Last month, Australia took the bold step of banning children’s social media access. It is a decision that has sparked fierce debate, but one that I strongly support. Not because I am against tech, far from it, but because I am pro childhood.

For too long, the burden of managing children’s exposure to social media has fallen almost entirely on parents. Governments around the world have repeatedly asked technology companies to introduce meaningful safeguarding measures, and for years those requests have been ignored. The Australian ban recognises that asking families to compete with deliberately addictive algorithms is not realistic, or fair.

Some argue that this ban removes young people’s freedom. But good societies have always limited children’s freedoms when the risks are great. We do this with alcohol, tobacco and driving because we understand that children are not yet ready to manage these risks. In his groundbreaking book, The Anxious Generation, Jonathan Haidt reminds us that, “Childhood is a period of vulnerability, not a rehearsal for adult freedoms.” Social media is no different. Even many of the world’s leading tech experts do not allow their own children access to social media – a detail that deserves serious attention.

Occasionally, our staff deal with the negative consequences of children’s online activity, from exposure to inappropriate videos to incidents of cyberbullying. Many parents are unaware of how much of this spills into school life. Removing social media at this age will reduce distraction, improve focus, and allow children to engage with learning and real-world relationships. It also reduces exposure to cyberbullying, harmful content, and negative body image messages.

There is an argument that social media improves children’s digital literacy. But this misunderstands what digital literacy is. Scrolling TikTok or Instagram does not make a child digitally literate. True digital literacy must be taught explicitly, and any ban must be paired with education about technology, critical thinking, and online safety. It is also important to acknowledge that social media does not exist in isolation. For most children, it is accessed primarily through smartphones, devices that are designed to capture attention and encourage dependency.

Many of us recognise that smartphones are fuelling a growing mental health crisis. A global study of almost 28,000 young adults (Sapiens Labs, 2023) showed that the younger a child receives their first smartphone, the poorer their mental health outcomes later in life. Since widespread smartphone access, outdoor accidents have fallen by 70%, while incidents of self-harm have increased by 93% (NHS). Parents know this instinctively. Surveys show that 94% of primary school parents believe smartphones are harmful, and 70% say they negatively affect family life. Yet resisting peer pressure becomes almost impossible once children’s social lives move online.

The Australian ban is not a complete solution. Some youngsters will bypass restrictions, but most will not, and even a partial reduction in exposure is a powerful step forward. Here in the UK, we do not have the luxury of waiting years for regulation to catch up. Childhood is fleeting, and our children’s wellbeing is at stake now. Movements like Smartphone Free Childhood recognise the impossible position parents are in. By working together and delaying smartphone access, parents can dissolve peer pressure overnight. Their Parent Pact, encouraging families to delay smartphones until at least the end of Year 9, is growing rapidly and making a difference.

Smartphones are the gateway to social media and the ‘Wild West’ of the internet. But, if children do not have access in their pockets, everything changes. That is why I support Australia’s decision and why I believe a UK ban will ultimately improve children’s lives, both now and in the future.