The Institute of Public Affairs’ Adam Creighton appeared on 2SM Mornings with Chris Smith to discuss IPA research into the under 16 social media ban.
All media appearances posted onto the IPA website are directly related to the promotion and dissemination of IPA research.
Below is a transcript of the interview.
Chris Smith:
Well, Adam Creighton is Senior Fellow and Chief Economist with the Institute of Public Affairs, columnist with the Australian newspaper and their former Washington correspondent as well. Adam, welcome to the Super Radio Network.
Adam Creighton:
Good morning, Chris.
Chris Smith:
This is a stack to talk about today. I could spend an hour with you, but I won’t. The eSafeties are, let’s start with Julie Inman Grant. She’s thrown YouTube into this pile of social media giants, which will be taken off Australian children under 16 later this year.
I was actually taken aback by what the Prime Minister went on to say in the press conference yesterday. Have a listen to
Anthony Albanese:
Those parents who say to me that this is what we talk about before and after school at the drop-offs. This is what we talk about at the sidelines of sporting events. It’s not just them, it’s not just their school or their cricket club or netball team, it is parents right across Australia feel like this.
Parents want to get their kids off their devices and onto the playing fields. They want children to be able to enjoy their childhood, and that is what this is about.
Chris Smith:
Being bullied or being exposed to dangerous content on social media is a completely different subject and issue to the issue that he’s citing there, which are parents worried about their kids being on their devices too often. Is this the government’s role to control what happens in the lounge room and the bedroom?
Adam Creighton:
Well, look, certainly, I think he’s right to talk about parents, but surely, it’s parents’ responsibility to get their kids off these social media applications, et cetera and out on the sporting field. It’s hardly the federal government’s responsibility to do that. Look, I think everyone realises that there’s a lot of rubbish out there on social media, including on YouTube.
I think there’s a well-meaning intent behind what the government is trying to do, but the practicalities of it are very difficult. They can’t really enforce this. For instance, what it’s going to do, it’s going to basically force YouTube to stop anyone logging on who is 16 or under or is under 16. But in practise, how do you do that? Firstly, they can still log on with a parent’s account or with someone else’s account, say a friend who’s over 16. They can still do that.
And also, it could even have a worse impact because when kids, as I understand it, when they log on at the moment under their own name, YouTube automatically blocks various bad things that they could otherwise see.
Chris Smith:
Yes.
Adam Creighton:
But if they can still just search the site without being logged in, then they can come across all sorts of horrible stuff. That’s likely what’s going to happen. And of course, where is this going to lead? Because it can’t be enforced. So the next step, of course, is facial recognition technology. And frankly, that is very scary, I would say.
Chris Smith:
Even more government control.
Adam Creighton:
Yeah. Once the government starts going down that path of we have to stare into the camera before we can log on, it doesn’t only know our age, it basically knows everything else that we are doing as well. And I certainly don’t want to live in a world like that. That is the CCP style world, the Chinese Communist Party style world, where there’s lots of facial recognition.
Do we want to live in a society like that? I don’t think so. Look, I think it’s well-intentioned, but I think it’s going to backfire. It’s not going to work. And we should be very careful about where this might lead in the future if we go down this path.
Chris Smith:
I actually can’t believe they’ve targeted YouTube here, because as you point out, they don’t have the same systems … Well, they have better systems in place than other sections of social media. They’ve got some of the strictest protocols in operation.
I even remember a time when I was working at an internet television station where when we quoted a particular independent journalist from the United States, we were taken off-air. We didn’t get access to the internet. That’s what YouTube did.
Adam Creighton:
Yeah, look, I think YouTube, I think as you point out, it’s got reasonable protocols already for kids.
Chris Smith:
Yeah.
Adam Creighton:
My nephews and nieces use it all the time. When I see them, they’re often watching things on YouTube, and it looks all pretty harmless to me. They play games, they watch movies and videos. It’s much less harmful, I would, say than Instagram and places like that. Look, it’s just the ever-reaching scope of these bureaucracies. We’ve got this woman you mentioned earlier, the E-Safety Commission, Inman Grant, she’s got to have something to do to justify her $500,000 salary or whatever it is. This is what she’s doing.
Also, she put out some research saying four out of 10 children on YouTube had been exposed to hate. Well, what the hell does that mean? And how do you measure that? And what is hate? And also, we know how the government broadens the definition of hate to basically include anything they don’t like.
Chris Smith:
Yeah.
Adam Creighton:
So yeah, look, I think this is silly and I think that we should oppose it.
Chris Smith:
She’s so powerful. She’s so powerful. All right, front page of The Australian today, and we thought the Chinese were the only ones planting spies in places like Australia to intimidate and spy on their own people here. Well, now we read that the Iranians are doing the same according to exiled Iranians now residing here.
Adam Creighton:
Yes. Look, it’s absolutely shocking and fantastic reporting here by the Australian. I would say I’ve been given a lot of case studies of people who’ve been harassed by the Iranian regime, including by some people who are in Australia. People have been threatened with death, apparently. This is a very, very serious matter.
