’re obviously always reluctant to regulate unless absolutely necessary. But we do think regulations are necessary here because the companies just cannot be trusted at all. Now, will some people get around the rule? Yes, they will. Does that mean that you shouldn’t do anything? No, it doesn’t. I think that the concern with the exemptions is that it may be that the Government’s getting advice that, if you don’t have exemptions, this could lead to big confrontations with social media companies. To which we would say, so be it. The laws of Australia are set by the people of Australia as expressed through their Parliament. They’re not set by Meta, they’re not set by TikTok. And if those social media companies have a problem with the law of Australia, too bad. So I think you’re right, Michael, that the exemption idea probably reflects an anxiety about really directly taking on these big tech companies. But we’re not going to resolve this issue unless we do take them on. And there cannot be any idea of an exemption for these companies because, fundamentally, once you’re in the environment of TikTok, how can that ever be made safe for a child. It can’t.
Michael McLaren: Well exactly. But there’s also obviously security concerns around TikTok, and that’s been raised in the parliament. But that leads me to my next point, even a lot of adults in the parliament that are addicted to this nonsense. So we talk about the social media companies have abrogated their responsibility for too long. Maybe parliament has abrogated its responsibility. But the word that very rarely gets mentioned here, because these people are the voters is the P-word, parents. I mean, let’s just call a spade a spade. I mean, a lot of parents here have also abrogated their responsibility. They set the example. I’ve got a little two-and-a-half-year-old at home. She watches everything my wife and I does and fires it back at us. It shocks us. But if we were spending all day, every day scrolling on our stupid telephones, looking at people shake their tush or cats playing pianos or whatever, that’s what she would do. And so, it’s almost impossible, isn’t it, for the Government to reign this in when, one, parents are going to be exempt from having to enforce this? No punishment if they let their kids go on social media at the age of eight, no punishment. And two, a lot of the parents of the ones that are more addicted to this stuff than the kids.
David Coleman: Well, I think a couple of things on that, Michael. Firstly, I’d say parents are grown-ups and if they want to spend a lot of time on social media, that’s a matter for them. I think in relation to keeping kids off social media, I think here is the reality of how this works today. So if you’ve got a child that’s 10 or 11 and that child is saying every other kid at school is on Snapchat and I’m going to be excluded from all my friends if I’m not in that environment, the fact is, it’s very, very hard for a parent to say, okay well you can’t do that, and you’ve got to stay out of that world.
Michael McLaren: But, I was going to say David, I’ll tell you what, it’s a hell of a lot harder though, when the law, if this comes in, as is being suggested, doesn’t force parents to say exactly that. I mean, if this says children under 16 cannot go on social media, which is the thrust of this for their own good. But by the way, if mum and dad over there let them do it, no consequence. Then we’re going to have playgrounds where half the parents are based off the reading of the law, irresponsible, and the other half are responsible, and we know what’s going to happen.
David Coleman: I think the vast majority of parents, Michael, don’t want their kids on these sites. I think they know this is very bad for kids, especially girls. If you look at the data, I mean, it’s a heavy topic, but if you look at the data on things like self-harm hospitalisations for girls, they are up dramatically in recent years. And I think that parents know that, and I think that parents want to be able to keep those kids off social media. And so I think that when you have a law that’s put in place, it helps the kids, it helps the parents, it gives the parents the power that the legislation brings to say, well, actually it’s against the law for you to be on, under 16. And that is going to strengthen the arm of millions of Australian parents who don’t want their kids in these environments but are actually struggling with that.
Michael McLaren: Yeah, but the muscle in that strengthened arm is automatically weakened when the parents next door don’t enforce it, or the parent of the best friend in the playground doesn’t. They go in for the sleepover – hang on, you’re on social media. Mum and dad let me do it. This is what I’m saying, I understand the principle. I support the principle. In maybe eight or so years’ time, this will be my daughter I’m trying to protect from all this garbage. But if the next lot of parents don’t enforce it and the one after that does, but then the one after that doesn’t, we’ve got a big problem. Right? So I understand the principle, but I think in practice this is going to be pretty ineffective. I mean, let me ask you this. You understand this better than me, David. Age verification in principle. Okay so 16, we’ve landed on that age. That’ll do fine. So how do we enforce it? Because if my memory serves me right, all those years ago when I went on Facebook, you sort of say what your name, you can call yourself Donald Duck. They don’t care. And then you go and say, I was born in 1852. Well they don’t care. You could be a four-year-old. It doesn’t matter. No way to check it. So how are we going to verify that 16-year-olds are indeed 16-year-olds and not 14-year-olds or 12-year-olds? What are we going to have, 200-point ID checks with passports and age verification cards and Governments getting involved? How are we going to do this?
David Coleman: Well no, not those things, Michael. Let me give you an example. Today, in some limited circumstances, Meta does do age verification. They do it for dating in the US and they do it if somebody changes their age. Someone who said they were previously 12, now says they’re 18. So they do it in those circumstances and they say when they do it, it’s 97% effective. So it’s not the fact that they can’t do it, it’s that they don’t want to do it. And so basically, what the legislation should do and we need to make sure that this is what the Government’s legislation does in fact do, is impose a standard on them that says you have to meet, and the UK uses the term highly effective age assurance. And there may be different methods used by different platforms, whether it’s artificial intelligence or a range of different things. But there’s a legislated standard that says you can’t just ignore this issue anymore. You can’t just ignore it, which is what they do now, and it won’t be perfect and there will be occasions where some people get around it, but it will be infinitely more perfect than what we have now, which is, as you say, you can be eight years old, say you’re 25 and that’s fine.
Michael McLaren: And so you’re saying that the tech exists. It’s just that we don’t insist upon it and so therefore they don’t apply it here?
David Coleman: Correct. Because it’s not good for them commercially. Once they apply the technology, that means they’re going to identify underage users.
Michael McLaren: Well it knocks out part of their market.
David Coleman: That’s right. So it’s less ad revenue. So they don’t have any financial incentive. All their financial incentives point the other way. What the law does is basically say, you have to do it. And interestingly, Michael, a few weeks ago, some of Australia’s top tech leaders, people that have founded companies like Seek and Afterpay and big tech companies put out a letter saying this should be done and it can be done. So it’s not the fact that it can’t be done, it’s that they don’t want to do it. And what we need, is legislation to force them to take action and to protect Australian kids because this is a totemic issue.
Michael McLaren: I agree. And I’m saying that as a father who in the years ahead hopes we’ve got some legislation that makes my job a lot easier trying to do the right thing with my daughter. I think, look, as I said with Wippa on a couple of occasions when he’s been advocating, I’m on board with him on this in principle. To do nothing is to admit defeat. Something has got to be tried. And perhaps we’re going to have to settle for the old adage that the goods going to have to be good enough. We won’t reach perfect, but good’s better than nothing,
David Coleman: Absolutely.
Michael McLaren: All right. Let’s see. Thank you, David. I appreciate your time and your analysis. Thank you so much.
David Coleman: Thanks, Michael.
Michael McLaren: David Coleman, the Shadow Communications Minister.