The Australian federal government has revised its proposed Digital Duty of Care legislation ahead of its planned introduction to Parliament on 15 October 2026, following concerns about ministerial powers and the potential impact of the legislation on online expression and news reporting.

The proposed legislation is intended to require technology companies to take reasonable steps to prevent foreseeable harm on their platforms. It forms part of the government's broader effort to address online safety and the responsibilities of digital services that host or distribute content.

One of the key changes announced by Communications Minister Anika Wells is the removal of a proposed ministerial rule-making power that could have allowed the government to define additional categories of online harm. Under the revised approach described in the report, new categories would instead need to be added through parliamentary legislative amendments. The change responds to concerns raised during consultation on an earlier draft of the bill. Critics had questioned whether giving a minister the ability to define additional harms could create uncertainty for technology companies, content publishers and ordinary users.

The revised bill also clarifies protections for professional news material. The government says the changes are intended to make clear that legitimate journalism receives specific protection under the proposed framework. This is significant for media organisations that publish reporting, commentary and public-interest investigations through digital platforms. The legislation is expected to focus on how online services identify and address foreseeable risks associated with the material and interactions they enable. Technology companies may need to review their policies, safety systems and processes for dealing with harmful content if the proposal becomes law.

The details matter because online platforms host a wide range of material, including news, political discussion, entertainment, educational information and user-generated posts. A regulatory framework must address genuine risks while providing clear boundaries for lawful speech and journalism.

For Australian users, the practical consequences will depend on the final wording of the legislation, the obligations imposed on different types of services and the regulatory guidance issued after parliamentary consideration. The proposal should not be treated as an existing blanket ban on particular opinions or lawful online discussions.

Small businesses, app developers and website operators will also be watching the parliamentary process. Their obligations may differ depending on the functions and risks associated with their services. Further guidance will be important in determining how the requirements apply to smaller platforms and businesses that operate websites or applications. The government's revisions indicate that consultation has influenced the drafting process, but they do not settle every concern surrounding online regulation. Parliament will have the opportunity to examine the bill, debate its provisions and consider amendments.

As of the reported announcement, the legislation is a proposal moving through the parliamentary process, rather than a law that should automatically be treated as already in force. Its final scope and legal effects will depend on the parliamentary outcome and any subsequent implementation arrangements.