Australia’s digital duty of care bill would bar AI chatbots from building emotional intimacy with children, adding a new frontier to the country’s online safety regime. The legislation passed the House of Representatives on Wednesday, 28 October, and now moves to the Senate, where it faces scrutiny over penalties, legal rights and the scope of platform obligations.

Key facts at a glance

• The bill passed the lower house and is now before the Senate.
• Amendments from independent MP Kate Chaney, accepted by the government, add certain chatbot conduct to the bill’s list of harms.
• Platforms would have 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 wording covers a child’s dependence on a chatbot, not adults who use AI companions.
• The framework would set new online safety standards for social media, games, apps and chatbots and replace several existing codes with one broader duty of care.
• Social media platforms would have to offer an algorithm opt-out that is accessible, easy to use and prominently available.
• The Coalition and One Nation opposed the bill in the House; the Greens support it but want stronger penalties and a right to sue.
• A Senate inquiry is due to report in late November.
• There is also pressure to turn the telecommunications industry ombudsman into a complaints body for social media and AI, paid for by big tech.

What the chatbot amendment would do

The chatbot rule arrived through amendments from Chaney that the government accepted on Wednesday. The change adds specific chatbot conduct to the bill’s list of harms. Under the wording, platforms would have to prohibit:

material or conduct that simulates emotional intimacy and encourages or fosters a child’s dependence on it in place of human relationships

The provision is carefully limited. It targets a child’s dependence on a chatbot, rather than adults who choose to use AI companions. That distinction matters politically and legally: the bill is not a broad ban on AI companionship, but a child-safety measure aimed at designs and interactions that could pull young users away from human relationships.

The amendment also reflects a growing concern that some AI products are built to sustain engagement rather than simply answer questions. A chatbot can remember personal details, mimic empathy, use flattering language and present itself as endlessly available. For a child, those features may blur the line between a helpful tool and a substitute for friends, family or professional support.

Why lawmakers are focused on emotional dependence

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese made the case for the bill in a speech on Tuesday night and again asked the opposition Coalition to vote for it. He said stories about people identifying a chatbot, a non-person, as their best friend should be a huge wake-up call for every member of parliament to be prepared to act.

His remarks place the chatbot issue inside a wider debate about AI companions and child development. The bill follows concerns abroad about how conversational AI can affect young users, including through prolonged engagement, emotional reliance and exposure to inappropriate content. Australia has already moved to restrict social media access for under-16s, and the chatbot amendment extends that child-safety logic into a newer product category.

Supporters of the approach argue that platforms should not be allowed to engineer intimacy with children in ways that encourage dependence. They point to the vulnerability of young users, the difficulty of parental oversight and the speed at which AI products are being embedded in everyday apps. The bill’s language does not attempt to ban all emotional support features, but it does seek to stop conduct that simulates intimacy and fosters dependence in place of human relationships.

Critics may question how regulators would prove that a chatbot simulated emotional intimacy or encouraged dependence. Enforcement would depend on standards, investigations and platform design choices. Still, the amendment gives the framework a clear signal: child safety obligations are intended to cover not only content such as bullying or harmful material, but also the relational dynamics that products create.

A broader duty of care for online platforms

The bill would establish new online safety standards for social media, games, apps and chatbots. Labor says it places an overarching obligation on platforms to keep Australians safe online. It would replace several existing online codes and standards with one broader duty of care.

That shift is significant because it moves away from a patchwork of specific rules toward a general safety obligation. Platforms would need to assess risks, respond to harms and show how their systems protect users. The model is meant to be flexible enough to cover new products, including AI tools that did not exist when older codes were written.

The bill also requires social media platforms to offer an algorithm opt-out. Another Chaney amendment accepted by the government says that opt-out must be accessible, easy to use and prominently available. The provision responds to concerns that algorithmic feeds can amplify harmful content and keep users engaged in ways they did not choose.

Communications Minister Anika Wells has said the laws would capture content that promotes misogyny, terrorism, suicide, self-harm and eating disorders. That list shows the government’s intention to cover a range of serious online harms, while the chatbot amendment adds a distinct concern about AI-driven emotional dependence among children.

The political fight ahead in the Senate

The Coalition and One Nation voted against the bill in the House. Opponents have accused Labor of building an Orwellian system of censorship, claims Wells has rejected. She said that if opponents really cared, the test was simple: they should bring an amendment, not a slogan to kill the bill.

The Greens support the bill but have set up a Senate inquiry, due to report in late November. They want Australians to be able to sue platforms and want higher penalties. Labor hopes the Senate passes the bill by the end of 2026 and says it is open to amendments.

The Senate stage will test whether the government can hold together support for a broad duty of care while addressing demands for stronger enforcement. The chatbot amendment may attract less controversy than some other parts of the bill, because it is narrowly framed around children. But the wider framework still raises questions about penalties, legal remedies and how far platforms must go to prevent foreseeable harms.

The timing is also tight. A late-November inquiry report would leave a narrow window for negotiations before the end of the year. If the Senate changes the bill, it would need to return to the House, adding further pressure to the legislative calendar.

Pressure for a big tech ombudsman

Labor is also under pressure to make the telecommunications industry ombudsman a complaints body for social media and AI. Independent MP Sophie Scamps proposed the change, which Labor did not accept in the lower house. The Greens will push for it in the Senate.

The ombudsman, Cynthia Gebert, said her office could take on the role, paid for by big tech. She noted that the office can help with a phone account but cannot help with an email account, highlighting the gap between traditional telecommunications complaints and the platforms where many online harms now occur.

The proposal would give users a clearer route for complaints about social media and AI services. Supporters argue that a dedicated ombudsman could handle disputes at low cost, identify systemic problems and force platforms to respond. Opponents may see it as another layer of regulation, but the idea has gained traction as lawmakers look for practical remedies beyond broad safety duties.

The bill’s journey through the Senate will therefore involve more than the chatbot amendment. It will test the government’s willingness to accept stronger penalties, legal rights and new complaint mechanisms. The Senate inquiry is due to report in late November, leaving the government a narrow window to negotiate amendments and secure passage by the end of 2026.

Source:TNW | Au News