This bill became law on Dec 10th, 2024.
Transport & communications
Covered social media platforms must stop Australian children under 16 from having accounts, and big civil penalties apply if platforms fail to do that.
Social media companies’ engagement-driven design left children exposed to harms, and the common minimum age of 13 came from an old US privacy law, not evidence that social media is safe. This bill requires covered platforms to take reasonable stepsThe standard platforms must meet to show they have taken practical action to stop under-16s holding accounts. to stop under-16s holding accounts, while letting some lower-risk services be excluded.
Before this bill, many social media platforms used a minimum age of 13 that came from an old United States privacy law, while the Albanese government had already increased base funding for the eSafety CommissionerThe federal online safety regulator that will issue guidance and help enforce the new age rule. as harms to children from engagement-driven platforms remained a national concern. After the Coalition publicly backed a social media age limit of 16 in June 2024, the government introduced this bill in November to shift responsibility onto platforms to keep under-16s off covered services, and Parliament passed it before it received Royal AssentThe formal step that turns a bill passed by Parliament into an Act of Parliament. in December 2024.
Critics said the bill is a blunt and rushed age ban that may not make children safer because it focuses on blocking access instead of forcing platforms to fix harmful design and content practices. That case was raised mainly by Greens and crossbench MPs, while some Coalition supporters voiced narrower reservations about privacy, vague enforcement and the speed of scrutiny.
Michelle Rowland MPA federal parliamentarian, used in the speeches and amendment notes for people such as Michelle Rowland and Anthony Albanese. introduced this bill. In the House final vote, support came from Labor, Liberal Party, Nationals, some crossbench members; opposition came from Greens, Centre Alliance, Katter's Australian Party, some crossbench members.
Did it become law?
Yes
Became law 10 Dec 2024
Final passage
Recorded final vote
2 counted final-passage votes were recorded.
Passage speed
19 days
From introduction to the latest recorded parliamentary step
Meaning
Covered social media platforms must stop Australian children under 16 from having accounts, and big civil penalties apply if platforms fail to do that.
The government can exclude some services, such as messaging, health and education apps, so under-16s can still use lower-risk online services.
Platforms cannot collect passports, licences or other government-issued ID for age checks under this law.
The Minister must switch the account-ban on within 12 months after this part of the law starts.
The federal government must order an independent review within 2 years after the account-ban starts.
Require that a provider of an age-restricted social media platform must take reasonable steps to prevent Australian children under 16 years from having accounts with the platform. Breach of the minimum age obligation gives rise to significant maximum civil penalties.Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) explanatory memorandum
A minimum age of 16 years for access to age-restricted social media platforms aims to meet the expectations of Australians to minimise exposure to the harms experienced by young people on social media. At the same time, the framework provides for the making of legislative rules to exclude specific services, such as messaging apps and services that primarily support health and education, ensuring young people have continued access to beneficial online activities, including connection with friends, access to community and support services, and participating in public life.Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) explanatory memorandum
(a) collect government‑issued identification material; orOnline Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Act 2024 final Act text
(3) The specified day must not be later than 12 months after the day this section commences.Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Act 2024 final Act text
(1) Within 2 years after the day section 63D takes effect in accordance with section 63E, the Minister must cause to be conducted an independent review of the operation of Part 4A.Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Act 2024 final Act text
Context
Before this bill, many social media platforms used a minimum age of 13 that came from an old United States privacy law, while the Albanese government had already increased base funding for the eSafety CommissionerThe federal online safety regulator that will issue guidance and help enforce the new age rule. as harms to children from engagement-driven platforms remained a national concern. After the Coalition publicly backed a social media age limit of 16 in June 2024, the government introduced this bill in November to shift responsibility onto platforms to keep under-16s off covered services, and Parliament passed it before it received Royal AssentThe formal step that turns a bill passed by Parliament into an Act of Parliament. in December 2024.
Coalition backs a social media age limit of 16
Opposition speakers later said Peter Dutton committed in June to introduce a social media age limit of 16 within 100 days of a future Coalition government.
