# Google Warns Australian Safety Bill Could Restrict Teen Access to Gmail Proposed legislation aimed at curbing pornography access may inadvertently block minors from essential communication tools. - **Source:** [WA Today - Technology](https://www.watoday.com.au/rss/technology.xml) - **Published:** 2026-11-09 - **Topic:** [politics](https://brifing.si/c/politics) - **Original article:** - **On Brifing:** https://brifing.si/s/b1a8c19c-464c-4ee7-b7fa-2bdceb2af011 ## Legislative Scope Concerns Australia's Digital Duty of Care bill aims to protect children from harmful content like pornography. However, Google warns the current language is too broad. It could force platforms to implement mandatory age verification for everyday services, including Gmail, messaging apps, and private file storage, effectively locking out users under eighteen. ## Mass Surveillance Risks Liberal senator Sarah Henderson criticized the bill as deeply flawed during a Senate inquiry. She argued the legislation would effectively require companies to conduct mass surveillance of private emails and files. Google representatives confirmed that complying with these safety standards could necessitate intrusive monitoring of user communications to ensure compliance. ## Privacy Protections Removed Google expressed confusion over the removal of privacy considerations from the final bill draft. While earlier versions included privacy as a factor for compliance, the current text omits it. This leaves no explicit protections for Australian users when companies are forced to scan private data to prevent exposure to harmful material. ## Financial Penalty Risks The proposed legislation carries severe financial consequences for non-compliance, with penalties reaching up to 109.2 million dollars. Companies like Meta, Snap, and TikTok warned that such high stakes may push platforms toward over-censorship. They fear regulators have too much discretion to define what constitutes harmful content, leading to excessive moderation. ## Government Stance Clarified Communications Minister Anika Wells maintains that the government does not intend to cut children off from the internet or email services. The administration compares these safety standards to existing regulations for food, cars, and toys. They argue that placing the onus on tech companies prevents harm before it actually occurs. ## Industry-Wide Opposition Representatives from major tech firms, including Meta and TikTok, joined Google in voicing concerns during the Senate hearing. They argue the bill lacks the necessary nuance for private communication platforms. While some senators like Sarah Hanson-Young advocate for tougher oversight, the industry warns of potential chilling effects on online speech. ## Implementation and Timeline The bill has already passed the lower house and requires Senate support to become law. If enacted, the new duty of care would take effect twelve months later. The Senate committee is scheduled to report on the findings by November 20, determining the future of these controversial digital safety requirements. ## Balancing Safety and Access The core conflict remains between protecting minors from pornography and maintaining open access to private digital tools. Google suggests limiting the law to services primarily distributing adult content. As the debate continues, the challenge lies in creating effective safety standards without compromising the privacy and functionality of everyday communication services. ## Sources covering this story - [WA Today - Technology — Google Warns Australian Safety Bill May Block Teens From Gmail](https://www.watoday.com.au/technology/teens-could-be-locked-out-of-gmail-under-safety-bill-google-warns-20261109-p61coy.html?ref=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_source=rss_technology) - [The Straits Times – Asia — Google Warns Australian Internet Bill May Block Minors from Gmail](https://www.straitstimes.com/asia/australianz/google-says-new-australian-internet-safety-bill-could-cut-off-under-18s-from-gmail) --- _Summary written by Brifing from the original reporting. Copyright in the original article belongs to its publisher; read the full piece at the link above._