| The Prime Minister just came out and said it: their digital duty of care laws are not about protecting the kids, but come from a fear that "misinformation" is pulling Australians "away from the centre and more and more to the extremes". The IPA identified this very point weeks ago. Earlier this month, Dr Andrew Bushnell outlined how the digital duty of care concept would be a backdoor to revive the government's misinformation laws, which were supposedly abandoned in 2024. And before that, Andrew told the Senate that the digital duty of care was not only "built around the same concept [of harm]" as the earlier misinformation bill but "goes even further". And four months ago IPA research fellow Margaret Chambers pointed out on the IPA's Substack Looking Forward … that the digital duty of care laws would resurrect the misinformation laws under the guise of protecting children. Our concerns raised over the course of several months have been reinforced by the analysis of the exposure draft of the Online Safety Amendment (Digital Duty of Care) Bill 2026, which Andrew explains is "draconian in its motivations, intended effects, implementation, and governance". The IPA has also relaunched its Australia Censored series, where Margaret will interview a range of intellectual leaders to discuss threats to freedom of speech. In the first episode, Margaret was joined by journalist and CBR Chair of Politics, Censorship and Free Speech at the University of Austin Texas, Michael Shellenberger, who pointed out how laws such as the digital duty of care are ultimately used to police opinions and control political debate. Thanks to your support, the IPA continues to lead the debate and provide the most accurate, detailed, and impactful analysis of this threat to freedom of speech. Morgan Begg
Director of Research |