Women Speak Australia supports protecting children from online harm. But online safety laws must also protect the ability of women to speak openly about sex, gender and their rights.
On 15 October 2026, Communications Minister Anika Wells addressed the National Press Club to explain the Albanese Government’s proposed Digital Duty of Care legislation. Her message was clear: technology companies should take greater responsibility for the risks created by their platforms, particularly for children.
There is a compelling case for protecting children from online grooming, bullying, self-harm content and other serious harms. But how can Australia achieve this without inadvertently restricting lawful speech, particularly advocacy about women’s sex-based rights?
This is the concern Women Speak Australia (WSA) raised in its submission on the exposure draft of the Online Safety Amendment (Digital Duty of Care) Bill 2026. The issue is not whether online abuse should be addressed. It is whether the legislation draws a sufficiently clear distinction between genuinely harmful conduct and lawful expression on contested social and political questions.
A legitimate objective, but what are the boundaries?
In her National Press Club address, Wells described cases involving a 14-year-old girl allegedly groomed through an online gaming platform and a 13-year-old boy who had turned to multiple AI chatbots for companionship. These examples illustrate why stronger safeguards and greater accountability for technology companies deserve serious consideration.
Wells stated: “If you build it, you are responsible for its risks.” She argued that Australia must “shift the burden from the shoulders of victims to the companies that are creating the environments where harms occur.”
Under the proposed legislation, platforms would be required to protect under-18s from specified categories of harmful content, including material promoting eating disorders, glorifying crime or dangerous stunts, pornography, material promoting hostile ideas about women and gender equality, and content causing serious distress, including abuse and bullying.
Wells also sought to reassure Australians that the legislation would not be used to control their opinions. Adults could continue listening to manosphere podcasts, criticising the government, sharing memes and expressing the belief that the Moon landing was fake. “We are not controlling free speech,” she stated.
The government has made changes following consultation. Wells confirmed that the ministerial power to create new categories of harm had been removed, meaning new categories would require legislative amendment by Parliament. The government has also said it clarified exemptions for professional news material and entertainment media.
These changes are relevant, but they do not settle the question of how the legislation will operate in practice. In particular, what happens when platforms must assess potentially harmful material using terms whose boundaries may be disputed?
Who decides what constitutes hostility?
In its submission on the exposure draft, WSA raised concerns about proposed section 25D(1)(c), which referred to material or conduct that “encourages or promotes hostile attitudes towards women or gender equality” in the context of harm to children.
The concern is that terms such as “hostile attitudes” and “gender equality” require clear boundaries when used in legislation that may influence how online platforms assess and manage content.
Consider a woman arguing that biological sex is relevant to law and public policy. Or an organisation campaigning for female-only services, raising concerns about fairness in women’s sport, or questioning a government policy concerning gender identity.
These are matters of public debate. People may disagree strongly about them, but disagreement with a prevailing policy position is not, in itself, evidence of hostility towards women.
Women must be able to discuss policies affecting their rights, privacy, safety, sport and access to services without their arguments being treated as harmful simply because they challenge established positions.
The risk of platforms taking the safest option
Even where legislation does not expressly prohibit particular views, its practical effects may depend on how online platforms interpret their obligations.
If platforms face regulatory consequences for failing to manage risks, but the boundaries of harmful material are uncertain, they may decide that removing contentious content is safer than allowing it to remain available.
This is a foreseeable risk, not proof that censorship will occur. Nevertheless, it deserves attention when legislation could affect public discussion about important questions of sex and gender.
For organisations such as WSA, the consequences could extend beyond an individual post. Articles, campaign material, educational resources and commentary about women’s sex-based rights could face restrictions if platform moderation systems interpret controversial views as hostile or harmful.
WSA’s submission also questioned the proposed framework for determining what steps are reasonably practicable to manage risks, including the absence of an explicit freedom-of-expression consideration in the relevant list of factors. It also raised concerns about the extent to which the exception for certain private communications between consenting adults would protect public advocacy.
The government’s clarification of the professional news exemption is relevant, but it does not necessarily protect advocacy organisations, campaigners or members of the public in the same way.
Ultimately, the question is whether the legislation provides sufficient protection for lawful expression in practice. That raises a broader issue: does Australia’s existing framework adequately protect freedom of speech when public debate becomes politically contentious?
Does Australia need stronger protection for freedom of speech?
The debate also raises a broader question about Australia’s protection of freedom of expression.
Unlike the United States, Australia does not have an express, general constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech equivalent to the First Amendment. The High Court has recognised an implied freedom of political communication arising from the constitutional system of representative government. However, this is a limitation on government power, not a general individual right to free speech.
Australia also has international human rights obligations concerning freedom of opinion and expression, including under Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. While this right is important, it permits certain restrictions under specified conditions. Australia does not have a general Commonwealth statutory guarantee equivalent to an express constitutional free-speech right.
The Digital Duty of Care debate therefore invites a wider question: should Australia consider stronger, express legal or constitutional protection for freedom of speech?
Such protection would not mean that every form of expression must be immune from legal restriction. Threats, harassment, incitement to violence and other genuinely harmful conduct can be addressed through carefully defined laws. Nor would a constitutional guarantee automatically settle every dispute about online moderation or government regulation.
But stronger protection could help establish a clearer principle: public debate on matters of legitimate social and political concern should not be unnecessarily restricted, and limitations on expression should be justified, proportionate and clearly defined.
This principle matters when women discuss sex-based rights, female-only spaces, sport, medicine and the implications of government policy. These are subjects that affect women’s lives and deserve open, evidence-based debate.
Protecting children from serious online harm is a legitimate responsibility. Preserving the freedom to question policies, challenge assumptions and advocate for women’s rights is also essential.
Australia should not have to sacrifice one to achieve the other. The Digital Duty of Care legislation must be clear enough to address genuine harm without unnecessarily chilling lawful expression. More broadly, this debate should prompt Australians to consider whether freedom of speech deserves stronger, express protection in law and, potentially, in the Constitution.