This bill did not become law and is no longer proceeding.
Transport & communications
Big online platforms used by at least 10% of Australians, or 10% of Australian children, would have a legal duty to protect the wellbeing of their Australian users.
Australia’s content-based online safety rules overlooked harms created by platform design, algorithms and frictionless engagement, and self-regulation failed to fix them. This bill makes large platforms assess those risks, reduce them through design and business changes, and report their plans and results to the eSafety CommissionerAustralia’s online safety regulator, which this bill would give extra powers to receive reports, review risks and set standards..
Australia already had online safety regulation through the Online Safety Act 2021The main federal online safety law already in force, which the bill would amend to add a systems-based duty of care., but the explanatory memorandum says its enforceable rules focused mainly on content, leaving harms driven by platform design, algorithms and frictionless engagement largely outside the core regime while self-regulation failed to fix them. The bill, introduced on 25 November 2024, proposed a systems-based duty of careA legal duty to take reasonable steps to prevent harm; here it means large platforms would have to actively reduce risks to Australian users. requiring large platforms to assess and reduce those risks, but it did not pass and lapsed when Parliament was dissolved on 28 March 2025.
No significant public case against the bill is recorded so far, with the available debate material focused on arguments for stronger platform safety duties rather than warnings about harm from the proposal. On the current record, no party represented in the debate opposed it and no substantial drafting, cost or implementation criticism is clearly raised.
Zoe Daniel MP introduced this bill. Speeches supporting it came from some crossbench members.
Did it become law?
No
The bill did not complete passage through Parliament.
Final passage
No final passage
The bill has not completed passage and is no longer proceeding.
Time before failure
123 days
From introduction to the final recorded step before the bill stopped proceeding
Meaning
Big online platforms used by at least 10% of Australians, or 10% of Australian children, would have a legal duty to protect the wellbeing of their Australian users.
Large online platforms would have to assess whether their algorithms, moderation tools, advertising tools and data practices create risks like scams, election harm, gendered violence or mental health damage.
Large online platforms would have to tell the eSafety CommissionerAustralia’s online safety regulator, which this bill would give extra powers to receive reports, review risks and set standards. how they will change their design, rules, algorithms or business processes to reduce the risks they find.
Large online platforms would have to publish yearly public reports and keep a public register showing their Australian transparency data, risk assessments and risk mitigation plans.
Australian users would get stronger default privacy settings, a way to turn off or reset personalised recommendations, and a right to opt out of targeted advertisingAds shown to people based on their data or behaviour, which the bill says users should be able to opt out of., while companies and senior managers could face major penalties.
The bill seeks to address the risk of harm to Australians from the use of misaligned systems and processes by imposing preventative obligations onto large providers which have a monthly active user base (MAU) of ten per cent of the Australian general and/or child populations, respectively. The 10% threshold has been set to ensure prominent social media platforms are captured, as well as lesser-known online services with extensive underage user bases, such as Roblox and Character.AI. Upon meeting this threshold, the provider is expected to be designated a ‘Large Provider’, whereby the following preventive obligations apply:Online Safety Amendment (Digital Duty of Care) explanatory memorandum
Mandatory risk assessments, whereby large providers must assess all relevant systems and processes for risks they may pose to values and institutions central to modern society, such as negative effects to electoral processes, gender-based violence, children’s best interest, mental health, and the dissemination of scams.Online Safety Amendment (Digital Duty of Care) explanatory memorandum
The risk-based regulatory reporting and mitigation model which underpins the Bill at Division 6 and 7 obligates large providers to identify foreseeable risks causable by their systems and processes and report to the eSafety Commissioner the actions large providers will take to substantially mitigate risks identified. These actions may include changing their Terms of Service, changing the design of their online interfaces or algorithms, or changing business processes to maximise safety.Online Safety Amendment (Digital Duty of Care) explanatory memorandum
The Transparency Report must be published on a publicly available website within 30 days of July 1 each year. Division 8 also requires Large Providers to establish a ‘Public Information Register’ which serves as a point of reference for the public to view a Large Platform’s compliance and data in relation to their Australian activities. The Public Information Register must contain the Large Provider’s Transparency Report, their Risk Assessment (and associated Risk Mitigation Plan), and further information as established by the legislative rules.Online Safety Amendment (Digital Duty of Care) explanatory memorandum
The Bill also includes various supplementary provisions to enable user choice and empowerment, such as the ability for a user to ‘reset’ or ‘toggle off’ their personal content recommender systems and the requirement for the privacy settings of Australian users to be ‘switched on’ to enable maximum protection by default.Online Safety Amendment (Digital Duty of Care) explanatory memorandum
Context
Australia already had online safety regulation through the Online Safety Act 2021The main federal online safety law already in force, which the bill would amend to add a systems-based duty of care., but the explanatory memorandum says its enforceable rules focused mainly on content, leaving harms driven by platform design, algorithms and frictionless engagement largely outside the core regime while self-regulation failed to fix them. The bill, introduced on 25 November 2024, proposed a systems-based duty of careA legal duty to take reasonable steps to prevent harm; here it means large platforms would have to actively reduce risks to Australian users. requiring large platforms to assess and reduce those risks, but it did not pass and lapsed when Parliament was dissolved on 28 March 2025.
