Parents have given their verdict in a survey conducted by EFTM.com.
A majority of Australian parents believe the country’s social media age ban has failed, with children continuing to access platforms despite restrictions, according to new research.
The survey revealed nearly two-thirds of parents say the ban has been completely ineffective, with no respondents reporting it is working as intended.
Workarounds widespread
Among parents surveyed whose children were already using social media before the ban, more than three-quarters said their kids still have access either because nothing changed or because they created new accounts.
A further one in four said the policy was only partially effective, with children easily bypassing restrictions.
Trevor Long: “We went into this expecting some frustration, but the consistency of the response, across every question, across every type of family, was striking.”
EFTM editor Trevor Long said the consistency of responses was striking. “This policy has not landed the way it was intended,” he said.
Verification fails
Age verification, the backbone of the legislation, was identified as a key weakness.
The survey found that most children who encountered verification checks passed them, often without assistance, while some faced no checks at all.
Only a small minority were actually blocked from accessing platforms.
Parents reported that children used tactics such as borrowing older siblings’ identities or repeatedly attempting verification until it succeeded.
Limited enforcement at home
The research also highlighted inconsistent enforcement by parents, with only around one in ten actively enforcing the ban.
More than a quarter said they had helped their children maintain access, while others said they were conflicted and chose not to intervene.
“I support them being on it because we are rural and dairy farmers. We don’t have the time or means to drive them miles to see their friends. This way they can still have a social life,” a survey respondent said
“It was impossible to enforce because my grade 7 kid and I can say with 100% certainty that almost all of his friends are still on these platforms,” a survey respondent said.
Screen time unchanged
For children who reduced social media use, overall screen time often remained unchanged, shifting instead to alternative messaging apps and games.
Long said the findings suggest the policy has displaced behaviour rather than reduced it.
“What we’re seeing instead is displacement… kids moving to platforms outside the ban’s reach,” he said.
The case for the intent, not the execution
Beneath the criticism, the survey shines light on a more nuanced picture: most parents don’t think the ban itself was a bad idea – they think it was poorly implemented.
Open-text responses point to a clear awareness of the harms the legislation aimed to address, from the mental health toll of algorithm-driven content to online bullying and exposure to age-inappropriate material.
The question is whether a ban without meaningful technical enforcement achieves anything beyond political signalling.
For some parents, the ban provided an external authority to lean on when setting boundaries. In certain school communities, younger children are reportedly facing less peer pressure to join platforms.
Several respondents, including teachers and a school mental health counsellor, pointed to quieter, underreported benefits.
“If nothing else, it’s promoted conversations from parents and students about why the laws were put in place and the potential negative consequences of online bullying,” one counsellor said. “My opinion is it’s a good first step – just like most first steps, it needs refinement.”
A policy worth saving
While the rollout has drawn criticism, many parents believe the policy itself is worth preserving – if it can be fixed.
“I now have less control over what my daughter can see,” one respondent said. “Before, the platform knew her age and content was filtered accordingly. Now it thinks she’s over 16, and I have no controls at all.”
Long said this unintended consequence should be central to any policy review.
“A ban that leaves kids less supervised than before is a step backwards,” he said.
Long argued that stronger parental tools, which already exist, should be embedded into regulation, alongside broader structural changes such as content rating systems and reduced algorithmic exposure for younger users.
“The saddest part of this whole thing is that there are parents out there who think the government has handled this, so they don’t need to. That false sense of security is probably the ban’s most damaging legacy,” long concluded.
Main image: AI-Generated