YouTube threatens to sue if roped into social media ban
The tech giant wrote to Communications Minister Anika Wells declaring it was considering its legal position if its video-sharing platform was included in the ban for children aged 16 and under.
The letter flagged the ban could be challenged because it restricted the implied constitutional right to freedom of political communication.
'YouTube is a video-sharing platform, not a social media service, that offers benefit and value to younger Australians,' a YouTube spokesperson said.
Loading
'We have written directly to the government, urging them to uphold the integrity of the legislative process and protect the age-appropriate experiences and safeguards we provide for young Australians.'
The social media ban is due to come into effect in December.
covered when legislation passed parliament.
YouTube was exempted in a move TikTok described as a 'sweetheart deal'.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Sky News AU
17 minutes ago
- Sky News AU
‘Mass delusion': Energy experts say UN climate boss ‘off with the fairies' after claiming Australia's carbon emissions ‘overheating' the planet
The United Nation's top climate change official Simon Stiell has been rubbished by energy experts for pushing an alarmist message that Australia was 'overheating' the planet without mentioning China's ballooning carbon emissions. The United Nation's climate change executive secretary Simon Stiell piled pressure onto the Albanese government and said that Australia was allowing the planet to 'overheat' and that it should 'not settle for what's easy' when determining its 2035 emission reduction targets. The climate tzar bizarrely declared that fruits would become a 'once-a-year treat' if Labor did not lift its clean energy ambitions and that only countries that acted 'boldly today' would reap the benefits of the energy transition. 'Mega-droughts (will make) fresh fruit and veg a once-a-year treat. In total, the country could face a $6.8 trillion GDP loss by 2050,' Mr Stiell forebodingly warned at an event hosted by the Smart Energy Council on Monday in Sydney. Senior fellow and chief economist at the Institute of Public Affairs Adam Creighton labelled Mr Stiell's comments as 'ludicrous fearmongering' and 'mass delusion.' 'Almost exactly two years ago UN Secretary General Guterres said 'the era of global boiling has arrived'. Informed Australians are likely to see his colleagues' comments as yet another example of ludicrous fearmongering,' Mr Creighton told He also drew attention to the fact that China and India were emitting more coal in a single year than Australia did in a week. 'Steill's demand that Australia reduce its greenhouse emissions further should be ignored and condemned given Australia's contribution to global emissions has fallen to barely more than 1 per cent.' Mr Creighton stressed that Australia should not be expected to bear the weight of climate change when the world's largest polluters continued to increase its emissions and that Mr Stiell's comments were contradictory and false. 'If Steill was serious about reducing global emissions he'd be saving his hysterical words for China and India, none of whom are taking 'net zero' seriously, as has become clear by their soaring use of coal to power their development." China and India's share of global emissions have risen to 40 per cent, more than triple that of America's contribution, with China also increasing its annual carbon dioxide emissions by 7.9 billion tons a year since 2000. Nationals Senator Matt Canavan denounced Mr Stiell's remarks, and told Sky News the UN's climate boss was 'off with the fairies.' 'Agriculture production has never been higher, it's insane, it's ridiculous and we cannot be led by people that have clearly not got a proper grasp on how the world works.' Mr Canavan said the only reason Mr Stiell was in Australia was due to the government vying for hosting rights for the COP 31 conference in 2026 and that the country was 'being taken for mugs.' 'Clearly Chris Bowen wants to bring this climate jamboree to Australia next year, that's why he has got this UN guy here, when the UK hosted the climate conference it costed $500 million, this is going to be The Voice 2.0.' Centre for Independent Studies energy analyst Jude Bilk said the United Nations should not be expect Australia to shoulder any load that is 'not being equally shouldered internationally.' 'We are incredibly naive to presume that we can have any material impact, let alone 'set an example' for these nations,' Mr Bilk said. 'The rhetoric of perma-crisis from the UN is beginning to sound shrill to the Australian public, who are already experiencing rising energy costs – with plenty more problems to come.' Mr Bilk said the appropriate response from Australia would be to 'tell Simon Stiell to stick it up his jumper.' Mr Bowen when pressed about Mr Stiell's verbal spray regarding emission reduction targets said that 'targets were easier set than met' and that Australia would act on advice from domestic bodies. 'Targets are easier set than met – we will set a target informed by the expert advice in the national interest,' Mr Bowen said on Tuesday. The federal government will be required in the coming month to legislate its 2035 emission reduction targets, which will be finalised once the Climate Change Authority chaired by former NSW Liberal Premier Matt Kean hands down its advice.
