Online Safety Amendment - Make your Parliament accountable and transparent

On 27 November 2024, the Australian House of Representatives passed the Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Bill 2024, a law ostensibly designed to protect children from the harms of social media. While the stated intention behind the bill is widely supported, the way it has been introduced and debated (or arguably not debated) raises serious concerns about democratic transparency, proportionality, and the erosion of online freedoms for all Australians.

Online Safety or Overreach? Concerns About the Social Media Minimum Age Bill 2024

The Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Bill 2024 was passed with the stated aim of protecting children online. However, the rapid passage, vague enforcement, privacy risks, and potential harm to vulnerable users raise serious concerns about transparency, proportionality, and the erosion of freedoms for all Australians.

What the Bill Does

The Amendment empowers the eSafety Commissioner to enforce a minimum age of 16 for social media accounts. Platforms must implement age verification and face penalties for non-compliance. Broad definitions risk scope creep into messaging and gaming services with social features.

• Verification may require: photo ID upload, biometric/face-estimation, or third-party identity checks.
• Adults are impacted too: platforms may require age proof from all users to remain compliant.

Why the Public Should Be Concerned

1. Lack of transparent debate

Hansard shows that on the key sitting days the whole process — procedural steps, amendments, votes, and final passage — consumed roughly an hour in each chamber. For a law reshaping online access, this was extraordinarily brief.

2. The “consultation” problem

Six days before passage, an Independent MP praised “extensive consultation.” In practice, the Senate committee’s submission window was exceptionally short and not conducive to detailed, public participation. Many substantial criticisms were not acknowledged in debate.

3. Mass surveillance by stealth

Age verification sounds benign until you consider the mechanics: identity documents, facial scans, or third-party brokers. This risks normalising identity-based internet use and undermining anonymity for millions.

4. Vague enforcement, broad discretion

Much is left to the eSafety Commissioner’s determinations (what counts as a platform, acceptable methods, compliance thresholds) — a recipe for mission creep.

5. Effectiveness is unproven

Evidence that bans improve youth outcomes is weak. Young people routinely bypass age gates; mental health is shaped by broader social conditions, not just apps.

6. Risk of digital exclusion

Under-16s in unsafe homes or seeking peer support may lose access to vital online lifelines.

7. Record the votes, not just “the Ayes have it”

Hansard is generally reliable, but unless a division is called, we don’t get a record of who voted which way. Some spoken remarks never appear in the edited transcript. Australians deserve recorded votes on far-reaching laws.

How digital age-checks may work in practice

1. User visits a platform (X/Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, etc.).
2. User is prompted to verify age (ID upload, bank/mobile verification, or face estimation).
3. Verification is processed by the platform or a third-party provider; data should be minimised and deleted per rules (oversight remains a concern).
4. Access granted if 16+; otherwise restricted/denied.

Call for the repeal of the Online Safety Amendment when Parliament next sits from 23 August

If you already agree with these concerns — or this article has persuaded you — please help press for a motion to repeal at the next sitting. Even if government tactics stall debate, pushing for repeal forces proper scrutiny and a public record.

Helpful links: Find your MPs and Senators • Check voting records (They Vote For You)

What Can Be Done?

• Review Hansard and division records to see how representatives responded — or whether they did at all.
• Share awareness materials — this article, printable leaflets, and the public survey.
• Engage in public consultations on implementation; push back on any system that undermines privacy and free expression.
• Contact your representatives (House and Senate) to demand repeal or substantive amendments, and to insist on recorded votes for transparency.
• Support independent scrutiny by legal, civil liberties, and child-safety experts into privacy and human rights impacts.
• Attend or organise local meetings and peaceful demonstrations supporting digital rights.
• Support political alternatives that oppose the Amendment (e.g., People First Party, Citizens Party of Australia).
• Join the conversation: add your views below, or publish your own articles; link back here to expand the discussion.
• Link to the public survey and invite others to respond: Have your say on the Online Safety Amendment →
• Support a class action, if one is initiated.
• Support a High Court challenge to test the law’s compatibility with constitutional freedoms.

Share Your View (Public Survey)

Please complete the survey to inform public debate and future action: Public Survey on the Online Safety Amendment.

Related: a parent’s perspective

The video below features a father explaining how the Amendment could harm his 14-year-old daughter.

Watch on YouTube (starts at 4:40) →

Conclusion: Caution and oversight

Protecting children online is vital — but doing so by normalising identity-based internet access risks sweeping away privacy and free expression for everyone. Australians should insist on a balanced, evidence-based approach that protects children without undermining civil liberties.