Money. Identity. Technology.
Follow the money. Find the decision.
Government selection and modification of the review's proposals
Australia's 14 April 2026 government response sets out which recommendations of the Online Safety Act review it supports, qualifies, leaves for consideration or declines. It is the government's published policy position between the independent review and subsequent legislative drafting.
The government supported recommendation 4's overarching duty and accessible internal complaints, supported researcher access in principle, and noted a possible digital ombudsman scheme. It declined automatically placing services reaching more than 10% of the population in the highest regulatory tier. It also declined mandatory local presence and the proposed licensing condition, while supporting an Australian contact point. These are distinct decisions: noting a proposal leaves consideration open, and supporting policy intent does not itself enact the recommended machinery.
Government review response —April2026 → Review recommendation5 harm families
2026-04-14 – 2026-04-14
PDF3-6 intent/merit supported with alternatives/further implementation possible. Vulnerable people,crime,publicsafety alongside expression; complementsCriminalCode without altering existing discrimination obligations. Not acceptance of every proposed term.
Government review response —April2026 → Published updated statutory review —February2025
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.
Government review response —April2026 → Published updated statutory review —February2025
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.
Government review response —April2026 → Review45: consider licensing major services
2026-04-14 – 2026-04-14
Governmentresponse printed10-11 explicitNot supported. Rejects this proposed permission-to-operate condition, not every other enforcement/restriction mechanism or all future vehicles.
Government review response —April2026 → Published updated statutory review —February2025
2026-04-14 – 2026-04-14
Responsep6 leaves safeguarded authorized-researcher implementation open. Not an NGO access award, vendor selection or payment. Later university boundary is separately compared.
Government review response —April2026 → Review48: account identification and preservation
2026-04-14 – 2026-04-14
Printed11-13 supports intent/merit with further proportionality and rights consideration. Does not establish acceptance of every mechanism, enacted duty or deployment.
Government review response —April2026 → Published updated statutory review —February2025
2026-04-14 – 2026-04-14
Government responsep4 accepts overarching policy architecture. This is a disposition of reviewer recommendation, not full HRLC/Reset package acceptance or enactment.
Government review response —April2026 → Published updated statutory review —February2025
2026-04-14 – 2026-04-14
Responsep9 says Note; p7 initially prioritizes internal dispute resolution. Note preserves further consideration and must not be relabeled rejected.
Government review response —April2026 → supports review recommendation4: overarching duty → Published updated statutory review —February2025
2026-04-14 – 2026-04-14
Government responsep4 accepts overarching policy architecture. This is a disposition of reviewer recommendation, not full HRLC/Reset package acceptance or enactment.
Government review response —April2026 → does not support recommendation7: automatic highest tier → Published updated statutory review —February2025
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.
Government review response —April2026 → supports recommendation9 in principle with altered rule-maker → Published updated statutory review —February2025
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.
Government review response —April2026 → supports recommendation13 researcher access in principle → Published updated statutory review —February2025
2026-04-14 – 2026-04-14
Responsep6 leaves safeguarded authorized-researcher implementation open. Not an NGO access award, vendor selection or payment. Later university boundary is separately compared.
Government review response —April2026 → supports recommendation25: accessible internal complaints → Published updated statutory review —February2025
2026-04-14 – 2026-04-14
Responsep8 supports accessible internal mechanisms. No claim that this adopts every Rights-First explanation or restoration right.
Government review response —April2026 → notes recommendation26: digital Ombuds scheme → Published updated statutory review —February2025
2026-04-14 – 2026-04-14
Responsep9 says Note; p7 initially prioritizes internal dispute resolution. Note preserves further consideration and must not be relabeled rejected.
Government review response —April2026 → supports recommendation5 in principle → Review recommendation5 harm families
2026-04-14 – 2026-04-14
PDF3-6 intent/merit supported with alternatives/further implementation possible. Vulnerable people,crime,publicsafety alongside expression; complementsCriminalCode without altering existing discrimination obligations. Not acceptance of every proposed term.
Government review response —April2026 → does not support recommendation45 licensing proposal → Review45: consider licensing major services
2026-04-14 – 2026-04-14
Governmentresponse printed10-11 explicitNot supported. Rejects this proposed permission-to-operate condition, not every other enforcement/restriction mechanism or all future vehicles.
Government review response —April2026 → notes recommendation42 business-disruption powers → Published updated statutory review —February2025
2026-04-14 – 2026-04-14
Printed10-11 further consideration; not adoption or automatic rejection.
Government review response —April2026 → does not support recommendation43 mandatory local presence → Published updated statutory review —February2025
2026-04-14 – 2026-04-14
Printed10-11 discusses potential trade-obligation conflicts. Distinct from licensing and service-contact point.
Government review response —April2026 → supports recommendation44 Australian service contact → Published updated statutory review —February2025
2026-04-14 – 2026-04-14
Printed10-11 contact point support, not mandatory local incorporation/presence or licensing.
Government review response —April2026 → supports recommendation48 in principle → Review48: account identification and preservation
2026-04-14 – 2026-04-14
Printed11-13 supports intent/merit with further proportionality and rights consideration. Does not establish acceptance of every mechanism, enacted duty or deployment.