Major plan to switch off kids' social media while they're at school being looked at
Children could have their access to social media switched off while they're at school under plans being considered by ministers.
Technology Secretary Peter Kyle is looking for ways to help kids manage their online lives and stop young people wasting hours doom-scrolling on the internet. The Mirror understands these could include a social media curfew or limiting kids' access to the internet during school hours.
Mr Kyle has said he will be examining the results of TikTok's recently announced 10pm curfew for under 16s. 'I'm looking at all the measures that would positively contribute towards a positive, enthusiastic, supportive environment online,' Mr Kyle told the Mirror.
After years of bureaucratic consultations, media regulator Ofcom published its Children's Codes under the Online Safety Act (OSA), which sets out rules tech firms must follow by July.
Under the codes, online sites must introduce robust age verification tools to make sure underage kids aren't accessing things they shouldn't. They have also been ordered to tame toxic algorithms and take faster action on removing harmful content.
Mr Kyle celebrated the 'first step' in the journey to improving kids' safety online but admitted the OSA is 'lopsided' and more action is needed. He said he was taking a step back to think about how the addictive nature of phones and social media is also 'disrupting the childhood experience', as well as online harms.
'Sometimes it's interfering with young people's sleep or ability to concentrate when they're doing school work, sometimes out of hours, as well as focusing on the school day itself, even though 97% of schools do exclude smartphones from school itself,' he said.
Mr Kyle has confirmed he would not support an Australia-style blanket ban on under-16s using social media and the Government has also ruled out a statutory ban on phones in school, arguing that the majority already enforce one.
But he said he was 'looking very carefully at what comes next' to help the kids who beg him for solutions after suffering from 'resentment' after accidentally wasting hours scrolling on their phone.
Elsewhere Mr Kyle insisted he is confident tech billionaires X/ Twitter owner Elon Musk and Meta chief Mark Zuckerberg will follow Ofcom's new rules despite the pair having recently rolled back content moderation on their platforms.
The Cabinet minister said anyone who breaks the codes will 'face the full consequences of the British law' - which can include fines of up to 10% of global turnover from Ofcom or, in extreme cases, their platforms being switched off in the UK.
He also said Britain's online safety laws were not up for negotiation amid fears the Donald Trump administration is pushing for them to be eased in UK-US trade deal talks. Concerns have been raised about the leeway social media giants will have to work around Ofcom's codes.
For instance, the media regulator is only telling tech firms they have the 'option of excluding' content showing dangerous online challenges, material that incites hatred or misogynistic content.
In an interview with the Mirror, Ofcom's child protection policy lead Almudena Lara said tech companies will be able to choose whether to exclude such content from being pushed to kids through their algorithms to give them the freedom to show different content to older teens and younger children.
'The ball is in their courts to understand their user base and to understand the content that they have and how best to serve their users,' she said.
Ian Russell, the dad of Molly Russell, who took her own life at 14 after being bombarded with harmful material online, said he was 'dismayed' by Ofcom's codes and that he has lost trust in Mr Kyle.
"I am dismayed by the lack of ambition in today's codes. Instead of moving fast to fix things, the painful reality is that Ofcom's measures will fail to prevent more young deaths like my daughter Molly's,' he said.
'Ofcom's risk adverse approach is a bitter pill for bereaved parents to swallow. Their overly cautious codes put the bottom line of reckless tech companies ahead of tackling preventable harm.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
14 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Is Australia's worst-case housing scenario about to hit? Grim warning issued - despite Albanese's optimism
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has embraced the RBA's recent rate cut despite experts raising fears the decision will price more Aussies out of the property market. On Tuesday, the Reserve Bank of Australia decided to cut the cash rate for the third time this year, bringing it down 25 basis points to 3.60 per cent. Within an hour, Mr Albanese praised the decision as the result of his government's efforts to tackle the cost-of-living crisis. 'Interest rates have just been cut again. It will mean Australians paying less on their mortgages,' he said. 'We're working hard to help families with the cost of living. There's more to do and that's what we're focused on every day.' The announcement fell on deaf ears, with a number of Australians pointing out the decision will drive up demand for housing, ultimately pushing up prices. 'Historically, every time interest rates have been cut, home prices tend to increase,' Mr van Onselen told the Daily Mail. 'Cutting interest rates is a band-aid. It can increase your borrowing capacity and it can reduce your monthly mortgage payments - so if you already have a mortgage, it's great if you're looking to buy again. 'It can lower your payments on a new home loan because you've got to pay less monthly. 'But as that lower interest rate gets capitalised into higher prices, it then reduces affordability going ahead. So, it makes affordability structurally worse down the road.' Mr Van Onselen says the root cause of the housing crisis was rising immigration. 'We've grown by 8.7million people in less than 25 years - 46 per cent population growth - and you wonder why we don't have enough housing, we don't have enough infrastructure. 