In a historic moment, the Australian government has passed its proposed legislation that will prohibit children under the age of 16 from accessing social media platforms from the end of next year.
That means anyone under the age of 16 will be blocked from using platforms including TikTok, Instagram, Snapchat and Facebook, in an attempt to protect the mental health and wellbeing of young Australians.
The late vote capped a hectic evening in the Senate, where the government pushed through most of its legislative agenda on the final full sitting day of the year.
The decision came after an hour of lively debate, where crossbenchers questioned and heckled the major parties over what they described as a hasty and flawed piece of legislation.
Despite objections from the Greens and independents who called for more time and greater scrutiny, the major parties pushed to pass the legislation before the end of the parliamentary year.
Greens Senator Sarah Hanson-Young blasted the legislation, saying it was “boomers trying to tell young people how the internet should work.”
The Coalition largely supported the bill after securing amendments to ensure young people wouldn’t be required to use government-issued identification or digital IDs to verify their age—a key concern following recent data breaches exposing Australians’ personal information.
Coalition education spokeswoman Sarah Henderson described the new restrictions as “absolutely critical,” citing the “very profound mental health concerns” many young people face as a result of social media. She also paid tribute to parents like Kelly O’Brien and Mat Howard, whom she met after their 12-year-old daughter, Charlotte O’Brien, tragically took her own life following years of severe school bullying, much of which occurred online.
Coalition senators Matt Canavan and Alex Antic crossed the floor to join the entire crossbench in opposing the laws, which had drawn mixed reviews from mental health experts during a rushed Senate inquiry earlier this week. Liberal senator Richard Colbeck abstained from the vote.
Social Media Reacts
The bill was introduced to Parliament last Thursday and immediately referred for a Senate inquiry. Submissions to the inquiry closed on Friday, followed by a three-hour hearing on Monday, and the final report was tabled on Tuesday.
The committee’s report noted that nearly all submissions raised concerns about the “extremely short” consultation period.
Snap Inc., TikTok, Google, X and Meta all raised concerns over the bill including potential unintended consequences, including isolating young people from essential mental health resources and driving them toward less regulated digital spaces.
Snap warned that the bill’s reliance on unproven age verification technologies could lead to privacy breaches and unintended harm, particularly if platforms are forced to implement age-assurance measures without clear guidelines or mature technologies.
TikTok and Google echoed these concerns, stressing the vagueness of the bill’s definitions and the burden of implementing age verification systems that may not be ready for large-scale use.
Both companies also criticised the bill’s requirements for data deletion and its potential to conflict with existing privacy laws.
Meta, meanwhile, argued that the bill is inconsistent and ineffective, failing to address risks on popular platforms like YouTube and online gaming while complicating the regulatory landscape.
In a statement following the bills passing, Meta said that while it respects the laws decided by the Australian Parliament, it is “concerned about the process which rushed the legislation through while failing to properly consider the evidence, what industry already does to ensure age-appropriate experiences, and the voices of young people”.
“Last week, the Parliament’s own committee said the ‘causal link with social media appears unclear’ with respect to the mental health of young Australians, whereas this week the rushed Senate Committee report pronounced that social media caused harm. This demonstrates the lack of evidence underpinning the legislation and suggests this was a predetermined process,” a spokesperson for Meta said in the statement.
“The task now turns to ensuring there is productive consultation on all rules associated with the Bill to ensure a technically feasible outcome that does not place an onerous burden on parents and teens and a commitment that rules will be consistently applied across all social apps used by teens”.
“One simple option is age verification at the operating system and app store level which reduces the burden and minimises the amount of sensitive information shared”.
Mental Health Experts Divided
Several organisations, including child rights advocates and mental health experts, also opposed the bill, citing the potential harm to young people’s freedom of expression and access to information. These groups warned that the legislation could disproportionately affect vulnerable youth by pushing them away from regulated platforms and depriving them of vital online support networks.
At the public hearing, witnesses with expertise in youth mental health offered a range of views on the proposed social media ban.
Danielle Einstein, a clinical psychologist who has supported raising the minimum age for social media use, argued that social media provides no mental health benefits for young people.
On the other hand, Nicole Palfrey from Headspace took a more cautious stance, saying the harms of social media must be weighed against its potential benefits, especially in terms of connection and “help-seeking” for young people in remote or rural areas.
Lucy Thomas from anti-bullying organisation Project Rockit also highlighted the complexity of the issue. “When we hear from psychologists and parents, they are often focused on the immediate harms, and that’s a valid concern,” she said. “But as people who work with young people every day, we also see the benefits. We need to tread carefully here, or we risk undermining young people’s rights and pushing them into more isolated, unsupported spaces.”
