Schools are increasingly dealing with problems that begin on digital platforms but spill into classrooms, wellbeing teams and student support systems. That has made the Federal Government’s proposed Digital Duty of Care especially relevant to educators.
The policy would place greater responsibility on online services to prevent foreseeable harm before it reaches users. New consultations from the Alannah & Madeline Foundation suggest students and parents broadly support that shift.
The findings draw on conversations with more than 800 primary, secondary and tertiary students between 2024 and 2026, alongside separate research involving 59 parents and carers of primary school children.
For schools, the debate intersects with existing concerns around student wellbeing and social media, online harassment and the growing use of AI tools by students.
Students describe risks that become more complex with age
The consultations suggest children encounter different risks as they move through school. Upper primary students raised concerns about graphic content, unwanted contact and location tracking, including attention from “creeps looking at you.”
By secondary school, students described contact with strangers as a regular part of being online, sometimes happening weekly. Unsolicited messages, harassment and the non-consensual sharing of intimate images were also commonly reported, particularly among girls.
Students also expressed limited confidence in the safety systems offered by digital platforms. According to the Foundation, many were sceptical that reporting harmful behaviour would lead to meaningful action.
“Children and young people know exactly what kind of internet they want—one that is safe, trustworthy, truthful and respectful. But the online world they experience falls far short of that vision. As one secondary student put it, ‘the internet needs fixing’,” director of policy and prevention Ariana Kurzeme said.
“Children and young people have gone beyond identifying problems—they are offering practical ideas for safer platform design, meaningful choice, accessible support and stronger accountability. The Government must listen to their voices and act on their ideas.”
The findings highlight a challenge already familiar to schools: much of the behaviour affecting students happens outside school-controlled systems, while educators are left managing the consequences.
That same tension is shaping how schools are navigating Australia’s under-16 social media restrictions.
Parents want more responsibility placed on platforms
Parents and carers raised similar concerns but focused more directly on who should be responsible for preventing harm. They identified inappropriate content and interactions with other users as the main risks facing children online.
Generative AI also emerged as a concern, particularly around misinformation and the possible effects of children becoming too reliant on AI tools. That issue is increasingly relevant to schools as AI use for schoolwork becomes more common.
Research from the eSafety Commissioner into children’s use of AI assistants and companions has also identified harmful and inappropriate interactions involving some young users.
“Parents are doing everything they can, but they cannot be expected to keep watch over every app, game and chat function their children uses, each with different settings and different risks. They are calling on Government to place a clear, proactive obligation on online services to prevent harm before it occurs,” Kurzeme said.
Proposed law would shift the emphasis towards prevention
The Federal Government is developing the Online Safety Amendment (Digital Duty of Care) Bill 2026. It will require online services to take reasonable steps to prevent foreseeable harms.
The Foundation wants the legislation strengthened further by requiring technology companies to consider the best interests of children when designing and operating their services. It is also calling for legal consequences where companies fail to meet those obligations.
“The Digital Duty of Care is an opportunity to reshape the digital environment into one where children’s safety comes first, ahead of the financial interests of Big Tech,” Kurzeme said. “Its success should be judged by whether children and young people experience meaningful improvements in safety, privacy, agency and enjoyment online. Their voices are essential to shaping its form and implementation.”
The Government’s exposure draft of the Digital Duty of Care legislation will determine how far that responsibility ultimately extends.