'Disturbing': social media ban, harms debate continues

Mental health experts have clashed in an at-times fiery parliamentary hearing, as the federal government prepares to ban kids from social media.

The world-first ban, supported by both Australia's major parties, would see under 16s barred from using Facebook, X, Instagram and TikTok.

But despite the scale of the proposed laws, parties were given just 24 hours to make written submissions to the inquiry before three hours of hearings on Monday, after which the government aims to pass the ban later this week.

Many senators noted the single-day time-frame was causing the legislation to be rushed and not given appropriate scrutiny, including Greens senator Sarah Hanson-Young who labelled the process "inadequate".

Human rights groups have also argued the one-day window for submissions was not a true consultation period.

A panel of experts disagreed on the effectiveness of a ban, with Murdoch Children's Research Institute's Susan Sawyer suggesting harm caused online had been exaggerated, and caused by "consistent and sustained underfunding" of other resources where kids might access support mechanisms.

"The evidence that we have in terms of the scale of the problem is that it's not nearly as great as what many people would believe," she told parliament.

"If we had our time again we might have put some bans in place sooner ... it's very hard to now take those rights or expectations away from young people."

Liberal senator Maria Kovacic described Professor Sawyer's comments "disturbing" and accused her of minimising harms found online.

Much of the debate centred around how social media can be used as a mental health support network.

Headspace's Nicola Palfrey, who acknowledged the internet contained much distressing material, said her organisation was concerned by the ban because it would stop young people from learning how to access mental health support.

"(Kids are) seeking out information with regards to mental health and wellbeing, and definitely with regards to connection, particularly for those young people that were at risk of being disenfranchised," she told parliament.

Clinical psychologist Danielle Einstein said she saw no positives to social media use by children whatsoever and said research that indicated it could be used as a suicide-prevention tool was "wrong".

Digital industry group Digi recommended the ban not be brought in until a "meaningful" consultation period was undertaken, and after the government's age verification trial was finished.

Earlier, eSafety commissioner Julie Inman Grant said children must be protected online, but still need to communicate via the internet.

"We also need to make sure that particularly vulnerable and marginalised kids still have a way to connect and to create and explore," she told ABC Radio on Monday.

"When we implement what will become the law, we'll try and do this in a way that is really protective of the range of children's rights, including their ability to communicate and express themselves online."

Social media companies would be fined up to $50 million for breaches of the law if they do not take reasonable steps to prevent young people from having an account.

The laws will come into effect a year from when they pass parliament.

Independent senator Pocock said social media harms needed to be addressed, but the laws had to be looked over properly.

"This seems like policy on the run, that they're taking this approach where they're saying, 'well this is a silver bullet'," he told ABC Radio.

"The major parties ...are happy to forgo all scrutiny and just ram something through when, one, it's in their self interest, or two, they can then hold that up going into an election saying 'well, at least we've done something'."

Lifeline 13 11 14

Kids Helpline 1800 55 1800 (for people aged 5 to 25)