Hansard ↗Government introduces the social media minimum age bill
The government presented the bill and said harms to children and young people from social media were a top national concern after earlier increases in funding for the eSafety CommissionerThe federal online safety regulator that will issue guidance and help enforce the new age rule..
Hansard ↗House passes the bill
The House agreed to the bill at third reading, completing passage through the chamber after consideration in detail.
Parliamentary timeline ↗Parliament passes the bill
Both houses passed the bill in the same form after the House agreed to Senate amendmentsChanges the upper house made to the bill before the House agreed to them and the bill could pass in the same form..
Parliamentary timeline ↗Bill receives Royal AssentThe formal step that turns a bill passed by Parliament into an Act of Parliament.
Royal AssentThe formal step that turns a bill passed by Parliament into an Act of Parliament. turned the bill into an Act, allowing the new minimum-age scheme for covered social media services to be implemented.
Parliamentary timeline ↗Legislative route
The bill was formally presented to the chamber and read a first time, which starts its parliamentary journey.
Introduced and read a first time
A minister or sponsoring member moved the second reading, opening the main debate on the bill's purpose and principles.
Second reading moved
Referred to Committee (21/11/2024): Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee; Committee report (26/11/2024)
Referred to committee
APH bill page notesThe bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
Recorded vote: 96 to 6.
The chamber agreed to the bill at second reading, meaning it accepted the bill in principle and allowed it to continue.
Second reading agreed to
The chamber considered the bill in detail and dealt with amendments before the next stage.
Consideration in detail debate
Recorded vote: 101 to 13.
The chamber agreed to the bill at third reading, which completed passage through that chamber. Later message exchanges with the other chamber were still recorded afterwards.
Third reading agreed to
The bill was formally presented to the chamber and read a first time, which starts its parliamentary journey.
Introduced and read a first time
A minister or sponsoring member moved the second reading, opening the main debate on the bill's purpose and principles.
Second reading moved
Considered by scrutiny committee (27/11/2024): Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills; Scrutiny Digest 1 of 2025
Considered by scrutiny committee
APH bill page notesConsidered by scrutiny committee (27/11/2024): Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights; Report 11 of 2024
Considered by scrutiny committee
APH bill page notesThe bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
The chamber agreed to the bill at second reading, meaning it accepted the bill in principle and allowed it to continue.
Second reading agreed to
Recorded vote: 34 to 19.
The Senate agreed to government amendments and then passed the bill at third reading on 28 November 2024.
Third reading agreed to :
The House dealt with Senate amendmentsChanges the upper house made to the bill before the House agreed to them and the bill could pass in the same form. or requests so both chambers could settle the bill in the same form. The main amendments were: The Senate agreed to eight government amendments on voices, adding privacy and identification safeguards, changing the delayed-effect rule, updating platform-provider notices, and adding an independent review.
Consideration of Senate message
Both houses passed the bill in the same form, completing parliamentary passage.
Finally passed both Houses
The Governor-General gave Royal AssentThe formal step that turns a bill passed by Parliament into an Act of Parliament., turning the bill into an Act.
Key criticism
Critics said the bill is a blunt and rushed age ban that may not make children safer because it focuses on blocking access instead of forcing platforms to fix harmful design and content practices. That case was raised mainly by Greens and crossbench MPs, while some Coalition supporters voiced narrower reservations about privacy, vague enforcement and the speed of scrutiny.
Most criticism targeted design, safeguards and likely effectiveness rather than the goal of protecting children online.
May not fix the real source of harm
Several opponents argued the bill would not make social media safe by design because it bans under-16 accounts without directly tackling harmful platform features, content systems and company incentives. They said stronger platform duties and accountability rules were needed instead of relying mainly on age-gating.
Rushed drafting and unclear enforcement
A repeated criticism was that the bill moved too quickly and left too much uncertainty about how age checks would work in practice. Critics said parliament should have waited for the age-assurance trial and fuller scrutiny before locking in an account ban with major penalties.
