I rise to speak on the Online Safety Amendment (Digital Duty of Care) Bill 2026. In this House on Monday, Helen Haines's husband, Phil, asked for us to ensure that the horrific attack she endured last week would mean something. The attack on our dear colleague last week brought into sharp focus the toxicity of online environments and the abuse and threats that not only politicians but Australians across the country are facing every day. It shone a spotlight on the intentional stoking of online outrage, grievance and anger by AI algorithms that are designed to drive profits for the tech bro billionaires. Quite simply, outrage sells. This growing online rage is dividing our nation and our communities. As this culture of abusive rhetoric becomes increasingly normalised online, it's now spilling out into the real world. Vulnerable people, people with mental ill health, are being radicalised with a rapidity never before seen and at younger and younger ages. This is not healthy for individuals, and it is not healthy for our nation. As Phil Haines said, we have a choice right now. We can choose to inflame this toxic rhetoric or tame it.

So the introduction and debate of this bill is extremely timely. It presents a critical opportunity to protect Australians from the growing harms of an increasingly toxic and harmful digital world. It is our opportunity to finally hold big tech accountable and put the wellbeing of Australians ahead of the profits of some of the most powerful multinational tech companies in the world. Quite disingenuously, the coalition and One Nation will try to argue that this bill is about restricting freedom of speech and expression. Nothing could be further from the truth. It is, in fact, about putting the power and choice back in the hands of Australians. And, at its heart, this bill is about prevention of harm to Australians. It would place a duty of care on digital platforms to identify and reduce foreseeable online harms. It would require platforms to take reasonable steps to safeguard their users with stronger protections for children and young people. It would also give Australians greater control over what appears in their social media feeds. Importantly, it would strengthen the powers of the eSafety Commissioner and introduce penalties for companies that fail to meet their obligations.

These are important reforms, and I welcome them, but we must ensure this legislation is as strong as possible and does in practice what it is intended to do. For too long we have allowed the big tech companies to operate unfettered and without boundaries we would expect of all other industries. We would never accept children's toys or bikes, for example, being sold without proper safety standards. Yet we've allowed social media platforms into our homes, our schools and our children's bedrooms without demanding the same duty of care. Research shows that 63 per cent of Australian children aged 10 to 17 years were exposed to harmful online content in the previous year and 74 per cent have been exposed at some point in their lives. Exposure to cyberbullying, online abuse, self-harm content and other harmful material is recognised by the eSafety Commissioner and mental health experts as a risk factor contributing to youth mental ill health and suicide risk.

Too often it is shock, outrage and anger that keeps us engaged, so that is what the tech bro algorithms serve up constantly. I see it firsthand. This toxic online culture is getting worse, and it's becoming normalised. People talk in a way they would never do face-to-face. A quick look at my own Facebook page is case in point. Comments say: 'Bullshit clown', 'Look at you. All stupid and shit', 'Stupid bitch'. These are just a handful of the comments I, and so many others here in this House, receive on a regular basis. As a member of parliament, I accept that public scrutiny and robust debate are an important and crucial part of this job. Freedom of political expression is fundamental to our democracy, and we must defend the right to disagree. But intimidation, harassment and abuse should never be the price of participating in public life. It weakens our democracy. Research commissioned by Women for Election found that nine out of 10 female politicians and candidates had received abusive threats online, including those of a sexual nature. Of course, this has a chilling impact on our democracy. Freedom of speech does not mean tech companies should have a free pass to amplify abuse and division for profit.

This bill is not about suppressing legitimate debate or unpopular opinions. It's about making big tech responsible for the systems they design and the harms they can prevent. Nowhere is this responsibility more important than when it comes to our children. Parents across my electorate of Mackellar are deeply concerned about the impact of social media on their kids, and, yes, they're still getting around the limits. A mother of a young girl wrote to me recently. She said she was horrified by the onslaught of violent and misogynistic content across social media, and how these key messages feed back into our community and our schools. Her concern is one I hear repeatedly. Parents are worried about what their children are seeing online. Many children can circumvent that 16-year-old limit and find themselves immersed in an online world that is uncensored and harmful.

We know that young people who spend more than three hours a day on social media face double the risk of mental health problems, including symptoms of depression and anxiety. We know that harmful content, unhealthy comparisons, cyberbullying and sleep disruption can and do affect young people's wellbeing. We know that algorithms can repeatedly expose vulnerable users to material that reinforces their insecurities. Prevention must be at the heart of our response.

Very recent research from the eSafety Commissioner shows that almost 50 per cent of Australian kids have been exposed to offensive, sexist or hurtful content about women and girls, fight videos, dangerous challenges, content encouraging unhealthy eating or exercise, and hate based content targeting identity groups. In 2024, researchers from the University College London examined how TikTok's algorithms delivered misogynistic content to accounts modelled on teenage boys. They found that, after just five days, misogynistic content increased from 13 per cent to 56 per cent of recommended videos. The boys were not necessarily searching for hatred towards women. Some accounts began with interest in fitness, self-improvement or loneliness, but the algorithms increasingly directed them towards content built around anger and resentment towards women. This is deeply disturbing because it demonstrates that young people do not have to actively seek out harmful content to be exposed to it. I have two sons, and, like many parents, I don't want them logging on to social media to watch sports highlights or fitness videos only to be automatically exposed to content that demeans women or promotes harmful ideas about masculinity. This is particularly concerning because adolescence is the time when young people are forming their identities and are highly susceptible to influence. They are learning what healthy relationships look like and developing their understanding of respect, consent and equality.

