Australia’s lower house passes bill targeting children’s dependence on AI chatbots

Platforms would have to ban chatbot conduct that simulates emotional intimacy and fosters children’s dependence instead of human relationships under legislation Australia’s House of Representatives passed on October 28, 2026. The accepted amendment adds a specific child-safety restriction to the government’s Digital Duty of Care bill, which now heads to the Senate—not into force.

The restriction targets dependence, not intimacy alone

The government accepted the change from crossbench MP Kate Chaney during the lower-house debate. As the Guardian reported, it would require platforms 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 focuses on children who become dependent on simulated intimacy instead of human relationships. It does not ban every warm exchange with a chatbot or adults’ use of chatbots for companionship. The restriction covers both material and conduct.

The amendment followed Prime Minister Anthony Albanese’s appeal to Parliament on October 27. He urged the Coalition to support the bill and pointed to accounts of people treating chatbots as their closest companions. His argument placed those relationships at the center of the government’s case for action.

the 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.

Anthony Albanese, addressing Parliament on October 27

A wider safety duty, with feed controls

The chatbot amendment sits inside a broader framework covering social media, games, apps and chatbots. The bill would replace a range of existing online codes and standards with an overarching obligation to provide a safe online environment and protect users from specified harms.

In its October 20 announcement introducing the bill, the government described several other proposed protections and enforcement powers:

• Services would need to protect Australians from violent extremist material, sadistic online exploitation, child abuse and fake nude material.
• Additional protections for children would cover pornography, dangerous stunts, content encouraging eating disorders and material promoting hostility toward women.
• The eSafety Commissioner could issue removal notices for apps and websites designed or predominantly used to generate fake nude material.

Social media platforms would also have to offer an opt-out from algorithm-recommended content. A second accepted Chaney amendment would require that control to be accessible, easy to use and prominently available, addressing concerns that platforms might bury the option in hard-to-find settings.

The government says noncompliance with the digital duty of care could bring penalties of up to A$109.2 million. Its introduction announcement also proposed minimum standards for complaints and dispute processes, alongside a shorter response window for cyberbullying and abuse complaints: 24 hours rather than 48.

Senate bargaining turns to enforcement and redress

The Coalition and One Nation voted against the bill in the House. Political opponents have accused Labor of creating a censorship system; Communications Minister Anika Wells rejected that characterization and challenged opponents to propose amendments. Labor remains open to changes as it seeks support.

The Greens support a digital duty of care but want stronger legislation. Their demands include higher penalties, a right for Australians to bring private legal action against platforms, and an external complaints pathway independent of companies’ own moderation systems.

Labor rejected independent MP Sophie Scamps’s proposal to extend the telecommunications industry ombudsman’s remit. She argued that a watchdog could help users with hacked or inaccessible accounts, provide remedies including compensation, and investigate wider problems. The Greens intend to pursue that reform in Senate negotiations.

Ombudsman Cynthia Gebert backed an expanded role, saying big tech could fund it through an industry-funded scheme. She welcomed the bill’s emphasis on platform responsibility but warned that users still need somewhere to turn when company complaints systems produce automated replies or escalations that lead nowhere.

Senate debate is expected in the coming weeks, with a Greens-established inquiry due to report in late November. The government hopes to secure passage before the end of 2026, but its route through the upper house remains uncertain.