Australians strongly back government intervention to counter online harm, including enforcing age verification for pornography, gambling and social media.
The latest Guardian Essential poll of 1,150 people has found voters back the eSafety commissioner in her stoush with Elon Musk’s platform X over removing dangerous content by a margin of two to one.
The poll was taken last week as Anthony Albanese convened a national cabinet to discuss gendered violence, including announcing a ban on deep-fake pornography and $6.5m to pilot age verification to protect children from pornography and other age-restricted online services.
Peter Dutton’s opposition has been lobbying for age verification for pornography but the government is still investigating whether the technology would work without exposing users to privacy risks.
The Essential poll found majority support for a range reforms to improve online safety including: making it illegal to post sexualised “deepfake” images (80% support); enforcing age verifications for pornography and gambling sites (79%); enforcing age verification for social media (76%); and increasing the “capacity for law enforcement to scrutinise online behaviour” (75%).
But respondents were unsure about who they could trust to enforce age verification, with many saying the government (43%), but few nominating businesses whose services they access (14%) or not-for-profit third parties (12%). Almost one-third (32%) said none of these could be trusted.
The government has moved to require age verification for online gambling before deposits can be made and changed classification laws to restrict online games that simulate gambling to those aged over 18.
Asked about the dispute between the eSafety commissioner and Musk, 70% said they were more likely to agree with the former “that social media platforms need to remove dangerous content that can be accessed by Australians wherever it appears”.
Less than a third (30%) were more likely to agree with Musk that “requiring X to remove content it deems as dangerous outside Australia, is an attempt to censor the internet and restrict free speech”.
A majority of respondents said they felt safe in their workplaces (87%), their homes (87%) and in the community (79%), but perception of safety online was lower, at 64%.
Nevertheless, a majority of respondents said they were concerned about all types of crime: youth crime (85%); violent crimes such as assault and murder (81%); drug- and alcohol-fuelled violence (80%); burglary and vehicle theft (76%); family violence (72%); gender-based crime (70%); and terrorism (67%).
In the wake of the alleged Wakeley church stabbing and Bondi Junction attack, Australia has engaged in community debate about what constitutes terrorism.
after newsletter promotion
The poll was conducted after these incidents but mostly before a Perth stabbing that authorities say has the “hallmarks” of terrorism on Saturday evening.
The majority of respondents thought the better way to reduce crime was to “focus on enforcement measures such as increasing police powers and harsher punishments for those who commit crimes” (59%), compared with 41% who thought the focus should be “on preventive measures such as investing in social services and programs for at risk individuals”. But measures in both these categories won majority support.
On family violence, the most popular measures with 77% support were more services, making bail harder for accused men, and sharing intelligence about alleged perpetrators between states.
Less popular but still commanding majority support were criminalising coercive control (74%), respectful relationship education (71%), and addressing gender inequality and women’s empowerment (64%).
About a third of voters (31%) thought Labor was best to handle the issue of crime and community safety, more than the Coalition, which was backed by 28% when the issue was described as “crime” or 24% when framed as “community safety”. More than 40% said there was no difference between the parties.
Voters were sceptical that next Tuesday’s budget would make a meaningful difference to the cost of living, with 59% saying it would not compared with 30% who said it would.
Just one-fifth (21%) of respondents said the budget would benefit them personally, compared to people who are well off (46%), people receiving government payments (34%) or people on lower incomes (30%).
