Online safety bill to penalise platforms promoting gender-based violence

Labor's flagship online safety bill will penalise platforms that allow users to advocate gender-based violence, Communications Minister Anika Wells announced as she introduced the revised legislation to parliament.

The bill adds three categories to its list of harmful content: the creation of fake nude material without a person's consent; the posting, or threat of posting, an intimate image without consent; and the encouragement, promotion or incitement of gender-based violence.

The changes follow weeks of backlash from the Coalition and the Greens over the use of ministerial discretion in the draft legislation to determine what is and is not online harm. Powers have now been taken away from the minister.

However, material or conduct that "encourages, promotes, urges or instructs illicit drug use" has been removed from the list of harms. The reason for the removal was not discussed in the bill's explanatory documents nor in Wells' introductory speech to parliament.

Speaking in the House of Representatives on Thursday morning, Wells said: "The core of the digital duty of care is to provide a safe online environment where all Australians are protected from seriously harmful and illegal content. It moves the safety net upstream to the people who design the product to stop the harm before it ever reaches an Australian user."

She added: "It is not about controlling adults online; it is about getting illegal and seriously harmful material offline, and giving adults choice."

Greens communications spokeswoman Sarah Hanson-Young has emerged as the sole gatekeeper for the legislation's passage by the end of the year. She has said major changes are necessary for her party to support the bill, with a Senate inquiry reporting back next month.

Analysis

Why This Matters

The bill would shift legal responsibility for online safety onto the platforms that design digital products, requiring harm prevention "upstream" rather than removal after content appears.
The Greens hold the deciding vote, meaning the final shape of the law depends on negotiations with a party that is pushing to let Australians sue big tech.
The unexplained removal of illicit-drug content from the harms list shows how contested the definition of online harm has become.

Background

The digital duty of care is the centrepiece of the government's online safety agenda, following earlier Australian efforts to regulate social media platforms, including age restrictions and the work of the eSafety Commissioner. The model draws on the idea that companies which design online products should bear a duty to prevent serious harm rather than respond to complaints after publication. The bill has been contentious from draft stage, with both the Coalition and the Greens objecting to ministerial discretion over what counts as harm.

Key Perspectives

Government: Minister Wells says the bill is about protecting Australians from seriously harmful and illegal content, holding platform designers accountable upstream, and giving adults choice rather than controlling them online. Greens: Sarah Hanson-Young has positioned her party as the gatekeeper for the bill's passage, demanding major changes and pushing for Australians to be able to sue big tech under the digital safety overhaul. Coalition and Greens (on ministerial discretion): Both parties criticised the draft's ministerial discretion; the government has responded by stripping those powers and adding the new harm categories. Critics/Skeptics: The removal of illicit-drug promotion from the list, without explanation in the bill's documents or the minister's speech, is likely to draw scrutiny, as is the overall scope of what platforms will be expected to police.

What to Watch

The Senate inquiry report due next month, and whether it triggers further amendments.
Whether the Greens secure a private right of action against platforms in exchange for supporting the bill.
Whether the government meets its target of passing the legislation by the end of the year.

Analysis

Why This Matters

Background

Key Perspectives

What to Watch

Sources