Table of Contents
Australia AI Chatbot Ban for Under-16s: The Case For and Against
Australia AI chatbot ban debate explained: eSafety's harm data, what the social media ban taught, the duty-of-care alternative and what parents can use.
Australia was the first country to ban social media for children under 16. Now some of its lawmakers want to add AI chatbots to that ban. Independent MP Kate Chaney pushed for it in June 2026 and raised it again with the eSafety Commissioner at a parliamentary inquiry in October. The Albanese government has said no, for now, arguing existing laws already protect young people. The Australia AI chatbot ban debate matters well beyond Australia because it is a live test of two theories of child safety: keep kids out, or make products safer for the kids who will be there anyway. Australia’s own data offers evidence for both sides. Here is what each side argues, what the social media ban has taught so far, and what parents anywhere can take from it.
Key Takeaways
- Independent MP Kate Chaney wants AI chatbots added to Australia’s under-16 social media ban; the government has rejected a blanket teen chatbot ban, saying existing laws already protect young people.
- eSafety research of almost 2,000 Australians aged 10 to 17 found 78% had used an AI assistant, and 20% of users reported a potentially inappropriate or harmful interaction.
- Australia’s age-restricted material codes, in force since March 9, 2026, already require some AI chatbot and companion services to safeguard children, with civil penalties of up to A$54.6 million.
- Three months into the social media ban, eSafety found more than 81% of surveyed children aged 10 to 15 still used at least one age-restricted platform, down from nearly 86%.
- On October 15, 2026, the government introduced a Digital Duty of Care bill that puts the onus on platforms; eSafety says it will explore extending standards to chatbots under it.
What Is Being Proposed
Australia’s under-16 ban, in force since December 10, 2025, requires designated social media platforms to keep children under 16 from holding accounts. AI chatbots are not on the list. The proposal is to add them.
According to Kate Chaney’s office, the independent MP for Curtin argued on June 4, 2026 that Australia should “get ahead of the curve on AI and not be mopping up the damage in 15 years time.” The piece cites University of Melbourne professor Jeannie Paterson, who warned that AI companions can mirror users’ views: “It tends to agree with you, or encourage you, and the conversation gets more and more wild.” It reports that the government rejected a blanket ban, with Communications Minister Anika Wells saying existing laws already protect young people from AI-related harms.
The idea came back on October 20, when eSafety Commissioner Julie Inman Grant appeared before the federal parliamentary inquiry into AI. EducationHQ, reporting AAP coverage, says Chaney “raised the possibility of AI-powered chatbots being included in the social media ban.” Inman Grant did not endorse a ban outright. She said “we should be as protective as we can be without undermining children’s digital rights and their ability to reach out and find things,” and that eSafety would explore extending existing standards to chatbots under the proposed duty-of-care laws. The inquiry’s final report is due by the end of November.
The Case For an Australia AI Chatbot Ban
The harm data is real. eSafety’s “Talking to machines” study, summarized in its August 2026 release, surveyed almost 2,000 children aged 10 to 17. It found 78% had used an AI assistant, 20% of users used them daily or more, and 54% used them for personal or social reasons, from advice about their lives to talking about feelings. One in five users reported a potentially inappropriate or harmful interaction, “including controlling behaviour, harmful advice, bullying or exposure to hateful content,” and 32% had shared personal or sensitive information. We break those numbers down in eSafety’s 1-in-5 harm findings.
The design invites dependency. Inman Grant told the inquiry that “the engineered sycophancy and anthropomorphism into these AI companions and chatbots make them even more insidious.”
Waiting failed last time. “We’ve run this experiment before,” Inman Grant said. “For years, regulation could catch up with social media harms after the damage was visible.” Supporters see a chatbot ban as learning that lesson early.
Consistency. If the risks are similar to social media’s, critics of the current approach ask why one category is age-restricted and the other is not.
The Case Against a Ban
Bans leak. eSafety’s first evaluation of the social media ban, reported by Al Jazeera on August 1, found that before the ban nearly 86% of surveyed children aged 10 to 15 used at least one age-restricted platform; three months later, more than 81% still did. Daily use fell only from about 60% to about 58%. About half of those who kept accounts said the platform had never checked their age. eSafety blamed “social media platforms’ failure to implement effective age assurance measures.”
Workarounds are well known. RMIT professor Lisa Given, writing in The Conversation, noted that nearly 5 million accounts were deactivated or restricted, yet parent data showed 70% of children kept active accounts. Kids used VPNs, moved to messaging and gaming apps, or fooled facial age checks, and age-estimation tools have error margins of one to three years. Chatbots are easier still: many work in a browser without an account.
Chatbots are also tools kids use for school. eSafety’s own research found many children use ChatGPT, Claude and Gemini for learning and everyday tasks. A ban would cut off useful uses along with harmful ones, and Inman Grant’s comments about children’s “ability to reach out and find things” reflect that concern.
Pushing use out of sight. Al Jazeera reported that parental awareness of children’s social media use decreased after the ban. A chatbot ban could produce the same effect: use continues, but parents know less about it.
What Australia Is Doing Instead
The government’s preferred path has two parts.
Age-restricted codes already in force. eSafety’s release notes that Australia’s online safety codes “already require certain online services, including certain generative AI as well as AI chatbot and companion services, to implement safeguards” against children seeing or generating harmful material, including self-harm, disordered eating and suicidal ideation content. The age-restricted material codes commenced March 9, 2026, with civil penalties of up to A$54.6 million.
A digital duty of care. On October 15, Minister Wells introduced the Digital Duty of Care bill, which, Region Canberra reported, requires big tech companies to mitigate risks of online harm and protect under-18s from harmful content and features. A clause letting the minister alone define new harms was removed. The Coalition opposes the bill, the Greens want a right to compensation, and a Senate inquiry will report before the end of the parliamentary year. Wells told the National Press Club that parents had “valid concerns about AI chatbots and online gaming platforms.”
