Every parent wants to believe that when they send their child out into the world, that child will be safe. Every parent knows the fear of not being able to protect them from everything the world might throw at them. That used to mean waiting with bated breath on the porch, as the sun came down, for them to ride in on their bike. But the world our children are growing up in has changed. Their lives extend far beyond the school gate, the local park or the sidelines of a weekend sport.

The online world is now woven into how children learn, socialise and come to understand themselves, who they are and the world around them. But that connection comes with risks. Through social media, online games and other digital platforms, children can be exposed to harmful content, online bullying and dangerous influences that can affect their safety and wellbeing. It has quietly slipped into their pockets and into their bedrooms. We cannot leave parents on the digital front line to fight by themselves.

The companies that design and profit from these platforms must take responsibility for the harm their services can cause. If big tech can spend billions of dollars to get you hooked on an algorithm that keeps you coming back for more, it is not too much to ask for those same companies to keep you safe from harm. The question is not whether children should be able to participate in the digital world. It is whether the companies shaping that world should be required to take greater responsibility for the harm their services can cause. If you build it, you have to be responsible for it. The Online Safety Amendment (Digital Duty of Care) Bill 2026 builds on our social media minimum age reforms by setting clearer expectations for online services, requiring them to take a more proactive approach to safety and giving Australians greater choice over their online experiences.

I think about this issue not only as a member of parliament, but also as a parent. My daughter is three years old. She is at an age when the world is full of things to discover every day—questions to ask and new experiences to explore. Like any parent, I want her to grow up with the freedom to learn, to make friends, to develop her interests and to find her own place in this world and in this country. I also want her to grow up in a society that takes her safety seriously. Technology will continue to change, and the online world she encounters as a teenager will almost certainly look different from the one that we know today. I hope that is because of a Labor government introducing a digital duty of care.

We have the opportunity to set a clear standard for the world that she'll grow up in. Companies that profit from digital services must take responsibility for the harm they cause. This is not a new concept at all. In the 18th and 19th centuries, unscrupulous bakers used to put chalk and sawdust in bread to thicken it out—to make more of it. That doesn't happen anymore, and it doesn't happen because we have standards, because there are rules and because those who made the bread needed to be accountable for it. We see those standards in every facet of our lives, from cars to manufacturing and retail.

This is the extension of that into the digital world. These platforms are not neutral spaces that live in a vacuum. Companies make decisions about what appears in a feed, what gets recommended next, how long people are encouraged to stay online and how easily they can report abuse. Those decisions shape people's experiences. Harmful material can affect how young people see themselves and others. Features that encourage prolonged engagement can interfere with sleep, and online bullying can follow a child beyond that school gate; it can follow them home. Adults, too, can experience threats, harassment and the non-consensual sharing of intimate images. These are not problems that can be solved simply by telling people to log off. That's not how the world works. We need to address the risks at their source, where digital platforms have the capacity to prevent harm.

This government has shown that it's prepared to act. In December last year, the Albanese Labor government introduced Australia's social media minimum age law, setting a minimum age of 16 for accounts on covered platforms. Since then, more than five million underage accounts have been removed, restricted or deactivated. A YouGov survey earlier this year found encouraging figures among 13- to 15-year-olds. Thirty per cent reported more time playing sport, 27 per cent reported better sleep, online bullying was down by nine per cent, and exposure to inappropriate and violent content fell by 18 per cent. You don't have to listen to what is happening; it's there in the numbers.

These results ask us to answer a bigger question: what kind of childhood do we want our children to have in Australia? One where they face constant threats from an ever-present digital world? Or one where they have more time to play, better sleep and less exposure to harm? The social media minimum-age law was an important first step. But protecting young Australians online means going further than just setting that age limit. We must also address how digital services operate, the content they promote and the features they use to keep people engaged. The eSafety Commissioner is already investigating whether major platforms are meeting their existing obligations. We must ensure that those obligations are enforced while building on that work to make online services safer by design, day by day. That is the next step: a digital duty of care that requires digital services to take greater responsibility for preventing harm.

