(LifeSiteNews) — When the Australian federal parliament rushed through laws in the final sitting week of 2024 banning children and teenagers under the age of 16 from using social media it became global news. It was seen as a world first, a novel attempt by a government to prevent children being exposed to some of the harms that can occur online.

The laws were targeted at the social media platforms, which could be fined up to 50 million Australian dollars ($31 million US) for failing to take “reasonable steps” to keep under-16s off their platforms. There are no proposed penalties for young people or parents who break the rules. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese eagerly took media advantage, positioning himself as the would-be protector of children on behalf of anxious parents.

The problem is the government does not seem to have thought through the ramifications. How are users going to prove their age without having to give up sensitive information about themselves? Moreover, the law applies to every Australian citizen not just children. It would force everyone to identify themselves if they wanted to use social media.

It did not take long for cracks to appear. Even the ABC, the state broadcaster, produced some rare sound journalism, running an article pointing out the flaws in the identification process.

The government, under pressure, inserted a last-minute change to the legislation stipulating that social media companies cannot insist on ID as the only means of age assurance. The social media companies are banned from collecting any state, federal or territory “government-issued identification material such as a passport or driver’s licence or from using an “accredited” digital service.

The only theoretical alternative, however, was not viable. “Previously, providing ID had seemed the most likely method, given it’s still the only ironclad way to verify a person’s age,” the ABC report said. “Now, platforms will have to give us at least one other option, and biometric data is the next most likely candidate — specifically facial estimation technology, which guesses your age based on your appearance.”

READ: Conservative MPs blast proposal to monitor Canadian media with ‘disinformation’ code

Trouble is, the use of facial recognition technology had already been ruled an unacceptable breach of privacy by the Privacy Commissioner in a case against the retail hardware chain Bunnings. So what options did the social media platforms have if they wanted to comply? None, it would seem.

The government decided to leave the method of age identification “open”, which seems to be code for: “We have no idea what to do.” It looks like a get out of jail free card for the social media platforms. According to the legislation the platform is exempted if “there are no reasonable steps that the provider could take in order to comply,” which seems to be precisely the situation they are in.

There is significant Australian community support for measures to control child usage of the internet and social media. A YouGov poll of 1,515 people found that 77 per cent of respondents were in favour of the new legislation, while 87 per cent supported stronger penalties for social media companies that fail to comply with Australian laws. On the face of it, the move by the Albanese government was good politics, which is why it received bi-partisan support from the other major parties.

Yet once again the Australian government has excelled in crafting bad law, which is ironic given how many Federal politicians are lawyers.  It is yet another example of the regulatory overreach that has become commonplace since the COVID crisis, with governments arrogating to themselves power that they either shouldn’t have or can’t realistically apply.

Had the ban actually been implemented with mandatory digital ID, the mood of the Australian population would have quickly darkened as it was realized that everyone, not just children, would have to provide sensitive details about themselves.

To deepen the absurdity, the federal government is paying for widely disseminated advertisements that warn Australians not to give up sensitive personal details to third parties because of the risk of identity theft and on-line fraud.

There is some evidence that parents are quietly using the government’s legislation to caution their own children about going online. To that extent it may have some positive effect, although the penalties only actually apply to the social media companies.

But overall it is a legal mess. The main lesson is about the limitations of the law, and the problems of using state power to do what should be the responsibility of families. There is already far too much intrusion into family life by government bureaucracy in Australia, especially in the education system. This social media ban is just another example.

This time, the overreach seems to have been defeated by its own contradictions. But after the excesses of the COVID response over the last four years, there is little doubt that there will be more bad law to come. Australia’s politicians are not about to develop a sense of humility, or to arrive at an understanding of the proper limits of state power.

READ: Gender ideology has completely taken over the Toronto Catholic school board