Privacy and unintended harms for young people
Opponents and some hesitant MPs warned that enforcing an age ban could still create privacy risks and other side effects, including pushing teenagers onto less moderated services or cutting them off from community, mental health support and useful information online.
Further sources
Votes
The chamber-passage votes come first. Expand a vote to see the party breakdown.
Passed 101 to 13. Support came from Labor, Liberal Party, and Nationals. Opposition came from Greens, Centre Alliance, and Katter's Australian Party. Minor-party and independent votes were split.
Passed 34 to 19. Support came from Labor. Opposition came from Greens, Australia's Voice, One Nation, UAP, and minor parties and independents. 2 cross-floor votes were recorded: Alex Antic (Liberal Party) and The Hon Matthew Canavan (Nationals). Liberal Party and Nationals had split recorded votes. Minor-party and independent votes were split.
Earlier bill-stage votes
Passed 96 to 6. Support came from Labor, Liberal Party, and Nationals. Opposition came from Greens and minor parties and independents. Minor-party and independent votes were split.
Amendments grouped by chamber. These cards include amendment outcomes recorded without a counted division.
House
Passed 48 to 16. Support came from Labor, Liberal Party, and Nationals. Opposition came from Greens, Centre Alliance, and minor parties and independents. Minor-party and independent votes were split.
This was a procedural vote, not a final vote on whether the bill would become law.
Defeated 15 to 44. Support came from Greens, Centre Alliance, and minor parties and independents. Opposition came from Labor, Liberal Party, and Nationals. Minor-party and independent votes were split.
Passed 46 to 15. Support came from Labor and Nationals. Opposition came from Greens, Centre Alliance, and minor parties and independents. Minor-party and independent votes were split.
This was a procedural vote, not a final vote on whether the bill would become law.
Defeated 15 to 47. Support came from Greens, Centre Alliance, and minor parties and independents. Opposition came from Labor and Nationals. Minor-party and independent votes were split.
The proposed change was not agreed.
Passed 49 to 16. Support came from Labor and Nationals. Opposition came from Greens, Centre Alliance, Katter's Australian Party, and minor parties and independents. Minor-party and independent votes were split.
This was a procedural vote, not a final vote on whether the bill would become law.
Defeated 17 to 48. Support came from Greens, Centre Alliance, Katter's Australian Party, and minor parties and independents. Opposition came from Labor and Nationals. Minor-party and independent votes were split.
The House agreed to the amendments made by the Senate, so the bill could pass both chambers in the same form.
Carried on voices
The chamber decided this amendment without a counted division, so there is no list of individual Aye and No votes.
Senate
Defeated 14 to 37. Support came from Greens and Australia's Voice. Opposition came from Labor, Liberal Party, Nationals, and One Nation. Minor-party and independent votes were split.
The amendment was defeated, so the Senate did not add that statement of criticism to the bill’s second-reading motion.
Defeated 19 to 34. Support came from Greens, Australia's Voice, One Nation, and UAP. Opposition came from Labor. 2 cross-floor votes were recorded: Alex Antic (Liberal Party) and The Hon Matthew Canavan (Nationals). Liberal Party and Nationals had split recorded votes. Minor-party and independent votes were split.
The postponement amendment failed, so debate on the bill continued instead of being delayed into 2025.
Passed 34 to 19. Support came from Labor. Opposition came from Greens, Australia's Voice, One Nation, and UAP. 2 cross-floor votes were recorded: Alex Antic (Liberal Party) and The Hon Matthew Canavan (Nationals). Liberal Party and Nationals had split recorded votes. Minor-party and independent votes were split.
This carried the bill through the Senate’s second-reading stage and allowed it to proceed to committee consideration.
Defeated 19 to 34. Support came from Greens, Australia's Voice, One Nation, UAP, and minor parties and independents. Opposition came from Labor. 2 cross-floor votes were recorded: Alex Antic (Liberal Party) and The Hon Matthew Canavan (Nationals). Liberal Party and Nationals had split recorded votes. Minor-party and independent votes were split.
