Official synthesis connecting submitted policy ideas with government reform choices
Published updated statutory review —February2025
The updated statutory review of Australia's Online Safety Act, published in February 2025, is the independent review that recommended an overarching digital duty of care and other changes. The review was initially delivered in October 2024 and revised before publication, so the published text represents a later version.
Intellectual lineage and version history
Section 5.5 credits Lorna Woods and William Perrin with the duty-of-care conception, cites Carnegie's model work and quotes Reset submission 70 on the limits of content-specific duties. The minister's November 2024 commitment referred to the received review. Released departmental records document subsequent revision; their recommendation totals are not fully reconciled. The April 2026 government response and September exposure draft therefore require comparison with the published version, rather than an assumption that every October recommendation or phrase was unchanged.
FOI review-version record — inconsistencies retained → Published updated statutory review —February2025
records post-delivery changes with conflicting summaries
Document1/AttachmentC: request1November after31October delivery, brief cleared8November. Five additions/68 total, four said already in text; later public response says67. Intro daily duty-action penalty differs from itemg/newrec35 $10m company removal-notice maximum. No arithmetic-derived original total or identified deletion; no settled attachment date or signed minister acceptance.
Speech13November2024 names recently received review and international alignment; release14November follows. Stable review node represents later published updated text, not identity of all wording withOctober delivery. No NGO/funder decision attribution in announcement.
Published updated statutory review —February2025 → Review45: consider licensing major services
recommends considering licensing as operation condition
Published updated section10.10/printed147 andFOIAttachmentC PDF7 directly matchrec45. Possible enforcement,newsbargaining,ombuds andcost purposes; difficulties acknowledged. Citation toNicholls is not a named commission/drafter. No arithmetic matching from68/67 counts.
Government review response —April2026 → Published updated statutory review —February2025
does not support recommendation7: automatic highest tier
2026-04-14 – 2026-04-14
Responsep5 rejects automatic highest tier above10% population coverage; p4 favors proportionate risk wherever present. Ten percent measures population coverage, not a penalty formula. Not an individually addressed NGO rejection.
Published updated statutory review —February2025 → Review48: account identification and preservation
proposes phone-at-opening, confidentiality and preservation
Published updated section11.2/printed153-154 distinguishes identifying particular users from collecting information on account opening. Privacy/security constraints acknowledged; specific underlying drafter not established.
Published updated statutory review —February2025 → Broader harm-regime consolidation deferred
defers broader consolidation to other regimes or future review
Printed56 adjoining discussion: financial,societal,misinformation harms compatible with duty model but already elsewhere; reform substantial. Not a named WEF rejection or blanket exemption from any Australian regulation.
Government review response —April2026 → Published updated statutory review —February2025
supports recommendation9 in principle with altered rule-maker
2026-04-14 – 2026-04-14
Responsep5 support in principle; p4 describes government-made rules with parliamentary scrutiny instead of eSafety mandatory codes. Qualified implementation choice, not total rejection or exact NGO clause adoption.
Published updated statutory review —February2025 → Review recommendation5 harm families
proposes harm families in recommendation5
Published updated reviewp56, not automatically identical text toOctober delivery. Prior source§5.5 separately cites Reset submission70; HRLC endorsement is not an intervening delivery step.
Government-hosted submission68 advocates Australian UK/EU alignment and risk/design duties. Publication confirms submitted argument; full adoption not established.
Review section5.5 directly quotes Reset on inadequacy of content-specific duties. Stronger than shared wording; does not establish final-clause authorship.
Comparison shows an overarching duty in both review recommendation and later exposure draft. Exact departmental drafting chain and attribution of particular clauses remain not obtained.
Speech13November2024 names recently received review and international alignment; release14November follows. Stable review node represents later published updated text, not identity of all wording withOctober delivery. No NGO/funder decision attribution in announcement.
Government responsep4 accepts overarching policy architecture. This is a disposition of reviewer recommendation, not full HRLC/Reset package acceptance or enactment.
Responsep5 rejects automatic highest tier above10% population coverage; p4 favors proportionate risk wherever present. Ten percent measures population coverage, not a penalty formula. Not an individually addressed NGO rejection.
Responsep5 support in principle; p4 describes government-made rules with parliamentary scrutiny instead of eSafety mandatory codes. Qualified implementation choice, not total rejection or exact NGO clause adoption.
Responsep6 leaves safeguarded authorized-researcher implementation open. Not an NGO access award, vendor selection or payment. Later university boundary is separately compared.