Australia has passed landmark legislation to ban social media access for children under 16. To enforce the cut-off, the centre-left government of Anthony Albanese will trial an age-verification system that may include biometrics or a nationwide ID system. With an election looming next May, opposition leader Peter Dutton also supports the legislation.
A ban is a heavy-handed approach and is probably typical of a governing generation of digital immigrants who are trying to regulate a coming population of digital natives.
Digital technologies have introduced a paradigm shift, especially in the area of communications, our expectations and use of information. Many of the assumptions the older generation may have about correct behaviour and values are neither valid nor reasonable for a generation of digital natives. No better example may be found than Albanese’s statement: “Parents want their kids off their phones and on the footy field. So do I. We are taking this action because enough is enough.”
This is clear evidence of a total lack of understanding about the impact digital technologies have had on values and behaviour. The fresh-air values of Albanese’s generation may no longer have relevance to digital natives.
What is seen as addictive use of devices by his cohort is seen as communication by digital natives. This ambition to force a new generation to adopt behaviours of an older one crumbles in the face of a paradigm change.
It is clear there is an appetite in Australia for Albanese’s proposals. Fortunately, at present, that hunger has not become rampant in New Zealand, although Prime Minister Christopher Luxon has not dismissed it outright and even Act leader David Seymour has said the idea is worth discussing.
Brent Carey, chief executive of independent internet safety watchdog Netsafe, maintains age-restricted access is “wrongheaded”, difficult to enforce and an election-year distraction across the Tasman. He says more effort should be applied to the management of screen time and the best way to use the amazing information resource the internet offers.
Just because a young person doesn’t have a phone at school or social media at home doesn’t mean they are shielded from online risks. And that looks at the matter from a negative perspective because there are positive online experiences, such as connecting with causes, getting help, demonstrating skills, learning or finding communities they identify with online.
The Chief Censor, Caroline Flora, says critical thinking and open conversations are important in preventing and addressing harm in this context.
The Australian eSafety Commissioner recognises that a ban may drive young people underground or communicate via other platforms. The New Zealand Initiative’s Eric Crampton sees problems in a universal identification verification system.
But in an opinion piece in the NZ Herald in September, entrepreneur Cecilia Robinson, founder of primary healthcare provider Tend, criticised the approach of Netsafe’s Carey.
She argued platforms are deliberately designed to be addictive and filled with harmful content so access should be delayed until young brains are sufficiently developed to handle its risks.
She also suggested Netsafe, which is largely state funded, has a conflict of interest because of sponsorship deals with Meta and Microsoft.
Netsafe has always been transparent about its funding and does a fine job in its role as the Approved Agency under the Harmful Digital Communications Act, designed to deter, prevent and mitigate harm caused to individuals by digital communications.
The debate should be about helping young people develop the skill set to self-regulate, manage distractions and make informed decisions.
David Harvey is a retired district court judge.
