Labor is open to a key Greens demand to let individuals and class actions sue big tech companies over harm caused by their platforms, Communications Minister Anika Wells has revealed.
Ms Wells acknowledged the success of “private right of action” laws in the US in pushing tech companies to make their platforms safer, and said it was an option she would consider during negotiations over Labor’s Digital Duty of Care laws.
The revised legislation was introduced to Parliament on Wednesday after several changes were made following consultation on an exposure draft released in early September.
Labor will need to negotiate with either the crossbench or the Coalition to get the laws through the Senate.
The Greens and Coalition have vowed to push for a Senate inquiry before the final sitting week in late November, with Greens senator Sarah Hanson-Young setting November 20 as the committee’s reporting deadline.
Addressing the National Press Club on Wednesday, Ms Wells urged parliamentarians to put politics aside, arguing the laws could become a “proud Australian achievement” regardless of which government delivered them.
“In time, nobody will remember my name, or the politics of the day on which MPs and Senators walked into the chamber and voted on this bill. They’ll only remember whether we got it right,” she said.
While Labor could shift on some of the Greens’ key demands, Ms Wells also revealed the Coalition had reached out to engage with her on the legislation.
It comes after shadow communications minister Sarah Henderson attacked the Bill at a conservative forum in Brisbane at the weekend, describing it as a Labor “Trojan Horse” to “impose political censorship”.
Her concerns about freedom of speech were echoed by One Nation leader Pauline Hanson and outspoken American political activist Michael Shellenberger.
Ms Wells dismissed the critics as the “yeah … but brigade” and hecklers, insisting the Bill was not “a stepping stone for regulating misinformation and disinformation”.
“If adults listen to manosphere podcasts, or people post their views about the Government, or make memes, or want to say the moon landing was fake — they can continue to do so without restriction.
“We are not controlling free speech. And we are not conducting covert surveillance.”
One of the main points of contention is a provision allowing the eSafety Commissioner and researchers to create “sock puppet accounts” — false online identities used to investigate platforms undercover.
Ms Wells said the accounts were crucial to allowing online safety experts to test how tech companies complied with the laws.
“In many cases, the only way eSafety or researchers can examine those questions is to create a test account as a 14-year-old for the purpose of investigation,” she said.
“These provisions simply make that lawful and the evidence they collect usable. Australian researchers used sock puppets to show how they responded to complaints about eating disorder content on their platforms.”
Ms Wells rejected suggestions a government could use the provision to create multiple undercover accounts to spread propaganda online.
“I would say it is just absolutely nothing of the sort,” she said.
Ms Wells said that eSafety and accredited researchers wanted the protections so they could conduct investigations in Australia, rather than operate from overseas without legal cover, and use the evidence they gathered in compliance and enforcement action.
Under Labor’s plan, tech companies would be required to proactively protect users from online harm.
A centrepiece of the legislation is the “My Feed, My Way” initiative, which would give users the choice to opt out of algorithm-driven feeds served up by tech companies.
Ms Wells and Prime Minister Anthony Albanese have proposed sending users a push notification asking what type of feed they prefer.
But the proposal falls short of advocates’ calls for a default non-algorithmic feed, which would require users to actively opt in to personalised recommendations.
Unlike the social media ban for under-16s, the digital duty of care would cover a broad range of digital providers, including messaging and gaming platforms, search engines, app stores, generative AI models and chat forums.
Tech giants could be required to remove harmful content, conduct regular safety audits and be more transparent about data collection and algorithms.