Proof 30yo Aussies have never had it worse
For much of Australia's history, each new generation has been better off than the last: better jobs, higher incomes, and improved living standards.
But a new e61 Institute report reveals that promise may now be in doubt.
The report found that young Australians were barely earning more than their predecessors yet were racking up markedly larger student debts and taking years longer to pay them off.
Real average incomes for 30-year-olds increased just 6 per cent in a decade, from $59,496
in 2012 to $62,987 in 2022. Meanwhile, the average HELP debt jumped by 45 per cent, from $19,485 to $28,260, the analysis of tax return data found.
The average age of final HELP repayment also rose from 33 in 2012 to 35 in 2022.
The percentage of 30-year-olds with a HELP debt increased from 15 per cent to 23 per cent, In 10 years, the average HELP debt has jumped 45 per cent. NewsWire/ Gaye Gerard Credit: NewsWire
The report said the story of young Australians today may not necessarily be one of decline but rather of delay.
'It is still unclear how many of these patterns will evolve. The challenge for policymakers is distinguishing between whether young Australians are reaching major life milestones – like moving out of home, starting families, and buying a home – later than prior generations, not reaching them at all, or changing their preferences,' it said.
e61 Institute research economist Matthew Maltman said the intergenerational compact's growing disparity had its roots in the global financial crisis of 2008. Since then the wages of workers under 40 have grown at less than half the rate of older Australians.
'Some explanations include rising underemployment, a shift toward insecure and lower-paying
service jobs, award decisions, and an oversupply of workers relative to available high-quality
jobs – driven in part by older Australians working longer – which weakened bargaining power
and suppressed wage growth,' he said.
'Rising employer concentration and a decline in job mobility may also have weakened young
workers' ability to climb the job ladder and move into higher-paying positions.'
The report stated that young Australians now had access to opportunities that were not available to their parents and grandparents. The report found young Aussies are dealing with the financial consequences of university education for years longer. NewsWire / Valeriu Campan Credit: NewsWire
'Today, they are achieving more in education, earning more in their early career stages, and participating in the labour market in new ways,' it said.
'Young people have also benefited from technological advancements, including greater access to information through the internet, improvements in the availability of digital goods and cheaper consumer goods.
'Whether young Australians will be better of than previous generations remains an open question,
'It depends, in part, on the choices policymakers make today. In the past, productivity growth has been the surest way to lift living standards for all and maintain the intergenerational bargain.
'However, Australia's recent lacklustre productivity performance means that policymakers cannot take for granted that the standard intergenerational pattern of improvement will operate as well as before.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Courier-Mail
an hour ago
- Courier-Mail
Housing concession wars: Aus ‘most attractive' handout revealed
In a daring move, an Aussie state is shaking up the housing concession wars, giving the 'most attractive in the nation' chance to house hunters to buy their first home. The move, announced in the Queensland budget by treasurer David Janetzk on Tuesday, has seen wide support from real estate lobby groups in the first LNP state government budget here in a decade. MORE: Brutal honesty sends 46-year Aus family home viral All the tax write offs Aussies can claim MORE: Mayor lands massive $1.15m payday ATO's dragnet: Millions of side hustles face shock tax bill The scheme will allow 1,000 buyers to land their first home off just a 2pc deposit as part of a $165m 'close the deposit gap' program, with the government sharing the equity load up to 30pc for new homes and 25pc for existing homes – and access expanded for workers that earn up to $150,000 or couples bringing in up to $225,000. The program – which opens for expressions of interest in a week (July 1) – covers properties up to $1m across Queensland to take into account record price surges since the pandemic – a threshold that's $250k jump on what LNP campaigned for during the election period. Given the government expects to raise over $45b in taxes from the property sector over the next four years, Real Estate Institute of Queensland head Antonia Mercorella came out in support of the initiative as well as future reform. 'With suitable income eligibility thresholds of up to $225,000 for couples and $150,000 for singles and a statewide property value cap of $1m, the scheme reflects modern property prices across Queensland and makes it the most attractive in the nation.' MORE: Cash-strap student turns $40k to 38 homes Govt pays $3.3m for unliveable derelict house Property Council Queensland executive director Jess Caire also welcomed the move to a more housing focused budget. 