Ban vs. Duty of Care: The Trade-Offs
| Question | Add chatbots to the under-16 ban | Duty of care and codes |
|---|---|---|
| Who carries the burden | Platforms must keep under-16s out; kids lose access | Platforms must make products safer for under-18s who use them |
| Evidence it works | Social media ban: over 81% of surveyed 10- to 15-year-olds still on restricted platforms after 3 months | Codes only in force since March 2026; too early to measure |
| Effect on useful uses | Cuts off homework and learning uses for under-16s | Keeps access; targets harmful features and content |
| Workaround risk | High: VPNs, browsers without accounts, borrowed IDs | Lower incentive to evade, but depends on enforcement |
| Privacy cost | Age checks for everyone using covered chatbots | Some age assurance for restricted features |
| Political status | Proposed by an independent MP; rejected by government for now | Codes in force; duty-of-care bill before Parliament |
What Parents Anywhere Can Take From This
Don’t count on any age gate
The social media ban’s first evaluation is the clearest evidence yet that age gates leak. Whatever your country’s rules, assume your child can reach a chatbot and plan for that.
Ask about personal use, not just homework
More than half of Australian kids who used AI did so for personal or social reasons. “What do you talk to it about besides school?” is the question that surfaces this.
Teach the “not a trusted adult” rule
Inman Grant’s line, “AI is not a trusted adult,” is a simple family rule. Health, feelings and safety questions go to a person first.
Keep use visible
Bans can push use out of sight. Shared spaces for devices, linked teen accounts and regular conversation keep you informed better than a block that sends use underground.
What not to do
Don’t assume a ban, if one comes, means the job is done. For more on what happened after Australia’s social media ban, see three months in, 8 in 10 still online, and for the US picture, social media age laws in 2026.
What to Watch For Over the Next 3 Months
- Week 4: The parliamentary AI inquiry’s final report, due by the end of November, and whether it recommends age restrictions on chatbots.
- Month 2 red flags: Reports of teens shifting from mainstream assistants to smaller companion apps with weaker safeguards, a pattern seen elsewhere after bans.
- Month 3 self-check: Whether the Digital Duty of Care bill passes the Senate and whether eSafety announces chatbot-specific standards under it.
Frequently Asked Questions
Are AI chatbots banned for under-16s in Australia?
No. Australia’s under-16 ban, in force since December 10, 2025, covers designated social media platforms, not AI chatbots. Independent MP Kate Chaney has pushed to add chatbots, but the government has rejected a blanket teen chatbot ban, saying existing laws already protect young people.
What rules already apply to chatbots in Australia?
eSafety says its online safety codes require certain AI chatbot and companion services to safeguard children from harmful material, including self-harm and disordered eating content. The age-restricted material codes commenced March 9, 2026, with civil penalties of up to A$54.6 million for companies that fail to comply.
Did Australia’s social media ban work?
Early results are mixed. eSafety’s three-month evaluation found the share of surveyed 10- to 15-year-olds using restricted platforms fell from nearly 86% to just over 81%, and about half who kept accounts said their age was never checked. Officials say millions of accounts were closed and full compliance was never expected.
What is Australia’s Digital Duty of Care bill?
It is legislation introduced on October 15, 2026 that requires large platforms to reduce online harms and protect under-18s from harmful content and features. It is before Parliament, faces Coalition opposition and a Senate inquiry, and eSafety says it will explore extending standards to chatbots under it.
What percentage of Australian kids use AI chatbots?
eSafety’s survey of almost 2,000 children aged 10 to 17 found 78% had used an AI assistant, with ChatGPT the most common. Among users, 20% used them daily or more and 54% used them for personal or social reasons.
About the author
Ricky Flores is the founder of HiWave Makers and an electrical engineer with 15+ years of experience building consumer technology at Apple, Samsung, and Texas Instruments. He writes about how kids learn to build, think, and create in a tech-saturated world. Read more at hiwavemakers.com.
Sources
- Office of Kate Chaney MP. (2026, June 4). “Push to include AI chatbots in Australia’s under-16 social media ban.” katechaney.com.au. https://www.katechaney.com.au/push_to_include_ai_chatbots_in_australia_s_under_16_social_media_ban_4_june_2026
- EducationHQ News Team / AAP. (2026, October 20). “‘Catastrophic’: watchdog warns of risks from untamed AI, particularly for young.” EducationHQ. https://educationhq.com/news/catastrophic-watchdog-warns-of-risks-from-untamed-ai-particularly-for-young-216208/
- eSafety Commissioner, via Mirage News. (2026, August). “From Homework To Heartache: Why Children Are Turning To AI.” Mirage News (republished eSafety release). https://www.miragenews.com/from-homework-to-heartache-why-children-are-1720361/
- Al Jazeera. (2026, August 1). “Most Australian teens still online three months after under-16 ban.” Al Jazeera. https://www.aljazeera.com/amp/news/2026/8/1/most-australian-teens-still-online-three-months-after-under-16-ban
- Given, L. M. (2026, June 16). “Australia has already banned social media for under-16s. Here’s what the UK can learn from the experience.” The Conversation, via Inforrm. https://inforrm.org/2026/06/16/australia-has-already-banned-social-media-for-under-16s-heres-what-the-uk-can-learn-from-the-experience-lisa-m-given/
- Region Canberra. (2026, October). “Tweaked Digital Duty of Care bill introduced to parliament.” Region Canberra. https://region.com.au/tweaked-digital-duty-of-care-bill-introduced-to-parliament/1008071/
