Communications Minister Michelle Rowland guarantees that users won’t need to provide personal identification to big tech platforms, as concerns over privacy continue to stir debate in parliament

Australians will not be required to submit personal identification—such as driver’s licences or passports—when using social media platforms under the government’s world-first ban on under-16s. Communications Minister Michelle Rowland made this clear on Tuesday, quelling rising concerns that the government’s new social media legislation would force Australians to hand over sensitive personal documents.

In a meeting with Labor MPs, Rowland reassured party members that tech giants like Meta, TikTok, Snapchat, Reddit, and X would not be able to compel users to submit identification to verify their age. The new bill, which seeks to restrict social media use for Australians under the age of 16, has faced sharp criticism, with many questioning its privacy implications. Several Coalition members, including opposition leader Peter Dutton, expressed concerns that the legislation could lead to a situation where platforms demand government-issued IDs to verify users’ ages.

Despite these concerns, Rowland emphasised that the government was determined to push the bill through Parliament by the end of the week, following an expedited Senate inquiry that has drawn both praise and criticism for its rapid pace. “We are committed to ensuring that these platforms do not have the power to demand government identification from users,” Rowland told the Labor party room. “This is about protecting young people, not about creating new privacy risks.”

The government’s move to introduce such a measure comes amid growing alarm over the influence of social media on young people’s mental health and wellbeing. While proponents argue that the ban is crucial for protecting vulnerable users, detractors fear it could lead to overreach and compromise privacy.

The bill’s rapid progress through Parliament has raised eyebrows, with several government and opposition figures questioning the speed at which it has moved. Some members of the Coalition have called the rushed Senate inquiry “unprecedented” and “unacceptable,” arguing that it denies proper scrutiny of the legislation. National MPs Matt Canavan, Keith Pitt, and Bridget McKenzie, along with Liberal MP Garth Hamilton, have voiced strong opposition to the bill, pointing to the potential privacy violations it could trigger.

In an attempt to address these concerns, Dutton updated his party room on the concessions secured by the Coalition. These included an amendment to the legislation that explicitly prohibits the requirement for users to provide government-issued IDs, such as a passport or driver’s licence. While the amendment is seen as a victory for privacy advocates, it has not entirely won over all members of the opposition. At least one MP has already pledged to vote against the bill, and others remain uncertain, citing unresolved concerns about the impact of the legislation.

The explanatory memorandum for the bill acknowledges that enforcing the age-assurance framework might involve the collection and use of additional personal information. Although government IDs will not be required, there are growing fears that platforms may turn to biometric methods, such as facial recognition, to meet the legislation’s requirements. This has raised alarms about the potential for further erosion of privacy, with critics warning that biometric data could be used without sufficient safeguards.

Adding to the controversy, tech giants like Google, Meta, and TikTok have voiced their opposition to the bill, urging the government to delay the legislation to allow for a more thorough parliamentary review. TikTok warned that the bill would essentially create a “licence to be online” system, requiring Australians to navigate new layers of bureaucracy to maintain access to their social media accounts.

With public backlash growing, the government faces mounting pressure to balance its commitment to protecting young people from online harm with the need to ensure that privacy protections are not compromised. Rowland’s assurance that users will not be required to provide personal identification has helped quell some fears, but the debate is far from over.

As Parliament prepares for a vote later this week, it remains to be seen whether the legislation will receive enough support to pass or whether it will face significant amendments. With the privacy concerns continuing to dominate discussions, the final version of the bill will be closely scrutinised, with both sides of the debate watching carefully to see how the government addresses the concerns raised by the public and industry experts alike.