Source: Australian Ministers 1
LAURA JAYES, HOST: One of the biggest issues you’re engaged in at the moment, especially if you’re a parent, is social media, and where it should be banned, at what age. The Government is working on this. Joining me now is the Communications Minister, Michelle Rowland. She’s here in the studio with me. We talk about this a lot. We’ve been discussing how at school pickup this is being discussed widely. There’s a lot of pressure on parents at the moment. It’s not about outsourcing, parenting. Where we’re trying to land now, at the moment, particularly from the Government’s perspective, is what the age is, what the age limit is.
MICHELLE ROWLAND, MINISTER FOR COMMUNICATIONS: That’s right. And we’re working through that now, Laura. There’s a wide variety of views about what that minimum age should be. But it’s been a really useful conversation that’s been going on in the Australian community, also with experts, and at the Social Media Summit that I attended last week, jointly hosted by South Australia and New South Wales.
There’s a couple of things I’ll say: the first is we’ve released our legislative design principles because we will introduce legislation this year to introduce a mandatory minimum age for accessing social media. And part of that legislative design includes putting the onus on the platforms, not on parents or children. Parents and children won’t be subject to penalties. These will rest on the digital platforms to demonstrate that they are enforcing this minimum age, and the eSafety Commissioner will be responsible for oversight and enforcement. And, this is a really important point – we’ve already got a framework in place to be able to do this. We’re not starting from scratch.
Governments and regulators around the world are grappling with the issue, and I’m sure your viewers recognise that social media has many benefits, but the harms need to be addressed, particularly as they apply to children.
JAYES: Yeah.
ROWLAND: The second point about the age: people will say to me, the really important value here is normative. It’s not saying how you should parent or judging parenting, it’s giving parents a guide, giving parents some normative value there about saying this is what government has determined based on the research they’ve done- based on the evidence is reasonable.
And parents are exhausted. They’re exhausted trying to keep up with the demands of parenting and having this second generation of digital natives. So, I think that is where the value in this will lie, in addition to actually keeping children safer online, but also, as we’ve seen from the mobile phone ban in schools, exposing them to things beyond looking at a screen all the time.
JAYES: Yeah, and this is a first generation of young children whose lives are lived through social media, more than they are in real life, in many ways. And the evidence is overwhelming, isn’t it? When you look at the rates of depression, suicide ideation and just general anxiety, it comes down to social media and the digital influence in our lives. So, when you say you’re going to introduce legislation that will happen towards the end of the year, so end of November – that’s the last couple of sitting weeks before Christmas. And you will have an age there?
ROWLAND: That’s correct.
JAYES: In that legislation.
ROWLAND: And we are looking forward to support across the Parliament with this.
JAYES: Have you decided on that, but don’t want to tell us yet? Or …
ROWLAND: No, we’re working through this. And, as I said, there’s a variety of ages. We’re looking at a range between 13 and 16 …
JAYES: Okay. So, 13 … that’s, a new age, because usually the argument’s around 14 and 16. Michelle, could you take us through- you know, it doesn’t seem like- it’s only three years. So, what are the arguments and the difference in the arguments between those ages?
ROWLAND: They’re twofold, if I can summarise: the first is based around children’s development- physical and emotional development. So, puberty obviously, and there’s different responses to different people. We all know that. But secondly, there are also differences based on gender as well. And in terms of the platforms actually being able to recognise and enforce, we’re doing our age assurance trial at the moment, and we know that some of those technologies actually have differentiators in them, depending on even things like ethnicity. So, we have to take these different factors into account.
JAYES: So this is down to face recognition?
ROWLAND: Yes, and some …
JAYES: And that children, particularly boys, sometimes can look older than their years.
ROWLAND: Sometimes, depending on gender and depending on ethnicity, there can be variances in that.
JAYES: Yeah. So, you’ve got to take that all into consideration in this legislation?
ROWLAND: That’s correct. And I think I should also point out, Laura, when this is legislated, and we certainly hope that this will be legislated without delay, is that this won’t protect every child from every harm, every minute that they are online. But it’s going to make a difference. And I think that is what Australians are looking for. The alternative is to do nothing, and we’re just not prepared to take that course.
JAYES: Okay. Let me ask you finally about this Channel Nine culture review. This is a long time coming. There are 22 recommendations. A lot of it’s historic, to be honest. And it’s put on the shoulders of people that are no longer at Channel Nine. Is this review acceptable to you? And is the response acceptable?
ROWLAND: Firstly, this has exposed a very serious cultural issue within Nine. And we know that there’s other parts of the media who have been similarly infected by bad behaviours. Our public broadcaster is a case in point when it comes to racism.
But I think what the public is looking for, and what these impacted employees are looking for, is delivery. It’s one thing to identify the problems, and it is useful that has been done and that has been made transparent now. But what people will want to see is deliverables, milestones, actual commitments, what sort of mechanisms are going to be put in place.
We’re talking about the Fourth Estate here. And when you have a private sector organisation where, I think I was watching your show earlier, over 60 per cent of the complaints were around sexual harassment. No good corporate citizen would stand for that. And the fact that it has reached that level shows the seriousness of it.
So, the key point here will be delivery. And I’m saying that as someone who comes from a sector where we have had our own issues and continue to implement change. Change has to happen because the Fourth Estate is fundamental to our democracy.
JAYES: So, what happens if it doesn’t, because often you see these reports as big promises made. Cultural change takes time. I mean, the Government, you, for example, don’t have any power to intervene in a private sector or at a private company like Channel Nine, do you?
ROWLAND: Well, the fact is, if there are crimes being committed here as well, and they’ve been reported, then that’s incumbent on Government. Government can always (take) its own actions where it sees the need to either investigate or potentially make legislative change.
But I think what everyone would want to see here, Laura, is a media company acting in the best interests of not only their employees, but also their product. This is free-to-air broadcasting. It’s stable, free and ubiquitous. Any Australian can get it, but we want to see a media sector that is strong in terms of its culture. Clearly it needs to change in many aspects, and there have been reports, as I said, across the board, including in our public broadcaster, and I think the Australian people will want to see deliverables from here on.
JAYES: I think so too. Michelle, thanks so much for your time. Great to see you.
ROWLAND: Pleasure.
