Social media platforms will have to start verifying the age of Australian users by this time next year but cannot require a government form of identity as the only means of doing so.
The controversial world-first ban on social media access for under 16s passed the senate just before 11.30pm by 34 votes to 19.
A key issue going into the final debate and vote was how the age of users would be verified, and what role government forms of identity might play in that process.
The answer to that came in the form of a late amendment [pdf]: government identity documents or services like Digital ID may be used, but can’t be the only option to verify one’s age.
In an additional explanatory memorandum [pdf], the government wrote that “no Australian will be forced to use government identification (including Digital ID) for age assurance on social media.”
“Age-restricted social media platforms can only collect government-issued identification information or material if other alternative age assurance methods have been provided to users,” it wrote.
“Alternative reasonable methods may include user interaction or facial age estimations. This ensures that government-issued identification cannot be required as the only form of identification by a platform.
“There must always be a non-government or non-Digital ID option available to Australians for age assurance on each relevant platform.”
Queensland Nationals Senator Matt Canavan queried why Digital ID should be allowable as a “means of identification at all”.
“It’s not in widespread use, so why don’t we just rule that out right now,” he said.
“If it’s something that comes into use in years to come, we can always change the law. There’s a review built into this law in two years’ time, we can do it then.
“If we were serious about responding to the concerns about Digital ID, let’s just get rid of it.”
In addition to verification, senators opposed to the bill, including Canavan, exposed inconsistencies in how the bill is drafted and how it’s expected to operate.
The Communications Minister – currently Michelle Rowland – will make “legislative rules” excluding certain services from the law.
These initial carve-outs have been described as “messaging apps, online gaming services and services with the primary purpose of supporting the health and education of end-users”. [pdf]
But Senator Canavan noted that messaging services provided by social media platforms required users to have an account.
He raised an example of a 15-year-old that communicated with sports coaching staff via Messenger.
“You need a Facebook account to use Facebook Messenger, so how will that [exemption] work?” Senator Canavan asked.
“The advice that I have is these carve-outs will be able to be effective in relation to messaging products,” Senator Jenny McAllister responded.
Social media companies face fines for breaching the law around having underage users on the platform, or for not offering multiple age verification options.
McAllister said there would be no fines for individuals, however.
“There aren’t any penalties for Australians who gain access to an age-restricted social platform, and there aren’t any penalties for parents or educators who provide that access,” she said.
“It’s impossible – and we accept this – for governments to completely stop young people from accessing harmful products or content, but we can help by asking the social media companies to play their role.”
McAllister also said the law was not intended to be “a silver bullet”, nor representative of all the work that would be needed to bring social media companies into line.
Key criticisms of the law include its rushed timeline to have it passed before the senate finished for the year, the lack of detail in the text itself, and how much of its implementation is to be determined in 2025.