Ronald Reagan once quipped that the most terrifying words in the English language were that “I’m from the government and I’m here to help.”
This week the Government has claimed that it is here to help by banning social media use for children under the age of 16.
Social media use has caused tragedies for some families.
Children are bullied, harassed and some have even resorted to self-harm due to the addictive elements of social media. Parents feel helpless in an environment where almost everyone under age is on social media apps.
There should be more tools and assistance provided to parents to help limit and restrict the use of social media for their children.
However, the Government’s approach has been hasty and mishandled.
The Government released legislation to implement its social media ban on Thursday last week with a senate inquiry initiated on the same day.
Submissions closed on Friday.
A public hearing was held on Monday and the Committee’s report was tabled on Tuesday.
Taking out the weekend, the social media ban inquiry lasted a length of time less than between the Last Supper and the Resurrection.
People were only given 24 hours to make a submission.
Yet, still 15,000 Australians did so.
At the time of writing, just 107 of these had been published on the Parliament House website.
Obviously, Senators could not give even a fraction of these submissions due consideration.
It would make sense to spend more time assessing the points raised in these submissions.
The government itself says that its legislation is “world leading” but why pass unprecedented legislation with just a week of scrutiny.
This is a recipe for mistakes and unintended outcomes.
The Government claims that its laws will help parents but really the laws replace parents not help them.
The proposed law does not contain a single mention of the word “parent”.
This is unlike a recent law passed in Florida.
Unlike the truncated legislative process here, in Florida there was a back and forth on social media ban law between its Congress and its Governor Ron DeSantis.
Governor DeSantis rejected the original proposal to ban all children under 16 from having a social media account.
After negotiations an amended bill banned children under 14 but allowed children that are 14 or 15 to open an account with parental approval.
This strikes a better balance between the roles of government and parents.
A heavy handed prohibition is unlikely to work. Kids will find a way around the restrictions and parents may think there is no role for them because the government has simply “banned” it.
It is like the old joke that there is no crime in Sweden because it is against the law to be a criminal there.
I will be moving amendments to the proposed law to insert a role for parents.
There are many examples of beneficial uses of social media by children.
Kids with learning disabilities are often helped through online interactions.
And entrepreneurial young children have setup successful Youtube channels covering everything from gaming to politics.
The enormous reaction to the Bill has had some impact.
The Government has backed down and said that it will amend its own Bill to prevent people from being compelled to use digital ID or other forms of government issued ID to prove their age.
While the Bill bans children under 16 from having a social media account, to identify who is under 16, *every* Australian will have to have their age checked.
That raises questions about what is done with the data that the social media companies collect to check your age and identity.
The Parliament should have much longer than a week to consider a law that has such huge implications for all Australians.
