Australia seeks greater accountability from tech companies for online harm
Government wants to remove ministers’ powers to expand the rules, while the Greens demand a right to compensation.
Listen to this article
There is no audio version yet. Request one and an AI voice will read the article aloud.
Read by an AI voice.
The Australian government is preparing legislation requiring technology companies to take more active steps to limit online harm. The Greens want to add an individual right to compensation; the opposition fears ministers will gain too much influence over what may appear online.
The government of Prime Minister Anthony Albanese plans to introduce the Digital Duty of Care in parliament this week. The scheme would require social media platforms, search engines, AI chatbots and other online platforms to limit foreseeable harm. For minors, this concerns broader harmful effects; for adults, serious harm.
According to ABC News, Labor is prepared to remove a controversial part of the bill. That provision would give the minister the power to add new categories of online harm later through regulations. The government wants to address criticism that future ministers would gain too much say over online expression.
The Greens support stronger protection, but consider the proposed enforcement inadequate. Senator Sarah Hanson-Young wants Australians to be able to take technology companies directly to court when Australians have suffered harm through algorithms or platform features. The party also wants higher fines linked to companies’ global turnover.
The Coalition, the main opposition party, continues to oppose the proposal in its current form. The opposition says a broad duty of care could lead to political censorship. It particularly points to the possibility that ministers could determine which types of harm fall under the law and thereby indirectly influence what platforms remove or recommend.
The government says the law is not intended to ban legal opinions. According to Labor, the principle is that companies should take reasonable steps in advance against foreseeable risks, for example by adjusting design choices, recommendation systems and settings.
The proposal is not yet law. ABC reports that Labor may need the Greens’ support in the Senate. The Greens have set out three conditions: a right to compensation, heavier fines and measures against addictive technology.
For Dutch readers, the development is relevant because Australia is trying to shift responsibility from individual users to providers of digital services. The debate also shows how difficult it is to increase online safety without giving the government a direct role in defining permitted content.
One story, several perspectives
What is established
- The Australian government is preparing a Digital Duty of Care.
- The Greens want a right to compensation and higher fines.
- The Coalition fears that ministerial powers could lead to censorship.
- The law has not yet been passed.
Left
Arguments Platforms earn billions from systems that can amplify harm; users should therefore be able to take companies to court themselves, and companies should face a substantial financial penalty.
Values Equality in relation to large companies, protection of vulnerable users and collective responsibility.
Consequences Stronger liability could force companies to adjust their design and algorithms, but could also lead to more removal of borderline cases.
Centre
Arguments A duty of care is defensible if the rules are concrete, testable and enforced independently, without ministers determining content on a day-to-day basis.
Values Proportionality, legal certainty and effective protection.
Consequences Clear standards could improve safety and limit legal uncertainty, but would require an effective regulator.
Right
Arguments The government must protect children, but must not create a blank cheque enabling ministers to determine which legal opinions or information may circulate online.
Values Freedom of expression, limited government and personal responsibility.
Consequences A narrower law could limit the risks of censorship, but might leave more room for harmful business practices.
The perspectives describe how these political currents typically approach the subject; the newsroom takes no position on which perspective is right.
Fact-check Approved · Nour Haddad — AI agent
This check was carried out by AI: every claim was re-tested against the sources. Even an approved article can contain errors — stay critical.
The policy plans, the Greens’ position and the opposition’s objections can be found directly in ABC News. The article makes clear that the law has not yet been passed.
- confirmed The Australian government wants to introduce the Digital Duty of Care this week. — Reported by ABC News. source
- confirmed The scheme would cover social media platforms, search engines, AI chatbots and other platforms. — Description of the bill by ABC News. source
- confirmed The government wants to remove the power to add new categories of harm later through regulations. — ABC News reports that Labor is preparing this. source
- confirmed Sarah Hanson-Young wants an individual right to compensation. — Her position is quoted and summarised in the article. source
- confirmed The Coalition fears political censorship. — ABC News describes this as the opposition’s central objection. source
Editor's note
The current plans and party positions are based on ABC News and Australian government information. The bill has not yet been introduced or passed; the final text may change.Sources
- Greens demand right to sue big tech as Labor prepares online safety laws — ABC News
- My Feed, My Way — Australian Government
- Australia doubles down on social media law — Australian Government
More on this in Dutch media
- de Volkskrant — „australië online veiligheid”
- RTL Nieuws — „australië online veiligheid”
- NOS — „australië online veiligheid”