Including YouTube in social media ban ‘logical': opposition
The videostreaming giant was initially set to be exempt, with the Albanese government arguing it could be educational.
But the online watchdog has since advised YouTube should be included.
Opposition communications spokeswoman Melissa McIntosh said on Sunday she agreed.
'Once again, we're going back to government policies and failures when it comes to protecting Australian children,' she told the ABC's Insiders program.
'The government decided to put forward legislation after a lot of pushing from the Coalition and advocacy groups.
'But there is an exemption for YouTube – why? Why is it?'
The Albanese government is facing calls to include YouTube in its social media ban for under 16s. Picture: Aaron Francis / NewsWire
The eSafety Commissioner, Julie Inman Grant, last month warned kids were using YouTube more than any other social media platform.
She said it was also causing the most harm to kids online.
'It's almost ubiquitous that kids are on social media,' she said at the time, also speaking to the ABC.
'By far the most prevalent social media site they're on is YouTube.
'And when we asked where they were experiencing harm and the kinds of harms they were experiencing, the most prevalent place where young Australians experienced harm was on YouTube – almost 37 per cent.
'This ranges from misogynistic content to hateful material, to violent fighting videos, online challenges, disordered eating, suicidal ideation.'
Opposition communications spokeswoman Melissa McIntosh says it is 'logical' to include YouTube in Labor's social media ban. Picture: NewsWire / Damian Shaw
In her remarks on Sunday, Ms McIntosh called on the Albanese government to heed Ms Inman Grant's advice and include YouTube in the ban.
'It's a logical thing to do,' she said.
'What makes it complex is when there's some platforms that are out and then there's some that are in.
'If that's going to be the case, it needs to be clear to Australian families why that's the case.
'Because once again, it's our Australian kids that we need to be protecting first and foremost.'
The social media ban is set to come into force in December.
While other countries have mulled similar actions, Australia is the first to make the leap, receiving both praise and criticism.
Last month, the brains tasked with finding a way to enforce the ban said it was possible but that there was no 'silver bullet'.
The project's chief suggested successive validation, or a series of tests designed to firm up a user's age, could be the best bet.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
News.com.au
2 hours ago
- News.com.au
Who wins the property State of Origin?
The battleground has spilt over from the footy field to the housing market as the Maroons and Blues prepare to face off in this week's series decider. The 2025 property State of Origin is just as tightly contested, with experts divided on whether Queensland's sizzling short-term gains trump New South Wales' long-haul game. Property adviser Darragh Heard, of Tallpopie, said the real estate rule of play looked vastly different for each of the two states. 'It's a thriller. NSW is leading in supply, but Queensland tactics are sharp,' Ms Heard said. She said NSW dominated for infill development and in the apartment market, while Queensland had more greenfield sites fuelling a wave of new house-and-land packages. 'Queensland pulls some hat tricks,' she said — not unlike the Maroons' nailbiting 26-24 Game 2 on-field victory. 'Between Brisbane and the Gold Coast, the state provides buyers with such contrast of lifestyle choice (urban or coast) larger land, and much more affordable than NSW.' NSW may have more infrastructure on the board, but the Sunshine State is scoring points in converting opportunity faster, Ms Heard said. 'Queensland is kicking 40/20s and getting repeat sets to attack, whereas NSW is stuck in their own 20m line.' She said Queensland's more streamlined development process also put it ahead in the housing game. 'The tangible opportunity and speed to market is supported by a model where developers need to just 'adhere', but in NSW developers have to 'seek permission'. The coaches and union are their worst enemy.' But Queensland's pace isn't just for show — it's racking up points on the scoreboard too, according to mortgage broker Brett Sutton, of Two Red Shoes. 'Queensland is sprinting ahead in 2025, with Brisbane's median house price now topping $1.17m and units up a staggering 18.5 per cent year-on-year,' Mr Sutton said. Affordability, lifestyle migration, and heavy infrastructure spending were the state's big drivers. 'Suburbs like Deeragun, Crestmead, and Kingston are still under $500,000 yet delivering 20-36 per cent annual growth,' Mr Sutton said. 'Regional stars like Toowoomba, Gladstone, and Mackay are thriving.' But Mr Sutton isn't handing Queensland the trophy just yet. 'Queensland takes the win on short-term performance as its growth metrics are hard to ignore. 'But if we're talking fundamentals, NSW edges ahead,' he said. While Sydney's price growth has been more modest — 4 per cent for houses and 1.8 per cent for units — it's anchored by deeper infrastructure investment, international demand, and global city status. Regional lifestyle hubs including Orange and Mayfield were also streaking ahead, Mr Sutton said. 'For owner-occupiers and long-term investors, NSW's fundamentals, stamp duty relief, higher land tax thresholds, and lower property management costs make it a more strategic play.' 'Queensland may be scoring the flashy tried in 2025, while NSW is quietly building a dynasty. And in property, that's the game that counts.' So, while footy pundits draw statelines for this week's thrilling Origin clash, who wins the investor version comes down to game plan. If it's pace, price growth and affordability hitting goals, Queensland is storming down the sideline. But if you're playing for stability, policy certainty, and long-term capital gain, NSW could take home the perpetual property cup.