The Age
17 minutes ago
- The Age
What if people just want better jobs, not more stuff
It's this huge improvement in our productiveness that's given us a standard of living many times better than it was 200 years ago. Our homes, our health, our food, our entertainments and our possessions are far better than they were. Loading What's worrying the great and the good is that this process of small annual improvement in our living standards seems to have stalled about a decade ago. They don't actually know why it's stalled, or whether the stoppage is temporary or permanent. But the people at the top of our economy are worried by the thought that, unless we do something, our standard of living may never go any higher. This thought appals them, and they assume it appals us just as much. We've got used to ever-rising living standards, and for this to stop would be disastrous. Well, maybe, maybe not. What no one seems to have observed is that this is a completely materialist view of how our lives could be better. Better goods, better services and a lot more of both. My guess is that, for the managerial class, more money to buy bigger and better stuff is what they most want. But I'm not sure if that's what the rest of us want – especially after we'd given some thought to the alternatives. If an ever-higher material living standard came free of charge, of course we'd all want it. But if it came at a cost – as it's likely to – we'd have to think harder about the price and what we'd have to give up to pay it. When the big business lobby groups argue that our productivity has stopped improving because their taxes are too high and the Labor government has introduced too many regulations controlling how they pay and treat their workers, sometimes I think what they're saying is: we could make you so much richer if only you'd let us make your working lives a misery. In a recent article for Project Syndicate, Dani Rodrik, a Harvard economist, argues that most working people probably want a good job more than higher pay. 'When people are asked about wellbeing and life satisfaction, the work they do ranks at the top, along with contributions to their community and family bonds,' he says. This is something economists keep forgetting. In their simple theory, work is a pain. And the only reason you do it is to get money to buy the stuff you want. The bad bit is work; the good bit is consumption. In truth, most of us get much of our identity, self-worth and satisfaction from our jobs. Some people hate their jobs, of course, but that's the point: they would be a lot happier if they could find a job they enjoyed. Loading Rodrik adds that jobs can be a source of pride, dignity and social recognition. It's clear that Australians hugely value having a secure job. One where they don't have to worry about where their next meal's coming from. Where they know they'll be able to keep up their mortgage payments. Where their job classification is permanent, not temporary. Good pay is nice, but work is about a lot more than pay. Psychologists tell us that job satisfaction is helped by having a degree of autonomy in the way you do your job. A more obvious need is a boss who treats you fairly and with respect. No one wants to work for an idiot who thinks they should treat 'em mean to keep 'em keen. I have no doubt that all workers want the pleasure of being loyal to their boss and their company. But they have to be receiving loyalty to give it back.
News.com.au
17 minutes ago
- News.com.au
Huge profits as 20-year home move expires
There's a significant new trend in property investment: for the past three years, a majority of Australian investors have been positively or neutrally geared. That means their rental income has met or exceeded their expenses, including loan repayments. As a result, they've been pocketing extra income each year on top of any capital gains. This is a significant shift given the previous 20-year trend of most investors being negatively geared. The trend is revealed in FY23 tax data released by the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) last month. Based on all our tax returns, the ATO reports there were 2,261,080 Australians with an interest – either sole ownership or joint or part-ownership – in one or more rental properties in FY23. Among them, 51% – or 1,143,905 – reported net positive or neutral rental income. This is the third consecutive year in which more investors came out ahead after expenses. In FY22, 58% of investors reported positive or neutral net rental income. In FY21, it was 53 per cent. This follows a two-decade history prior to FY21 when the majority of investors were negatively geared each year. The fact that interest rates were at record lows in FY21 and FY22 is the most obvious reason why more investors were positively geared in those years. But what about FY23? The Reserve Bank of Australia raised interest rates 10 times (albeit from a low base) in FY23. The cash rate rose rapidly from 0.85 per cent to 4.1 per cent between July 2022 and June 2023, and yet most property investors remained positively geared. How is that so? I think several factors are contributing to what I hope might become a lasting trend. The biggest one is a huge surge in weekly rents that began in FY21 and continued into FY22 and FY23. Data shows annual rental growth of about 7 per cent in FY21, 9 per cent in FY22, and another 9 per cent in FY23. Additional rental income would have certainly offset the impact of rising interest rates in FY23. (The pace of rental growth has since slowed but remains above inflation, with annual increases of about 8 per cent in FY24 and 3.4 per cent in FY25.) Another contributing factor is the ageing profile of property investors. According to the data, the largest cohort of Australian investors are aged 60 years or older. The FY23 data shows more than one in four investors, or 27 per cent, are in this age group. This is relevant because older people typically have more wealth, after a lifetime of work and decades of owning their homes, and therefore have more scope to pay down investment debt. Retirement would also provide a new motivation to pay off debt, as would turning 60, since that's when many Australians can access their superannuation in a lump sum under certain conditions. Additionally, a rising number of baby boomers have been downsizing in recent years, which is freeing up funds to pay off loans or fund the purchase of a new property investment with cash. Owning property mortgage-free virtually guarantees strong positive cash flow, since loan repayments are by far the biggest cost for most landlords. I'm also mindful that since the pandemic, we have seen a significant trend in investors choosing to buy cheaper properties with higher rental yields in regional areas or investing in capital cities in states or territories that are more affordable than Sydney and Melbourne. This may also be contributing to the trend in more property investors being positively geared. Affordability is a key driver of this trend, but the pandemic also facilitated it. Lockdowns led to rapid changes in the industry, including enhanced online marketing tools and the provision of private inspections via video. Documentation like loans and property sale contracts went digital, making the financing and conveyancing processes more streamlined, and reducing the barrier of distance. I also think more investors are employing buyers' agents to do all the legwork for them, and this helps people access other states and territories to diversify their portfolios. Buyers' agents are readily available across the country, so investors can buy in the best-performing markets with confidence. For example, there is plenty of anecdotal evidence that East Coast investors have been buying in both the capital cities and regional areas of Western Australia and Queensland over the past few years. These states have been among the top performers in terms of home value growth for several years now. The best thing about more property investors being positively or neutrally geared is that it makes it easier for them to hold on to their investments for the long term. The real wealth from property investment comes from capital gains, and we know that the longer you hold your investment, the higher your capital growth is likely to be.
