Online Safety Amendment (Digital Duty of Care) Bill 2026

Milton Dick

In accordance with the resolution agreed to on 27 October 2026, the House will now consider the bill in detail as a whole.

Anika Wells

I present a supplementary explanatory memorandum to the bill.

Milton Dick

The question now is that the government amendments as circulated be agreed to.

Government's circulated amendments—

(1) Schedule 1, item 5, page 5 (line 7), omit "and being", substitute "or".

(2) Schedule 1, item 5, page 5 (line 14), omit "and", substitute "or".

(3) Schedule 1, item 90, page 28 (lines 5 to 10), omit subsection 140(5), substitute:

Effect of industry codes

(5) The validity of an industry code registered under this Division before the commencement of this subsection is not affected, and is taken never to have been affected, by a failure of the body or association concerned to:

(a) publish a draft of the code or invite submissions about the draft as mentioned in paragraph (1)(e) or (f); or

(b) specify a period of at least 30 days for making submissions about a draft of the code in accordance with subsection (3).

(4) Schedule 1, item 91, page 28 (lines 13 to 18), omit subsection 145(4), substitute:

Effect of industry standards

(4) The validity of an industry standard registered under this Division before the commencement of this subsection is not affected, and is taken never to have been affected, by a failure to comply with section 148 (public consultation on industry standards).

(5) Schedule 2, item 8, page 39 (lines 21 and 22), omit subsection 25D(2), substitute:

(2) Seriously harmful material or conduct does not include:

(a) excluded material; or

(b) class 2 material.

(6) Schedule 2, item 8, page 40 (lines 10 to 22), omit paragraph 25F(1)(c), substitute:

(c) material as follows that is produced for the sole or dominant purpose of entertaining individuals:

(i) audiovisual content made available by an on-demand program service;

(ii) material contained in a film or computer game that has been classified under the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Act 1995 other than class 1 material or class 2 material;

(7) Schedule 2, item 8, page 40 (after line 34), at the end of subsection 25F(1), add:

Note: Certain films classified under other Acts are taken to be classified under the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Act 1995: see section 6HA of that Act.

(8) Schedule 2, item 8, page 41 (lines 6 to 15), omit the definitions of broadcasting video on demand service, commercial radio broadcasting service, commercial television broadcasting service, national radio broadcasting service and national television broadcasting service in subsection 25F(3).

(9) Schedule 2, item 8, page 45 (line 4), omit "paragraph (e)", substitute "paragraph (1)(e)".

(10) Schedule 2, item 8, page 47 (line 11), after "Commissioner", insert "under subsection (4)".

(11) Schedule 2, item 8, page 47 (line 21), after "Commissioner", insert "under subsection (4)".

(12) Schedule 2, item 8, page 48 (line 4), omit "the tool", substitute "user empowerment tools".

(13) Schedule 2, item 8, page 48 (line 28), after "conduct", insert ", make available and retain".

(14) Schedule 2, item 8, page 51 (line 27), after "Commissioner", insert "under subsection (3)".

(15) Schedule 2, item 38, page 68 (line 5), omit "specified".

Anika Wells

I thank all those in this chamber who have contributed to the debate on the Online Safety Amendment (Digital Duty of Care) Bill 2026. The government is introducing minor technical amendments to the bill, including redefining the definition of exempt content subject to the classification scheme; solidifying the effect of the existing industry codes and standards until the new legislation commences so eSafety can continue their existing investigations; clarifying the definition of a nudify app; and minor language changes, to improve consistency throughout the bill.

Debate about a digital duty of care comes down to a simple question: do you really think that big tech is on the side of worried Australian parents and vulnerable Australian children, or are they on the side of their shareholders? And we, as elected members of this place—whose side are we on? Australia's digital duty of care will set basic safety standards for the digital services we use every day, just like we have for food, cars and kids' toys. The duty will change the foundation of Australia's online safety laws and put the onus on digital platforms to put systems in place to prevent online harm before it occurs. Calling a bill 'unsalvageable' is not a policy position; it's simply throwing in the towel and refusing to do the work. Voting against the digital duty of care is a vote for endorsing the status quo.

Milton Dick

The question before the House is that government amendments (1) to (15) as circulated be agreed to.