'Responding to the housing crisis is clearly a focus of this budget with significant spending allocated towards creating new supply, community housing and helping first home buyers get their foot in the door of the housing market,' she said. 'The $165m Boost to Buy scheme was an ask in our 2024 Be a Queenslander election campaign and an initiative that will help many Queenslanders realise the dream of home ownership.' Ms Mercorella said Brisbane local government area median house prices had already passed the million-dollar median mark, while Greater Brisbane was close, with units also surpassing the $700,000 level across the Gold and Sunshine Coasts. 'The generous cap ensures the scheme is relevant in all corners of our state including high-demand areas like Brisbane, the Gold Coast, and Sunshine Coast, where the median house price now sits above $1m. Without this adjustment, the scheme risked being out of touch with the reality faced by many first home buyers today.' MORE: Rate cut windfall: Aus big bank's shock new forecast Shock as city's distressed home listings surge 36pc in one month She did not expect the program to distort property demand given FHBs made up a small share of overall market activity, but said it 'may assist in rebalancing housing pressure by helping some renters transition into ownership'. 'I don't think we can underestimate the material impact this can have on thousands of lives and for generations to come.' Among the areas still on REIQ's wishlist for the state was stamp duty reform in favour of a land tax-based model, and abolishing stamp duty for downsizers over 55. 'We've seen a promising start with some relief for first home buyers through higher stamp duty concession thresholds, abolishment of stamp duty on new builds, and the removal of restrictions on renting out rooms, and now we'd like to see some relief extended to people at the opposite end of the housing cycle – downsizing Queenslanders.' 'We're hearing calls to remove barriers that delay older Queenslanders from downsizing – a stamp duty exemption would achieve this and also, in turn, allow younger families to upsize.' MORE REAL ESTATE NEWS
The Advertiser
2 hours ago
- The Advertiser
The Centrelink recipients fighting for survival who you mightn't have heard of
Over the years, I've written a lot about Australians who receive Centrelink support. I've written about robodebt, mutual obligations, the cashless debit card, devastating dole-bludger narratives and the general struggle of trying to make ends meet while looking for work. But there's a cohort of Centrelink payment support recipients that I haven't touched on: those of us who are "pulling ourselves up by our bootstraps", often juggling family or carer or other responsibilities with work obligations through creating their own careers. I'm talking about sole-traders. For many Australians, self-employment is an opportunity to build something of their own; a business that provides financial independence, flexibility, and, hopefully, long-term stability. But for sole-traders reliant on Centrelink support to close the survivability gap, the reality is far harsher. Under current mutual obligation requirements, self-employed individuals must generate enough profit - not revenue, but actual take-home profit - to meet the equivalent of the national minimum wage for their required reportable fortnightly hours. This means any investment back into their business is classified as an expense on their profit-and-loss statement, effectively making it so much harder to grow their business and eventually no longer need Centrelink support by restricting their capacity to invest in future growth. This profit-versus-growth equation feels like an impossible balancing act. Unlike traditional employees, whose wages are fixed and predictable (not to mention paid for all hours worked), sole traders face inconsistent income, fluctuating expenses, and the need for reinvestment. Every dollar spent on marketing, equipment, or materials to expand a business, reduces the profit margin Centrelink considers "earnings." For example, a sole trader required to work 30 hours per fortnight needs to generate at least $723.00 in profit - not revenue - every two weeks to meet their obligations. If they invest $200 back into their business for growth, that money is written off as an expense and no longer contributes to their minimum earnings target. The end result? Sole-traders are forced to sacrifice reinvestment, stunting their ability to grow, and to work far beyond their designated hours to meet Centrelink's rigid criteria, leaving them exhausted and financially vulnerable. Further complicating things, Centrelink's reporting framework asks if the sole-trader has met the minimum fortnightly hours "worked" rather than how many hours they have been able to pay themselves. This means a sole trader may have worked 50 hours in a fortnight, but