The amendment package was defeated, so the bill kept the parental-consent carve-out in that section.
Passed 35 to 19. Support came from Labor. Opposition came from Greens, Australia's Voice, One Nation, UAP, and minor parties and independents. 2 cross-floor votes were recorded: Alex Antic (Liberal Party) and The Hon Matthew Canavan (Nationals). Liberal Party and Nationals had split recorded votes. Minor-party and independent votes were split.
The bill retained the government’s preferred wording for the reasonable-steps framework instead of the alternative Canavan change.
Defeated 19 to 35. Support came from Greens, Australia's Voice, One Nation, UAP, and minor parties and independents. Opposition came from Labor. 2 cross-floor votes were recorded: Alex Antic (Liberal Party) and The Hon Matthew Canavan (Nationals). Liberal Party and Nationals had split recorded votes. Minor-party and independent votes were split.
The package was defeated, so the bill did not adopt those changes to the definition and privacy provisions.
The Senate agreed on voices to eight government amendments adding privacy safeguards, identification limits, notification changes and an independent review.
Carried on voices
The chamber decided this amendment without a counted division, so there is no list of individual Aye and No votes.
This list includes amendment votes, procedural votes and votes on the bill itself.
The parliamentary record also shows 8 Government amendments agreed without a counted division.
Parliamentary debate
Start here — lead voices
Rowland supports the bill and urges the House to pass it, saying it will set a minimum age of 16 for age-restricted social media to protect young people from serious online harms.
Read in Hansard ↗Steggall opposes the bill and says the government is using a blunt headline measure instead of making social media platforms responsible for harmful content.
Read in Hansard ↗Zoe McKenzie supports the bill, arguing that social media is inherently harmful and addictive for children and that a minimum age of 16 will help protect young people while backing parents who are struggling to keep their children off these platforms.
Read in Hansard ↗Ryan opposes the bill and says it is a rushed, blanket ban that is not evidence based, would be hard to enforce, and could create privacy and other unintended harms.
Read in Hansard ↗All speeches by bloc
3 speakers · 3 support
“This measure is a key component of the Albanese Government's work across the online safety space and will help enable young people to use the internet in a safer and more positive way. It will signal a set of normative values that support parents, educators and society more broadly.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“I commend the bill to the House.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“Let's give children back their childhood and let's give parents new peace of mind. Let's work together to pass this legislation through the House of Representatives and the Senate this week. It will be something that we can be very proud of.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
10 speakers · 8 support · 1 mixed · 1 unclear
“That survey surveyed 21,000 people, and 87 per cent supported implementing age restrictions for social media use, but that rose to 91 per cent when you limited respondents to parents of children aged five to 17. This week, in this place, we give parents what they have been asking for—something, anything, to strengthen their arm around the dining room table, a judgement call, a line in the sand, a clear signal that at 15 and below you do not have the mental wherewithal to resist the addictive qualities of the platforms and that the impact of social media harms can be so great and so resistant to reversal or a fix that, on balance, a ban until age 16 is the most reasonable option to mitigate its detrimental effects and to help build peer and cohort support among the parent community to disconnect from social media at this most pivotable time for brain and social development. I commend this bill to the House.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“The coalition will be supporting the Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Bill 2024. Back in June, the opposition leader, Peter Dutton, stood up in Sydney and committed the coalition to implementing an age limit of 16 for social media in Australia within 100 days of the election of a future coalition government. He did that because he believes passionately in protecting Australian children from harm. He has done that all his career, whether as a police officer, as the Minister for Home Affairs or in so many other roles in this place. When you think about it, what is more important than protecting children from harm? It is one of our very highest responsibilities in this place.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“I think 16 is an adequate cut-off point. Yes, kids are very mature—much more mature than I ever was at 14 or 15. I think 16 is a good starting point.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“The coalition acknowledges the imperfections in this bill but remains keen to see parents provided with support to protect their children from the harms of social media.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“I congratulate the shadow minister and I congratulate the Leader of the Opposition for their leadership on this issue. And I commend the bill to the House.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“This bill is supported by some media houses not because the media houses believe it's a winner but because mums and dads think it's a winner. It's mums and dads who want this dealt with, and we have a responsibility to do something about it. Is this bill the perfect solution? No. Nothing that goes through this chamber is a perfect solution. It's the best attempt. It's us trying to do what we can, but it's not perfect. The great thing about the parliament is that, if something's not perfect, we can fix it. It is not beyond our wit to say, 'Oh, well, if in the future changes need to be mad, we'll make them.' Hopefully, we'll make them in the same bipartisan way as we are doing this, because I don't believe for one second that people on either side, in the majority, believe that this is a tenable situation.