Thank you. We're here today to talk about empowerment and choice. And I'm joined by Tess Fuller from Teach Us Consent, from Sarah Davies from the Alannah & Madeline Foundation, by Lucy Thomas from PROJECT ROCKIT, Jim Hungerford from the Butterfly Foundation, Jason Trethowan from Headspace, Vikki Ryall from Headspace, Wayne Holdsworth, who was Mac's father, from SmackTalk, Emma Mason, who is very familiar to many of you, Tilly's mum, who's been one of the spearheads of the Let Them Be Kids campaign. Mia Bannister also from Let Them Be Kids, Angela Burrows from the AEU with Simon Vaughan, and Stephanie Burns, a local teacher. I do want to welcome all of our guests here, as well as of course the Minister for Communications, Anika Wells.
And I think the organisations which are here represent how this change is coming about. What we know is that the world is changing, and more and more people are engaged with things online. The impact of new technology is impacting the way that we live our life. It's having an impact on people, both desirable and undesirable. And my Government is determined to make sure that people are in control, and that is what today is all about. But I do want to give credit to the organisations who are represented here, because this is an example of change from the bottom-up, my Government listening and acting.
Last year, Australia took world-leading action by banning children under the age of 16 from having social media accounts. Today in the Parliament, we're taking those laws further to ensure that they work as they intended. We took action because the community said 'enough was enough', and we would no longer let Australian kids be treated as commodities instead of children. Our action is working. More than five million accounts have been removed or deactivated.
As we said when we announced the bipartisan support for this legislation, we knew that it wouldn't be perfect, but we wouldn't have let that be the enemy of the good. And it has been good. We've started a global movement with more than 20 countries taking similar action, but we know there's more to do when it comes to online safety and we're doing that through today releasing our Digital Duty of Care legislation for consultation. As part of this draft legislation, we're acting on algorithms with a landmark initiative, My Feed, My Way. This is not about giving government control. It's about giving people control. It's about putting choice back into the hands of Australians online. Through our Digital Duty of Care, we will require platforms to protect children from harmful content, including content that promotes eating disorders, misogynistic content, pornography, and content that glorifies crime. We'll require social media platforms to provide user empowerment tools that give people over the age of 16 genuine and enduring choice about what they see in their feeds. We'll provide eSafety with the power to issue removal notices for nudify apps or websites, and streamline the child cyberbullying and adult cyber abuse schemes, and will require digital platforms to document the measures taken to address harm to Australian users and ensure measures remain effective over time.
This is sensible, pragmatic, practical reform. It gives users choice and it will hold the big tech companies responsible for inaction. If they don't follow our laws, they will face significant penalties of more than $100 million. We have an opportunity to shape technology for the better rather than let it shape us. And that is what our reforms are all about. We're going to hear from the Minister, and then we'll hear from Emma Mason, Wayne Holdsworth and Jim Hungerford, and then we're happy to take some questions. Minister.
ANIKA WELLS, MINISTER FOR COMMUNICATIONS: Thanks PM. For too long, tech companies have been running real-time, unregulated product testing on Australians and their platforms and tools have infiltrated our daily lives in ways that we could never have imagined. Some good, but some with terrible consequences. And there is a global reckoning coming for Big Tech. And it started here in Australia with the introduction of our world-leading social media minimum age laws. That's giving children time to build more digital resilience and digital skills. With our Digital Duty of Care, we are taking the next step forward by requiring tech companies to take responsibility for the harms that their products, tools, and features are causing Australians. The same way that we have safety standards for cars, for food, for appliances, Australia is setting basic safety standards for the online tools and online services within our Digital Duty of Care. Tech companies can still move fast, but they will no longer be allowed to break things. Because online harms have real world consequences, especially for children as the parents, advocates and educators assembled here today have lived. Girls getting advice from chatbots on how to exist on only 600 calories a day, boys being cyberbullied by strangers on online games and young people doing dangerous or illegal things in real life because they saw it online. The Duty of Care goes beyond social media to keep kids safe online, be that in games, on AI chatbots, on the web or chatting with their friends. But let me be clear, the Digital Duty of Care is not about controlling adults online. It is about giving adults a choice. We'll hear from Emma.
EMMA MASON, LET THEM BE KIDS: Good morning. My name's Emma Mason and I'm the mother of Tilly Rosemore who died by suicide in February 2022. And I thank the Prime Minister and the Minister for asking me to speak today. And as one of the parents of lost children, we're so incredibly proud about today being Australian. And you all should be proud about being Australian because this is a new era. This is a time in which Digital Duty of Care now means that there is not just social media restrictions, but looking at all technology and protecting because this is what it's about. I want you all to think not about government control. As the Prime Minister once said to me, it's not, it's government support. And we need support. All of us need that support at times in our lives and for children, they need it more. And I just want to thank all of you for being part of this momentous occasion. Thank you.