only earned enough to scrape together 25 reportable hours. If they select "yes" to having worked the minimum expected hours (which they have), but can't back that up with paid hours on a P&L report, when that three-monthly P&L submission requirement hits for Centrelink, it won't add up and they will be penalised. If they fudge the numbers to use their wages to invest back in their business, the cross-agency reporting at tax time will pick this discrepancy up and they'll either be slammed with a Centrelink debt or a higher tax bill. Compare this to a salaried worker earning minimum wage. Their hours are counted regardless of business performance, their wage is unaffected by operational expenses, and their financial security remains intact. The disparity is glaring. READ MORE: Instead of encouraging self-employed individuals to scale their businesses into sustainable ventures, the current framework locks them into survival mode. It forces them to prioritise immediate profit over long-term stability, discouraging reinvestment, innovation, and financial planning for sustainable independence in the medium term. If the goal of employment services is to help people achieve self-sufficiency, then sole traders should be given the same runway for success that employees enjoy. Possible reforms could include: Without meaningful changes, Centrelink will continue trapping sole traders in an impossible loop: forced to sacrifice growth to meet profit requirements, while watching their businesses struggle to survive under rigid conditions that don't reflect economic reality. Sole-traders make up 30 per cent of our country's business market. It should be seen as a pathway to independence, and not a bureaucratic obstacle course. Otherwise, we're not only failing to support entrepreneurship and flexible financial independence, we're sabotaging it. Over the years, I've written a lot about Australians who receive Centrelink support. I've written about robodebt, mutual obligations, the cashless debit card, devastating dole-bludger narratives and the general struggle of trying to make ends meet while looking for work. But there's a cohort of Centrelink payment support recipients that I haven't touched on: those of us who are "pulling ourselves up by our bootstraps", often juggling family or carer or other responsibilities with work obligations through creating their own careers. I'm talking about sole-traders. For many Australians, self-employment is an opportunity to build something of their own; a business that provides financial independence, flexibility, and, hopefully, long-term stability. But for sole-traders reliant on Centrelink support to close the survivability gap, the reality is far harsher. Under current mutual obligation requirements, self-employed individuals must generate enough profit - not revenue, but actual take-home profit - to meet the equivalent of the national minimum wage for their required reportable fortnightly hours. This means any investment back into their business is classified as an expense on their profit-and-loss statement, effectively making it so much harder to grow their business and eventually no longer need Centrelink support by restricting their capacity to invest in future growth. This profit-versus-growth equation feels like an impossible balancing act. Unlike traditional employees, whose wages are fixed and predictable (not to mention paid for all hours worked), sole traders face inconsistent income, fluctuating expenses, and the need for reinvestment. Every dollar spent on marketing, equipment, or materials to expand a business, reduces the profit margin Centrelink considers "earnings." For example, a sole trader required to work 30 hours per fortnight needs to generate at least $723.00 in profit - not revenue - every two weeks to meet their obligations. If they invest $200 back into their business for growth, that money is written off as an expense and no longer contributes to their minimum earnings target. The end result? Sole-traders are forced to sacrifice reinvestment, stunting their ability to grow, and to work far beyond their designated hours to meet Centrelink's rigid criteria, leaving them exhausted and financially vulnerable. Further complicating things, Centrelink's reporting framework asks if the sole-trader has met the minimum fortnightly hours "worked" rather than how many hours they have been able to pay themselves. This means a sole trader may have worked 50 hours in a fortnight, but only earned enough to scrape together 25 reportable hours. If they select "yes" to having worked the minimum expected hours (which they have), but can't back that up with paid hours on a P&L report, when that three-monthly P&L submission requirement hits for Centrelink, it won't add up and they will be penalised. If they fudge the numbers to use their wages to invest back in their business, the cross-agency reporting at tax time will pick this discrepancy up and they'll either be slammed with a Centrelink debt or a higher tax bill. Compare this to a salaried worker earning minimum wage. Their hours are counted