'We've run one of the biggest immigration programs in the world, and we haven't built enough houses, enough infrastructure, enough anything, to cope with it.' According to his analysis, if Australia's population growth slowed by 15 per cent over the next five years, the country would end up with a surplus of 40,000 homes. 'That was buried at the back of the NHSAC's report and what that tells you is that the solution to this mess is to cut immigration,' Mr van Onselen said. The Albanese government has committed to shoring up Australia's housing supply, with a target of 1.2 million new homes in the next five years. Meanwhile, the National Housing Supply and Affordability Council predicted in May the government will fall short of its goal by at least 250,000. Even if it were to reach its goal, Mr van Onselen said rising demand fuelled by government policy would keep accessibility out of reach. 'It's a government policy failure - we've got the supply issues but it won't get better until the government stops pumping demand with things like its five per cent deposit scheme and mass immigration,' he said. Despite the government's efforts to address the supply issue, NSHAC predicted Australia's housing shortage will worsen over the next five years. According to Loan Market, home loan pre-approvals spiked across the country last month as homebuyers scrambled to secure financing ahead of an expected rate cut. Loan pre-approvals were 53 per cent higher in July compared to the same time last year, with an 80 per cent spike in the Northern Territory and South Australia. Pre-approvals were up 79 per cent in Western Australia while the eastern states all recorded upticks of nearly 50 per cent. Loan Market chief executive David McQueen said a tight housing stock was forcing homebuyers to test their borrowing capacity ahead of the Spring rush. 'Market listings are sitting at a three-year low, which is making it tough for buyers,' Mr McQueen said. 'They're looking for every edge and that starts with knowing exactly what they can borrow and afford to repay. 'Buyers want to walk into an auction with confidence or put forward strong private treaty terms that help them stand out.'
Daily Mail
2 hours ago
- Daily Mail
David Koch 'makes move to SACK ex-Channel Nine star from AFL club' after he was accused of standing by disturbing conspiracy theories
Power chairman David Koch is reportedly set to make a 'negative call' on board member and premiership captain Warren Tredrea following disturbing comments made by a guest on his podcast. Tredrea's position has reportedly been under threat while Port performs a 'formal governance review' into the 46-year-old. Port's move comes after The Jewish Council of Australia objected to an Instagram post from Tredrea related to comments about Israel from a guest on the retired footballer's Ballsy Show podcast. '(The council) is deeply disturbed by the amplification of far-right ... conspiracy theories in this Instagram post and podcast episode,' executive officer Max Kaiser said in a statement. On Tuesday night, AFL journalist Caroline Wilson gave an update on the drama at Port Adelaide, suggesting that the board will ultimately sack Tredrea. 'David Koch and his team, I'm told, has decided... they just want to dot every i and cross every t before they make what I believe will be a negative call on Warren Tredrea's ability to serve on that board,' Wilson said on Seven's The Agenda Setters. 'That is my belief, but no one at the board will talk to me about this.' Last month, Koch said the club maintained 'comprehensive governance standards'. 'Directors and officials of the club are entitled to their personal views, however there are concerns that recent content published is in breach of these standards,' Koch said in a statement. 'The club is committed to upholding the professional standards our members, partners and the community expect and deserve.' In a podcast segment posted to Tredrea's social media, he hosted a man claiming to be a former soldier, who put forward the conspiracy theories. Tredrea wrote a response to public criticisms on his own Instagram account about the issue. 'I unequivocally condemn war and genocide, and seek only to share other perspectives of what has been a very one-way reported narrative in the mainstream media,' he wrote. 'I am not in any way, shape, or form, an anti-Semite, and consider it defamatory for anyone to accuse me as such. Tredrea, who retired as a player in 2010, is Port's all-time leading goalkicker and captained the team to the 2004 AFL premiership 'The purpose of my podcast has been not to shine a light on my own personal views and opinions, but rather to provide a platform for others to present their views and opinions in an unfiltered forum.' Tredrea and Koch have butted heads in the past, with the former champion centre half forward branding Port coach Ken Hinkley's position 'untenable' in 2023 after poor performances. Koch hit back by claiming Tredrea only said that because he has 'a new podcast to promote', prompting a furious response. 'I can't ignore multiple times now he's gaslighting,' Tredrea shot back on radio station FIVEaa. 'When I went to the board he told me - not to me - that 'you need to learn about Port Adelaide'. 'I was like, OK, I'll let that go, but then yesterday he's said it's to get podcast downloads. 'Telling people to get involved in the club and learn about the club, and it's for a podcast, give us a spell.' Tredrea added that he and Koch haven't spoken for years and insisted he wanted to join the board to support the club - but said he knew he might not be wanted because 'I've been outspoken'. Tredrea is revered and considered among Port's greatest AFL players. He is a four-time All Australian and captained the club to their only premiership in 2004. Tredrea moved into the media in Adelaide after a decorated 255-game playing career between 1997 and 2010. He was dismissed in 2021 for refusing the company's Covid vaccine edict and lost a court appeal seeking $6million in lost wages. The case was dismissed in the Federal Court last year after Nine argued his contract was not up for renewal.