ABC News
2 hours ago
- ABC News
Australia's focus on housing supply isn't enough to solve this crisis
The deputy chair of the National Housing Supply and Affordability Council, and principal with SGS Economics and Planning, Marcus Spiller, says that to meet the government's housing target there will need to be nearly 34 square kilometres of infill land made available for new dwellings every year. He said this at a conference of housing industry people last week and later explained the sums to me. The Housing Accord target is 1.2 million dwellings over five years, or 240,000 per year. Seventy per cent of those are to be in established suburbs to save on the infrastructure needed in new greenfield suburbs. That's 168,000 per year. The average density for dwellings in established areas (houses, units and apartments) is 50 per hectare. Divide 168,000 by that and you get 3,360 hectares, or 33.6 square kilometres. That's 26 times the size of Melbourne's CBD … every year (across Australia). I was on the panel at the conference, and it was Chatham House Rule, so no quoting those present. But I can quote myself and Marcus Spiller because I cleared it with him later. When they went along the panel at the end and asked everyone for their solutions to the housing crisis I said: "If that figure of 34 square kilometres is true, and it obviously is, and affordability is a crisis as everybody says it is, then surely that means radical measures are needed." I went on: "Maybe communities and local councils can't get to decide anymore what happens in their suburbs; planning decisions should be taken over by a national body focused on housing supply rather than how each suburb looks — say, the National Housing Supply and Affordability Council." At this point the chair of the NHSAC, Susan Lloyd-Hurwitz, was vigorously shaking her head, a bit horrified. "And do we really need all those golf courses? How about someone studies how many people play golf, how often, and therefore how many courses are needed for them?" I asked. "And what about all the parks? Can we cut back on parks?" By now I had lost the room, and the pitying consensus was that Kohler had gone mad. Someone in the planning business came up afterwards to tell me that taking planning decisions off local councils would be a very bad idea indeed. OK, fair enough, and I doubt that any state premier will want to deal with men in plus-fours and flat caps lying in front of bulldozers about to level bunkers and greens. But the challenge remains. Where will 34 square kilometres of empty land in Australia's suburbs come from every year? Marcus Spiller thinks there may have to be compulsory acquisition by governments of privately owned houses so large areas can be assembled for developers. And that assumes that the construction industry is capable of building 240,000 dwellings a year, and that they will be "affordable" rather than the luxury apartments that are mostly going up at the moment. Bulldozing golf courses is pointless if there's no-one to build houses on them. ANZ chief economist Richard Yetsenga wrote in a report last year that between 1945 and 1950, housing construction accounted for 84 per cent of all new building activity. In the March quarter this year housing construction was 62 per cent of total building activity of $39 billion, but on top of that there was $35.4 billion worth of engineering construction — roads, tunnels, bridges and renewable energy. So housing is down to just 33 per cent of total construction: engineering work is crowding out housing. The number of dwellings completed in 2024 was 177,000, against a Housing Accord target of 240,000 per year. In its State of the Housing System 2025 report, the NHSAC estimated demand in 2024 at 223,000 dwellings, 46,000 more than supply. Housing approvals have increased a bit lately but are still nowhere near enough. In May approvals totalled 15,212 which is an annual rate of 182,544. So the rate of housing construction needs to increase by 30 per cent, quickly, while the same number of roads, tunnels and solar and wind farms continue to get built because they are needed as well. In its report, the NHSAC wrote that the main barriers to supply are "structural constraints". "These include an inadequate pipeline of skilled workers; scarce, fragmented and costly land suitable for development; low rates of productivity and innovation in the construction sector; restrictive and complex land use and planning approval systems in some jurisdictions; market frictions and financial incentives that limit the optimal use of the existing housing stock; and a fragmented housing policy and regulatory ecosystem that adds to costs, timeframes and risks." The NHSAC also said there was a strong case for tax reform to encourage more housing. As I pointed out at the conference last week, taxation of housing is at the level that applies to things the government wants to discourage, like smoking and gambling. Usually when the government wants to encourage something, like R&D, it gives it a tax break. Housing has two tax breaks as well as all the taxes on new construction — the capital gains tax discount and negative gearing, but they apply to existing as well as new dwellings, so no extra encouragement for new housing. If negative gearing and the CGT discount can't be removed or lowered on existing houses because Labor lost the 2016 and 2019 elections with that as policy, then perhaps they should just increase the tax breaks for new housing — that is, make them CGT-free on the next sale. Richard Yetsenga points out that there are 11 million dwellings in Australia, for 26.6 million people, which is theoretically enough. That suggests, he says, that the problem is misallocation rather than a genuine shortage. Yes, but is the government going to force people to sell their holiday homes? And in any case, they are nowhere near employment or public transport so only useful as holiday homes. The other problem with achieving more supply is capital. The current plan is that it must be private capital because governments haven't got the money, because priorities have changed since the days of plentiful public housing. But if affordability is to be improved, housing can't be a good investment. To keep the current level of (un)affordability — that is, with house prices at nine to 10 times incomes, residential real estate has to be a poor investment, providing a return of no more than 3-4 per cent per annum, including rent, so incomes can keep pace. To return to the affordability of 25 years ago — a house price to income ratio of four times, it would have to be an absolutely rubbish investment for 20 years with zero return. That means private capital can't do it — only the government can. The Labor government is trying to make up for the lack of investment return with the $10 billion in the Housing Australia Future Fund (HAFF) to be given to community housing groups that mobilise capital from super funds with subsidies, which is a good policy but about one-10th of the size it needs to be. The target for the HAFF is 40,000 homes over five years, or 8,000 per year. The NHSAC says the housing shortfall will be 79,000, ten times the target. All of which suggests that the current focus of policy on supply won't cut it. Demand, that is the level of immigration, must be brought down as well — a lot. Unless, of course, golf is entirely banned. There are 1,584 golf courses in Australia taking up 71.3 square kilometres of land, or a bit more than two years' worth of what's needed. Then they can move on to the parks. Alan Kohler is finance presenter and columnist on ABC News and he also writes for Intelligent Investor.
