In this interview, John Roskam appeared on 4BC Drive with Gary Hardgrave to discuss the IPA’s research on the censorship of social media.
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.
Gary Hardgrave:
Well, Labor’s social media ban, the great lab rat experiment for everybody under the age of 16 kicks in next week. And the Communications Minister Anika Wells, she says this Online Safety Amendment Bill places the responsibility on platforms, not parents or children to meet these laws. Platforms, platforms and multimillion dollar fines for platforms who get it wrong. But the current effectiveness of these platforms to actually screen this. The whole thing I find the thing of horror when Peter Dutton first mumbled it as a policy idea a year or more ago that was crazy. The Labour Party adopted it and turned it into this Hulk like monster. But what about this 14 year old school boy in Adelaide? What he’s done is he’s bypassed Snapchat’s age verification process and he’s now been mistaken as a 25-year-old adult. Now normally we hear that’s the problem with girls looking older than they are, but a 14-year-old boy can pass for a 25-year-old adult?
Well, the app accepted his joke entry despite the verification process requiring a full face scan from multiple angles. John Roskam is at the Institute of Public Affairs and he joins us now. I mean, John, this whole thing is farcical, isn’t it?
John Roskam:
I couldn’t agree with you more as a matter of principle. These are questions that should be left up to parents. As you identified, sadly, this is a policy that both the Labour government and the coalition support. And we also now have massive practical problems of implementation as you identified. Children seem to be relatively easily bypassing the system. And what a lot of Australians haven’t understood is that this law doesn’t just apply to under 16s because there are going to be platforms having to establish that the people using their systems are adults. So the potential for this to create digital ID for centralised collection of data that can be hacked and then stolen is very great indeed. And this is a rushed policy. It wasn’t tested. And instead of the minister being here to try and fix these many, many problems, she’s jetting off to New York on a $100,000 jaunt to talk to the United Nations about this. It’s just absolutely-
Gary Hardgrave:
No, you’ve only valued it. $180,000. She spent a lot more than a 100k. Well, that’s counting the beers and skittles she bought for everybody to get them inside the tent. I mean, to get the roofs from the UN inside the tent, the whole thing’s about 180 going on $200,000 she spent. It’s just madness, John.
John Roskam:
Well, it’s madness. And at a serious level, we have a government that has handed vast powers to the so called E-safety Commissioner, Julie Inman Grant. And it’s quite clear that the way the law has been established, the E-safety Commissioner has arbitrary powers that she is constantly changing. Parents and young people don’t know what the rules are, let alone the technology companies, even though as you said, they can be liable up to fines of $49 million. We’ve already had examples of the E-safety Commissioner stepping far outside of the law, not using the laws carefully and in a measured sense, she’s grasping for the massive power that bureaucrats almost always want to have. And it’s going to be us that suffer. And when our data is breached and hacked and stolen, sadly, there’s going to be a lot of people saying this was entirely predicted.
Gary Hardgrave:
And John, a couple of things there. The data is going to be stored in an offshore data service company, not even onshore, because I mean, as you know, with our price of electricity, we can’t afford to have big data centres here anyway. So our data is going to be in the hands of some other company in some other place around the world. That’s one thing. The other thing is, as I made a point in an editorial a little earlier, for 125 years, Australia’s been the first one to answer the call to fight for freedom. And now we’re going to the United Nations to boast how we’re restricting freedom. Why are we doing this to ourselves?
John Roskam:
It’s a knee-jerk reaction to the serious challenges of social media and the serious challenges of bullying online and related issues, but rather than approaching a programme of education, talking to parents, if you’re going to pass laws such as this, do it carefully after a trial period and know exactly what you are doing and why you have this slap dash approach. And of course, the Minister said, she acknowledged that the law won’t be perfect, but she said, “It’s worth having a crack.” Now, we don’t impose these sorts of laws and these sorts of massive restrictions on our freedom with huge potential consequences on the idea that we’re just going to have a crack. And for me, it just reveals again, sadly, as you’ve identified, Gary, how we don’t take our freedom seriously, whether they’re freedoms of speech, whether they’re freedoms to engage on social media. And if we don’t take our freedoms seriously, we will lose them.
