---
title: "Australia's Digital Future: Who Gets to Decide?"
date: 2026-10-17
author: "Erwin Groen"
description: "Australia promises a safer digital future. But are new regulations genuinely making us safer, or simply moving the goalposts on privacy, ownership and independence?"
image: "/media/australias-digital-future-who-gets-to-decide.png"
tags:
  - Australia
  - Digital Independence
  - Digital ID
  - Online Safety
  - auDA
  - Handshake
  - OwnTheDot
---

Australia prides itself on being at the forefront of change.

We want to protect our children, make the internet safer and embrace technology that promises greater security.

⚪️ worthwhile ambitions.

But I am becoming increasingly concerned about the direction Australia is taking.

Not because I oppose online safety, but because I question whether the growing number of rules and restrictions will actually make Australians safer.

**Are we protecting people, or are we simply moving the goalposts?**

## When Safety Becomes a Reason to Rush

In November 2024, the Australian Government introduced legislation restricting social media accounts for children under 16.

The legislation was introduced on 21 November and passed both houses of Parliament on 29 November, during the final sitting days before the summer parliamentary break.

Just eight days for legislation affecting millions of Australians.

The government's intention was to protect young people from online harm.

The speed of the legislation raises questions about whether enough time was allowed to examine its consequences.

⚪️ Were the practical challenges properly understood? 

⚪️ Had the privacy implications received sufficient attention? 

⚪️ How would we ultimately measure whether the restrictions worked?

The government argued that action was needed to protect young Australians. Others questioned the speed of the process.

But I believe something important gets lost when the urgency to introduce legislation begins to outweigh the opportunity to question it.

**Protecting Australians should never mean reducing the scrutiny given to decisions that affect them.**

[Source: Australian Parliament — Social Media Minimum Age Bill 2024](https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r7284)

## Are We Moving the Goalposts?

Almost two years later, Australia continues to introduce and expand measures affecting how we participate in the digital world.

Digital ID is expanding.

New Digital Duty of Care legislation has been introduced.

And Australia's domain administrator, auDA, is separately considering changes that could affect existing Australian domain registrations.

These are different initiatives. They have different objectives, and not all are government decisions.

Nevertheless, they raise a common concern.

Every new rule is presented as an improvement.

Every new system promises greater security, convenience or protection.

But how often do we stop to ask whether those promises will actually be delivered?

I worry that we are becoming too comfortable with the idea that more regulation automatically produces better outcomes.

**Safety should be measured by the protection it delivers, not by the number of rules introduced.**

## Digital ID: When Convenience Becomes Dependence

Australia's Digital ID system promises a more secure and convenient way for people to prove their identity.

There are legitimate benefits.

Reducing the need to repeatedly share passports, driving licences and other sensitive documents could help protect personal information.

The Digital ID Act 2024 also establishes voluntary participation and safeguards intended to preserve alternative ways of accessing services, subject to limited exceptions.

But my concern is not simply what the legislation says today.

It is what happens as these systems become increasingly integrated into everyday life.

Will Digital ID remain a genuine choice?

Or could Australians eventually find themselves disadvantaged because they prefer not to participate?

There is an important difference between something being legally voluntary and people having a practical alternative.

I believe we should be paying far more attention to that distinction.

**Convenience should never quietly become dependence.**

And privacy should include the freedom to decide when identifying ourselves is genuinely necessary.

## Digital Duty of Care: Who Decides What Is Safe?

On 15 October 2026, the Australian Government introduced its proposed Digital Duty of Care legislation.

Its objective is to place greater responsibility on online service providers to address serious harms and improve user safety.

Some proposed measures, including greater control over recommendation algorithms and improved complaint procedures, could provide genuine benefits.

But the legislation also raises questions about how online harm is defined, how obligations are enforced and how safeguards will operate.

Who decides what constitutes serious harm?

How do we ensure legitimate expression is not unnecessarily restricted?

And how do we prevent rules introduced for one purpose from gradually expanding into something broader?

The proposal has already prompted debate over government powers, parliamentary oversight and freedom of expression.

That debate is necessary.

The government has made changes intended to address concerns about the scope of ministerial powers. The legislation remains subject to parliamentary consideration.

These safeguards matter, but they do not eliminate the need for scrutiny.