regardless of business performance, their wage is unaffected by operational expenses, and their financial security remains intact. The disparity is glaring. READ MORE: Instead of encouraging self-employed individuals to scale their businesses into sustainable ventures, the current framework locks them into survival mode. It forces them to prioritise immediate profit over long-term stability, discouraging reinvestment, innovation, and financial planning for sustainable independence in the medium term. If the goal of employment services is to help people achieve self-sufficiency, then sole traders should be given the same runway for success that employees enjoy. Possible reforms could include: Without meaningful changes, Centrelink will continue trapping sole traders in an impossible loop: forced to sacrifice growth to meet profit requirements, while watching their businesses struggle to survive under rigid conditions that don't reflect economic reality. Sole-traders make up 30 per cent of our country's business market. It should be seen as a pathway to independence, and not a bureaucratic obstacle course. Otherwise, we're not only failing to support entrepreneurship and flexible financial independence, we're sabotaging it. Over the years, I've written a lot about Australians who receive Centrelink support. I've written about robodebt, mutual obligations, the cashless debit card, devastating dole-bludger narratives and the general struggle of trying to make ends meet while looking for work. But there's a cohort of Centrelink payment support recipients that I haven't touched on: those of us who are "pulling ourselves up by our bootstraps", often juggling family or carer or other responsibilities with work obligations through creating their own careers. I'm talking about sole-traders. For many Australians, self-employment is an opportunity to build something of their own; a business that provides financial independence, flexibility, and, hopefully, long-term stability. But for sole-traders reliant on Centrelink support to close the survivability gap, the reality is far harsher. Under current mutual obligation requirements, self-employed individuals must generate enough profit - not revenue, but actual take-home profit - to meet the equivalent of the national minimum wage for their required reportable fortnightly hours. This means any investment back into their business is classified as an expense on their profit-and-loss statement, effectively making it so much harder to grow their business and eventually no longer need Centrelink support by restricting their capacity to invest in future growth. This profit-versus-growth equation feels like an impossible balancing act. Unlike traditional employees, whose wages are fixed and predictable (not to mention paid for all hours worked), sole traders face inconsistent income, fluctuating expenses, and the need for reinvestment. Every dollar spent on marketing, equipment, or materials to expand a business, reduces the profit margin Centrelink considers "earnings." For example, a sole trader required to work 30 hours per fortnight needs to generate at least $723.00 in profit - not revenue - every two weeks to meet their obligations. If they invest $200 back into their business for growth, that money is written off as an expense and no longer contributes to their minimum earnings target. The end result? Sole-traders are forced to sacrifice reinvestment, stunting their ability to grow, and to work far beyond their designated hours to meet Centrelink's rigid criteria, leaving them exhausted and financially vulnerable. Further complicating things, Centrelink's reporting framework asks if the sole-trader has met the minimum fortnightly hours "worked" rather than how many hours they have been able to pay themselves. This means a sole trader may have worked 50 hours in a fortnight, but only earned enough to scrape together 25 reportable hours. If they select "yes" to having worked the minimum expected hours (which they have), but can't back that up with paid hours on a P&L report, when that three-monthly P&L submission requirement hits for Centrelink, it won't add up and they will be penalised. If they fudge the numbers to use their wages to invest back in their business, the cross-agency reporting at tax time will pick this discrepancy up and they'll either be slammed with a Centrelink debt or a higher tax bill. Compare this to a salaried worker earning minimum wage. Their hours are counted regardless of business performance, their wage is unaffected by operational expenses, and their financial security remains intact. The disparity is glaring. READ MORE: Instead of encouraging self-employed individuals to scale their businesses into sustainable ventures, the current framework locks them into survival mode. It forces them to prioritise immediate profit over long-term stability, discouraging reinvestment, innovation, and financial planning for sustainable independence in the medium term. If the goal of employment services is to help people achieve self-sufficiency, then sole traders should be given the