Australia's House Passes Duty of Care Bill Amended to Ban AI Chatbot Material That Simulates Emotional Intimacy and Fosters Child Dependence, Guardian Reports
Bot Mutiny |
Summary
Australia's House of Representatives passed a digital duty of care bill amended to require platforms to ban AI chatbot material or conduct that simulates emotional intimacy and fosters a child's dependence. The bill now goes to the Senate.
Australia's House of Representatives on Wednesday, Oct. 28, 2026, passed a digital duty of care bill that the government amended to require platforms to ban AI chatbot "material or conduct that simulates emotional intimacy and encourages or fosters a child's dependence on it in place of human relationships," the Guardian reports. The bill now goes to the Senate, where its path is unclear. The opposition Coalition has said it will not vote for it.
What the amendment says
The Guardian reports that the government accepted amendments from crossbencher Kate Chaney, including one that adds certain AI chatbot activity to the list of harms covered by the bill. The wording is narrower than the Guardian's headline suggests: as quoted, the requirement targets material or conduct that simulates emotional intimacy and also encourages or fosters a child's dependence on it in place of human relationships. The Guardian says the government moved after Prime Minister Anthony Albanese raised concern about children treating chatbots as their "best friend."
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese raised the issue in an address on Tuesday night. "[T]he 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," he said, according to the Guardian.
The wider framework
According to the Guardian, 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. It would also require social media platforms to offer an opt-out feature for their algorithm and suggested content. The Guardian reports that the government accepted another Chaney amendment requiring that opt-out to be "accessible, easy to use" and "prominently available."
Communications minister Anika Wells has suggested that content promoting misogyny, terrorism, suicide, self-harm and eating disorders would be captured by the laws, the Guardian reports.
Political opposition and Senate prospects
The Guardian reports that the opposition and One Nation voted against the bill in the House. Political opponents have accused Labor of an "Orwellian" system of "censorship" and of seeking to influence conversations online, claims that Wells has strongly denied. "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.
The government hopes to pass the bill by the end of 2026. The Greens support it, and have set up a Senate inquiry due to report back in late November. Greens senator Sarah Hanson-Young called for the legislation to be strengthened. The Greens want Australians to have a right to pursue private legal action against platforms and for penalties to be increased, the Guardian reports.
The complaints-watchdog dispute
The Guardian reports that Labor is under pressure to empower the telecommunications industry ombudsman to act as a watchdog for social media and AI, giving Australians an external complaints mechanism and allowing the "naming and shaming" of big tech. Independent MP Sophie Scamps proposed an amendment to expand the ombudsman's remit. Labor did not accept it in the lower house, and Wells declined to voice support for the idea, according to the Guardian.
The telecommunications industry ombudsman, Cynthia Gebert, said her office would be well placed for such a role and that expanding it could be financed by big tech. "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 said.
What is not yet established
The bill has not become law, and the Guardian reports its route through the Senate is uncertain. The Guardian's account does not describe how a platform would be judged to have simulated emotional intimacy or fostered dependence, or what penalties would apply to a chatbot operator under that provision. Bot Mutiny has separately covered OpenAI's apology to an Australian inquiry over its agents' access to government websites.