Australian schools could see more responsibility for preventing online harm shift towards technology companies under proposed federal laws targeting how digital platforms are designed.
The proposed Digital Duty of Care would require online services to identify foreseeable risks and take reasonable steps to prevent them. That marks a broader shift from relying mainly on users, parents and schools to respond after harmful content or behaviour appears.
For educators, the debate comes as schools continue managing the effects of social media, harmful content and excessive device use on students. Recent eSafety research found 74% of Australian children had encountered content associated with harm online.
Proposed duty targets platform design
The Federal Government released the Online Safety Amendment (Digital Duty of Care) Bill 2026 for consultation in September. The proposal focuses on preventing foreseeable harm through the design and operation of online services, rather than relying primarily on complaints and content removal.
The Alannah & Madeline Foundation supports that direction but wants the legislation strengthened. It argues platforms should have an explicit obligation to prioritise children's best interests when developing and operating services.
“Children and parents should not bear the burden of keeping themselves safe in digital environments that were never designed with their best interests in mind. Just as toy companies and car seat manufacturers have an obligation to ensure their products are safe for children, so too should the digital platforms used by children,” Director of Policy & Prevention Ariana Kurzeme said.
Focus extends beyond harmful content
The Foundation’s submission also argues that regulation should address platform features that may contribute to harmful experiences, not only individual pieces of content.
It cited unsolicited disturbing material, contact from strangers and difficulties regulating use of games, apps and devices as examples. These are issues that can also surface in student wellbeing and behaviour at school.
“Children tell us they have seen violent or disturbing content without seeking it out, are contacted by strangers, and struggle to regulate their use of devices, games and apps. These problems do not just arise from individual choices—they are shaped by design and operational decisions made by the online services themselves. Services that profit from children’s engagement must take meaningful responsibility for their safety,” Kurzeme said.
Schools are already adapting to wider online safety reforms, including restrictions on social media access for children under 16. Educators have also been examining how to manage student behaviour under the new rules and respond to social media-related wellbeing pressures.
Foundation seeks stronger safeguards
The Foundation made 12 recommendations on the exposure draft, including making children’s best interests a legal responsibility for platforms.
It also wants highly dysregulated or compulsive use recognised as a potential harm, alongside clearer standards for user safety tools. Its submission calls for definitions broad enough to account for emerging online risks.
“While we welcome better tools to empower users of online platforms, the existence of a safety tool does not guarantee a safe online environment. Most children who have a negative experience online do not report them, and many parents do not use parental controls at all, particularly once their children get older,” Kurzeme said.
“For the Duty of Care to have real and meaningful impact, the best interests of the child must be built into the design and operation of these services from the start, not treated as an afterthought.”