Digital Duty of Care Bill Update: What Changed

The Digital Duty of Care Bill Is Now Before Parliament: What Changed, What Critics Still Fear and How to Have Your Say

Last month, we looked at the exposure draft of the government’s digital duty of care law. Since then, the proposal has moved from draft to bill. The Online Safety Amendment (Digital Duty of Care) Bill 2026 was introduced into the House of Representatives on 15 October, and it has been sent to a Senate committee.

A recent commentary on The Daily Declaration by Senator Alex Antic, republished from his website, says that despite some minor amendments, the Bill still poses an alarming threat to free speech, empowers covert online surveillance, and imposes burdensome regulation on Australian businesses. He urges readers to help “defeat this Bill.”

This post is a follow-up. It looks at what has changed between the draft and the bill, assesses each of Senator Antic’s three main concerns, sets out what supporters say, and suggests how Christians can take part in the process. We’ve drawn on law-firm analyses, the Government’s own summary and independent commentary, and we encourage readers to read the Bill themselves.

Where the Bill Stands

According to reporting from RadioInfo, The Conversation, law firms and parliamentary tracking:

• Introduced on 15 October 2026. Communications Minister Anika Wells introduced the Bill into the House of Representatives, and it was referred to the Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee, with a report reportedly due on 20 November 2026. Readers should check the committee’s website for the submission deadline and current timetable.
• The core idea is unchanged. It repeals and replaces Part 2 of the Online Safety Act 2021 to introduce an overarching duty on online service providers to provide a safe online environment. Providers must conduct regular written risk assessments, take reasonable measures to mitigate risks, and manage the design features of their service, including offering user empowerment tools required by the Minister through legislative instrument. Existing industry codes and standards would be repealed 12 months after Royal Assent.
• Penalties. Civil penalties of up to about $109 million apply to body corporates.
• Extra powers. The Bill gives the eSafety Commissioner a targeted power to remove access to apps and websites predominantly designed or used for generating fake nude images of a person, and provides powers for the Commissioner and approved researchers to use pseudonymous accounts, commonly called “sock puppet” accounts, on regulated services.
• A significant change. Ms Wells has indicated that, if new categories of harm are to be added, this will now be done by Parliament passing amendments to the law. In the exposure draft, the Minister had broad delegated powers to expand the scope of harms and services. This addresses one of the main objections raised in consultation, and it’s a change that critics acknowledge.
• The “My Feed, My Way” feature (the choice of a chronological feed for users aged 16 and over) remains part of the Government’s package, with consultation on the feed-choice rules reportedly continuing.

So the Bill has been modified. The question is whether the changes go far enough.

Senator Antic’s Three Concerns

1. “Sock puppet” accounts and covert surveillance

Senator Antic says the Bill would allow the eSafety Commissioner’s office to create “sock puppet” identities that could be used to covertly monitor content on social media platforms, interact with other accounts and generate material using AI. In his view, the office could run secret tests and conduct investigations, not just observe.

What the Bill says, as reported. The Government’s summary confirms that it provides powers for the Commissioner and approved researchers to use pseudonymous accounts on online services regulated by the Act. We haven’t seen the full text of the safeguards, so the limits on what the accounts can be used for, who can use them, and what oversight applies are not clear to us.

The case for. Supporters argue that regulators and researchers can’t assess platform risks, such as how a recommender system treats a teenage account, or what a child is shown, without testing the system as a user would see it. Pseudonymous accounts are a standard research method, and similar powers are used by police in some contexts.

The case for concern. Critics worry about interaction with real users and about how data collected from those interactions is used. They would say that powers of this kind should come with clear limits, independent oversight, a ban on entrapment-style activity and transparency about how they’re used. The more the accounts are used to engage with the public and not just to observe system behaviour, the stronger the objection.

It’s a legitimate question to put to the committee: what exactly can these accounts do, and what are the limits?

2. “Serious harm” and the risk of over-removal

Senator Antic says the concept of “serious harm” remains vague, and that anything the eSafety Commissioner decides “may cause serious harm to children” must be restricted, which “could mean pretty much anything.”

What has changed. Under the Government’s amendment, new categories of harm will be added by Parliament, not by ministerial instrument. That’s a meaningful improvement, since it means the list of harms is subject to parliamentary debate.

What remains. Experts quoted in The Conversation raised another concern: that online service providers might overreact to the duty by demoting or removing public-interest content, such as education about illicit drug use and sexual health. The Human Rights Law Centre, which welcomed the exposure draft as a significant step, has urged amendments to protect political communication and participation. A concern that platforms will err on the side of removal, particularly where penalties are heavy and definitions are broad, applies to religious speech, political commentary and other lawful expression.

A fair question. How are the harm categories defined? Do they include a protection for lawful, good-faith religious and political expression? What appeal rights do users have when content is restricted? Those questions are worth putting to the committee, whichever side one takes on the Bill.

3. The breadth of “online service”

Senator Antic argues that the definition of “online service” is so broad that it could capture over a million Australian businesses, requiring them to produce annual online safety risk assessments in the same way as large platforms like X and Meta.

What law firms say. Analyses by firms such as Allens note that the definition is broad and that the draft contained no general small-business carve-out, adding that it’s not a reform targeted solely at big platforms. The duty is expressed as requiring providers to take measures “so far as reasonably practicable,” which suggests that obligations should scale to the size, risk and nature of a service.