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“To conclude, this is good legislation. This is legislation that has been well thought through. Again, I thank the government for coming on board with the initiative that was originally proposed by the member for Banks. I commend the bill to the House for all of the reasons I have outlined.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“It has negotiated some incredibly important amendments which we expect to see reflected as amendments in the Senate debate. These were important changes which all members in this House should note. In our view, they have significantly strengthened this planned piece of legislation.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“As I said at the beginning of my contribution, I absolutely support the intent of this bill in protecting and in some cases saving the lives of our young people, but I have reservations due to the rushed manner and lack of detail and methodology that is currently proposed in enforcing the legislation should it become law. I believe that the lives and mental health of our youth outweigh any possible implications around privacy, but I would much rather see this legislation be postponed until a full and proper process has been able to be completed, when we can actually see the detail of how the ID process will be enforced. It is far too important to be rammed through willy-nilly to try and win a few votes.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“The Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Bill 2024 is a piece of potential legislation on which I find myself torn in terms of taking a position. For those who know me, that is pretty unusual! I can usually form a view pretty quickly and make a decision. I want to give you an example of some of the correspondence, calls and emails that my office has been getting, and this is only a very small selection.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
2 speakers · 2 oppose
“As the youngest person in this chamber and one of very, very few people in this place who grew up with this technology and with social media, I can say that change is needed but this bill is not it. It shows a fundamental misunderstanding of how the internet works and how young people engage with the internet. So my message to the government is this: bin this bill, talk to young people and come back. Young people are painfully aware of how algorithms work and how they impact them and their social circles. Listen to young people. Listen to the experts. You would come back with a much better bill.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“But the unfortunate reality of this flawed bill—the Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Bill 2024—is that it won't actually do that. It won't protect our kids. It likely won't even stop them from using these platforms or seeing the harmful content we so desperately want to shield them from. What it will do, dangerously, is create the illusion of action while not addressing the real dangers of the online world.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
6 speakers · 7 contributions · 6 oppose
“The bill seeks to restrict users under the age of 16 from having a social media account by relying on social media companies to take reasonable steps for the age assurance of their users. In all my queries to the minister and the government as to what those reasonable steps are and how this age-assurance process will work, they've said they don't know. This is a complete unknown. This legislation is completely putting the cart before the horse. The government has no idea how this is going to work and yet it is taking up valuable time.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“Something worth doing is worth doing properly, carefully, judiciously and in an evidence based way. We have a duty to protect the best interests of all Australians, but most particularly our young and our vulnerable. This bill will not do that, and for that reason I cannot commend this legislation to the House.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“A fully implemented digital duty of care is what will make social media safe for all Australian kids and adults. Rigorous age verification technology may one day be a supplementary component of such a duty of care, but the age-gating model as proposed in this legislation alone will be starkly inadequate. This is why I move the second reading amendment circulated in my name:”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“I now seek to introduce the second reading amendment circulated in my name. This second reading amendment highlights the problems with this bill. They can be summarised quite easily. Firstly, there are no grandfathering provisions. It is entirely unclear how platforms will be required to manage the many millions of existing users who are now set to be excluded and deplatformed—those children under 16 who are already on the designated platforms, who have been on them for years and who will now, in theory, be required to step away from them.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“So, at this point, I'm very vexed on how I should vote on this bill—I really am. It's a flawed bill. The principle is great. I understand the principle. My community understands the principle, but this legislation appears to be incredibly flawed.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
Hansard records 2 separate contributions by Kylea Tink on this bill. They are grouped here so the speaker is listed once.