same runway for success that employees enjoy. Possible reforms could include: Without meaningful changes, Centrelink will continue trapping sole traders in an impossible loop: forced to sacrifice growth to meet profit requirements, while watching their businesses struggle to survive under rigid conditions that don't reflect economic reality. Sole-traders make up 30 per cent of our country's business market. It should be seen as a pathway to independence, and not a bureaucratic obstacle course. Otherwise, we're not only failing to support entrepreneurship and flexible financial independence, we're sabotaging it. Over the years, I've written a lot about Australians who receive Centrelink support. I've written about robodebt, mutual obligations, the cashless debit card, devastating dole-bludger narratives and the general struggle of trying to make ends meet while looking for work. But there's a cohort of Centrelink payment support recipients that I haven't touched on: those of us who are "pulling ourselves up by our bootstraps", often juggling family or carer or other responsibilities with work obligations through creating their own careers. I'm talking about sole-traders. For many Australians, self-employment is an opportunity to build something of their own; a business that provides financial independence, flexibility, and, hopefully, long-term stability. But for sole-traders reliant on Centrelink support to close the survivability gap, the reality is far harsher. Under current mutual obligation requirements, self-employed individuals must generate enough profit - not revenue, but actual take-home profit - to meet the equivalent of the national minimum wage for their required reportable fortnightly hours. This means any investment back into their business is classified as an expense on their profit-and-loss statement, effectively making it so much harder to grow their business and eventually no longer need Centrelink support by restricting their capacity to invest in future growth. This profit-versus-growth equation feels like an impossible balancing act. Unlike traditional employees, whose wages are fixed and predictable (not to mention paid for all hours worked), sole traders face inconsistent income, fluctuating expenses, and the need for reinvestment. Every dollar spent on marketing, equipment, or materials to expand a business, reduces the profit margin Centrelink considers "earnings." For example, a sole trader required to work 30 hours per fortnight needs to generate at least $723.00 in profit - not revenue - every two weeks to meet their obligations. If they invest $200 back into their business for growth, that money is written off as an expense and no longer contributes to their minimum earnings target. The end result? Sole-traders are forced to sacrifice reinvestment, stunting their ability to grow, and to work far beyond their designated hours to meet Centrelink's rigid criteria, leaving them exhausted and financially vulnerable. Further complicating things, Centrelink's reporting framework asks if the sole-trader has met the minimum fortnightly hours "worked" rather than how many hours they have been able to pay themselves. This means a sole trader may have worked 50 hours in a fortnight, but only earned enough to scrape together 25 reportable hours. If they select "yes" to having worked the minimum expected hours (which they have), but can't back that up with paid hours on a P&L report, when that three-monthly P&L submission requirement hits for Centrelink, it won't add up and they will be penalised. If they fudge the numbers to use their wages to invest back in their business, the cross-agency reporting at tax time will pick this discrepancy up and they'll either be slammed with a Centrelink debt or a higher tax bill. Compare this to a salaried worker earning minimum wage. Their hours are counted regardless of business performance, their wage is unaffected by operational expenses, and their financial security remains intact. The disparity is glaring. READ MORE: Instead of encouraging self-employed individuals to scale their businesses into sustainable ventures, the current framework locks them into survival mode. It forces them to prioritise immediate profit over long-term stability, discouraging reinvestment, innovation, and financial planning for sustainable independence in the medium term. If the goal of employment services is to help people achieve self-sufficiency, then sole traders should be given the same runway for success that employees enjoy. Possible reforms could include: Without meaningful changes, Centrelink will continue trapping sole traders in an impossible loop: forced to sacrifice growth to meet profit requirements, while watching their businesses struggle to survive under rigid conditions that don't reflect economic reality. Sole-traders make up 30 per cent of our country's business market. It should be seen as a pathway to independence, and not a bureaucratic obstacle course. Otherwise, we're not only failing to support entrepreneurship and flexible financial independence, we're sabotaging it.
