Online Safety Amendment (Digital Duty of Care) Bill 2026

Milton Dick

The question now is that the amendments circulated by the member for Mackellar be agreed to.

Member for Mackellar's circulated amendments—

(1) Schedule 2, item 8, page 51 (after line 27), after subsection 27G(1), insert:

(1A) The Online Services Ombudsman Scheme established under subsection 27GA(1) is not a complaint and dispute process for the purposes of subsection (1) of this section.

Note: This means that a person responsible for a prescribed online service cannot satisfy the requirement in subsection (1) of this section by being a member of the Online Services Ombudsman Scheme.

(2) Schedule 2, item 8, page 52 (after line 12), after section 27G, insert:

27GA Online Services Ombudsman Scheme

(1) The Minister must, by legislative instrument (the scheme instrument), and in accordance with this section:

(a) establish a scheme to be known as the Online Services Ombudsman Scheme; and

(b) provide for the operation of the scheme.

(2) The scheme instrument must specify a start date for the scheme.

Online Services Ombudsman

(3) The Online Services Ombudsman is:

(a) unless paragraph (b) applies—the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman (within the meaning of the Telecommunications (Consumer Protection and Service Standards Act) 1999); or

(b) the person (if any) prescribed by the scheme instrument to be the Online Services Ombudsman.

Function of scheme

(4) The function of the scheme must be for the Online Services Ombudsman to:

(a) investigate; and

(b) make determinations relating to; and

(c) give directions relating to;

complaints about:

(d) prescribed online services; and

(e) other matters (if any) specified in the scheme instrument.

Note: For prescribed online service, see subsection 27G(2).

(5) The scheme instrument may specify:

(a) requirements for the scheme; and

(b) without limiting paragraph (a), requirements to be complied with by any of the following in relation to the scheme:

(i) the Online Services Ombudsman;

(ii) a member of the scheme;

(iii) a person or entity specified in the scheme instrument.

(6) The scheme instrument may confer powers or functions on the Online Services Ombudsman, or on another person or body, in relation to the scheme.

Members of the scheme

(7) Each person responsible for a prescribed online service is to be a member of the scheme.

Funding for the scheme

(8) The scheme instrument must:

(a) require the members of the scheme to fund the operation of the scheme; and

(b) specify arrangements for funding the operation of the scheme.

No charges for end-users

(9) An end-user of a prescribed online service is not liable to pay any fee or charge (however described) to a person responsible for a prescribed online service in respect of a complaint made under the scheme by the end-user of the prescribed online service.

Relevant matters and consultation

(10) When making or amending the scheme instrument, the Minister must have regard to the following matters:

(a) accessibility;

(b) independence;

(c) fairness;

(d) accountability;

(e) efficiency;

(f) effectiveness;

(g) such other matters (if any) as the Minister considers relevant.

(11) Before making or amending the scheme instrument, the Minister must consult with:

(a) the Commissioner; and

(b) the Online Services Ombudsman.

27GB Complying with the Online Services Ombudsman Scheme etc.

A person responsible for a prescribed online service must comply with:

(a) any requirements in an instrument made by the Minister under subsection 27GA(1); and

(b) without limiting paragraph (a) of this section, any directions given by the Online Services Ombudsman, as mentioned in paragraph 27GA(4)(c), in connection with the Online Services Ombudsman Scheme.

(3) Schedule 2, item 8, page 52 (line 13), at the end of the heading to section 27H, add "and the Online Services Ombudsman Scheme".

(4) Schedule 2, item 8, page 52 (line 16), after "subsection 27G(1)", insert "or section 27GB".

(5) Schedule 2, item 8, page 52 (line 21), after "subsection 27G(1)", insert "or section 27GB".

Sophie Scamps

I welcome the Online Safety Amendment (Digital Duty of Care) Bill 2026 and its objective of placing a legal obligation on tech companies to protect Australians from foreseeable harm when using their platforms. For too long, powerful multinational corporations have operated without adequate accountability while Australians have been left to deal with the often devastating consequences. This bill is an important step towards changing that. A key part of this bill is the provision of stronger internal complaints and dispute resolution processes for users, which I welcome. I also acknowledge the vital role of the eSafety Commissioner as a publicly funded regulator in investigating breaches and holding platforms accountable through enforcement action and financial penalties. But these mechanisms will simply not be enough. An independent ombudsman responsible for digital platforms is critical to ensuring Australians have a failproof way of enforcing their rights against large multinational corporations. This is the purpose of my amendments. My amendments prescribe that online service providers must be a part of an independent external dispute resolution scheme through an online services ombudsman.

