SYDNEY, Australia – Australia’s Special Envoy to Combat Antisemitism Jillian Segal has urged federal lawmakers to pass proposed digital duty-of-care legislation, warning that social-media algorithms should not be allowed to repeatedly expose children to antisemitic conspiracies and hateful material.
Segal made her first major public intervention in the debate over the proposed legislation as the government seeks parliamentary support for a significant expansion of Australia’s online-safety framework.
The proposed framework would shift greater responsibility for online safety from individual users to technology companies, requiring covered services to identify foreseeable risks and take reasonable steps to prevent or mitigate them.
The government argues the existing system focuses too heavily on responding to harmful material after it appears, rather than requiring technology companies to address the design features and recommendation systems that can amplify harmful content.
Segal said the debate matters especially in the fight against antisemitism.
“Within hours of the Bondi attack, we saw social media platforms feeding users denials that it was real, conspiracy theories that it was a ‘false flag’ operation and justifications for the murder of innocent people,” Segal said in comments published September 15.
The December 2025 terrorist attack targeted a Jewish Hanukkah celebration at Bondi Beach, killing 15 people and wounding dozens.
Segal said the subsequent spread of conspiracies demonstrated the potential consequences when recommendation systems amplify hateful or extremist material.
‘Important That These Laws Pass’
Segal stopped short of specifically calling on the opposition Coalition to support the government’s bill but made clear that she wants Parliament to reach an agreement.
She said it was “important that these laws pass,” pointing to online-safety regimes already operating in the United Kingdom and Europe.
Her intervention places antisemitism within the wider debate over how governments should regulate algorithmic amplification.
The proposed Australian framework would establish an overarching duty of care based on risk assessment, mitigation and safety-by-design principles.
High-risk services would face additional transparency requirements, while regulators would gain stronger monitoring, investigation, and enforcement powers.
The government’s analysis identifies algorithms and recommender systems as service-design features that can amplify harmful material.
The framework would also cover emerging risks associated with artificial intelligence.
Greater Protections For Children
Children are a central focus of the proposed reforms.
Communications Minister Anika Wells said the duty of care would extend beyond conventional social-media platforms to services including chatbots, gaming platforms, apps and messaging services.
The government argues that technology companies should design their services with foreseeable harms in mind, rather than relying primarily on parents and children to protect themselves after harmful material has already reached them.
For Australians older than 16, the proposal would also require social-media platforms to provide a choice between algorithmically recommended material and a feed based on accounts the user follows.
Platforms would have to respect that choice.
For Segal, the concern is that recommendation systems can actively push antisemitic material toward users who did not initially search for it.
Her comments focus particularly on preventing children from being drawn into increasingly hateful material through automated recommendations.
Coalition Raises Free-Speech Concerns
The proposed legislation has generated significant political opposition.
The Coalition agrees that children need stronger online protections but has raised concerns that the government’s framework could eventually give ministers excessive authority over lawful expression.
Opposition Leader Angus Taylor has described proposed ministerial powers to designate additional categories of serious online harm as a “blank cheque for political censorship.”
The Coalition has said it will not support the legislation in its current form.
The government disputes that characterization.
Wells has argued that the legislation is principally concerned with placing safety obligations on technology companies rather than establishing government control over political speech.
She has nevertheless indicated that the government is willing to reconsider the proposed ministerial powers and suggested Parliament itself could potentially determine whether additional categories meet the threshold for serious harm.
The disagreement leaves the legislation’s final form unresolved.
From Removing Content To Preventing Harm
The proposed duty of care represents a significant change in the philosophy underlying Australian online-safety regulation.
Rather than concentrating primarily on individual pieces of prohibited content, the framework would require technology companies to consider how their platforms, algorithms and other design features create or amplify foreseeable risks.
An Australian government impact analysis says the existing framework has not kept pace with changes in the online environment.
The review underpinning the reforms concluded that a systems-based approach was necessary to address risks created by recommendation algorithms, artificial intelligence and other rapidly developing technologies.
Technology companies failing to comply with the proposed obligations could face penalties exceeding $100 million.
The government has also acknowledged the possibility of unintended consequences, including companies adopting more restrictive content-moderation policies than necessary. Its impact analysis says regulatory guidance would align companies’ risk assessments with community expectations.
Antisemitism Enters Australia’s Online-Safety Debate
Segal’s intervention connects the legislation directly with Australia’s broader response to antisemitism following the Bondi Beach attack.
Her argument is not simply that antisemitic material exists online, but that the architecture of digital platforms can contribute to its dissemination.
That distinction is central to the government’s proposal.
Under the duty-of-care model, the question would increasingly become not only whether harmful content should be removed, but whether technology companies took adequate precautions to prevent their systems from exposing users to foreseeable harms in the first place.
The government supports the legislation, and Segal is urging Parliament to ensure it passes.
The Coalition maintains that stronger protections for children are necessary but says the current proposal requires changes to protect lawful political expression from government interference.
Those competing concerns are now expected to shape negotiations over the legislation as Parliament considers how far Australia should go in making technology companies legally responsible for the harms their platforms can amplify.
TheJ.ca receives no government money. Independent journalism depends on readers who believe these stories must be told. Consider supporting our efforts.
Stand Proud. Stand Strong. Stand Zionist.