WAYNE HOLDSWORTH, SMACKTALK: Thanks very much Prime Minister and Minister Wells for the opportunity of being here today. I support wholeheartedly the Digital Duty of Care and particularly its intent. I've read it thoroughly twice this morning and I support it wholeheartedly. We need to act now because as each week passes, we lose Australian children to social media. Either they're damaged or they're damaged forever. As each week passes, we lose our Australian children, just like I lost my son, Mac, two and a half years ago. We can't see that happening again. We've got to act now. It's so important. We don't want to look back and see this era as an era where we can quantify the atrocities caused by social media. We want to look back on this era as a time when Australia led the world to improve the opportunities for our kids and to keep them safe. The atrocities, if they continue without this Bill, will be equivalent to the atrocities that occurred through World War II. That is the research. And so, we have an opportunity to mitigate that risk. And if Mr Musk or Mr Zuckerberg doesn't believe that, then I challenge them to a live debate. That takes courage. I have that. The genuine compassion shown by the Minister, Minister Wells and the Prime Minister is something that has not been shown by the tech giants. They monetise our children and that has been plainly obvious. They have technology to identify how old our kids are. They choose not to use it. That defines them. So, we can't have Mac back, we can't have Ollie back, we can't have Tilly back, but we can use their deaths as a catalyst to do more and to protect the children of the future. Thanks very much for the opportunity.
PRIME MINISTER: Thank you Wayne. And to Wayne and Emma and Mia, thank you for your extraordinary courage. We'll hear now as I said from Jim Hungerford.
JIM HUNGERFORD, BUTTERFLY FOUNDATION: Thank you Prime Minister. Every month we lose a hundred Australians to eating disorders. The Butterfly Helpline hears from people every day whose feeds are filled with idealised, unrealistic and weight-focused content. And we know that they are one of the key drivers for the development of an eating disorder. Butterfly welcomes the introduction of the draft Digital Duty of Care and particularly the inclusion of disordered eating as a named harm, because we know the devastation that it is causing and eating disorders are causing in Australia. We're looking forward to working with the Prime Minister and the Minister and the Parliament in making this work and supporting the health of Australians. Thank you.
PRIME MINISTER: Thanks very much. Can we have first questions about this if that's okay.
JOURNALIST: Can you rule out that this legislation will allow ACMA or the eSafety Commissioner to police what you call misinformation on the internet? When you mention harm in the legislation, can that include political statements or commentary? Because your opponents seem to think it might be censoring the internet. And a question for the Minister, will you be travelling to New York for UNGA and will your flights be cheaper this time?
PRIME MINISTER: Let's be very clear about what this is about. It's not about censorship. It's about giving people control themselves over what they see.
MINISTER WELLS: We can emphatically rule that out. This is about basic safety standards online for online services, and about the onus being on Big Tech to identify risks on their platform and to mitigate against those risks. This is about the systems and the tools and the features that cause harm and mostly serious harm for children. When it comes to adults, it's just a question of illegality and choice. So, the kind of serious harms that we're talking about here that adults will be prevented from engaging in online; child sexual exploitation, child abuse material, child grooming, violence, sexual violence, menacing, threatening or harassment and the promotion of terrorism and extremism. That's the kind of acts that will be prohibited to adults online. Apart from that, this is about choice. The choice for an adult to decide what their default feed will be, the algorithm or their following feed, their friends and the content creators they've chosen to follow.
JOURNALIST: And the trip?
PRIME MINISTER: Well, the Minister went to a News Corp sponsored event in New York, and something that I want to thank News Corp for the work that they've done in backing the Let Them Be Kids campaign and others. That was for a specific event that was there that took place and that was good. This time around in New York we'll be having our launch of the UN Security Council bid but also work on climate change. I can confirm that I'll be travelling there with yourself I hope and - no? Missing out. Well, with Kieran or someone I hope is travelling along and you'll all be very welcome.
JOURNALIST: Can you confirm that the Minister will have the ability to designate new forms of harm? Can you understand why there would be concerns about the Minister's ability to do this and would you be willing to shift on this in order to do a deal with the Coalition, given The Greens will be pushing for a more heavy-handed approach than what you're pushing?
PRIME MINISTER: What I hope, what I sincerely hope is that people across the Parliament from wherever they represent, have a look at the exposure draft of legislation that we're releasing today and come at this from a perspective of goodwill. If they're in any doubt, talk to any of these organisations about whether this is necessary. Well, this weekend, when they're on the sidelines of sport, talk to other parents of kids, if they have kids, about whether they're worried about these issues and whether there is indeed, I think overwhelmingly amongst Australians, a concern, and indeed whether these companies, whether these tech companies do have a duty of care. Now we'll work through, I'm not going to talk in, people haven't seen the draft legislation yet. So, you know, we'll deal with it in the normal, orderly way that we do. But I hope people come at this from the perspective in which it's intended.