Online Safety Act 2021The main federal online safety law already in force, which the bill would amend to add a systems-based duty of care. sets Australia’s main online safety regime
The existing federal regime gave Australia recognised online safety laws, but the bill’s explanatory material said its enforceable provisions were still centred on content rather than platform systems and design choices.
Online Safety Amendment (Digital Duty of Care) explanatory memorandum ↗Digital duty of careA legal duty to take reasonable steps to prevent harm; here it means large platforms would have to actively reduce risks to Australian users. bill is introduced
The bill was presented to the House with a systems-regulation model that would make large platforms assess and mitigate harms linked to recommender systemsThe ranking and recommendation tools that decide what content a user sees next, including feeds and suggestions., advertising tools, moderation systems and other service design choices.
Parliamentary timeline ↗Sponsors argue social media design is harming young Australians
In the second reading debate, supporters cited research that young Australians had become the loneliest cohort and argued social media’s design and engagement features were creating risks government needed to address.
Hansard ↗Bill lapses when Parliament is dissolved
The proposal fell away at dissolution, leaving Australia’s existing online safety framework in place without the new statutory duty of careA legal duty to take reasonable steps to prevent harm; here it means large platforms would have to actively reduce risks to Australian users. for large platforms.
Parliamentary timeline ↗Legislative route
The bill was formally presented to the chamber and read a first time, which starts its parliamentary journey.
Introduced and read a first time
A minister or sponsoring member moved the second reading, opening the main debate on the bill's purpose and principles.
Second reading moved
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
Key criticism
No significant public case against the bill is recorded so far, with the available debate material focused on arguments for stronger platform safety duties rather than warnings about harm from the proposal. On the current record, no party represented in the debate opposed it and no substantial drafting, cost or implementation criticism is clearly raised.
No significant public case against the bill is recorded so far.
Votes
No recorded votes were found before this bill stopped proceeding.
Parliamentary debate
Start here — lead voices
Zoe Daniel supports the bill and says it would make platforms safer through a duty of careA legal duty to take reasonable steps to prevent harm; here it means large platforms would have to actively reduce risks to Australian users., risk assessmentA formal review of what harms a platform’s systems might cause, such as scams, election harm or gendered violence. and mitigation, transparency rules, and enforceable penalties.
Read in Hansard ↗Ryan supports the bill and says it is a better response than blanket social media bans because it would impose a duty of careA legal duty to take reasonable steps to prevent harm; here it means large platforms would have to actively reduce risks to Australian users. on large providers through risk assessments, transparency, reporting and enforcement.
Read in Hansard ↗All speeches by bloc
2 speakers · 2 support
“I commend this bill to the House—because Australia can once again become a world leader in online safety. In the words of Professor Lorna Woods, 'We need a response that is preventative, not palliative.'”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“For that reason, I am happy to support the member for Goldstein's proposal to amend the Online Safety Act to impose an overarching standard of care for large providers. This will mandate risk assessments and risk mitigation plans, mandatory transparency and reporting, and stringent enforcement mechanisms. It will protect our children. Something worth doing is worth doing well, in an evidence-balanced way. If the government accepts this bill today, we will start protecting young children immediately. I commend it to the House.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
Record
House · Introduced and read a first time
Introduced
The bill was formally presented to the chamber and read a first time, which starts its parliamentary journey.
House · Second reading moved
Second reading opened
A minister or sponsoring member moved the second reading, opening the main debate on the bill's purpose and principles.
House · Lapsed at dissolution
Lapsed at dissolution
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
