Australia’s Largest Christian News Site

The new “Digital Duty of Care” legislation is going to be just fine… What was I thinking???

I live in the federal electorate of Lilley. The Honourable Anika Wells, a Labor MP, and the Minister for Communications, is the parliamentarian representing the people of Lilley — including me — in the federal political process. Last night I wrote a letter to her about the draft bill “Digital Duty of Care”, and I have pasted in my letter below. This morning I hand delivered that letter to her office, which is not far from where I live.

I was greeted at the desk by a young man, I handed him the letter and I asked him to please make sure my member sees my letter before the Digital Duty of Care Bill is passed.

As Labor with the support of the Greens has a majority in both houses, the bill will pass if this is just about the numbers.

I expected I would just walk out of the office at that point, but no, the young man wanted to know if I supported the bill or not, and why.

So I started telling him why I did not support it.

Digital Duty of Care Concerns Dismissed

During that conversation a more senior woman (still, presumably 10 years or so younger than me) quietly sidled up to the front desk and took the conversation over.

I was trying to explain that because I am a gender critical activist and I believe the government has facilitated harm on my own daughter by its gender affirming policies, that I had a reasonable fear that this Digital Duty of Care legislation would make on-line providers — such as Substack — unwilling to platform my opposition to current government policies. For the Digital Duty of Care legislation will fine on-line service providers $100 million for platforming infringements of people and stances deemed “harmful” by the Communications Minister and the eSafety Commissioner.

Any stance deemed transphobic — such as anything said by a sex-realist who believes that a male does not become female by any means at all — could well be deemed “seriously harmful” and simply pushed off the internet.

The conversation was quite complicated, and I will not try and recount the details.

But the fact of the matter is that Anika Wells’ staffers were not there to hear my concerns, but to show me the error of my ways and to assure me that I did not understand the legislation and had nothing to fear.

I was baited and matronized and when I became agitated, it was clear they were not going to tolerate any angry lip from me and were preparing to boot me out the door in shame.

So, that was my experience in the electoral office of my representative parliamentary member.

It did not quell my fears.

And this is the thing, should Substack decide not to platform me in the future, you, dear readers, will know the staffer at Anika Wells’ office lied to me.

If that happens I will go to the office and let them know they lied to me. I am not sure what will happen after that, but I can’t see it being anything other than shaming and humiliating for me, at best.

So, here is the letter.

My Letter to the Hon Anika Wells on the Digital Duty of Care Bill

The Honourable Anika Wells

1176 Sandgate Road, Nundah, Qld, 4012

11 September 2026

Dear Hon Anika Wells MP,

I live in Chermside West, so you are my federal member. You are also the Minister for Communications. I am very alarmed by the sweeping provisions in the draft Digital Duty of Care legislation that the Prime Minister is determined to pass. Those powers give the government enormous financial punishment incentives for on-line service providers to rigorously ensure that they implement both the letter and the spirit of your eSafety censorship recommendations in such a way as to produce a highly regulated on-line speech environment. That legislation would give you unrestricted power to ban any type of internet content if you decide that content poses “a seriously harmful threat to public safety.” The potential for these powers to be used for political purposes against political opponents and against activists whose stance the government ideologically and politically dislikes, and hence labels “harmful”, makes me wonder if we are heading into an East German Stasi styled correct speech monitoring future.

Here are my concerns specifically.

Firstly, I have a young adult daughter who has taken testosterone for the past 4 years, had a double mastectomy, and is on the autism spectrum and prone to depression and anti-social introversion. As her father, I believe she has been on-line seduced into a self-harming identity ideology that has objectively harmed her by robbing her of her reproductive viability, and I see her situation as implemented by a state supported disabling delusion. I strongly oppose so-called “gender affirming care” for autism spectrum minors, and for all minors, as profoundly harmful to the real best interests of gender distressed Queensland young people. You no doubt disagree with me about that, but I am a retired academic philosopher and I have highly credible philosophical, moral, and scientific reasons for disagreeing with advocates of transgender ideology. I wish to rigorously publicly present my case in order to change what I see as a horrible exploitation of the psychological vulnerabilities of people like my daughter by queer activists in order to advance their all of society radical reform agendas. At present the Queensland Health Minister is listening to people like me and is seriously concerned about whether our health system has been promoting harm through “gender affirming care” practices. The federal Labor government, however, is dead set determined to assert, against ordinary biological reality, that there is no distinction between a natural female and a transwoman, and presupposes that – contrary to science and healthy self-acceptance – a person can be born into the wrongly sexed body. Indeed, following highly biased and ideologically framed AUSPATH recommendations, the Labor government happily agrees that it is “harmful” to do anything but “gender affirming care” for gender confused young people, such that my opposition to the harms inflicted on my own daughter may well be seen as illegal, hateful, and seriously harmful for the public good. So if you gain sweeping on-line censorship powers, I can expect to be de-platformed by on-line service providers who do not want a $100 million fine. This is seriously ideologically restrictive public debate censorship.