There was some chatter earlier in the year that we should expel the Iranian ambassador, but that was more for virtue signalling reasons, I thought, and I didn’t support at time. But I think in cases like this where the regime is actually targeting Australian citizens on Australian soil, that is absolutely outrageous. If it’s proven, then I think the embassy should be shut down.
Chris Smith:
Go after them. Go after them and shut down the embassy as well.
Adam Creighton:
Yeah. I think Mike Burgess earlier this year, he’s the head of ASIO, he said it’s an enemy regime, and he said that he’d heard of cases like this. Well, if he has, I think that they should pursue them more vigorously and try to prove them, and then basically boot the ambassador out, if need be.
Chris Smith:
Yeah. Now, what do you know about this tax office investigation, which is an investigation into one of their departments? They tasked with assessing whether former Prime Minister Paul Keating should have had a $1 million tax penalty waived.
Adam Creighton:
Well, look, I’m kind of sympathetic to Paul Keating on this issue. I don’t know the technicalities of the case. It relates to general interest charges and whether it was applicable. But the general principle here is that this was a decision that the ASIO made in 2015. That’s 10 years ago. They made their decision and it was in Keating’s favour, and I think it relates to some $900,000.
And now, they’re going to review it based on something that was on four corners. Well, my view is, once it makes a decision, then it’s going to have to stick to the decision. This is obviously in the news piece of Paul Keating, he’s very famous. But just imagine if this was a small business or a farmer, the ASIO comes along and says, “Hey, we’re actually going to change our mind from 10 years ago.” Look, I might understand if it was two or three years and there’d been some new information come to light, but there’s got to be some sort of sunset clause.
Chris Smith:
Some kind of statute of limitations.
Adam Creighton:
Yes. Yeah, that’s right. That’s right. Some sort of limitations where they can’t go back and change their decision. Now, of course, Paul Keating’s a very wealthy, man. I’m sure that he can afford the $900,000. But I think the principle of the matter is that we already have the most powerful tax office in the world, I might add in the developed world.
There are very few tax officers, well, actually I think none who make a decision, and then the burden of proof is on the taxpayer to disprove their claim. That’s very unusual. It’s basically bureaucracy and a court at the same time, the ASIO. So I think that they should back off here. But that said, I don’t know the technicalities of a very complicated case, but the principle is I think they made a decision 10 years ago. They should stick to that.
Chris Smith:
Yeah, I think I’m with you on that one. These construction insolvency figures published by the Telegraph today are extremely sobering. The RBA, Adam, really doesn’t need to track unemployment or inflation figures to work out what the state of the economy is. These tell a very sad and accurate picture of economic grief, don’t they?
Adam Creighton:
Yeah. Look, it’s pretty extraordinary. Basically, construction insolvencies, were running it roughly 500 a year nationwide basically every year up until 2022. And look, I do know that’s the year the government changed. I don’t know if we can pin it all on the Albanese government, but it’s not a good look, because then in that year, they doubled to a thousand and they’ve since increased by another 500 to 1500 a year. They’ve tripled in just a few years.
This is obviously very sad for the businesses concerned themselves. But it’s not that surprising to me. Costs have gone up massively, because you’ve got all these huge largely state government infrastructure projects who suck up all the workers on extremely lucrative CFMEU contracts. They’ve massively bid up the price of tradesmen and of builders around the nation, so smaller building companies can’t get access to labour.
And then, you’ve got also this ridiculous situation where the Albanese government has refused to put construction workers on the essential worker immigration list. I wrote just a few months ago, I think, that I was shocked that of the 250,000 odd temporary worker visas in Australia, only 3% are tradesmen.
Chris Smith:
And yet, that’s where we have huge demand right now.
Adam Creighton:
Yeah, that’s exactly right. We have enormous immigrations running, 440,000 a year or something like that, which is astronomical. We do need to build, but the government is just not creating the conditions for that. And you’ve got all these insolvencies. It’s a perfect storm, I would say, really.
Plus, you’ve got this so-called target of 1.2 million homes to be built by 2029. This is the Albanese government’s target. Well, it’s already some 60,000 homes behind. There’s no way it’s going to be reached.
Chris Smith:
No hope.
Adam Creighton:
So look, it’s very sad for these businesses. And you’re quite right, it’s a worrying sign about the future direction of the economy. We have to wait and see. But yeah, this is not a good sign.
Chris Smith:
Yeah. A lot more needs to be done is exactly what the message is from those figures today. Adam, good to have you on again. You’re going on a little bit of a break. We’ll catch up down the track.
Adam Creighton:
Indeed. Okay. Thanks very much, Chris. Look forward to it.
Chris Smith:
Yeah, enjoy yourself, Adam Creighton there, Senior Fellow and Chief Economist with the Institute of Public Affairs, columnist with The Australian newspaper and former Washington correspondent.
This transcript with Adam Creighton talking on 2SM Mornings with Chris Smith from 31 July 2025 has been edited for clarity.
