Australia’s government introduced new online safety legislation this week aimed at holding technology companies accountable for harmful content on their platforms, while affirming that individual freedoms of speech will remain protected under the proposed framework.
Communications Minister Anika Wells outlined the key components of the digital duty of care laws during a National Press Club address on Thursday. The legislation would impose an overarching obligation on online platforms—including social media sites, apps, online games, and chatbots—to provide a safer environment for Australian users by mitigating exposure to harmful material. The bill targets content such as misogynistic speech, pro-terrorism messaging, suicide and self-harm promotion, and eating disorder encouragement.
Despite claims by some critics that the laws threaten free expression and amount to government censorship, Wells emphasized that Australians would still be free to share controversial opinions, listen to “manosphere podcasts,” or express conspiracy theories such as moon-landing denial without restriction. She described the reforms as shifting responsibility from victims to the companies that operate online spaces where harm occurs, comparing the duty of care to requiring seatbelts in cars.
The government’s proposals also include a “my feed my way” option, allowing users to opt out of algorithmically curated content feeds and instead view only content from sources they have actively selected. Platforms that fail to comply with the new obligations could face fines exceeding AU$10 million.
However, the bill has faced strong opposition from conservative groups and Coalition politicians. At a recent political conference in Brisbane, critics labeled the legislation a “Big Brother bill” akin to an earlier misinformation bill abandoned by the government. Opponents argue that the broad definition of harmful content could enable excessive government control over online speech.
One controversial aspect concerns provisions that give regulators and researchers the ability to create pseudonymous “sockpuppet” accounts on platforms to test compliance. Right-wing media figures and politicians have warned this could lead to government propaganda campaigns online. In response, Wells stated these accounts would solely be used for monitoring and enforcement, with strict limitations to prevent misuse. The eSafety commissioner would be required to report annually on the use of these measures.
The Greens have expressed general support for the legislation but advocate for stronger protections, including empowering individual Australians to take private legal action against technology companies for breaches and imposing higher fines for noncompliance. Wells indicated the government is considering such measures, referencing successful litigation schemes in the United States, and encouraged the Coalition to reengage in negotiations.
The bill has been referred to a Senate inquiry, which is expected to report back by late November. Labor aims to have the legislation passed within the calendar year. Amid the ongoing debate, the government maintains that the reforms seek to enhance online safety without restricting legitimate free speech.