Colin Boyce will oppose Labor’s exposure draft of the Online Safety Amendment (Digital Duty of Care) Bill 2026 in its current form.
Colin Boyce said families in Flynn want their children protected online and the world’s biggest technology companies held to account.
However, protecting children cannot become an excuse to hand politicians sweeping powers over lawful speech, news, political debate and what Australians are allowed to see online.
“Labor’s exposure draft goes too far, contains inadequate safeguards for free speech and journalism, and leaves too much power in the hands of the Communications Minister,” Mr Boyce said.
“We want kids in Flynn protected online and we want Big Tech held to account. But you don’t protect Australians by handing a politician the power to decide what lawful material is harmful and should be suppressed.
“At a time when families in Flynn are struggling with an out-of-control cost of living, Labor’s answer is more power for themselves.
“That’s why I am focused on the issues Labor has created offline, with our plan for lower taxes, cheaper power, less migration and more homes, and to put Australians first.
“No politician should get to decide for themselves what lawful speech is harmful and then pressure platforms to make it disappear.
“Labor has given up trying to lower prices, cut taxes and bring migration under control. Now they want extraordinary powers over the internet where Australians go to complain about how badly they’re being governed. That should worry everyone.”
Colin’s concerns include:
- The algorithm promise is not actually guaranteed. Labor says Australians will be able to turn off personalised recommendations for their social media feeds. But the exposure draft instead gives the Minister power to specify “user empowerment tools” through future legislative instruments.
- Ministerial power to define new harms. Minister Anika Wells can make new categories of “seriously harmful” material by legislative instrument, including material that may be completely lawful, representing a significant threat to free speech.
- The risk to free speech and journalism. The duty is not confined to social media. It applies across a wide range of online services, potentially including websites carrying news, commentary and political debate.
- Vague and subjective tests. The draft includes concepts such as material that “encourages or promotes hostile attitudes towards women or gender equality” and “harmful practices”.
- A powerful incentive to censor first and ask questions later.
- The impact on small businesses has not been considered.
- Labor’s record should give Australians little confidence. Its under-16 social media ban has fallen well short of the government’s rhetoric, with eSafety finding the proportion of under-16s still using social media had fallen by just 4.4 percentage points three months after commencement.
Colin added that the Coalition has consistently supported stronger protections for children online and tougher accountability for Big Tech.
“Protecting children online is one of the most important jobs we have, but it does not give Labor a blank cheque to determine what lawful material Australians should be protected from seeing. These powers are far too broad and the safeguards are simply not good enough.
“If the Minister responsible for the Bill cannot clearly explain the reach of these powers, Australians should not be expected to simply trust her with them. Labor’s failed misinformation legislation showed the danger of giving governments a role in deciding what Australians should be allowed to see and hear.
“Changing the language from ‘misinformation’ to ‘harm’ does not remove that danger.
The Coalition will oppose the Bill in its current form and will fight for genuine safety measures that protect children, hold Big Tech accountable and protects the basic freedoms Australians expect.”
