Google has warned that the federal government's proposed Digital Duty of Care bill could force it to check users' ages and block under-18s from Gmail, Google Drive and other everyday communication services, telling a Senate inquiry the legislation lacks the nuance needed for private communications.
YouTube policy manager Rachel Lord told the inquiry on Monday that a section of the bill designed to protect children from pornography could apply to email and messaging services because it covers any online platform where there is a reasonably foreseeable risk a child could encounter such material, without exemption for tools like Gmail.
The section requires companies, where technically feasible and reasonably practicable, to offer at least two age-check methods and stop anyone not verified as an adult from seeing that material. It does not expressly order the blocking of under-18s from a service, but Google says the lack of an exemption for email and messaging leaves that risk.
The bill, which passed the lower house last month, would require online companies to reduce harm before it occurs, with penalties of up to $109.2 million. Communications Minister Anika Wells wants it passed by year's end, with the duty taking effect 12 months after it becomes law.
Liberal senator Sarah Henderson asked whether Google had warned that Gmail and Google Drive could be forced to introduce age checks and scan private emails, messages and files. Lord replied “correct,” adding that Google was concerned about having to block under-18s.
Lord said privacy had been dropped from the factors companies must weigh when complying with the law, despite its appearance in a draft released in September. “We're a bit confused about why it's been removed,” she said. “There are no protections for Australian privacy when we're talking about what are effectively private communications and private file storage.”
The bill says companies' actions should be judged on factors including security and proportionality, but does not list privacy and says cost must not be considered. Henderson, who called the bill “deeply flawed”, said it would require Google “to conduct mass surveillance of people's emails”.
Lord said Google had raised its concerns with the government and that the bill was “missing the nuance and the detail” needed for private communications and file storage, though she added that Google supported the introduction of a duty of care.
Greens senator Sarah Hanson-Young, whose party secured the inquiry, told TikTok during the hearing that tech companies needed tougher oversight: “We actually need some proper rules in place because your community guidelines clearly aren't cutting it.”
Wells has rejected claims the bill would enable political censorship, telling the National Press Club last month it was “absolutely nothing of the sort”. The government argues the laws would shift responsibility to big tech to reduce harm before it occurs, rather than relying on complaints after the fact.
The committee is due to report by November 20.
Analysis
Why This Matters
- The bill could set a global precedent for how governments regulate online platforms to protect children, potentially affecting how services like Gmail and Google Drive operate in Australia and beyond
- Privacy groups and tech companies argue the law could lead to mass surveillance of private communications, while the government says it is about setting basic safety standards
- The outcome of the inquiry will determine whether the bill passes this year, with implications for the relationship between the Australian government and big tech
Background
The Digital Duty of Care bill is an Australian government proposal to require online platforms to proactively reduce harmful content, including pornography, rather than relying on post-hoc complaints. It passed the lower house last month and is now before a Senate inquiry. The bill has drawn opposition from some Coalition and tech figures who warn it could lead to censorship or overreach, while the government and Greens argue it is needed to hold companies accountable.
Key Perspectives
Google: through Rachel Lord, says the bill could force age checks on email and file storage, risking privacy and blocking under-18s from essential services; supports a duty of care but wants the scope limited to services whose main purpose is distributing pornography
Liberal Senator Sarah Henderson: calls the bill “deeply flawed” and says it would require mass surveillance of emails
Greens Senator Sarah Hanson-Young: says tech companies need tougher oversight and community guidelines are not enough
Communications Minister Anika Wells: rejects claims of political censorship, says the law sets basic safety standards comparable to rules for food and toys
What to Watch
- The Senate committee's report due November 20: it may recommend amendments or passage
- Whether the government agrees to narrow the bill's scope to exclude email and messaging services
- Google and other tech companies' next steps: they may escalate lobbying or prepare legal challenges if the bill passes in its current form
Checked
12 claims in this story checked against 1 source: 12 supported.
Show each claim
- SupportedTeens could be locked out of Gmail under the Australian safety bill, Google warns.WA Today - Latest News: “Teens could be locked out of Gmail under safety bill, Google warns.”
- SupportedGoogle says the proposed bill could force age checks on email and private file storage, raising surveillance concerns.WA Today - Latest News: “Liberal senator Sarah Henderson asked whether Google had warned that Gmail and Google Drive could be forced to introduce age checks and scan private emails, messages and files.”
- SupportedGoogle warned the bill could force it to check users’ ages and block under-18s from Gmail, Google Drive and other everyday communication services.WA Today - Latest News: “one section of the Digital Duty of Care bill could force Google to check users’ ages and block under-18s from “everyday communication services like messaging, email and private file storage”.”
- SupportedLord replied “correct” when asked whether Google had warned about age checks and scanning private emails, messages and files.WA Today - Latest News: “Liberal senator Sarah Henderson asked whether Google had warned that Gmail and Google Drive could be forced to introduce age checks and scan private emails, messages and files. “Correct,” Lord replied”
- SupportedLord said, “We’re a bit confused about why it’s been removed,” referring to privacy being dropped from the factors companies must weigh.WA Today - Latest News: “Lord, who appeared alongside representatives from Meta, Snap and TikTok, said privacy had been dropped from the factors companies must weigh when complying with the law despite its appearance in a draft released in September. “We’re a bit confused about why it’s been removed,” she said.”
- SupportedLord said, “There are no protections for Australian privacy” in relation to private communications and file storage.WA Today - Latest News: ““There are no protections for Australian privacy when we’re talking about what are effectively private communications and private file storage.””
- SupportedHenderson called the bill “deeply flawed” and said it would require Google to “conduct mass surveillance of people’s emails”.WA Today - Latest News: “Henderson, who called the bill “deeply flawed”, said it would require companies such as Google “to conduct mass surveillance of people’s emails”.”
- SupportedLord said the bill was “missing the nuance and the detail” needed for private communications and file storage.WA Today - Latest News: “Lord said Google had raised its concerns with the government, and that the bill was “missing the nuance and the detail” needed for private communications and file storage.”
- SupportedHanson-Young told TikTok, “We actually need some proper rules in place because your community guidelines clearly aren’t cutting it.”WA Today - Latest News: ““We actually need some proper rules in place because your community guidelines clearly aren’t cutting it,” she told TikTok during Monday’s hearing.”
- SupportedWells described claims the bill would enable political censorship as “absolutely nothing of the sort”.WA Today - Latest News: “Wells has rejected claims the bill would enable political censorship, telling the National Press Club last month it was “absolutely nothing of the sort”.”
- SupportedThe bill carries penalties of up to $109.2 million.WA Today - Latest News: “The bill, which passed the lower house last month, would make online companies act to reduce harm before it happens, with penalties of up to $109.2 million.”
- SupportedThe committee is due to report by November 20.WA Today - Latest News: “The committee is due to report by November 20.”