Australia Moves to Ban AI Chatbots That Foster 'Emotional Intimacy' With Children

Australia's House of Representatives passed a digital duty of care bill on Wednesday that would force platforms to ban AI chatbots that simulate "emotional intimacy" and foster children's dependence on them in place of human relationships.

The amendment, from independent crossbencher Kate Chaney and accepted by the Labor government, adds specific AI chatbot conduct to the bill's list of regulated harms. It targets "material or conduct that simulates emotional intimacy and encourages or fosters a child's dependence on it in place of human relationships." The bill now moves to the Senate, where it will be debated in coming weeks, with the government hoping to pass it by the end of 2026.

The stakes are significant beyond Australia. The framework would impose one of the broadest safety obligations yet on global tech platforms operating in a Western democracy, replacing a patchwork of existing online codes with a single duty-of-care requirement covering social media, games, apps and chatbots.

What does the bill actually require?

Labor says the legislation places "an overarching obligation" on tech platforms "to provide a safe online environment for all Australians." Platforms would have to protect users from certain "harmful" content. Communications minister Anika Wells has indicated the laws would capture content promoting misogyny, terrorism, suicide, self-harm and eating disorders.

The bill also requires social media platforms to offer an "opt-out" feature for algorithms and suggested content. A second Chaney amendment, also accepted by the government on Wednesday, tightens that requirement: the opt-out features must be "accessible, easy to use" and "prominently available" on platforms. Lawmakers added that language amid concerns that social media giants might bury the controls or make them hard to find.

The obligation falls on the platforms themselves rather than regulators policing individual posts. That design choice shifts the burden of prevention onto the companies — a structural departure from complaint-driven enforcement.

Why is the prime minister involved?

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese pressed the case in an emotional address on Tuesday night, again imploring the opposition Coalition to support the bill. He cited children forming attachments to non-human agents.

"The stories we hear about people identifying a chatbot, a non person as their best friend, should be a huge wake up call for every member of this Parliament to be prepared to act," Albanese said.

The quote anchors the government's political argument: that companion-style AI chatbots (software agents designed to hold ongoing conversational relationships with users) pose a developmental risk to children that existing law does not address. The Chaney amendment gives that concern statutory language.

Who supports it and who doesn't?

The bill's Senate pathway remains unclear. The Greens support the legislation but want it strengthened. The Coalition has said it will not vote for it. One Nation joined the opposition in voting against the bill in the House. Labor still appears keen to win the opposition's support and remains open to amendments.

Political opponents have accused Labor of building an "Orwellian" system of "censorship" and of seeking to influence conversations online. Wells strongly denied those claims on Wednesday.

"If they really care, the test is simple here, they should bring an amendment, not a slogan to 'kill the bill'," Wells told ABC radio.

The Greens have set up a Senate inquiry into the laws, due to report back in late November. Senator Sarah Hanson-Young backs a digital duty of care but is calling for the government's legislation to be strengthened. The Greens want Australians to have the right to pursue private legal action against platforms, and they want penalties increased.

"Australians also need an external complaints pathway, free from the profit-driven whims of 'big tech's' content moderation," Hanson-Young said.

In short: the bill has the numbers to progress, but its final shape depends on Senate negotiations the government has not yet locked down.

What is missing — an ombudsman for big tech?

The sharpest unresolved question is enforcement for individual users. Labor faces increasing pressure to empower the telecommunications ombudsman as a watchdog covering social media and AI, giving Australians an external complaints mechanism and enabling the "naming and shaming" of big tech companies.

Independent MP Sophie Scamps proposed amendments to expand the remit of the telecommunications industry ombudsman. She argued such a watchdog — which does not currently exist for big tech — would let ordinary social media users seek remedies when their accounts are hacked or inaccessible, including compensation, and would investigate broader issues to name and shame companies behaving badly.

Labor did not accept the amendment in the lower house. Wells declined to voice support for the idea. But the Greens will push for the reform in their Senate negotiations, which gives the proposal a live legislative route even after its House rejection.

What does the ombudsman herself say?

Cynthia Gebert, the telecommunications industry ombudsman, said her office would be well placed to take on the role for big tech. She noted that such ombudsman roles are funded by the industries they regulate, and that expanding its remit could be financed by big tech itself — meaning no direct cost to taxpayers or users.

"There are some real strengths in the DDOC [digital duty of care] because it's putting the onus on platforms to make things safe … but I think the area that needs to be strengthened is giving people somewhere to go if they can't get their complaints resolved with the platform," Gebert told Guardian Australia.

She warned of the consequence if the gap remains: "It risks leaving Australians in the safe place they are now, where they get automated responses or escalation procedures that don't go anywhere."

Gebert called on the government to make big tech's participation in an ombudsman scheme mandatory, saying it would "hold industry to account and drive system improvement." She pointed to the asymmetry her office already confronts daily.

"[The telecommunications industry ombudsman] can help with your Telstra account, but we can't help with your Gmail account. Consumers come to us sometimes and ask, 'why this, not that?'," she said.

"We want to help but don't have the powers to do so now."

The pattern is familiar: platform-funded dispute resolution already exists in Australian telecom and banking, and the question is whether the duty-of-care regime will extend that model to companies like Google and Meta — or leave users with automated support queues.

What happens next?

The Senate debate in the coming weeks will determine three things: whether the bill passes at all, whether the Greens win private legal action rights and higher penalties, and whether an ombudsman scheme gets written into law. The government's self-imposed deadline of passage by the end of 2026 leaves room for extended negotiation, but the Coalition's outright opposition means Labor needs either the Greens alone or a partial opposition reversal to succeed.