Australia’s social media ban: Anika Wells talks with EDSC students

When the Hon. Anika Wells, Minister for Communications, stepped into a classroom at East Doncaster Secondary College this week, she wasn’t there to deliver a speech—she was there to listen. The topic was one that has dominated headlines, parent forums and school corridors alike: Australia’s new law banning under-16s from social media, set to take effect on 10 December.

“This is the first law of its kind in the world,” Wells told students. “And we should be proud of that. Australia was the first to take on the tobacco companies; now we’re the first to take on the platforms.”

What the ban means

From 10 December, major platforms such as TikTok, Snapchat and Instagram will be required to deactivate accounts belonging to users under 16. Wells explained that the responsibility lies with the tech companies, not individuals. “There’s nothing you need to do come 10 December,” she said. “You might wake up, grab your phone, open TikTok, and there’ll just be a notice saying that under Australian law it’s now illegal to have a login for a social-media account.”

TikTok has indicated that it will freeze accounts for younger users until they turn 16. Other platforms are still finalising how they will comply.

Students were curious about loopholes. “A lot of kids have said to me, ‘I’ll just change my birthdate,’” Wells acknowledged, “but if you’ve changed your birthdate since the laws came into place, they know. Platforms are obliged to prevent workarounds.”

Changing culture, not just rules

The Minister framed the policy not as punishment, but as a cultural reset. “This is about changing the default,” she said. “Just like wearing a seatbelt or not drinking under 18, this is about making it normal to be offline until you’re 16.”

For Wells, the goal is to remove the social pressure that drives teenagers onto platforms in the first place. “The real issue is everyone’s on it. People feel excluded if they’re not on TikTok,” she told the students. “This ban means no one is left out.”

The evidence behind the law

The under-16 restriction originated in a grassroots movement known as the 36 Months Campaign, which gathered tens of thousands of supporters. The name refers to research suggesting delaying access to social media by three years supports healthier brain development and social interaction.

“You’re giving kids those years back,” Wells said. “The research shows it makes a difference.”

Behind the policy lies a grim reality: rising rates of youth anxiety, self-harm and suicide linked to online harms. “Seven out of ten young Australians say they’ve seen harmful or illegal content online,” Wells noted. “The internet is a wild west. We’re finally reaching the point where governments have to regulate it.”

Balancing freedom and wellbeing

Critics have raised questions about expression and access. Wells rejected the idea that the ban restricts free speech. “Millions of Australians before 2025 expressed themselves politically and creatively without social media,” she said. Messaging apps like WhatsApp and Facebook Messenger will remain available, as will YouTube Kids and other logged-out platforms.

The issue, she explained, is not communication itself but “the algorithm and the endless scroll” tied to personal logins. “If a 14-year-old posts selfies and deletes them, the algorithm interprets that as vulnerability and starts feeding body-image content to monetise insecurity. That’s not acceptable.”

A global first

Australia’s move has already drawn attention abroad. “Parents who lost children to social-media harms have taken their campaign to the UN,” Wells said. “Even the Danish Prime Minister has announced they’ll follow Australia’s lead.”

While some legal experts expect challenges, Wells is confident in the legislation’s footing. “Constitutional experts like Professor Anne Twomey have said the implied right to political communication is unlikely to extend below 18. We believe the prevention of harm outweighs any restriction on expression.”

Holding platforms accountable

We can’t control the ocean—that is the internet—but we can police the sharks, those companies that avoid moral, tax, and social responsibility.

The Minister also linked the ban to broader regulatory reform, including the long-delayed Digital Duty of Care framework, which would legally require tech companies to prioritise user wellbeing over profit.

“If companies make money from people’s vulnerabilities and have failed to self-regulate after more than a decade, government has to step in,” Wells said. “We can’t control the ocean—that is the internet—but we can police the sharks, those companies that avoid moral, tax, and social responsibility.”

She encouraged students to participate in upcoming consultations. “We want your ideas about what protections should exist,” she said.

“The first to benefit”

As the discussion ended, Wells left students with a message that combined policy and hope. “Australia is leading the world in this reform,” she said. “Other countries will follow, but young Australians will be the first to benefit from safer, healthier online spaces.”