The consequences of harmful content do not stay on our screens. A recent study conducted by the University of Melbourne found that young men are more likely to hold hostile attitudes to women. Amongst other alarming findings, it found that 24.7 per cent of teenage boys believe that feminism is damaging to society and should be resisted with violence if necessary. Toxic and extreme attitudes are becoming increasingly normalised online and are now spilling into our real-world interactions, including in schools and in classrooms. This is not just an online safety issue anymore. This bill is also about preventing abuse of and violence against women.

We're also seeing the devastating consequences of so-called nudify apps. These AI-powered tools can turn an ordinary photograph of a young person into a sexually explicit image without their knowledge or consent. Girls and young women are overwhelmingly the targets. These images are being used to humiliate, bully, harass and even blackmail children, with devastating consequences for their mental health. In 2025, Australia's eSafety Commissioner took action against nudify services attracting around 100,000 visits a month from Australians. These services had been used to create sexually explicit deepfakes of Australian schoolchildren. This technology is facilitating sexual abuse, and we have a duty to ensure that these companies prevent these types of harm.

The government's proposed My Feed, My Way reforms are a welcome step, allowing people to choose between algorithmically recommended content and the content from the people and pages they choose to follow. Algorithmically recommended content should be opt-in, not opt-out. This is especially important for young people. We cannot expect a child to understand how a sophisticated recommendation system is shaping their emotions, interests and beliefs, and we should not put the entire burden on parents to fight algorithms developed by some of the world's most powerful technology companies.

We must also confront the addictive nature of social media. These platforms are not designed to simply entertain us. Many are deliberately designed to keep us coming back. Infinite scrolling means there is never a natural point to stop. Autoplay delivers the next video before we have decided whether we want to watch it, and notifications draw us back into the app. Likes and comments encourage us to keep checking. There are striking similarities between these techniques and the psychological mechanisms used in poker machines. We regulate poker machines because we understand the dangers of their design and intention. Why should we ignore those same risks with digital platforms? We should not wait until harm has occurred before we act.

Then there's the prolific and violent pornography that our sons and young men are frequently being delivered by AI algorithms and exposed to day in, day out. This has led young people to believe that strangulation is a normal part of sexual relations. This had devastating consequences in my electorate of Mackellar not long ago, with the tragic loss of a beautiful young life recently. Also increasingly commonplace is anoxic brain injury.

The organisation It's time we talked has spent almost two decades working to prevent the harms of pornography on children and young people. It warns of the growing normalisation of sexual strangulation. Amplified messages on social media that portray dangerous sexual practices are contributing to this normalisation. It's time we talked are seeing the consequences of the large-scale promotion of gender inequality, sexual aggression and violence. They are calling for stronger action to prevent the normalisation of harmful sexual practices. They want a regulator with the authority and the tools to hold digital platforms accountable. I support that call. We cannot allow engagement algorithms to help normalise dangerous behaviour while companies evade responsibility for foreseeable risks, and we cannot continue to treat the online world as though it's disconnected from the real one.

But strong obligations must also come with strong accountability. Australians need access to free and independent external dispute resolution when digital platforms fail them. While the bill provides for stronger internal complaints and dispute resolution processes, an internal complaints process alone is not enough. For many Australians, dealing with a large digital platform can feel like shouting into the void. Accounts are hacked, businesses are locked out of platforms they rely on and harmful content is reported but not removed. Complaints are met with automated responses, endless online forms or no meaningful response at all. And when the platform fails to resolve the problem, where does the consumer turn? Too often there's nowhere to go. We should expand the jurisdiction of the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman to cover the digital world. The TIO is an established and trusted scheme. Expanding this model would give Australians a practical avenue for redress, and I will be moving amendments to that effect.

Today's bill is about the kind of world we want to create both online and outside—one where teenagers are manipulated by addictive designs built by teams of engineers or behavioural experts, one where people cannot be targeted simply because outrage, division and engagement are profitable and one where we can engage respectfully and robustly in debate without doing harm. We have a responsibility right now to Helen, to Phil and to all Australians. This is our duty of care, and we must uphold it.

I move the amendment as circulated in my name:

That all words after "House" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:

", whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading:

(1) notes that:

(a) people, small businesses and community organisations need an accessible and affordable avenue for redress when they are in dispute with large digital platforms, including where their accounts are suspended or terminated, or they are otherwise adversely affected by a platform's decisions or conduct;

(b) an independent ombudsman is needed to provide accessible, independent and effective dispute resolution for users of online services; and

(c) there is strong support for expanding the remit of the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman to cover digital platforms, including from the public, consumer advocates, legal and community organisations, academics and parliamentarians; and

(2) calls on the Government to:

(a) require appropriate online service providers, as determined by a legislative instrument, to join and abide by an External Dispute Resolution scheme operated by the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman; and

(b) expand the remit of the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman to establish an Online Services Ombudsman, providing independent, accessible and effective dispute resolution for users of digital services".