Greater public health awareness of the harms of digital screen use is needed to reclaim parents as their first and irreplaceable teacher.

While the government’s planned social media restrictions, including banning YouTube for children under-16, are welcome, we ought to also look at the early years, when children’s brains begin to develop.

Being a parent is joyful and fulfilling, but it can feel overwhelming. Many parents, including me, have turned to screens to take a break. A majority of caregivers have given children screens, thinking it might encourage their learning, calm or entertain them.

New research from multiple sources shows that frequent and prolonged viewing of screens by babies and toddlers can have the opposite effect. It can disrupt their emotional, physical, and mental development. And it can make it harder for them to build relationships, whether the screens are on televisions, phones, laptops or tablets.

The first three years are vital for a baby’s brain, which is developing more rapidly than it ever will.  For their brain to grow healthily, babies need to use all their senses to explore their world and develop relationships.

Higher levels of early life screen viewing are associated with:

• decreased quality of caregiver-to-infant attachment
• atypical brain development
• delays in the acquisition of language
• autistic-like symptoms
• atypical sensory processing
• poor executive functioning and problem-solving skills
• decreased sleep quantity and quality
• diminished motor skills

Distracted adults also do damage, more than most parents realise.

A University of Wollongong study, analysing data from 21 research papers involving nearly 15,000 participants across 10 countries, published in May this year found that the children of parents who frequently use phones or tablets in their presence have weaker cognitive skills and more behavioural problems, and spend more time on screens themselves.

Those parents speak less often, their children speak less often, and they have fewer conversations.

When the Treasurer and prime minister meet community leaders next week to discuss productivity levels, they ought to take seriously the use of screens.

People are any nation’s greatest assets, alongside the health of its environment. Children exposed to screens on a regular and prolonged basis risk not reaching their full potential and being less capable in workplace settings and others that require navigating complex relationships.

Successive Australian NAPLAN testing results tell us that something is wrong. A growing number of school-age children, across family wealth brackets, suffer from mental health problems and delays in meeting developmental milestones. What we discern is happening at school age is connected to digital habits that start in the early years.

A 2025 OECD report found that the decline observed in Western nations is correlated with the increasing prevalence of digital devices, the progressively earlier age at which children begin using them, and the increase in time spent watching screens.

Safe, stable, and nurturing relationships are crucial for babies, who need supportive “serve-and-return” interactions with parents and other caregivers. The baby “serves” through coos, cries, smiles, and facial expressions. Caregivers “return the serve” with soothing words, smiles, and gentle touch. Seeing the caregiver’s face and hearing the caregiver’s voice helps the baby feel safe and secure.

Many parents have been sold a false narrative that their children need screens for their future. Parents are a child’s first and most important teacher. Screens should not become the default teacher.

Babies naturally learn from other people better than they do from screens. They learn through play.

What can individual parents do? 

The Global Alliance for Inspiring Non-tech Infant Nurturing and Growth, of which I am a member, sets out some clear advice:

Parents should talk to and respond to their baby. When with their small children, they should silence their phone and put it aside. They should avoid using screens to quieten upset children, which can make it harder for the children to learn to manage their emotions. They should be role models.

Parents should observe international guidelines for screen management in early life: until at least the age of two, children should be kept away from screens except perhaps for brief video chats with relatives in the presence of caregivers. Parents shouldn’t watch TV when the baby is present; for ages 2-5, viewing should be limited to no more than a total of one hour per day of non-violent content only. Watching together is preferable to children watching alone.

The guidelines are hard to abide by, not because of “bad parenting” but because the technology firms that serve them videos try to make it hard.

What can governments do?

Governments should initiate public health campaigns that

(1) promote face-to-face social interactions within the families of babies and toddlers, as well as enjoyable, low-cos,t real-life activities, and

(2) show how digital products can negatively impact the development and well-being of very young children.

They can also review screen use in formal learning and care environments.

France has a new law banning screens from public facilities where children under the age of three are cared for, including nurseries and daycare centres.

South Australia has just become the first Australian state to ban smartphones and tablets from childcare centres, primarily for issues of safety. It should go further, and review screens in schools, and at least justify why screens are used in primary schools.

Australian federal and state governments have long known that the early years count, but are not investing in enough programs to help parents realise the detrimental effects of screen use on brain function.

They should be guided by the latest independent peer-reviewed research and carefully scrutinise industry-funded studies.

Acting early can reduce the need for costly speech, behavioural and other interventions later.

A small measure developed by a colleague is having posters in primary health waiting rooms with ideas for interactions between adults and children during wait times. At the very least, there should be children’s books in every GP clinic to encourage reading and conversation.

Simple changes can make a big difference. They start with seeing that there is a problem.

The views expressed in this article may or may not reflect those of Pearls and Irritations.