Australia’s Online Safety Populism: New Social Media Age Restrictions a Symptom of a Larger Problem with Policy Approach

Zoe Jay Hawkins is Head of Policy Design at the Australian-based Tech Policy Design Centre and an expert researcher for OECD.AI.

Australia is in the global spotlight for its pre-election showdown with big tech. In late November, Parliament passed a controversial law banning youths under 16 from accessing social media – a move that has sparked opposition, and not just from tech giants.

While the populist reform is pitched at parents and supported by two-thirds of Australians, it has drawn criticism from Australia’s National Children’s Commissioner, its Human Rights Commissioner, and over 100 Australian academics, 20 international experts, and 20 Australian civil society organizations. Many have labeled it as ineffective at best and a violation of children’s human rights at worst. Despite these objections, the bill moved swiftly through Parliament, passing into law within one week.

There is no doubt we need serious reform and greater industry accountability to address a myriad of harmful practices by social media platforms. These include exploitative data practices, algorithmic rabbit holes, and addictive designs rooted in dark patterns. In addition, despite billions in profits, these companies continue to make insufficient investments in user safety.

Related Reading

• Australia Says No to Young Teens on Social Media—It Won’t Work
• Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Bill 2024
• Tech Policy Press/YouGov Poll Finds Support for US Surgeon General Warning Label for Social Media

And, like many Governments, the Australian Government faces mounting public pressure – from concerned parents and prominent advocates - to act decisively.

However, tackling the complex web of psycho-social and political-economic harms requires systemic reforms that go beyond surface-level fixes. Real change demands disrupting the fundamental business models and commercial incentives that drive these engagement-focused online environments.

The Albanese Government’s selective approach to digital reform is revealing. While the Government has finally made progress on certain elements of long-overdue privacy reform in the 11th hour of this Parliament, it chose not to advance several critical measures. These include modernizing definitions of consent, establishing a fair and reasonable test, and a direct right of action. Many experts have criticized this selective approach as ‘disappointing,’ arguing that these omitted reforms are essential for creating the systemic change needed to reduce social media harms.

Against this backdrop, the Government’s rushed appeal to anxious parents and its dramatic rhetoric about ‘calling time’ on social media is more populist politics than deliberative policymaking. In the context of online safety, it is tempting to describe the policy narrative in terms of two battling groups: the people vs. big tech. But if taken to extremes, it risks serious harm by prioritizing headline-grabbing measures over considered systemic reforms.

Whether you agree or disagree with the idea of a social media age restriction – there is a separate, larger problem with how the Australian Government approached such a significant decision.

1. The political race to “do something” quickly

It’s undeniably a positive step when political leaders from both sides of the aisle come together to hold big tech accountable and improve user safety. However, this commitment can evolve into a sort of political arms race, with leaders vying to outdo each other in proposing ever more extreme policy positions, motivated by the belief that being the ‘toughest’ on online safety will resonate with voters. Such political competition is primarily focused on being seen to be doing something first.

For example, Australia’s ban was initially raised by two state governments and supported by the Leader of the Opposition in June of this year. The Federal Government then announced its intention to establish an age restriction in a four-line media release in September and revealed 16 as the age limit on November 8th. The legislation was formally introduced on November 21st and passed 6 days later on November 28th, following a hurried three-day committee process with only 24 hours for stakeholders to make a submission.

The cost of trying to win the race is policy nuance. The combination of political pressure to produce new ‘world-leading’ protections, plus the time pressure to do so quickly, risks ill-thought-through policies going straight from thought bubble to legislation without proper scrutiny. This approach to policymaking is problematic in any context, particularly when navigating the complex policy trade-offs of digital technologies.

2. Focusing only on parents and ignoring other important stakeholders

In this high-speed political race, political leaders are responding directly to the genuine fears and anxieties of parents. While parents’ concerns and lived experiences are crucial inputs to policymaking, evidence-based research from academics and insights from organizations that deliver on-the-ground support to children are equally vital in crafting informed, effective policy. This approach frames the Government as standing up to the big tech on behalf of the people while emphasizing proponents’ credible position ‘as parents’.

For example, the Communications Minister made it clear that "as the mother of two young daughters, I understand the anxiety of parents about the impacts of social media, the screen addiction of their children, and we are on their side," while the Assistant Treasurer noted that, fundamentally, the big tech regulatory challenge is to "uphold sovereignty." The Government was further undeterred by opposition to the bill and ignored calls to meaningfully co-design solutions with young people, as recommended by the Joint Select Committee on Social Media and Australian Society.

When governments cater exclusively to parents in this way, it marginalizes other important voices, including experts, advocates, and those most affected: young people.

3. Sound bites over systemic change

With this narrow stakeholder focus, political leaders are incentivized to prioritize solutions that address parents’ anxieties and are easy to communicate to the public. Complex, systemic reforms, which are often harder to distill into a headline, don’t score as many political points. As a result, leaders focus on designing the soundbite rather than making the most impactful contribution to solving the problem.

For example, while Australia’s social media age restrictions were fast-tracked, key elements of privacy reform did not receive the same “political urgency” and have been kicked down the road. The cost of this approach is two-fold. In the short term, it creates an opportunity cost by sidelining more meaningful reforms. In the longer term, it risks creating a false sense of security that harms ‘have been dealt with’ and may detract from platform accountability and more substantive reforms and systemic changes.

4. Performative consultation and pre-determined outcomes

In the race to get something done, the consultation process becomes entirely performative. The procedural requirements for policy and legislative consultation are met only in a technical sense. Proposals are made without adequate evidence through an expedited process that rubber-stamp government proposals with minimal revisions and assurances that unresolved details will be “worked out later.”

For example, the government made the age restriction policy more than a month before receiving the results of the year-long independent review of the Online Safety Act (which assesses whether reforms are required and is still yet to be publicly released). It also came right after a Social Media Summit convened by state governments, which was positioned as ‘exploring’ policy options and has been criticized as being ‘engineered’ to build support for the ban. A civil society stakeholder in attendance described the event as “carefully curated” to amplify the “government’s pre-determined stance.” Tellingly, one of the State Premiers opened the event by stating, “the results are in, and the science is settled.”

The cost of this approach extends beyond the specific policy outcomes, including the erosion of stakeholder trust and investment in these critical government processes. Providing evidence and testimony takes time. Establishing an expectation that submissions will simply be ignored will deter civil society from investing their very limited resources into these policy processes to the detriment of Australia’s democratic debate.

Conclusions

This is not the first time that Australia has fast-tracked significant tech policy without adequate consultation or thorough consideration of unintended consequences. And Australia is not alone: jurisdictions around the world are grappling with how to thread the needle of delivering the quick action voters want and navigating the complexity of online safety policy.

We need to be bold and ambitious in reimagining how we govern technology. Policy and regulation are powerful tools to drive accountability and safety in the tech sector. And policymakers should work hard to translate complex tech policy issues for voters. But, when policy is rushed and focused exclusively on political point scoring, it weakens the legitimate push to hold big tech to higher standards.

As technology becomes increasingly embedded in every element of our lives, the consequences of poorly designed tech policy will only grow more severe and far-reaching. Policymakers must avoid falling into the trap of online safety populism and instead aim for best-practice tech policy design. This means taking the necessary time, engaging all stakeholders in meaningful consultation, and crafting systemic, well-informed solutions. Only then will technology be governed in a way that truly serves society.