We can all relate to the problem of dealing with big tech platforms when something goes wrong. There are no phone numbers or direct contacts who take care of complaints. You email an unknown entity and often never get a response. When accounts are hacked, small businesses and community organisations can be locked out of the platforms they rely on to operate, communicate, reach their customers and support people. Losing access to an account can mean losing income, customers and years of work. Often, complaints about harmful content go unanswered, and the content is never taken down. Challenging a decision made by a multinational tech company can be practically impossible. And, when platforms fail to act, there is nowhere independent to turn.

My amendments provide a practical solution to all of this. They would require the minister to establish an online services ombudsman scheme through a legislative instrument. The Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman, TIO, would perform this role. The TIO already provides an established model of independent dispute resolution for telecommunications consumers. These amendments would build on that model and extend independent protections to users of prescribed online services. Importantly, the scheme would be empowered to investigate complaints, make determinations and issue directions, and digital platforms covered by the scheme would be required to become members and comply with those directions. Crucially, the scheme would be funded by the platforms themselves, not by everyday Australians. This industry funded approach is already familiar in telecommunications, financial services and energy. It also creates an incentive for companies to resolve complaints before they escalate. The amendments would require the scheme to be designed with accessibility, independence, fairness, accountability, efficiency and effectiveness in mind. Importantly, it would operate alongside, not replace, platforms' existing internal complaints obligations.

This is not a new or radical proposal. There is strong support for independent external dispute resolution from the Australian public, consumer advocates, legal and community organisations, and academics. The ACCC has previously recommended stronger internal and external dispute resolution arrangements for digital platforms. These calls reflect a simple principle: Australians should not have fewer rights online than they do when dealing with their bank, telecommunications provider or energy company. This bill is about establishing a duty of care, but that duty must be meaningful for the people it is intended to protect. Strong laws need effective enforcement, and effective enforcement must be matched by accessible remedies for individuals. An independent online services ombudsman would give Australians somewhere independent to turn and provide a practical pathway to resolution. I commend the amendments standing in my name to the House.

Anika Wells

I thank the member for Mackellar for her amendments relating to external dispute resolution processes and exemptions for small business. The government recognises that the current process for dispute resolution is not working for a lot of digital platform users, including small businesses. In response to the recommendations of the independent statutory review of the Online Safety Act, the government is prioritising the creation of enforceable internal dispute resolution processes through legislative instrument. Section 27G of the bill empowers the eSafety Commissioner to do this in consultation with the Privacy Commissioner. Failure to comply with the eSafety Commissioner's enforceable internal dispute resolution process will result in penalties of up to $10.2 million.

Allegra Spender

I rise in support of the amendments moved by the member for Mackellar, and I want to raise in particular the impact this has on small businesses. I get these requests every single week from small businesses that have been significantly affected because they have been dumped for some online platform and can't get a resolution of these issues. I appreciate that the government is seeking to address this, but this is an issue that is ongoing and needs urgent attention. The eSafety Commissioner is not the place for this. It is about having a time line and a commitment about when we're going to get this resolved for small businesses, because this has been an issue.

The ACCC's digital platform inquiry recommended an ombudsman for disputes for digital platforms seven years ago and suggested that the TIO should take on that role. That's seven years old. The government has been in power for over 4½ years. It is well beyond time that the government takes action here and supports small business in trying to resolve these issues that materially impact them and make sure they have a pathway that is practical and timely and that they don't have to pay more for in order to get a resolution of these issues, because it fundamentally affects their business. We don't accept this from the banks. We don't accept it from the telcos. There are ways that we manage all those, and this is absolutely needed for small businesses as well.

Colin Boyce

The question is that amendments (1) to (5) on the sheet circulated by the member for Mackellar be agreed to.