ABC News
2 hours ago
- ABC News
Melbourne synagogue fire shows Australia's multicultural project needs urgent help
The attacks on Jewish people in Melbourne on Friday night should send chills down the spines of all Australians — Jewish and non-Jewish — who value diversity, culture and the right to be safe. The Home Affairs Minister Tony Burke was right to describe it as an attack on Australia. Australians pride themselves on being fierce defenders of multiculturalism. You will often hear ministers on both sides of politics describe our nation as the greatest multicultural country on Earth. We are right to aspire to this standing but it is highly contestable that we have achieved it. One of the powerful things people have consistently demanded of our leaders is a rejection of the false binary that would have us choose between our Australian identity and our cultural or religious roots. The Albanese government in its second term re-established its commitment to multiculturalism, but our multicultural project needs urgent help. The targeting of Australian Jews for the atrocities of a government far away is not only illegal, it is deeply antisemitic and immoral. It demonstrates that the social compact we have has been eroded and, without deep intellectual, moral and financial investment, it will only get worse. Would we accept attacks on Russian Orthodox churches in Australia for Vladimir Putin's illegal invasion and war on Ukraine? Would we be OK with groups storming Russian restaurants? I think we know the answer to both of these questions. We must reject the false binaries that are demanded of us from some elements of this movement. I have seen online a view that we should only and exclusively be concerned about the death and destruction in Gaza, that by even discussing the anti-Jewish attacks in Australia, we have somehow made a choice to accept what we see unfold in the Middle East. It's time to call out this dangerous binary. This is a false and despicable choice by bad-faith actors unwilling to confront the frightening position they are putting Australian Jews in. Attacking Jews in restaurants, in synagogues and on our streets is deeply rooted in anti-Jewish sentiment and in antisemitism. What else are we to make of these heinous acts? How can it be an act of political expression and protest to target your fellow citizens? What kind of cognitive dissonance and radicalisation has happened to convince anyone that this behaviour is anything other than violent hate? Speaking outside the historic Albert Street synagogue in East Melbourne, Burke implied the fire was motivated by a desire to instil terror within the Jewish community. He said Victoria Police was unable to declare it as such at this stage because it was working to establish a motive. But he went on to say: "I think every Australian has a view, and we probably all have the same view as to where that will end up, but we leave that with the Victorian Police." Burke declined to respond to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's remarks or calls from the Coalition for a meeting of state and federal leaders to tackle antisemitism, saying unity was more important than political argy-bargy. "What we see in the door that's behind me is an attack on Australia," Burke said. "There's been some reporting that no-one was physically injured. That doesn't mean no-one was harmed. The community here was harmed. The Jewish community in Australia was harmed, and we were harmed as a nation." While people have every right to express their anger at the Israeli government's prolonged war through peaceful protest and highlight the injustices experienced by Palestinians, by children, nothing justifies what we are seeing in Melbourne. And to suggest that people repulsed by this behaviour somehow don't care about the children of Gaza is an absurd narrative that has been constructed only to justify the unjustifiable. This "debate" has often been framed through a political lens. The opposition is calling for stronger action from the government, suggesting the Albanese government has dropped the ball on antisemitism. Shadow Attorney-General Julian Leeser reacted to the attack on Saturday by saying world leaders had acknowledged a need to step up security for the Jewish community given this conflict that's going on. "But our government never said anything and we wanted to put the prime minister on notice that we needed to do what other world leaders have done," he said. "And I don't know that he's done what he can here and it's for him to answer those questions." The prime minister says antisemitism has no place in Australia. "Those responsible for these shocking acts must face the full force of the law and my government will provide all necessary support toward this effort." The government and our leaders have a key role in setting the tone and establishing the tangible action they are prepared to take. But there is also a collective responsibility we all have to ensure that our neighbours and friends feel like they belong as equal free citizens in our country. Think about that 13-year-old kid who saw the fire at the door of the synagogue. Melbourne and Australia must be better than this. Patricia Karvelas is the host of ABC News Afternoon Briefing at 4pm weekdays on ABC News Channel, co-host of the weekly Party Room podcast with Fran Kelly, and host of politics and news podcast Politics Now.
