Decoding Australia’s Big Month of Tech Policy

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

The Australian Government is being described as ‘declaring war on big tech’ during September. From online safety and scams to privacy and misinformation, the Government introduced a wave of tech policy proposals last month.

The Government couched these announcements as a pushback against the power of foreign big tech companies, with Assistant Treasurer Stephen Jones arguing, “we will assert our sovereignty for activities that occur in Australia.” Perhaps unsurprisingly, the regulatory moves caught the ire of Elon Musk, who had one word: “fascists.”

But does the flurry of announcements represent world-leading progress, political reactions, or long overdue reforms? Spoiler alert: the answer is it depends on where you look.

Below is a roadmap to decode the context and significance of the busy month in Australian tech policy.

What happened this past month?

Zero to one hundred on age restrictions: Arguably, the most controversial tech move of the month was Prime Minister Albanese announcing plans to introduce a minimum age for access to social media of either 14 or 16 years of age. The harms associated with algorithm-fuelled advertising-based social media news feeds are well documented, and 60% of Australian parents are concerned about their children’s online safety.

The Government’s four-line media release follows on the heels of a state-level age restriction proposal being considered by the South Australian Government, along with calls from Opposition leader Peter Dutton to ban social media for children. The Prime Minister’s announcement, unfortunately, pre-empts the findings of the independent review of Australia’s Online Safety Act, which the Federal Government kicked off less than a year ago, and the Joint Select Committee into Social Media and Australian Society.

The lack of policy detail means it’s too early to judge the proposal, but the commitment to introduce legislation this year indicates little intention to consult on a draft bill. Given the political popularity of online safety reforms, and bipartisan support, there’s a good chance this legislation gets waved through, with details and implementation to be figured out after the fact.

Revised and improved approach to misinformation: The Government introduced its second go at a misinformation bill this month, following an initial consultation in 2023. The first iteration received significant public pushback: 24,000 public responses to the consultation, mostly citing censorship concerns. So, this revised version has been in the works for some time.

Misinformation remains a deeply complex issue to regulate, a matter of national security, and a topic on which 80% of Australians want the Government to take action. This bill takes a sensible approach of requiring platform transparency regarding their systems and processes rather than seeking to regulate content.

While the bill still misses the opportunity to advance researcher access to transparency data, the government has clearly listened to some stakeholder feedback. The proposed definitions are still subject to much debate, but the bill at least focuses on narrower categories of misinformation and disinformation, those which are “verifiably false” and “reasonably likely to cause or contribute to serious harm.” The unpopular exemptions for government and political parties have also been removed. It is positive that the government acted on consultation feedback, but considering the censorship narratives already appearing from the opposition, we can expect a contentious debate in the Parliament over the bill.

Hate crimes, not hate speech: Despite overtures of plans to prohibit hate speech, the Government has instead introduced legislation focused on incitement to violence. These proposals include meaningful changes, such as jail sentences of 5 years for threatening violence on the basis of race, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, intersex status, disability, nationality, national or ethnic origin, or political opinion. However, some stakeholders are disappointed that the reform doesn’t prohibit inciting hatred, arguing such narratives – particularly online – pave the way to violence.

Privacy, too little too late: The long-awaited privacy legislation was introduced into Parliament on 12 September. The process began in 2019, so describing privacy reforms as overdue is an understatement. The bill introduces prison sentences for doxxing (malicious use of personal data), establishes a tort for invasion of privacy, and the requirement of a children’s privacy code, among other things.

Despite being heralded by the Attorney General as ‘landmark legislation’ it does not progress many elements of the over 100 anticipated reforms agreed to in principle by the government that would remedy Australians’ poor privacy protections. The bill does not remove the exemption for small businesses, which make up 95% of Australian businesses. It also delays changes that would modernize the definition of personal data (to include additional dimensions such as location) and crack down on targeted advertising. The bill is viewed by many civil society advocates as a missed opportunity.

Spreading out the scam liability: The government also opened a consultation on draft legislation for a Scams Prevention Framework, and announced a plan for scam codes to be developed by digital platform services, as well as banks and telcos. The proposed approach empowers the Australian Financial Complaints Authority to distribute financial liability between multiple industries. While the opposed to the UK approach lays liability squarely at the feet of the banks, Australia’s proposal brings digital platforms and telcos into the fray of financial liability for scams disseminated on their services. Some commentators have raised questions regarding how the expanded powers will make it easier or faster for consumers to receive compensation. Cracking down on the big end of town to protect Australians from scams is a winning move so debate on this one will likely be focused on design rather than direction.

And quick question, who pays for all this?: This long list of proposed regulations raises the question of how all the new enforcement will be funded. The Prime Minister did not squash the suggestion of a universal digital platform levy of some kind, but it’s unclear how this would gel with the Treasurer’s commitments to multilateral digital service tax agreements.

What to make of it all?

It’s positive to see the government focusing energy on tech policy. The breadth of activity is commendable and it’s encouraging to see the government looking to lay the enabling foundations for a prosperous digital society, which is increasingly challenging to do. But as the sun sets on the 47th parliament, the Albanese government may be looking to clear the decks.

This makes for strong headlines and demonstrates delivery but also drowns out meaningful public debate and compresses the capacity for real consultation. Moreover, it’s hard to miss the disparity in approach to tech policy development across portfolios. While the Government is rushing into social media age bans, it’s moving carefully on misinformation and kicking the can down the road on privacy. A cynical take is that on the eve of an election, reforms that put costs on Australian businesses (e.g. small business privacy exemption) will elicit more political caution than reforms that are costly for US big tech but popular with parents.

As we get closer to the election, the risks of crafting tech policy on the fly will increase. Instead, the government should:

1. Harness the considered approach seen in the misinformation re-drafting and apply it to the question of social media age restrictions – consult experts, wait for and engage with the findings of extensive consultation processes.
2. Commit to further important privacy changes in the near term – 89% of Australians want privacy laws strengthened within the next year. Unchecked data extractive practices of these firms are exactly what fuels many of the broader algorithm-related harms the government is looking to tackle. Privacy and transparency reforms are essential steps to ignite competition and reshape the business incentives at the core of many of these policy challenges.
3. Articulate a coherent and coordinated tech policy strategy. A big-picture strategy will help draw out the synergies and complex interplay between these reforms. It will help create solutions that cut across policy silos and prevent strategic contradictions across portfolios that we are seeing at the moment.

Whether you view these announcements as a noble quest for sovereignty, or a shrewd political strategy, or both, there is no denying that Australia is continuing to make a name for itself as an energetic and ambitious tech regulator. Which – if any - of these proposals will be codified by Parliament? The last four sitting weeks of the year will tell.