The figure. The “million businesses” number is the Senator’s estimate, and we haven’t been able to verify it. What can fairly be said is that any business with a website, app, comment function, messaging tool or online store could potentially fall within the definition, and that the compliance burden, particularly for small operators, is an issue that deserves attention. Churches and charities with online communities, forums or livestreams may also want to look carefully at how the definition applies to them.

A sensible request. Small businesses, community groups and churches could ask the committee for a clear, workable exemption or a proportionate standard for low-risk services.

What Supporters Say

For balance, here are the points made by supporters of the Bill:

• Protecting children. The Government says the Bill puts the onus on big tech to proactively reduce harms before they occur, and compares the duty to existing safety standards for cars, toys and food.
• Responding to real harms. The power to remove nudify apps is a targeted response to a form of abuse that has caused serious distress, particularly to girls and young women.
• Learning from consultation. The shift of harm categories to Parliament shows the Government listened to feedback, and supporters argue that further improvements can be made through the Senate process.
• Expert support. Many experts welcomed the overall proactive approach, including the Human Rights Law Centre, which supported the shift to a systems-based duty while urging stronger protections for democratic participation.
• User control. Giving people a choice between algorithmic and chronological feeds is a modest step that many users want.

A Christian Lens

The principles we set out in our earlier post still apply.

• Protect the vulnerable. Matthew 18:6 and Psalm 101:3 express a deep concern for children and what they’re exposed to. Christians shouldn’t be indifferent to online harms.
• Limit and check power. First Samuel 8:10–18 and Ecclesiastes 5:8 warn of the dangers of unchecked authority. Powers to monitor, restrict and investigate should be clearly defined, proportionate, and subject to oversight.
• Truthfulness and fairness. Exodus 23:1 forbids spreading false reports, and Proverbs 11:1 values honest scales. That applies to both sides of this debate: supporters and critics should describe the Bill accurately.
• Freedom of conscience and speech. Acts 4:19–20 and 5:29 show the apostles insisting on the freedom to speak about Jesus. Religious communities have a particular interest in ensuring that lawful teaching and worship aren’t swept up in broad regulation.
• Wisdom. Proverbs 15:22 says plans fail for lack of counsel. A law that affects every Australian’s online life deserves wide consultation and careful drafting.
• Our own responsibility. Laws can’t replace parenting and discipleship. Deuteronomy 6:6–9 and Ephesians 6:4 remind us that the primary responsibility for guiding children lies with families and faith communities.

Our Take

Here’s where we’d like to add some commentary.

1. Acknowledge the improvement.

The move to have Parliament, not the Minister, add new categories of harm answers one of the most serious objections to the draft. It’s right to say so, even if one still has concerns.

2. Focus on specifics.

“Defeat the Bill” and “pass the Bill” are slogans. The real work is in the clauses: the definition of serious harm, safeguards for lawful speech, limits on sock puppet powers, proportionality for small services and the rights of appeal. Constructive submissions that address specifics are more likely to make a difference.

3. Don’t assume bad faith.

Supporters want to protect children, and critics want to protect freedom. Both goals are legitimate. The best outcome is a law that does both.

4. Take the small-business point seriously.

Burdens on small operators, churches and charities are a practical concern, regardless of one’s views on the Bill’s purpose. It’s reasonable to ask for clarity.

5. Ask about oversight.

Powers of covert monitoring and content restriction need independent oversight, transparency and accountability. Any government should be willing to accept that.

6. Verify claims.

The “million businesses” figure and some of the descriptions of the Bill’s powers are claims that haven’t been independently confirmed. We’d encourage readers to read the Bill and explanatory memorandum.

7. Stay engaged and prayerful.

Christians can contribute to this process with knowledge, calm and respect, and with prayer for those who make the decisions.

How to Have Your Say

• Read the Bill and the Explanatory Memorandum on the Parliament of Australia website.
• Check the Senate committee’s page for the inquiry into the Bill, including the submission deadline and hearing dates.
• Make a short, specific submission if you can, focusing on one or two issues you know well: for example, the effect on a church, a small business, a school or a family.
• Contact your senators and MP with respectful, specific questions.
• Join with others. Churches, charities and business groups can make joint submissions.
• Pray for wisdom for the committee and Parliament.

If You or Someone You Know Needs Support

If you or a young person you care about is struggling with online content, self-harm or an eating disorder, help is available. In Australia, Kids Helpline (1800 55 1800) supports young people aged 5 to 25, Lifeline is available any time on 13 11 14, and eSafety provides resources and a way to report harmful content at esafety.gov.au. In an emergency, call 000.

Questions to Reflect On

• What kind of online environment do I want for the children in my life?
• Where would I draw the line between protecting people from harm and protecting freedom of speech?
• Do I know enough about the Bill to form a view, or am I relying on slogans?
• Would my church, charity or small business be affected, and how?
• Who could I encourage to take part in the consultation?

A Short Prayer

Lord, you are the Shepherd who watches over the young and the vulnerable. We pray for wisdom for the senators who will examine this Bill, and for those who drafted it. Protect children from harm, and protect the freedom to speak, to worship and to share the good news. Keep those in authority humble and accountable, and give us courage to speak up with truth and gentleness. Teach us to guard our own hearts and homes, and to use technology for good. Amen.