I believe protecting people from harm is important.

What concerns me is the possibility that the definition of safety will continue to expand, bringing more activities and decisions under regulatory control.

**At what point does protecting people begin to limit their independence?**

[Source: Australian Government — Digital Duty of Care](https://www.infrastructure.gov.au/media-communications/internet/online-safety/digital-duty-care)

## auDA: When the Rules Change on Your Name

While Australia's Digital ID and online safety initiatives involve government policy, another development is taking place within the Australian domain name system.

Australia's domain administrator, auDA, is considering changes to the eligibility requirements for `.com.au` and `.net.au` domain names.

In August 2026, auDA's board approved recommendations in principle that could remove a long standing eligibility pathway.

No final changes have been implemented, and auDA has committed to further consultation on the proposed rules.

The potential consequences deserve attention.

Businesses have spent years building their identities around domain names registered legitimately under existing rules.

Those names represent investments, customer relationships, email addresses and established reputations.

For some businesses, they are essential to everyday operations.

If the eligibility requirements change, what protections will exist for those who relied on the previous rules?

Will established registrants be allowed to retain their names?

And who should bear the consequences when the rules change?

I understand that domain administrators must maintain trust and confidence in their namespaces.

But surely that trust must extend to the people who registered their names in good faith.

**A digital name should not become less secure simply because someone decides to move the goalposts.**

[Source: auDA — Licensing Rules Review](https://www.auda.org.au/news-insights/blog/au-licensing-rules-review-recommendations-status-and-next-steps/)

## Three Different Issues. One Growing Concern.

Digital ID, Digital Duty of Care and domain name eligibility are not the same thing.

Their legal frameworks, purposes and decision makers differ.

I do not believe it would be fair to suggest otherwise.

But when I look at these developments together, I see a broader pattern worth questioning.

More decisions about our digital lives are being shaped by governments, regulators, administrators and large technology platforms.

Sometimes those decisions may be justified.

Sometimes they may genuinely improve our security.

But good intentions are not enough.

We should also consider the long term consequences.

What happens when people become increasingly dependent on systems they do not control?

What happens when the conditions of participation change?

And what happens when the alternatives gradually disappear?

These are not questions about rejecting progress.

They are questions about preserving independence.

## Why I Believe Handshake Matters

This is one of the reasons I advocate for Handshake through my independent initiative, #OwnTheDot.

Handshake approaches internet naming differently.

Rather than relying exclusively on centrally administered top level domains, Handshake allows individuals and organisations to acquire and control names through a decentralised blockchain protocol.

It is not a replacement for every aspect of today's internet.

It does not remove legal obligations, guarantee privacy or eliminate the need for compatible software and services.

But it demonstrates that digital naming does not have to depend entirely on a central authority deciding which names are available and under what conditions they may be held.

That distinction matters to me.

Because digital independence should not mean having permission to participate.

It should also mean having meaningful control over the digital assets and identities we build.

Handshake is one example of how alternative approaches can exist alongside established systems.

My objective with #OwnTheDot is to encourage people to question assumptions about digital ownership and explore what greater independence might look like.

Not everyone will choose Handshake.

And that is fine.

**What matters is preserving the ability to choose.**

## A Safer Internet Should Not Require Less Independence

Australia wants to be a world leader in protecting people online.

I believe it should also lead by example in protecting their privacy, their digital identities and their independence.

I am not convinced that continually introducing new regulations and restrictions will necessarily produce the safer digital environment we are being promised.

Perhaps some measures will succeed.

Perhaps others will create unintended consequences.

That is precisely why open debate, proper scrutiny and measurable outcomes matter.

We should be prepared to question whether policies are working rather than simply introducing more rules when expectations are not met.

We should never assume that transferring more control to institutions is the only way to solve problems.

Because the goalposts can keep moving.

The question is whether Australians will continue to have a meaningful say in where they are placed.

**We should not have to surrender our privacy, our names or our independence simply to participate in the digital world.**

A safer internet and a more independent internet should not be competing ambitions.

They should be goals we pursue together.

**Own The Name | Own The Rules | Own The Dot.**

---

*This article represents the personal views of Erwin Groen through his independent #OwnTheDot initiative. These opinions do not necessarily represent the views of Handshake Australia (hnsAU).*