Sydney: Australia's internet safety regulator has rejected warnings from major technology companies that a proposed online safety law could lead to excessive censorship and restrict freedom of expression, saying she has seen no evidence of widespread over moderation by technology platforms.
Julie Inman Grant, Australia's eSafety Commissioner, made the comments during a Senate inquiry examining the proposed Digital Duty of Care legislation. The bill seeks to make online service providers more responsible for identifying and preventing serious harm on their platforms.
Inman Grant said she had not seen evidence of widespread over moderation by technology companies, particularly over the past two years. She argued that digital platforms have business models built around maximising user engagement rather than removing large amounts of content.
However, she acknowledged that clearer definitions of harmful material would help regulators enforce the proposed rules. She also pointed to problems with automated content moderation systems, which can remove material without sufficient human oversight.
The legislation has drawn criticism from major technology companies, including Google, Meta, TikTok and Snap. They have warned that unclear legal requirements and the possibility of heavy financial penalties could encourage platforms to remove lawful content to avoid regulatory action.
The companies are particularly concerned that the proposed law could give regulators broad powers to determine what online material should be restricted. They argue that this could affect legitimate discussions and limit the ability of users to express their views freely.
Google has raised additional concerns about the possible impact of age assurance requirements. Rachel Lord, the company's head of policy for Australia and New Zealand, warned that the proposed rules could affect services such as Gmail, messaging platforms and private file storage if they are required to introduce age checks.
Google argued that such requirements could lead to intrusive monitoring of private communications and personal information. However, the company has not announced that Gmail will be restricted for Australian children. Its concerns relate to the possible consequences of how the proposed rules are interpreted and enforced.
The proposed Digital Duty of Care legislation is intended to require online service providers to take proactive steps to prevent serious online harm rather than relying mainly on removing harmful material after complaints are received.
The framework covers a range of online services, including social media platforms, online games and artificial intelligence chatbots. It also includes measures aimed at protecting children from harmful online content and features.
The proposed rules would give the eSafety Commissioner additional powers to issue removal notices against applications and websites designed or mainly used to generate fake nude images. They would also require certain platforms to respond to cyberbullying complaints within 24 hours, compared with the existing 48 hour requirement.
Companies that fail to meet their obligations could face financial penalties of up to A$109.2 million.
The legislation also seeks to give users greater control over the content they see online. Under the proposed measures, users would be able to choose between personalised algorithm recommendations and content from accounts and pages they follow.
However, the regulator has also identified areas where the proposed legislation could be strengthened. In a submission to the parliamentary inquiry, Inman Grant suggested combining the broad duty of care requirement with more specific and enforceable obligations for online platforms.
Her proposal aims to establish clearer minimum standards for technology companies while allowing regulators to take action when services fail to meet their responsibilities.
The proposal has raised questions about whether the bill needs more specific and enforceable requirements alongside its broader duty of care provisions. While some critics have described the regulator's recommendations as evidence of weaknesses in the bill, the eSafety Commissioner's office has said they are intended to strengthen the proposed framework.
The Law Council of Australia has also raised concerns about the legislation, particularly the broad definitions of harmful content and the potential impact on freedom of expression. The legal body supports efforts to improve online safety but has called for greater clarity and proportionality in the rules.
The debate also includes questions about whether individuals should be allowed to take legal action against technology companies that fail to meet their online safety obligations. The Greens have supported such a provision, arguing that individuals should have a direct way to seek legal remedies. Technology companies have questioned the need for additional legal action when regulatory complaint mechanisms already exist. The government has not made a final decision on the proposal.
The proposed legislation builds on Australia's existing Online Safety Act 2021 and follows a wider government effort to strengthen protections against online harm. It is separate from the country's social media minimum age legislation, which requires covered platforms to take reasonable steps to prevent children under 16 from holding accounts.
The Digital Duty of Care bill passed the House of Representatives on October 28, 2026, following amendments. It is now being examined by the Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee.
The committee is expected to report its findings by November 20. Its recommendations could influence whether the legislation is amended before the Senate considers its passage.
The Australian government wants the bill to pass before the end of 2026, but it still needs sufficient support in the Senate.
The debate highlights the challenge facing governments as they attempt to protect children and other internet users from online harm while ensuring that new regulations do not unnecessarily restrict privacy, lawful communication and freedom of expression.