Second reading speech
Kylea Tink opposes the bill, arguing that a blanket under-16 social media ban is a blunt and rushed response that will not fix the real harms. She says it could block young people from community, mental health support and safer information, while failing to make platforms more accountable.
“I fear that's exactly what we are seeing in this Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Bill 2024, a piece of legislation that may be well intentioned but ultimately fails to deliver on its promise.”Read this contribution in Hansard ↗
Second reading speech
Kylea Tink opposes the bill and moves that the House decline to give it a second reading. She argues it is a blunt fix that will not make children safer and instead risks harming access to services, privacy, and platform accountability.
“Ultimately, while I agree we need to ensure our kids are safe, this bill simply doesn't do that. Rather, this bill offers a blunt instrument that fails to meaningfully address the real problems of social media or hold platforms accountable for making their services safe for young people. For this reason, I move the second reading amendment as circulated in my name:”Read this contribution in Hansard ↗
Record
House · Introduced and read a first time
Introduced
The bill was formally presented to the chamber and read a first time, which starts its parliamentary journey.
House · Second reading moved
Second reading opened
A minister or sponsoring member moved the second reading, opening the main debate on the bill's purpose and principles.
House · Second reading debate
Second reading debate
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
House · Second reading debate
Second reading debate
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
House · Second reading agreed to
Recorded vote: 96 to 6.
Second reading agreed
The chamber agreed to the bill at second reading, meaning it accepted the bill in principle and allowed it to continue.
House · Consideration in detail debate
Consideration in detail
The chamber considered the bill in detail and dealt with amendments before the next stage.
House · Third reading agreed to
Recorded vote: 101 to 13.
Third reading agreed
The chamber agreed to the bill at third reading, which completed passage through that chamber.
Senate · Introduced and read a first time
Introduced
The bill was formally presented to the chamber and read a first time, which starts its parliamentary journey.
Senate · Second reading moved
Second reading opened
A minister or sponsoring member moved the second reading, opening the main debate on the bill's purpose and principles.
Senate · Second reading debate
Second reading debate
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
Senate · Second reading agreed to
Second reading agreed
The chamber agreed to the bill at second reading, meaning it accepted the bill in principle and allowed it to continue.
Senate · Amendments considered
Recorded vote: 34 to 19.
Senate passes bill with government amendments
The Senate agreed to government amendments and then passed the bill at third reading on 28 November 2024.
House · Consideration of Senate message
House agreed to Senate amendmentsChanges the upper house made to the bill before the House agreed to them and the bill could pass in the same form.
The House dealt with Senate amendmentsChanges the upper house made to the bill before the House agreed to them and the bill could pass in the same form. or requests so both chambers could settle the bill in the same form.
Parliament · Finally passed both Houses
Passed both houses
Both houses passed the bill in the same form, completing parliamentary passage.
Assent · Assent
Assent
The Governor-General gave Royal AssentThe formal step that turns a bill passed by Parliament into an Act of Parliament., turning the bill into an Act.
Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee; Committee report (26/11/2024)
Referred to committee
Referred to Committee (21 Nov 2024): Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee; Committee report (26 Nov 2024)
APH bill page notesSenate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills
Considered by scrutiny committee
Considered by scrutiny committee (27 Nov 2024): Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills; Scrutiny Digest 1 of 2025
APH bill page notesParliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights
Considered by scrutiny committee
Considered by scrutiny committee (27 Nov 2024): Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights; Report 11 of 2024
APH bill page notes
