Additional Comments from Senator David Pocock

Additional Comments from Senator David Pocock

1.1I support the intent of this bill. The harms of social media platforms are undeniable. Children are increasingly having a phone-based childhood and missing out on key developmental milestones as a result of spending hours every day on intentionally addictive platforms. As one young constituent who wrote to me said after hearing me quote a research paper that was based on selfreporting of social media use:

Your generous estimate of 2–5 hours of daily screen time is far below what I’ve observed among my peers; some spend up to 10 hours a day scrolling. For me, it has been the first thing I check in the morning and the last thing I see before bed, as well as the time spent during the day, and I deeply regret how much of my childhood has been consumed by this habit.

1.2We need to address this as a Parliament and ensure we are doing everything we can to reduce screen time and the negative impacts of social media on young people and to ensure they have access to real world social connection and experiences to build critical communication and conflict resolution skills, as well as resilience.

1.3Engaging with experts through this process, it has become abundantly clear that a ban in isolation will not deliver the outcomes we seek. The lives of young people have become a blend of digital and real world and dealing with this intertwined relationship will require nuance and deep consideration. The fact that this bill was drafted in a couple of months and the only scrutiny it has received is a senate inquiry spanning less than three days is farcical and an insult to the democratic process.

1.4It seems strange to be rushing a bill like this through the Parliament when it doesn’t come into effect until 2026 and experts and stakeholders are warning us that it needs deep consideration.

1.5I acknowledge that the Australian Government is working to minimise the harms facing young people and I applaud this. But this has not been the case with my bill for a Duty of Care on climate, or banning gambling advertising as recommended by the Murphy Review (which the Prime Minister seems to have kicked beyond the next election), or the many recommendations of changes to the Privacy Act 1988 that have also been pushed into the future.

1.6It’s also not lost on me that no young people were represented at the inquiry. I had a motion in the senate to ensure young people were heard from, but due to the overly short senate inquiry timeline, the Senate did not even get to vote on the motion before the hearings took place.

1.7Young people may not vote, but they have a right to have a say about the laws that will impact them, including at inquiries of the Senate. This Parliament needs to do better in consulting young people about their views and thoughts on proposed legislation generally, but particularly on laws that are designed to restrict them from social media.

1.8The inquiry would have been richer if, as senators, we had the opportunity to speak with young people about the harms they feel digital platforms cause them or their peers and what they would like to see done to address those harms.

1.9While at least one witness brought the stories of some young people with them, it is not a substitute to hearing their views directly and I would urge the Government and the Senate to reflect on the absolute contempt that it shows to young people to not even try to facilitate hearing their views within this inquiry.

1.10It also cannot be ignored that we do not know how the platforms will be expected to run their age assurance systems. The age assurance trial is still underway and is not expected to report its results until next year.

1.11The recent report of the Covid-19 inquiry told us that trust and public confidence in our public institutions is lost when governments do not act transparently, fairly or proportionately.

1.12The lack of detail around how age assurance activities are expected to be undertaken gives way to arguments that the Government will seek to introduce a mandatory Digital ID.

1.13I don’t believe this is accurate, but it’s not fair to simply dismiss these concerns by Australians, which I’m sure are genuinely held. As politicians, it should be our duty to engage with these concerns when they arise and to consider how we can work to genuinely solve them, if that is an appropriate course of action. But of course, we just don’t know how age assurance will work under this bill. There are no answers, and a three-day Senate inquiry is ill-equipped to ensure senators are provided with the technical expertise they need to understand the limitations on age assurance technologies.

1.14At the very least, I believe the bill should be amended to specifically prohibit the use of the government’s Digital ID system as a means to conduct age assurance. I further believe that any determination of what would constitute ‘reasonable steps’ in terms of age assurance should be reviewable by the Parliament and should be disallowable, particularly when the Parliament can currently not make a judgement on what these reasonable steps will entail before it is asked to vote on this bill.

Recommendations

1.15If we truly want to say we have done everything we can to minimise the harms young people are exposed to, we should:

Recommendation 1

1.16Extend the Senate inquiry to allow adequate time for the committee to engage with young people, mental health experts, technology experts, privacy experts, digital rights advocates and other interest groups, so that it can fully consider the implications of this bill.

Recommendation 2

1.17Ensure that any ban is not made in isolation. It’s clear we need an ecosystem approach to improving the mental health of young people. If a ban is to be introduced, it should be part of a package including the Digital Duty of Care and strengthened privacy protections, as well as, but not limited to, investment in better mental health support, common spaces, community sport, arts and music, and other recreational activities. And as I recommended in my dissenting report into the Communications Legislation Amendment (Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill 2024, there is an urgent need for increased transparency and access to data for researchers to assess the impacts of these platforms.

Recommendation 3

1.18Secure a commitment from the government to implement all recommendations from the Privacy Act 1988 review before this comes into effect in 2026.

Recommendation 4

1.19Amend the bill to have all legislative instruments automatically referred for review by the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee.

Recommendation 5

1.20Amend the bill so that data collected for the purposes of age assurance cannot be used for any other secondary purpose, other than to comply with the law.

Recommendation 6

1.21Have the Australian Government develop and fund media literacy training to be delivered throughout Australian schools, community hubs like libraries and by other community organisations.

Recommendation 7

1.22Ban all forms of gambling advertising which are also causing immense harm to young people.

1.23Lastly, I would like to note the incredible work and dedication of the Environment and Communications Committee secretariat to facilitate this inquiry on extremely short notice. They have gone above and beyond to make this happen, working all weekend and making themselves available at all times of the day. It is embarrassing how little regard the parliament pays to the workload of secretariats in these sorts of circumstances.

1.24I will reserve my voting position on the bill and will continue to speak to my colleagues about ensuring the committee—and all senators—are provided enough time to scrutinise the bill and consider its implications.

Senator David Pocock

Participating Member