Editorial: Global impact means our social media ban must be watertight
There will now be, as the Communications Minister said, no excuse for social media companies not to meet their new legal responsibilities, writes the editor.
Good on the federal government for having the courage to stick with its plans to impose a ban on under-16s using social media platforms.
As our reporting (through our Let Them Be Kids campaign that led to the ban) has shown, there are far too many risks to allow it to go on.
That it has taken a generation for the community to wake up to this truth is a tragedy in itself.
But at least now we are acting, with force.
It is also good to see the social media giants themselves will be on the hook for the detection of any kids aged under 16 using their platforms, with a deactivation of those accounts the only way for them to dodge fines of up to $49.5m under new laws.
The multi-layered guidance for the platforms, unveiled yesterday by federal Communications Minister Anika Wells and eSafety Commissioner Julie Inman Grant, are appropriately far-reaching.
They are, after all, targeting firms that have made an art form out of dodging any responsibility for the harm done on their platforms over the past couple of decades.
There will now be, as Minister Wells said, no excuse for social media companies to not meet their new legal responsibilities once the world-leading laws come into force on December 10.
Ensuring our laws are watertight also has a global impact, with other nations now looking at doing the same.
This is something Australia will look back on in the future and be proud of. It will stand alongside our nation’s greatest achievements.
BOWEN’S TRIPLE C-BOMB
Not content with the alliteration in his job title and given name, Climate Change Minister Chris Bowen reached for a few more on Monday in laying the groundwork for his 2035 emissions target: The risks of inaction, he said, were “cascading, compounding, concurrent”.
He may well be right. Certainly the scenarios outlined in the report he unveiled – the first-ever National Climate Risk Assessment – make for scary reading.
The assessment claims that, by 2090, the worst case scenario could see Brisbane flood 314 days a year and heat-related deaths in Townsville soar by up to 350 per cent. By 2050, a warming of 2C would see 1.5m Australians directly impacted by rising sea levels, with property values then falling by $500bn and insurance premiums skyrocketing.
The timing of the report’s release is not a coincidence. The message Mr Bowen wants Australians to hear is clear: Unless we all support his plans for action on climate, in the words of bush poet John O’Brien: “We’ll all be rooned”.
Or, in Mr Bowen’s more prosaic language: “While we can no longer avoid climate impacts, every action we take today towards our goal of net zero by 2050 will help avoid the worst impacts on Australian communities and businesses.”
The politics are clear. Whatever 2035 target is settled on will be controversial – either too high or too low, depending on your view.
The Climate Council – on whose recommendation the decision will be based – has been consulting on a target between 65 per cent and 75 per cent. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese will be under pressure to eye off something towards the upper end of that band, as his reveal will be timed to back Australia’s bid next week at the UN to host the COP31 climate conference.
And so this new Climate Risk Assessment – that, again depending on your view, delivers either worst-case scenarios or catastrophism – has been released with perfectly practical timing. It means the government’s defence can now be that this action is not only urgent but also based on the science (the risk assessment report was prepared by the Australian Climate Service and runs to over 300 pages).
The standard two arguments against doing more are that, first, there is no point as Australia only produces about 1 per cent of global emissions; and, second, that the warnings about the impact of climate change are speculative and the methodology contestable.
Most now acknowledge that the climate is changing, and there will be impacts from that. Australians have also been comfortable with our nation so far having gone harder on these issues than many others of similar size.
But Australians also retain their wonderful cynicism when it comes to elected officials, and so the risk of Minister Bowen’s Chicken Little strategy is simple: Overreach.
Most sensible Australians have worked out for themselves that we should – calmly – continue to invest in renewable energy options, where it makes sense. But they are not so naive as to believe that what we do really matters, at least on its own.
The government does not need to resort to blatant scare tactics to win the argument here. They should instead treat Australians as what they are: People who believe in the value of commonsense solutions to our shared challenges.
We therefore suggest the target, to be released later this week, lean more towards the alliterative trio of “calm, considered and coherent” than the phrase deployed by Mr Bowen on Monday to build his case for action that goes beyond the pale.
Responsibility for election comment is taken by Chris Jones, corner of Mayne Rd & Campbell St, Bowen Hills, Qld 4006. Printed and published by NEWSQUEENSLAND (ACN 009 661 778). Contact details here
