Social Media Minimum Age Repeal Bill 2025: what it would change

The short answer

Social Media Minimum Age Repeal Bill 2025: what it would change

The Social Media Minimum Age Repeal Bill 2025 is a private senators' bill introduced in the Senate on 25 November 2025 by Senators Babet, Antic, Canavan, Hanson, Roberts, Bell and Whitten. The bill proposes to amend the Online Safety Act 2021 to remove the minimum age requirements that restrict social media access for underage users and eliminate the obligation on age-restricted social media platforms to take reasonable steps to prevent age-restricted users from holding accounts. It would also make a consequential amendment to the Age Discrimination Act 2004. The bill was moved for second reading on the day of introduction and as of July 2026 remains before the Senate with no further debate recorded.

This is a federal system guide. State constitutions, parliaments and local-government laws can allocate comparable functions differently.

The useful question is not only “what is the rule?” but also “who administers it, which document controls it, and when might it change?” That distinction prevents an accurate general explanation from becoming wrong advice in a particular election, chamber or policy setting.

Evidence review

What the bill proposes to do

The bill has two main components. First, it amends the Online Safety Act 2021 to remove the minimum age requirements for social media use. This includes striking out the provisions that establish age thresholds for access to social media platforms and removing the corresponding obligation on platform providers to take reasonable steps to prevent age-restricted users from creating or maintaining accounts.

Second, it makes a consequential amendment to the Age Discrimination Act 2004. This is a technical fix that would remove any cross-references to the age-based provisions in the Online Safety Act that are being repealed, ensuring the statute book remains internally consistent.

Evidence review

Who is sponsoring the bill

The bill is sponsored by seven senators: Ralph Babet (United Australia Party), Alex Antic (Liberal Party), Matthew Canavan (Liberal National Party), Pauline Hanson (One Nation), Malcolm Roberts (One Nation), Sean Bell, and Tyron Whitten. This is a cross-party group that includes members of the Coalition and minor parties.

As a private senators' bill (rather than a government bill), it does not represent government policy. Private bills can be introduced by any senator or member but rarely become law without government support. Their primary function is often to put an issue on the parliamentary agenda and generate debate.

Evidence review

Background: the existing age restrictions

The minimum age requirements in the Online Safety Act 2021 were introduced through amendments passed in late 2024. Those amendments established a minimum age — widely discussed as 16 — for access to social media platforms and required platforms to take reasonable steps to verify users' ages and prevent underage access. The regime was subject to significant public debate about online safety, children's wellbeing, privacy implications of age verification, and the practical challenges of enforcement.

This repeal bill represents the counter-position: that the age restrictions are undesirable or unworkable, and that they should be removed from the legislation entirely. The sponsors' specific arguments would be found in their second reading speeches and the explanatory memorandum.

Evidence review

Parliamentary status

The bill was introduced in the Senate on 25 November 2025. The second reading was moved on the same day — this is the stage where the principles of the bill are debated. As of July 2026, no further progress has been recorded: no second reading debate has occurred, no amendments have been circulated, and the bill has not been referred to a committee.

The bill remains 'Before Senate' — it is on the Notice Paper and could theoretically be called on for debate. Without government support or a majority of senators in favour, the bill would not proceed to a vote. No debate beyond the sponsor's introductory speech has occurred since the second reading was moved on 25 November 2025.

The bill's sponsors represent a diverse cross-section of the Senate crossbench, drawn from the United Australia Party, the Liberal Party, the Liberal National Party and One Nation. The multi-party sponsorship is unusual for a private senator's bill and reflects the breadth of opposition to the social media age restrictions introduced in 2024. The bill's sponsors argue that the age restrictions represent an unnecessary government intrusion into family decision-making and that the verification requirements create privacy risks by requiring platforms to collect age-related personal data.

Evidence review

What steps remain for this bill

For this bill to become law it would need to pass the following stages: second reading debate and agreement in the Senate; consideration in detail (if amendments are proposed); third reading in the Senate; transmission to the House of Representatives; and the same three-reading process in the House. It would then require royal assent from the Governor-General.

Given it is a private senators' bill without government backing, and given the original age-restriction amendments were passed with bipartisan support, the bill would need to secure support from a majority of senators to advance. If it were to progress, it would need to pass the Senate, the House of Representatives, and receive royal assent — a path that requires both chambers to agree to the same text. The restoration to the Notice Paper keeps it technically alive, but no parliamentary time has been allocated for debate on the bill.

The government has defended the original age restrictions as necessary to protect children from online harms including cyberbullying, predatory behaviour and exposure to harmful content. The debate over social media age limits involves contested evidence about the effectiveness of age verification technologies, the prevalence of workarounds by underage users, and the psychological effects of social media use on adolescent development. The bill's explanatory memorandum should be examined for its engagement with the evidence base on these questions.

Evidence review

Evidence and uncertainty

As a bill at the second reading stage with no committee inquiry, there is no independent parliamentary committee assessment of the bill's effects. The explanatory memorandum presents the sponsors' rationale, but this should be read as advocacy for the bill's position, not as an independent assessment.

Readers should note that Hansard records of speeches in support of or against the bill contain claims that have not been independently verified. The policy debate around social media age restrictions involves contested evidence about the effectiveness of age verification, the privacy implications, the impact on children's mental health, and the international experience with similar laws.

Common questions

Before you rely on the answer