What happened in Canberra on October 12
The government is preparing to introduce a Digital Duty of Care for online platforms, with parliamentary debate intensifying on October 12, 2026. The proposal aims to make companies responsible for reducing foreseeable risks associated with their online products, rather than relying only on people to report abuse after it happens. The Greens want a direct route for affected users to seek compensation and stronger financial penalties. Coalition figures warn that broadly drafted powers could threaten lawful expression. At this stage, the government proposal is not a completed law; Australians cannot assume every planned feature is already available in a platform's settings.
Why the policy covers more than children's accounts
A duty of care is about how services are designed and operated. The draft approach asks covered companies to identify foreseeable problems, maintain suitable safeguards and respond to serious harm. Social-media providers, certain search services and other digital products can create different risks, so the exact legal definitions are important. The debate includes children's safety but is not simply a repeat of Australia's social-media age restrictions. For adults, the boundary between harm and lawful disagreement will need clear legislative language. A promise that the new law will eliminate every offensive post or every scam would go far beyond what any regulatory system could guarantee.
Will you be able to turn off the feed algorithm?
One prominent issue is whether users should be able to opt out of content recommendations that are selected by ranking algorithms. The Greens already introduced a separate Fix Our Feeds bill in April 2026, and Parliament lists that measure as before the Senate. The government's forthcoming package may take a different approach. An opt-out might offer a feed based on accounts followed rather than suggested material, but it would not necessarily disable spam filtering, search relevance or every automated system. No one should present the feature as a universal legal right until the final legislation and its commencement rules are known.
The fight about a right to compensation
The Greens' October 12 statement calls for users harmed by platforms to have a private right of action. Advocates argue that the possibility of legal compensation could make large companies respond more effectively to serious problems and inaccessible complaints systems. Critics may raise questions about evidence, costly litigation and whether the law would encourage excessive removal of lawful material. This is separate from existing powers of the eSafety Commissioner. No automatic compensation fund has been established by the proposal, and websites claiming to register immediate payments under the new law should be treated with caution.
Why fines and company size matter
Discussion has included penalties around A$100 million, while the Greens argue for fines tied to a percentage of global company revenue. Their position is that a fixed maximum may have little deterrent value for the largest firms. Government and opposition arguments also focus on which conduct regulators could penalise and how decisions might be challenged. A proposed ceiling is not a fine already imposed on Meta, Google or another specific operator. Enforcement would require a legal obligation, evidence of a breach and the relevant procedural safeguards. Smaller websites should not assume they face identical obligations without checking the final scope.
The free-expression argument is serious
The Coalition has opposed elements of the proposed framework, saying ministerial powers over categories of harm could invite censorship. Reporting on October 12 indicated the government might drop a controversial provision enabling a minister to expand those categories through regulation. Supporters of the duty counter that platforms must take reasonable responsibility for foreseeable abuse and risks, especially to children. Both positions raise legitimate design questions: who decides what counts as harm, how are decisions reviewed, and can affected users appeal? A responsible law must distinguish safety standards from arbitrary suppression of lawful political or personal speech.
Existing actions Australians can take now
People do not need to wait for Parliament to use existing privacy controls, account-security settings and platforms' complaints procedures. Depending on the case, eSafety offers current reporting mechanisms for certain categories of online abuse. Preserve evidence where safe, including dates, screenshots and complaint reference numbers, and avoid reposting prohibited or harmful material unnecessarily. If a person is facing an immediate threat, emergency support is more important than following a future civil-law proposal. A user who loses access to an account should check official appeal processes rather than submit passwords or identity documents to unsolicited claim services.
What happens before this becomes law
The government's exposure draft was published in September, followed by consultation. The revised package is expected in Parliament during the week beginning October 12, but party negotiations may change important clauses. Watch the formal bills register for the exact wording, parliamentary amendments and commencement provisions. Passage through both houses and the necessary approval steps cannot be assumed. Technology companies should not advertise unverified legal compliance features, and readers should not treat media predictions as enacted statutory rights. Detailed guidance is most reliable after the final bill and regulator instructions are published.
Five practical questions answered
Is the Digital Duty of Care already in force? No, the October discussions concern pending legislation. Have the Greens proposed compensation rights? Yes, that is part of their stated negotiating position. Will all algorithms be banned? No such general prohibition is established. Can platforms already be fined automatically under this new framework? No. Why do politicians disagree? Supporters emphasise protection and accountability, while critics focus on legal clarity and expression. What can users do today? Use existing safety settings, reporting channels and eSafety guidance. These distinctions prevent readers from mistaking a developing policy debate for a finished product feature.