Australia’s Largest Christian News Site

The Albanese Government’s rushed social media ban for under-16s takes effect in a month — but with no clear plan, no firm details, and plenty of political “cracks”.

The Government’s social media ban for people under 16 will take effect in one month from today.

Which is appropriate, because it appears to have been drafted in about a month.

And to be honest, the government’s social media ban is about as well thought out as the government’s energy plan, and the government’s immigration plan, and the government’s housing plan.

Which is to say… not at all.

Warning Bells

Now, I don’t doubt the government’s good intentions.

Every parent knows that social media can be harmful to children.

I just doubt their competence. Especially when they’re already admitting, before the law even starts, that it’s going to be a mess.

“We don’t argue that these laws will be perfect in their implementation.”

Well then, why don’t you argue for getting them right in the first place?

Anika Wells added helpfully:

“We know this law will not be perfect, but it is too important not to have a crack.”

The Communications Minister is going to have a crack?

You have a crack at baking a cake. You have a crack at learning the ukulele.

You don’t “have a crack” at implementing laws that affect freedoms, privacy, business and parenting.

If you’re going to create a law as significant as this, you work out the details BEFORE you implement it.

But with this government, it’s a case of ready… fire… and if they get around to it… aim.

Clueless

Just 30 days out from this ban coming into effect, we still don’t know which sites young people will — and will not — be allowed to access.

The list of sites affected was changed as recently as a few days ago. And the communications minister has said the list will continue to change.

And then there’s the question of how the ban will work.

The government has left that up to tech companies so… no-one knows.

Will people need to supply a government-issued digital ID to access sites?

There’s no definitive answer on that.

And if we have to supply a digital ID, where will that information be stored?

No answer on that either.

Have a listen to the PM again, speaking at a press conference this week:

We don’t argue that these laws will be perfect in their implementation.

We do argue very strongly tough that this is the govt of Australia setting down what we expect to happen, including reminding social media companies that they have a social responsibility and that they need to be conscious about their social license like other businesses.

Translation: “We don’t really know how this works… but please clap.”

Doubtful Basis

Rather than deal with pesky details, the Prime Minister went for emotion:

This is a reform that has come from the bottom up. It has been driven largely by parents who have lost their young sons and daughters…

It is inspirational the fact that parents have taken what is often a devastating personal tragedy and channeled that trauma into helping others and making sure that other parents and siblings don’t go through what their tragic experience has been.

I get that. I really do.

But the devastation of a small number of people is not necessarily justification for national laws affecting every person in the country.

Neither is it an excuse to implement laws that the government admits in advance are going to be problematic.

You make laws with clear-eyed reason, not on misty-eyed sentiment.

Here’s some more of the PM:

This is about letting kids be kids. It’s also about empowering parents to be able to have those discussions with their children.

I’m not sure I know any parent who needs Anthony Albanese to empower them to have discussions with their own child.

The PM says some silly things, but that one’s a contender for a gold medal.

It got sillier, frankly:

It’s been driven by young people themselves.

People like Flossy who came here, a 12-year old from Tasmania just last week, who’s run a campaign with her peers saying what they could do rather than spending time on their devices.

Playing, sport, learning a musical instrument, reading, engaging with each other and budling friendships on a face to face basis.

I’m a parent. I absolutely agree with Flossy that kids are better off playing outside than sitting in a dark bedroom on a device.

So, guess what I did, PM? Being the parent of my kids, I parented my kids.

But more to the point, anecdotal Tasmanian tween activism is not a regulatory impact statement.

Fuzzy Feelings

Anika Wells couldn’t answer questions precisely either.

So she stuck to those motherhood statements that politicians love so much. Statements that mean absolutely nothing but that sound nice and that generally satisfy an incurious media pack:

Our social media laws are not a cure, but they are a treatment plan.

Now, if you can explain what that means, please apply immediately to the Department of Communications — they need the help.

We want children to have their childhood, and we want parents to have peace of mind.

Lovely. Any chance you might start with the gender ideology being pumped into classrooms before worrying about Instagram?

We’re banning social media while sending kids to schools where they’re told they might be in the wrong body.

Compared to that, Facebook is practically wholesome.

Finally, Anika Wells closed with a line so poetic — so empty — it could be printed on a scented candle at Kmart:

“This reform will not just change the law, it will change a generation.”

Change a generation. You don’t even know how to change the parental settings.

Thirty days out, the government doesn’t know what’s banned, how it works, or how it will be enforced.

Classic Canberra: overestimating their importance, underestimating the details — and mistaking warm fuzzies for good policy.

Or as they said in the presser — “We had a crack.”

___

Republished with thanks to the James Macpherson Report. Image courtesy of Adobe.