Senate Inquiry Backs Under-16s Social Media Ban Without Digital ID

The lower house has passed the Bill, meaning it will now go to the Senate for a vote.

FabrikaSimf/shutterstock

A Senate inquiry into Australia’s under-16 social media ban is recommending the legislation pass without a digital ID.

It would fine social media companies up to $49.5 million (US$32 million) for not taking “reasonable steps” to stop underage children from accessing their platforms.

The Environment and Communications Legislation Committee had just five days to consider the evidence and prepare a report. This came after the public were provided with just 24 hours to prepare submissions.

“The committee recommends that the bill be amended to prohibit providers of age restricted platforms from compelling a person to use an accredited [Digital ID] service ... or other government ID such as passports, and must set out alternative methods for assuring age as reasonable steps with consideration given to the age assurance trial,” the report states (pdf).

Further, the committee suggested that the Australian government legislate a Digital Duty of Care, making digital platforms legally responsible for user safety.

It also suggested the communications minister provide a progress report on age assurance by Sept. 30, 2025.

The inquiry proposed amending the bill to grant the minister review power over any “reasonable steps” determined by the eSafety commissioner.

‘No Requirement’ for Platforms to Use Digital ID: Government

Throughout the course of the inquiry, there had been commentary on the government’s Digital ID system.

Previously, the federal Communications Department had stated, “There’s no requirement for platforms to use the Digital ID system to comply with the obligation.”

The report said the evidence provided by the department indicated they could not see a way for the eSafety Commissioner to “designate Digital ID from the legislation as a means of age verification.”

“This would suggest the legislation could be strengthened to ensure this mechanism is not available,” the committee said.

Communities Join the Discussion

The Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Bill 2024 (pdf) passed the House of Representatives with 102 votes in favour and just 13 against on Nov. 27 and will now be considered by the Senate.

It would fine social media companies up to $49.5 million (US$32 million) for not taking “reasonable steps” to stop underage children from accessing their platforms.

Greens MPs Stephen Bates, Max Chandler- Mather, Adam Bandt, and Elizabeth Watson- Brown, independents Dai Le and Andrew Wilkie, Centre Alliance MP Rebekha Sharkie, Teals Monique Ryan, Kylea Tink, Zali Steggall, and Zoe Daniel, Katter’s Australia Party MP Bob Katter, and Liberal Bridget Archer voted against it.

In support of the social media ban, the report noted that a New South Wales government survey of 21,000 people in 2024 found “87 percent of respondents expressed support for a minimum age for social media.”

It also received evidence about the negative mental health and behavioural impacts of the social media ban.

“At the public hearing, Dr. Danielle Einstein questioned whether there are any mental health benefits from social media. She was of the view that any minor benefits, if they existed, were massively outweighed by the downsides,” the report said.

Advocacy group Catholic School Parents Western Australia raised concerns about the harmful behavioural effects of social media.

“Parents are worried that children and young people are becoming desensitised to some of the content that they are seeing, and that it is leading to a distorted understanding of some serious topics,” the group told the inquiry.

On the flip side, the Senate Committee noted it had received multiple concerns about the bill.

Several submissions argued there was a lack of scientific evidence supporting the claims of harm from social media.

In addition, UNICEF Australia suggested that children under 16 would inevitably bypass restrictions, landing in unregulated, darker spaces.

“They argued that this not only undermines the effectiveness of the legislation but also exposes children to greater risks online,” the committee noted.

Professor Marcus Carter, Taylor Hardwick, and Ben Egliston, all from the University of Sydney, backed the argument, adding that some children will create adult accounts on social media platforms, “effectively exacerbating the risk of online harm.”

Not-for-profit organisation Pride in Swan were concerned that social media was a “critical lifeline” for vulnerable youth from the LGBTQ+ community.

Dissenting Report

Nationals Senator Matt Canavan presented a dissenting report raising a number of concerns, including the “condensed process” that removed the right of Australians to be involved.

He noted, however, that despite just 24 hours’ notice, 15,000 submissions on the bill were received.

Canavan said he supported the proposal to amend the bill to rule out use of Digital ID, but more detail was needed.

“I think further clarity is needed on whether the proposed amendment would seek to rule out Digital ID completely or simply ensure that alternatives to Digital ID are permissible,” he said.

“Given the nascent stage of Digital ID’s development, all use of Digital ID should be ruled out. The Parliament could always seek to allow Digital ID by amending the law in the future if it becomes a widely accepted form of identification.”