The Advertiser
2 hours ago
- The Advertiser
'Delay': eSafety boss cools expectations over looming ban
Australia's eSafety Commissioner has called to rebrand a social media ban for under-16s as a "social media delay" after conceding that new laws won't entirely prevent underage access to TikTok, Facebook and Instagram. Six months until laws restricting Australians under the age of 16 from accessing social media come into force, details about what platforms will be involved and what tools will be used to figure out a person's age remain unclear. Head of the nation's online safety regulator Julie Inman Grant said, despite a lack of clarity, she was "very confident" that the government would finalise the new restrictions by December 10. "We may be building the plane a little bit as we're flying it, but there was an election and a caretaker period, and there was a period of time where this couldn't be discussed," Ms Inman Grant told the National Press Club on Tuesday. "But I'm very confident we can get there." The new laws, which passed Parliament last November with bipartisan support, are expected to cover Facebook, TikTok, Instagram, Snapchat, as well as Elon Musk's X. Ms Inman Grant will begin industry consultation this week after calling on Communications Minister Anika Wells to reverse an exemption granted last year to YouTube. Under the legislation, companies face fines up to $50 million if they are found to have failed to take "reasonable steps" to block users under 16 from creating an account on their platforms. Ms Inman Grant said there would be no penalties for children who flouted the rules or parents who allowed restricted use. However, she foresees that platforms will be compelled to use a mix of different age-verification tools to verify a user's age. "We're referring to this as a social media delay. Not a ban. You know, a ban suggests a total prohibition," she told the National Press Club on Tuesday. "This is about putting the burden back on the platforms themselves. I don't think it's going to happen overnight." Ms Inman Grant also suggested that age restrictions on AI chatbots should be brought under consideration after flagging that some children were spending "up to five hours a day" engaging with sexualised chatbots. New industry codes, which come into force this week, will threaten tech companies with fines up to $49.5 million if their generative AI platforms are used to create child pornography or terrorist material. It came after a report published by the eSafety Commissioner in March found that Meta's WhatsApp and Telegram did not roll out measures to detect violent content or extremism spread on their platforms. Ms Inman Grant said she would consider the effectiveness of the codes at the end of the month and, if not satisfied, would look to enforce "mandatory standards" on companies like ChatGPT, Bard, and Bing. "The rise of powerful, cheap and accessible AI models without built-in guardrails or age restrictions are a further hazard for our children," she said. The federal government has previously flagged support for a European-union style artificial intelligence act to regulate high-risk use of the technology, which is still under consideration. Australia's eSafety Commissioner has called to rebrand a social media ban for under-16s as a "social media delay" after conceding that new laws won't entirely prevent underage access to TikTok, Facebook and Instagram. Six months until laws restricting Australians under the age of 16 from accessing social media come into force, details about what platforms will be involved and what tools will be used to figure out a person's age remain unclear. Head of the nation's online safety regulator Julie Inman Grant said, despite a lack of clarity, she was "very confident" that the government would finalise the new restrictions by December 10. "We may be building the plane a little bit as we're flying it, but there was an election and a caretaker period, and there was a period of time where this couldn't be discussed," Ms Inman Grant told the National Press Club on Tuesday. "But I'm very confident we can get there." The new laws, which passed Parliament last November with bipartisan support, are expected to cover Facebook, TikTok, Instagram, Snapchat, as well as Elon Musk's X. Ms Inman Grant will begin industry consultation this week after calling on Communications Minister Anika Wells to reverse an exemption granted last year to YouTube. Under the legislation, companies face fines up to $50 million if they are found to have failed to take "reasonable steps" to block users under 16 from creating an account on their platforms. Ms Inman Grant said there would be no penalties for children who flouted the rules or parents who allowed restricted use. However, she foresees that platforms will be compelled to use a mix of different age-verification tools to verify a user's age. "We're referring to this as a social media delay. Not a ban. You know, a ban suggests a total prohibition," she told the National Press Club on Tuesday. "This is about putting the burden back on the platforms themselves. I don't think it's going to happen overnight." Ms Inman Grant also suggested that age restrictions on AI chatbots should be brought under consideration after flagging that some children were spending "up to five hours a day" engaging with sexualised chatbots. New industry codes, which come into force this week, will threaten tech companies with fines up to $49.5 million if their generative AI platforms are used to create child pornography or terrorist material. It came after a report published by the eSafety Commissioner in March found that Meta's WhatsApp and Telegram did not roll out measures to detect violent content or extremism spread on their platforms. Ms Inman Grant said she would consider the effectiveness of the codes at the end of the month and, if not satisfied, would look to enforce "mandatory standards" on companies like ChatGPT, Bard, and Bing. "The rise of powerful, cheap and accessible AI models without built-in guardrails or age restrictions are a further hazard for our children," she said. The federal government has previously flagged support for a European-union style artificial intelligence act to regulate high-risk use of