Anika Wells opens door to lawsuits against big tech companies

Labor is open to giving Australians the right to sue tech companies for online harms under new digital safety laws and has questioned why the Coalition would "deal themselves out" of talks.

Communications Minister Anika Wells said the federal government would contemplate a Greens proposal to give individuals the right to take legal action against the platforms as she pushed back on claims the digital duty of care could be misused for political censorship.

Labor has scrapped proposed controversial ministerial powers to designate additional harms and bolstered protections for journalistic content, but the Coalition remains opposed to the bill.

The government has added three harm categories, including the creation of fake nude material, to the proposal, which has been sent to a Senate inquiry due to report back before parliament rises at the end of November.

In an address to the National Press Club today, Ms Wells said the duty 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," she said.

Earlier, Ms Wells introduced the legislation to parliament that would require online services to take reasonable steps to protect underage users from harmful content and features, while platforms would have to limit adults' exposure to "serious harms".

The bill would also pave the way for regulation to give Australians over the age of 16 the option to turn off algorithmic recommendations on their social media feeds.

Coalition calls bill a 'dog's breakfast'

Ms Wells said she was "confident" Labor could get the bill through the Senate, describing the Coalition's hostility to the proposal as "puzzling" given its past support of online safety measures.

"It's on them to explain why they would want to deal themselves out of a law that is either the next logical step in a proud bipartisan history of online safety or, if this is so reprehensible, but they know that the Greens are supportive of the principles [and] want to see it amended, why they would deal themselves out of anything that might improve the bill," she said.

Shadow Communications Minister Sarah Henderson said the bill was a "dog's breakfast" and took issue with what she described as "vague" definitions of harms.

"We think this is a dangerous step in the wrong direction and this bill cannot be supported," she said.

The Coalition has repeatedly warned the bill would limit free speech and enable government control of what people could see and say online.

But one of Senator Henderson's complaints about the latest draft was the broad exemption for material in the "public interest" to be published.

"What does material in the public interest mean?" she said.

Wells dismisses 'sock puppet' criticism

The bill would allow the eSafety Commissioner and accredited researchers to set up fake "sock puppet" accounts to observe and test whether online platforms were complying with their duties.

The regulator would be required to develop policies in consultation with the Australian Federal Police and report annually on their use, while university researchers would have to obtain ethics approval.

But the Senator Henderson suggested the fake accounts would be allowed to "crawl" the internet and gain unchecked access to real users.

Ms Wells said there was "absolutely nothing of the sort" permitted in the bill.

"I don't know how to be more emphatic," she said.

"It doesn't exist. It is not possible."

Ms Wells said it was not "tenable" to argue the independent regulator would be "trying to spread government propaganda" rather than shut down pro-terror or eating disorder content going to young Australians.

Greens seek tougher penalties, right to sue

Ms Wells signalled that Labor would consider a proposal put forward by the Greens that would allow private citizens to sue tech companies, including, potentially, through class action lawsuits.

"I think it's fair to say that our eSafety Commissioner does a marvellous join at enforcement and compliance, but it's a huge burden, and private right of action allows people to share that burden," she said.

With eSafety Commissioner Julie Inman Grant due to finish her second term this year, Ms Wells left the door open to restructuring the independent agency to spread the workload among multiple commissioners.

"It's certainly one solution I am considering at the moment, given the resourcing required for the digital duty of care and the value that … is rising sharply in complaints and people seeking recourse," she said.

Greens Communications spokeswoman Sarah Hanson-Young said she still wanted the bill strengthened to put "the fear of god" into big tech companies and demanded penalties be tied to social media platforms' global revenue.

"We are sick and tired, as Australians and as consumers, of big tech running our lives," she said.

"We're sick and tired of having material shoved into our children's feeds that is dangerous and harmful."

Small businesses face 'minimal' impact

Under the digital duty of care all online platforms and websites would be required to undertake an annual risk assessment, including small businesses.

Small Business Minister Anne Aly said there would be further regulatory guidance provided to those impacted by the duty, noting the average business website did not carry many safety risks.

"Providers of low-risk services, like websites and applications run by small businesses, will have minimal obligations," she said.

Teach Us Consent founder and chief executive Chanel Contos said she welcomed the duty and its provisions that would allow Australians to switch off their algorithmically recommended content.

"Opt-in doesn't ban algorithms — it makes them optional," she said.

"Nothing about this stops people, organisations or businesses reaching audiences through algorithmic feeds. It just means people get to choose that feed, rather than have it forced on them."

Minderoo Foundation chief executive John Hartman also welcomed the bill and its expanded definition of seriously harmful conduct, which now included protections against image-based sexual abuse, explicit threats of physical violence and material that promoted gender-based violence.

"The bill is also a much-needed step when it comes to protecting women and children, who experience disproportionate harms in the online world," he said.

"That harm includes violence, misogyny and inappropriate material on social media and dating apps."