Gary Hardgrave:
Well, my concern is that they can’t prevent people under the age of 16 or 17 from driving a car. So how are they going to prevent a kid who’s younger and more tech-savvy than most of the people of my age and others, how can we actually prevent them from not finding a way around? I mean, John, I know somebody who once put a mask of a photo of somebody on their face, scanned that in to a government website and were given a licence by government upon application, right? So I won’t go into the detail, but I know that person. I’ve seen the example. The photo on the licence, you could clearly see was a mask, but the government system’s allowed it to be done. I mean, there’s all sorts of dodgy things being done all the time.
John Roskam:
Well, that’s right. And we have to understand the limits to technology and sometimes things will go wrong, which is why we have to be so careful. And we have already seen whether it’s Qantas data that’s been hacked, we’ve seen overseas where they’ve established similar systems, but not quite as Draconian as we are about to have here in Australia, massive data breaches. And at the same time, as the Government says, we want to protect your privacy and your data, they are doing everything to encourage the social media platforms to keep our data, to ask for bank accounts, to ask for driver’s licence, to ask for passport numbers. And exactly, Gary, as you’ve said, the government hasn’t given us any guarantees as to where this data will be stored. Will it be stored in mainland China? Will it be stored in the US? We don’t know.
Gary Hardgrave:
We don’t know. And of course, there’ll be those who say, “Well, all these different platforms overseas have already got our data.” I mean, for instance, John Roskam, let’s have a listen to what Anika Wells … She said that all these platforms have plenty of data, so we shouldn’t have to worry. Does that make it right? Here’s Anika Wells, have a listen.
Anika Wells:
If you’re an adult, you probably won’t need to do anything extra to prove your age, because like I said before, these platforms have plenty of data to infer your age.
Gary Hardgrave:
I got to tell you, she sounds like a swami smart bum to me in that. I mean, seriously, people are understandably concerned about the fact that government has information on us. I get sick of people ringing from call centres, from government call centres, and they say, “Are you Gary Hargrave?” “Yes.” “Can you prove who you are?” I mean, I’ve got to give them my information every time they call me because of the Privacy Act of 1985 or whatever excuse they use. John, we are being invaded, held west and crooked by government into our lives on a daily basis.
John Roskam:
And when we have the Minister saying, “You probably won’t be needing more data. And it doesn’t matter because these platforms know everything about you anyway.” That is exactly the reverse of how governments should be thinking. We need a process whereby the agencies, whether they’re government or the platforms, ask the minimum amount that is required. And I get very concerned when we have ministers who are so cavalier about our privacy, especially when the risks increase by the day of hacking breaches and as I said, potentially stolen identification.
Gary Hardgrave:
Well, either way, I think that with the kids of Australia are being subjected to being lab rats as correspondence into this show are saying this afternoon, “I’m really sorry for those young Australians that have been bullied. Some sadly have taken their lives, but I don’t understand why it is children, why parents aren’t actually aren’t taking the charge of this.” I mean, governments are trying to supplant the role of parents and we’re raising a generation of kids who say, “Don’t worry about what your parents say, just check in with the government.” That, to my mind, is an even more sinister aspect of this, John. We’re showing kids that the only authority in their lives needs to be government, and I think that’s frightening.
John Roskam:
Gary, I would agree. And another reason why, for example, I and the IPA is so opposed to the social media ban is that the social media platforms are sometimes the only avenues where children get an alternative viewpoint to what they are told in school. So if you are looking for a view that says maybe there are two sides to the climate change debate, for example, you’re not going to get that from your teachers. You will have to go on social media to find out for yourself. And it is going to restrict children’s access to information. It’s going to restrict education and children are still going to find a way around this. And at the age of 16, they’re going to access this anyway. So I think as we’ve talked about, this is a slap dash programme that at the very least should be delayed because the risks are very great indeed.
Gary Hardgrave:
Yeah. Well said, John Roskam from the IPA, about half their membership, the Institute of Public Affairs are in Queensland. I can understand why. A bit of common sense there. What do you think? Wonderful 3882. Thanks to Watch Smoke Alarms. And we’re of course here today with the Young Care Christmas Appeal at the Gap Village Shopping Centre. Come on down, say good day. You’re very, very welcome. It’s.
This transcript with John Roskam talking on 4BC Drive with Gary Hardgrave 5 December 2025 has been edited for clarity.