the technology, which is still under consideration. Australia's eSafety Commissioner has called to rebrand a social media ban for under-16s as a "social media delay" after conceding that new laws won't entirely prevent underage access to TikTok, Facebook and Instagram. Six months until laws restricting Australians under the age of 16 from accessing social media come into force, details about what platforms will be involved and what tools will be used to figure out a person's age remain unclear. Head of the nation's online safety regulator Julie Inman Grant said, despite a lack of clarity, she was "very confident" that the government would finalise the new restrictions by December 10. "We may be building the plane a little bit as we're flying it, but there was an election and a caretaker period, and there was a period of time where this couldn't be discussed," Ms Inman Grant told the National Press Club on Tuesday. "But I'm very confident we can get there." The new laws, which passed Parliament last November with bipartisan support, are expected to cover Facebook, TikTok, Instagram, Snapchat, as well as Elon Musk's X. Ms Inman Grant will begin industry consultation this week after calling on Communications Minister Anika Wells to reverse an exemption granted last year to YouTube. Under the legislation, companies face fines up to $50 million if they are found to have failed to take "reasonable steps" to block users under 16 from creating an account on their platforms. Ms Inman Grant said there would be no penalties for children who flouted the rules or parents who allowed restricted use. However, she foresees that platforms will be compelled to use a mix of different age-verification tools to verify a user's age. "We're referring to this as a social media delay. Not a ban. You know, a ban suggests a total prohibition," she told the National Press Club on Tuesday. "This is about putting the burden back on the platforms themselves. I don't think it's going to happen overnight." Ms Inman Grant also suggested that age restrictions on AI chatbots should be brought under consideration after flagging that some children were spending "up to five hours a day" engaging with sexualised chatbots. New industry codes, which come into force this week, will threaten tech companies with fines up to $49.5 million if their generative AI platforms are used to create child pornography or terrorist material. It came after a report published by the eSafety Commissioner in March found that Meta's WhatsApp and Telegram did not roll out measures to detect violent content or extremism spread on their platforms. Ms Inman Grant said she would consider the effectiveness of the codes at the end of the month and, if not satisfied, would look to enforce "mandatory standards" on companies like ChatGPT, Bard, and Bing. "The rise of powerful, cheap and accessible AI models without built-in guardrails or age restrictions are a further hazard for our children," she said. The federal government has previously flagged support for a European-union style artificial intelligence act to regulate high-risk use of the technology, which is still under consideration. Australia's eSafety Commissioner has called to rebrand a social media ban for under-16s as a "social media delay" after conceding that new laws won't entirely prevent underage access to TikTok, Facebook and Instagram. Six months until laws restricting Australians under the age of 16 from accessing social media come into force, details about what platforms will be involved and what tools will be used to figure out a person's age remain unclear. Head of the nation's online safety regulator Julie Inman Grant said, despite a lack of clarity, she was "very confident" that the government would finalise the new restrictions by December 10. "We may be building the plane a little bit as we're flying it, but there was an election and a caretaker period, and there was a period of time where this couldn't be discussed," Ms Inman Grant told the National Press Club on Tuesday. "But I'm very confident we can get there." The new laws, which passed Parliament last November with bipartisan support, are expected to cover Facebook, TikTok, Instagram, Snapchat, as well as Elon Musk's X. Ms Inman Grant will begin industry consultation this week after calling on Communications Minister Anika Wells to reverse an exemption granted last year to YouTube. Under the legislation, companies face fines up to $50 million if they are found to have failed to take "reasonable steps" to block users under 16 from creating an account on their platforms. Ms Inman Grant said there would be no penalties for children who flouted the rules or parents who allowed restricted use. However, she foresees that platforms will be compelled to use a mix of different age-verification tools to verify a user's age. "We're referring to this as a social media delay. Not a ban. You know, a ban suggests a total prohibition," she told the National Press Club on Tuesday. "This is about putting the burden back on the platforms themselves. I don't think it's going to happen overnight." Ms Inman Grant also suggested that age restrictions on AI chatbots should be brought under consideration after flagging that some children were spending "up to five hours a day" engaging with sexualised chatbots. New industry codes, which come into force this week, will threaten tech companies with fines up to $49.5 million if their generative AI platforms are used to create child pornography or terrorist material. It came after a report published by the eSafety Commissioner in March found that Meta's WhatsApp and Telegram did not roll out measures to detect violent content or extremism spread on their platforms. Ms Inman Grant said she would consider the effectiveness of the codes at the end of the month and, if not satisfied, would look to enforce "mandatory standards" on companies like ChatGPT, Bard, and Bing. "The rise of powerful, cheap and accessible AI models without built-in guardrails or age restrictions are a further hazard for our children," she said. The federal government has previously flagged support for a European-union style artificial intelligence act to regulate high-risk use of the technology, which is still under consideration.
