Australia advances bill targeting emotional intimacy by AI chatbots

Senate set to weigh private lawsuits, penalties and an ombudsman

Australia’s House of Representatives passed the digital duty of care bill on Wednesday, sending the government’s wider online-safety framework to the Senate. Labor accepted an amendment from crossbencher Kate Chaney that adds certain AI chatbot conduct to the harms platforms would be required to address. The government aims to pass the bill by the end of 2026, but the route through the upper house remains unclear.

The amendment would require platforms to ban “material or conduct that simulates emotional intimacy and encourages or fosters a child’s dependence on it in place of human relationships.” The change followed Prime Minister Anthony Albanese’s warning that children were treating chatbot agents as their “best friend.”

During a Tuesday night address, Albanese again implored the Coalition to consider voting for the bill. Albanese said, “the stories we hear about people identifying a chatbot, a non person as their best friend, should be a huge wake up call for every member of this Parliament to be prepared to act.”

The planned framework would apply new online safety standards to social media, games, apps and chatbots. Labor said it would place “an overarching obligation” on tech platforms “to provide a safe online environment for all Australians” and replace a range of existing online codes and standards with a broader duty-of-care requirement to protect users from certain “harmful” content.

Communications Minister Anika Wells said content that promotes misogyny, terrorism, suicide, self-harm and eating disorders would be captured by the proposed laws. The opposition voted against the bill in the House alongside One Nation. Political opponents accused Labor of an “Orwellian” system of “censorship” and of seeking to influence conversations online; Wells strongly denied the claims.

“If they really care, the test is simple here, they should bring an amendment, not a slogan to ‘kill the bill’,” Wells told ABC radio on Wednesday.

Another Chaney amendment, also accepted by Labor, would require algorithm opt-out features to be “accessible, easy to use” and “prominently available” on platforms. The change responded to concerns that social media companies might offer controls that were small or difficult for users to find.

The bill now moves to the Senate, where it will be debated in coming weeks. The Greens support it, while the Coalition has said it will not vote for it. Labor still appears keen to win the opposition’s support and remains open to amendments. The government hopes to pass the bill by the end of 2026, but its pathway through the upper house remains unclear.

The Greens have set up an inquiry into the laws that is due to report back in late November. Senator Sarah Hanson-Young backed the digital duty of care but called for stronger legislation, including a right for Australians to pursue private legal action against platforms and increased penalties. “Australians also need an external complaints pathway, free from the profit-driven whims of ‘big tech’s’ content moderation,” she said.

Independent MP Sophie Scamps proposed expanding the remit of the telecommunications industry ombudsman to cover social media and AI. Her proposal would provide an external watchdog, let ordinary social media users seek remedies for hacked or inaccessible accounts, including compensation, and allow broader investigations into companies to name and shame them for behaving badly. Labor did not accept the lower-house amendment, Wells declined to support it, and the Greens said they would push for reform in Senate negotiations.

Cynthia Gebert, the telecommunications industry ombudsman, said her office was well placed to carry out such a role. She said watchdog roles are funded by the industries they regulate and that expanding the office’s remit could be financed by big tech.

Gebert supported the bill’s platform obligations while arguing that people need an external route when a platform will not resolve a complaint. “There are some real strengths in the DDOC [digital duty of care] because it’s putting the onus on platforms to make things safe … but I think the area that needs to be strengthened is giving people somewhere to go if they can’t get their complaints resolved with the platform,” she told Guardian Australia.

“It risks leaving Australians in the safe place they are now, where they get automated responses or escalation procedures that don’t go anywhere,” she said. Gebert also said the government should make participation in an ombudsman scheme mandatory for big tech, arguing it would “hold industry to account and drive system improvement.”

She described the gap in the current remit: “The telecommunications industry ombudsman can help with your Telstra account, but we can’t help with your Gmail account. Consumers come to us sometimes and ask, ‘why this, not that?’” Gebert added, “We want to help but don’t have the powers to do so now.”