Like a home builder rushing to get their grand design finished and habitable by Christmas, the government is frantically hammering away. With the Reps and the Senate in their final sitting days of the year, reports are being delivered and legislation is being tabled. And predictably, much of the work is happening in the media and tech space.
Yesterday, the government introduced legislation to ban social media for kids. Of all the interventions, this is among the most ambitious and contentious. ‘This reform is about protecting young people and letting parents know we've got their backs,’ said Communications Minister Michelle Rowland. ‘Social media has a social responsibility for the safety and mental health of young Australians.’ Certainly, academics cite reliable evidence that social media harms young people, but a ban? Plenty are dubious. As Teal MP Zoe Daniel told Parliament, a ban for children may mean there is less impetus for platforms to enforce rules and standards: ‘There may be an unintended consequence that the platforms actually become less safe.’
Earlier this week, the Parliamentary Joint Select Committee on Social Media and Australian Society released its Final Report. With Daniel as a Committee member, the Report covered the prospect of a ban in good depth, canvassing a spectrum of opinions. Ultimately, it did not recommend a ban for kids. Instead, it recommended (among other things) that the government: introduce a statutory duty of care for platforms; implement greater privacy protections for children; and ensure that a regulatory framework affecting young people be co-designed with young people.
In today’s newsletter, we don our hard hats and get involved in the construction. First, Derek unveils a new CMT report that explores two promising potential approaches: a levy on digital platforms to fund public interest journalism; and a must-carry obligation mandating that prescribed digital services carry news content. Next, Kieran investigates the proposed duty of care for digital platforms, wondering how it might interact with a social media ban and the prospect of digital IDs. Then we shift our focus to the changing news ecosystem: Chris looks at the latest audience exodus from both X and legacy outlets; and Alexia unveils our latest podcast with Fintan O’Toole, who gives a warning about the complicity of some mainstream media in undermining democracy. Indeed, last week Peter Greste and the Alliance for Journalists' Freedom held a media freedom summit in Sydney with speakers including Justice Michael Lee and the ABC's Kim Williams, where a recurring theme was the need for journalists to raise their standards and develop a coherent code of conduct across the industry. Here, too, policymakers should take note.
Of course, the grand design that is Australian media policy is an ongoing project. It won’t be finished by Christmas. Media will keep changing, and so too law and policy will need to keep changing. However, the law and policy currently under construction have the potential to be a significant addition to the larger edifice. This part of the build has potential to deliver something fit-for-purpose and long-lasting. On the other hand, it could end up as the law and policy version of the UK’s Chesil Cliff House, an 18-month project that took 11 years and cost the owner his fortune and his family. If you have a spare $10million, it’s still on the market.
Sacha Molitorisz, Senior Lecturer - UTS Law