When the exposure draft of the Online Safety Amendment (Digital Duty of Care) Bill 2026 was first released, I received more than 30 emails from constituents who were concerned, outraged and, in some cases, perplexed about what the government was proposing. One constituent called it the 'big brother bill'. I'm sure that is not the government's intention, but that is how some people in my community perceived it, and we need to take their concerns seriously.

When I look at this bill, I think about the parents in Fowler who worry about what their children are seeing online. I think about the people who have contacted my office because they are worried about government having too much control over what they can say and read. I think about our small-business owners, who are already working long hours and cannot afford another layer of paperwork simply because they have a website. We have a responsibility to consider all of those concerns.

I support making big technology companies take greater responsibility for the harm occurring on their platforms, but supporting the intention of a bill does not mean accepting every provision in it. Tech companies make enormous profits from our attention and our children's attention. They cannot leave families to deal with the consequences on their own.

We still have to ask: Who is covered? What will they have to do? How will these powers be used? What safeguards will protect people when something goes wrong? That is how I approach this debate as an Independent and as the member for Fowler.

The internet gives us extraordinary opportunities. For many families in Fowler, it is how we stay connected with relatives overseas. It is how small businesses find customers. It is where people get their news and share their views. But it can also expose people to terrible abuse, exploitation and violence. We cannot ignore the role of the platforms themselves. These companies decide how their systems work. Their algorithms influence what appears on our screens and what keeps appearing again and again. They cannot take profits and leave families to deal with all the consequences.

I want to mention one recent piece of research. In August, the University of Melbourne released a report, Misogyny,online radicalisation, and youth extremism in Australia. It surveyed more than 1,100 young people aged 13 to 17 and around 2,300 adults. It found that roughly one in three teenage boys express misogynistic attitudes. One in four agreed that feminism is damaging to our society and should be resisted with violence if necessary. And 27 per cent of teenage boys agreed with white supremacist attitudes, which is a real concern. That is one study, but those findings should concern all of us.

We need to understand what young people are being exposed to, who is influencing them and what responsibility platforms have. There should be no disagreement about protecting children from sexual exploitation, content promoting eating disorders, threats of violence or serious bullying, nor should there be disagreement about addressing apps designed to create fake nude images without a person's consent. The question is whether this bill achieves those objectives with clear, proportionate and accountable laws.

Broadly, it creates a duty on those responsible for online services to ensure, so far as reasonably practicable, a safe online environment. It requires written risk assessments and measures to address identified risks. It provides for tools to give users greater control over their online experience, including algorithmic recommendations. It also strengthens the cyberbullying and cyberabuse schemes and gives the eSafety Commissioner additional enforcement and investigative powers. I should also point out that the provision in the exposure draft that rightly caused much concern—a largely unfettered power to the minister to define seriously harmful content—has now been removed. What is and what is not harmful content is now set up plainly in the bill and not subject to arbitrary ministerial decision. That is a welcome development.

The bill certainly proposes some very significant changes to Australia's online safety regime. Personally, I think that you should get kids off the phone. Don't give them a smartphone. We should examine the changes carefully. A broadly expressed duty backed by substantial penalties can still encourage platforms to take down lawful content rather than risk getting it wrong. That matters in a community like Fowler. Our communities discuss politics, faith, history and events in their countries of origin, often in languages other than English. We should not leave those conversations vulnerable to automated systems that cannot understand the context or to platforms deciding that removing lawful discussions is the safest option. Protecting people from serious harm should not mean silencing lawful debate.

My next concern is small business. Small business is the beating heart of Fowler. Our local businesses are already dealing with rising costs, tight margins and growing compliance demands. Often the owner is serving customers during the day and doing the paperwork at night. A family business in Fowler is not Meta. It is not TikTok. It is not X. Yet the broad reach of this bill could capture ordinary business websites, not just the large platforms the government talks about. Think about the bakery in Cabramatta, the hair and nail salon in Canley Heights or the tradie in Bonnyrigg with a basic website and a contact form. For those businesses, a website is simply a digital shopfront. It tells customers where they are, what they offer and how to contact them. If those services are captured, the businesses behind them could have to prepare written online safety risk assessments, review them at least annually, retain records for six years and provide them to eSafety within 30 days if requested. This is a new obligation—to understand the requirements, prepare the documentation and keep it up to date. There is no automatic exemption simply because a business is small.

The Minister for Small Business has told this House that most small businesses will have minimal obligations because their websites generally do not allow users to interact with each other, message strangers or upload content. I welcome that assurance, but minimal obligations are not the same as exemption, and what sounds simple in a ministerial office can look very different to someone running a small business, especially in South Western Sydney and, no doubt, in regional Australia as well. They still have to work out whether the law applies. They still have to understand what a compliant assessment looks like. Will they need professional advice? Will they feel that they have to pay someone to prepare it? Most of the time they probably will. What happens if they add a customer review feature? These are reasonable questions.

Small businesses cannot pay their accountant in assurances. If the government accepts that a basic small-business website presents little online safety risk, it should put that protection clearly in the law, not as what the minister will determine as low risk and leaving them in limbo. Small size should not excuse a generally high-risk service, but simply having a website should not expose a family business to unnecessary compliance costs. For businesses that remain covered, there must be a simple and proportionate way to comply.

There should also be an independent assessment of the costs before these obligations apply to small businesses, with adequate time for them to understand and prepare, and the guidance must reach people who need it. That means, in Fowler, plain English, translated information and practical examples. We cannot put information on a government website and assume every business owner will find it, understand it and know what to do.

Accountability must also apply to the regulator. The bill would allow the eSafety Commissioner an approved researchers to operate accounts under assumed identities, sometimes called sockpuppet accounts, to investigate whether platforms are complying. I understand why those tools can be useful. Test accounts can help researchers understand what users are being shown and expose failures that might otherwise remain hidden, but, when public officials operate under assumed identities, there must be clear limits and independent scrutiny. An annual public report is a start. I believe the Commonwealth Ombudsman should also oversee the commissioner's use of these accounts with appropriate access to records and regular reporting to parliament. That is not about questioning the intentions of individual officers. It is about ensuring that significant powers are accompanied by meaningful accountability.

The government wants this bill through the House before the Senate committee has finished its inquiry. That committee is due to report on 20 November. That makes it even more important to address these concerns rather than asking Australians to trust that everything will work out. I want to be constructive. The safeguards I'm proposing are intended to improve this bill not defeat its purpose. A clear exemption for low-risk small-business services, proper scrutiny of compliance costs, protection for lawful expression, independent review and oversight. These are reasonable things to ask for.

Parents want their children to be safe. Australians want to speak freely. Small-business owners want to know what is expected of them without another unnecessary burden. We should be able to work towards all three, but, if these concerns are not adequately addressed, I cannot support the bill in its current form, not because I oppose protecting children online but because protecting children and holding big tech accountable should not require us to accept avoidable burdens on family businesses or inadequate safeguards for lawful speech. Protect children, hold big tech to account, respect our freedoms, and make sure a law aimed at global technology companies does not leave the local hairdresser carrying the paperwork.