The Guardian
2 hours ago
- The Guardian
In the interests of fairness and the Australian economy, it's time to start taxing the family home
The Australian government has 'an appetite to be bold and ambitious' in its economic reform agenda. And tax reform is on the menu at its much-publicised reform roundtable, to be held next week. Here, we serve some food for thought – the taxation of owner-occupied housing. This may seem distasteful, but there are some strong arguments for doing so. The size of tax concessions for owner-occupied housing is similar to that of superannuation, and much larger than for investment property. Treasury estimates it forgoes more than A$50bn per year by exempting owner-occupied housing from capital gains tax (CGT). There is also no tax on the rental value of owner-occupied housing, although we did tax such 'imputed rental income' (what a homeowner would pay in rent) briefly between 1915 and 1923. Australia prides itself on being a fair society. In reality, we are near the middle among developed countries on standard measures of income inequality. But such statistics ignore the income that owner-occupiers derive from their homes. In a new paper, we see what happens to income inequality if owner-occupied housing income is included. This non-cash housing income refers to the imputed rent and unrealised capital gains on the property. When these are included in the income measure, inequality is higher, and it increases more strongly over time. The effect is large enough to shift Australia's inequality from 16th to 10th highest amongst OECD countries (though we haven't conducted the same exercise for other countries). Unsurprisingly, outright home owners are much better off than renters when income from the home is counted. They have an average income 86% higher than the average income of renters – compared with 34% higher if housing income is ignored, as it usually is. Income taxes reduce inequality because the tax rate is higher for people with higher incomes. That is what is meant by a 'progressive' tax system. Our paper finds that this changes greatly when income from owner-occupied housing is included. The income tax system reduces inequality by a lot less (about 40.5% less) if we include such housing income. Because this income is tax-free, the average tax rate for the rich is much lower than it seems. So the tax system is less progressive than it appears to be. The same is true for government pensions and benefits. They also reduce inequality, since they are targeted to people with limited means. But housing wealth is excluded from the pension assets test, so pensions are not as targeted as they appear to be. Repeating the exercise above, we find the effect of pensions and benefits on inequality is 18.9% smaller when housing income is included. Overall, the combined impact of income taxes and pensions/benefits on inequality is 26.7% lower when we include income from the family home. These tax concessions may also increase house prices and encourage inefficient allocation of resources. Income from investing in owner-occupied housing is tax-free, while all other investments attract tax. So Australians plough their money into their home instead of other, more economically productive, investments. These funds could instead be invested into private firms (directly or through the stock market), stimulating entrepreneurial activity and lifting productivity, wages and profits. While stamp duty is typically payable on home purchases, the value of the income tax exemption is much larger. That lifts demand for housing, and hence housing prices. We know of no recent studies that have estimated the size of this effect, but it is likely to be large and therefore make the move into home ownership more difficult. The absence of recent studies may be because taxing owner-occupied housing is not seen as a politically viable option. Much more attention has been placed on the much smaller tax concessions for investment property income. The Australian community as a whole would benefit from a reduced incentive to invest in housing because it would lead to increased investment in productive activities. In terms of who would benefit most, renters stand out as obvious beneficiaries, since the tax burden would shift towards homeowners. But a progressive tax on housing could also benefit owners of modest homes, as part of a broader redesign of the tax system. There is a temptation to equate a new tax with more total tax. This depends on the design. But it is certainly possible to implement a progressive tax on housing wealth, perhaps combined with an income tax cut, which could leave most people better off. There are many policy options for more fairly incorporating owner-occupied housing in the tax system. We do not make a specific proposal here, but options include: a broad-based land tax would go a long way to addressing the issue, and should be on the government's agenda. This is an economically efficient tax that is advocated by many economists an explicit tax on owner-occupied housing wealth is also justifiable, since it is the only large asset that generates income that is not taxed a broader wealth tax could also be considered. We also believe there is a strong case for reconsidering the exemption of housing from the pension assets test. Many wealthy retirees benefit from public pensions, which are funded by taxes on the incomes of younger workers and renters. We should have a national conversation on whether the current tax treatment of owner-occupied housing is sensible. Moving away from complete exemption would open up opportunities for reduced reliance on income taxes and more food on the table for renters, and owners of modest homes. Will the reform roundtable etiquette permit consideration of reforming the taxation of owner-occupied housing? This is an important and much neglected consideration in assessing the overall fairness and efficiency of the tax system. This article was originally published in the Conversation. Peter Siminski is professor of economics, University of Technology Sydney. Roger Wilkins is professorial fellow and co-director, Hilda Survey, Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research, the University of Melbourne
