Serious concerns have been raised about limiting children's rights and unduly encroaching on privacy under a blanket social media ban for those under 16.
Communications Minister Michelle Rowland is ramming through the world-first ban, set to pass parliament on Thursday and come into effect within 12 months.
There is a lack of details about privacy safeguards and a "significant risk that the bill would constitute an impermissible limit on numerous human rights", a human rights committee chaired by Labor MP Josh Burns found.
Communications Minister Michelle Rowland is ramming through the world-first social media ban. (Mick Tsikas/AAP PHOTOS)
The rights of children, equality and non-discrimination and freedom of expression were all examined as were privacy considerations for all users who would have to hand over information to prove their age.
While protecting children was a legitimate aim and the ban could be capable of achieving that, "it's not clear that the measures would constitute a proportionate limit on these rights," the committee's examination of the laws found.
There was a "significant risk" the ban overreached on limiting human rights, it found.
The report referenced United Nations special rapporteur on the right to privacy Joseph Cannataci's comment that age alone was an imperfect way of determining a child's capabilities.
Human rights groups and mental health services have come out against a total ban, saying it will impact vulnerable children who could be isolated and unable to access support.
Improving safety features for users was a better approach, they argue.
There is a lack of details about privacy safeguards, a committee chaired by Labor's Josh Burns found (Lukas Coch/AAP PHOTOS)
The ban is expected to cover Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, Reddit, TikTok and X, while there will be carve-outs for some health and education platforms such as YouTube, Google Classroom, Kids Helpline and WhatsApp.
While Ms Rowland ruled out tech giants forcing users to hand over government-issued IDs like licences or passports, it was unclear how age could be confirmed without identity verification, the committee found.
This raised further concerns a third-party service would have access to private information and while there are some privacy safeguards around personal details collected, there's still a range of purposes it can be used without a user's consent.
"There appear to be minimal safeguards in the bill with respect to the right to privacy," the report found.
If data was retained, "it would appear this may make such data more at risk of hacking, identity theft and leaks", the report said.
What if a 15 yr old has a job where the boss communicates with his or her team over facebook messenger? — Senator Matt Canavan (@mattjcan) Under the social media ban the 15 year old would be locked out of the staff chat. We let 14 and 15 year olds have a job but we won't let them have a facebook account?November 27, 2024
The use of documents to verify identity could also prejudice Indigenous people who may not have birth certificates, or people experiencing homelessness who don't have access to ID.
The coalition will support the bill, meaning it will easily pass the Senate when a vote is brought on, although some have expressed reservations at the laws being rammed through with little debate and have flagged voting against it.
Politicians from both sides have admitted the bill isn't perfect and wouldn't be a silver bullet, as tech-savvy teens could get around the block, but argued it was important to still take action to prevent insidious harms on social media.