Further, sex-realist women — such as Sall Grover and the Lesbian Action Group – who have already paid dearly for trying to have sex-based women’s rights re-recognised in law, may well be de-platformed under the new sweeping power to define “seriously harmful” however the Communications Minister deems fit that the Digital Duty of Care Bill would give to you. I fear you will silence rigorous and transparent public debate on this matter because queer trans-activists have persuaded the Labor party that it is hateful and dangerous to even recognise that there are two sides to this matter, let alone to have a fair and frank public debate which is safe for sex-realists to participate in. Sex-realists who wishes to offer an alternative to “gender affirming care”, or who critique queer theorist convictions with facts and reason – such as psychiatrists Dr Andrew Amos and Dr Jillian Spencer – are already being de-platformed, losing their jobs, and having their professional licenses questioned or revoked. Transparent public debate is already savagely undermined by government backed ideological bias. This is all such an abrogation of free speech and vigorous public debate concerning serious public interest issues, and things are rapidly turning into an Orwellian nightmare. Please do not vote for this bill, which you will have to implement.

Secondly, I am a theologically conservative Christian and I believe that human life is intrinsically sacred because we are all made in the image of God. Hence, I am opposed to abortion, and particularly to abortion up to birth which is currently legislatively available in all Australian states. I am a supporter of Dr Jo Howe who is a powerful anti-abortion activists. Will she be shut down because her stance may be deemed misogynist and hence “seriously harmful” by staunch pro-abortion activists and particularly by Labor party members who staunchly uphold full term abortion as legally necessary for women’s rights? Will Dr Howe and myself be deemed as having “seriously harmful” political convictions that the government is entitled to silence?

Thirdly, after the fall of the safe Labor seat of Secret Harbour to One Nation, Mr Albanese vowed to defeat One Nation. At present One Nation poses an existential threat to the future viability of the Liberal Party, but clearly its powerful rise in South Australia, its de-seating of the resigned leader of the Liberals in the Farrer by-election, its surge in the polls, and the clear possibility that the Coalition will be replaced by One Nation as the primary opposition to the Labor party in the 2028 election, does not look incidental to this legislation to provide sweeping de-platforming powers to the Communications Minister. I have never yet voted for One Nation, but I am so disappointed with how relentlessly woke the established ALP/Green/Coalition/Teal political status quo is that I may well vote for One Nation in the future. But what if One Nation’s stance on Islamic anti-Jew rhetoric and violence, on how out of control the temporary visa influx of 3 million people is, on the need for sex-based rights for women, on repealing full term abortion legislation, and so on; what if these policy stances are deemed racist and misogynist by your office, and hence “seriously harmful” and the service providers refuse to platform them out of fear of heavy fines? To people already seriously alienated from the centrist political status quo like me (and there are a lot of us out there) should you do that, this would put me on the streets door-knocking for One Nation.

Fourthly, how am I to know if once you have these sweeping on-line monitoring and silencing powers you will not follow the UK’s lead and start arresting people for on-line “offensive” speech?

Dear Minister Wells, the draft of the Digital Duty of Care Bill is a frighteningly ideological and politically exploitable piece of legislation that could be the most destructive threat to a vibrant and citizen empowering democratic polity that we have yet seen in this country. Please do not vote for it.

Sincerely

Dr Paul Tyson

___

Republished with thanks to Gender Critical Philosophical Theology. Originally titled, “A visit to the Hon Anika Wells’ office“. Image via Facebook/Anika Wells.