The purpose of this bill is pretty straightforward. The bill will establish basic safety standards for online services, including social media platforms, online games and AI chatbots. Services will have a positive obligation to protect Australians from seriously harmful and illegal material and conduct and to protect people under 18 from material conduct and features that are harmful to young people. The bill shifts that focus towards prevention, stopping harm in its tracks before it becomes a reality.

Providers will need to assess risks associated with their service's features and put systems in place to prevent harm, including through annual risk assessments. In other words, companies should not have to wait until someone is harmed before asking whether a feature is safe. They should be considering those risks when they design their services and when they decide how those services should work. What is the impact on our young people? What is the impact on people streaming on their services? We expect manufacturers to consider product risks and to act when they identify those problems. Digital services should not be exempt from that basic principle that has been around for a very long time. The bill strengthens protections for young Australians against content that promotes eating disorders, glorifies crime or dangerous stunts, causes serious distress, or encourages hostility towards women and gender equality.

We want young Australians to learn, connect and participate online, but not at any cost, and not in an environment where harmful material circulates without safeguards, where seatbelts have never been required to be installed. The bill also addresses design features that can encourage children to stay online late into the night and to lose sleep. This is not about eliminating every risk; it is about requiring technology companies to take reasonable, proactive steps to reduce the harm that we know is happening.

The bill also empowers the eSafety Commissioner to take action against apps and websites that are predominantly designed or used to generate fake nude material. These so-called nudify services can be used to create intimate images of people without their consent. The consequences for those targeted can be deeply distressing. Services designed to facilitate this kind of abuse shouldn't be able to operate without meaningful consequences. The bill reduces the required response time for cyberbullying and abuse complaints from 48 hours to 24 hours and empowers the eSafety Commissioner to set minimum standards for platforms' internal complaints and dispute-resolution processes. It also allows the commissioner to use covert accounts to test compliance and enables university accredited researchers to access online safety data. This helps assess services' performance rather than relying solely on what the companies say.

The bill is also about giving people more choice. Through the My Feed, My Way initiative, social media services will be required to give Australians aged 16 and over a choice about the primary feed they seek. People will be able to choose a feed based on the pages and the people they follow, rather than relying only on algorithmically recommended material. Those who prefer personalised recommendations should also have choices about what they see. In my household, my partner, Mark, doesn't tell me what I can watch on television. Why should I let Mark Zuckerberg tell me what I can scroll on my phone if I don't want to? This is not about the government deciding what adults should think, what they should read or what they should watch. It is about giving people greater control over their online experience while requiring services to take responsibility for serious harm. In short, this ain't about freedom of speech; it's about freedom from harm.

Obligations mean nothing if there are no consequences for failing to meet them. Under this bill, failure to comply with the digital duty of care can attract penalties of up to $109.2 million. That is substantial—and appropriately so. Online safety obligations are serious legal responsibilities because they not only affect our kids, our young people and every Australian but impact on our society as a whole. At the same time, strong safety standards must have clear boundaries. The government has listened to concerns raised during consultation and made changes to the bill. Protecting people from serious harm is not the same as censoring legitimate debate. There is a difference between expressing unpopular opinion and threatening someone with violence, just as there is a difference between lawful discussion and the non-consensual creation of intimate images. We can uphold freedom of expression while requiring companies to take reasonable steps to address those serious risks. For the bill itself, as it progresses, we should consider genuine improvements constructively while keeping its purpose in view.

The question is whether we are prepared to establish reasonable standards and hold big tech accountable. I believe that we are right to do so. Australians have strengthened safety standards in workplaces; we've strengthened safety standards in cars and in everyday products. The social media minimum age law was an important step in online safety, and the digital duty of care is the next. It puts Australia at the forefront, as a world leader in this space, and we watch as the rest of the globe looks to us for that leadership. It will require online platforms to assess risks, prevent harm, protect young people, respond quicker to complaints and give users greater choice. Most importantly, it makes clear that responsibility for online safety cannot rest with parents alone. We must hold the companies creating these platforms to account.