MINISTER WELLS: The rule-making power exists elsewhere in the Online Safety Act. I used it, you recall, to include YouTube in the social media minimum age laws when I became the Communications Minister. That would have been disallowable in the Senate. Nobody disallowed it in the Senate. An example we lived over the summer is, you'll remember on the 29th of December, Grok came into being and started allowing users to nudify photos. There was a global outcry about that. You'll remember, for those of you who were on deck in the first week of January, we were having press conferences. What can you do about Grok? Can you ban it? We didn't have the ability to do that under the current laws. The rulemaking power would have allowed me to, like I do elsewhere in the Online Safety Act, consult with the eSafety Commissioner, seek her technical and expert advice and then declare nudifying photos of teenagers in bikinis a new serious harm. And then we could have disallowed it in the Senate if people took objection to that when we came back in February. That's how that would work. That it's a real, real-life example of how the rule making power would work. I guess it is on the Coalition if they're going to disagree with that once they've read the exposure draft, perhaps to consider is there preference that we recall Parliament every time there's a new Grok.
JOURNALIST: I'm going to be cheeky and ask two. We know that some, at least some of these big tech companies are already making very clear they don't like these changes. Some of these, you know, the heads or the owners of these companies are quite friendly with Donald Trump. How are you going to handle that if they raise this as an issue with the US President and he in turn arcs up about it? And secondly, just because we haven't seen the exposure draft yet, is it opt in or opt out? What, where have you gone with that?
MINISTER WELLS: So, the exposure draft is now out. You can peruse it online. What this will look like in real life as a user is that the platform will have to offer you the option - what would you like your default primary feed to be? Would you like it to be the algorithm or would you like it to be your following feed? So, the friends that you follow, the content creators that you choose to follow. You as a user will have to be offered that choice and then obviously you'll have the ability to make that choice over and over, as much as you want to change your mind through the platform.
JOURNALIST: On the potential risks of this upsetting the US President?
PRIME MINISTER: Look, we're a sovereign nation, we decide our policies based upon the Australian national interest. I as Prime Minister will do that regardless of what the issue is. But my relationship with the US President is indeed very good and I look forward to seeing President Trump in New York in a couple of weeks' time.
JOURNALIST: We've seen in the EU where they've had this opt-out model that there's been some malicious compliance from big tech companies. You know, if you have it opted out on Instagram, you have to keep opting out. Your profile doesn't look right, et cetera. Is there something specific in the Digital Duty of Care that will address potential malicious compliance?
MINISTER WELLS: So, the exposure draft speaks to the ability for the Government to make rules about user empowerment tools. That's what we're talking about here. We have been watching what's been happening in the EU. It will look different here because the notification, the pop up that you'll receive, Ellen, will be, what do you want as your primary feed? Do you want the algorithm? Do you want the following feed? And then the ability to choose again and again as you may wish? That looks a bit different to what it is in the EU. And the reality is lots of people are going to want to choose the algorithm. Lots of people follow it for entertainment. Lots of people follow it because they like supporting small local business in their suburb. That's their choice. We respect that choice. We just want people to have the choice not to do that as well.
JOURNALIST: On that point though, in the European Union, if you choose not to have the algorithm, the companies make it, you know, a very stripped-back version. You don't get access to instant messaging, for example. Is that pop up the only thing that's different, what's stopping them doing that here as well?
MINISTER WELLS: Let's work through the exposure draft. This is what we'll be requiring of Big Tech as part of our broadest, most seismic reforms and the Digital Duty of Care that Australia has ever seen. Obviously these are the world's richest, most resourced companies in the world and we work with our counterparts, I work with my Ministerial counterparts across the world around collaborating in a way that this enforces change across the globe. Yes, we are leading here in Australia, but there are plenty of other countries, like the PM said, more than 20 now, who are following in our wake and we look forward to continuing to work with them to make sure that this is change that sweeps the world.
JOURNALIST: Why did you decide not to do the opt-in model?
MINISTER WELLS: This is optimal through the middle. You will have a choice about whether you want the algorithm or whether you want the following feed. That is a neutral choice that Australians will be able to make. It's empowering. It's about choice, like the PM started.
JOURNALIST: Minister Wells, in the consultation for the Digital Duty of Care, one of the things raised by the platforms a lot was they wanted really clear definitions. Obviously we haven't seen the draft, but could you step through, say for something like harassment - who is deciding what that looks like and what is the expectation on a platform? Is it if harassment occurs, it gets reported, they get fined? Or are they supposed to be building it into the platform itself?
MINISTER WELLS: So, under the Digital Duty of Care, the baseline is that all online services must identify risks on their platform and mitigate against those risks. They must do safety by design. We don't have that at the moment, so we're instilling that as a foundation. Then where people have interactions where they believe that is not being observed, they can use the eSafety Commissioner to go through the process. So, ultimately the answer to your question is the eSafety Commissioner makes that determination. But what Digital Duty of Care does is install a foundation of basic safety standards that is currently missing. These are, like I said, these are not new illegal harms that we are introducing. These are existing illegalities that exist in Australian criminal law. No one will be surprised by the common sense definitions that they see in the exposure draft which is out now.
JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, the ASIO boss has continuously mentioned how online radicalisation has become a problem and a threat to the country. I know this is focusing on children largely, but is there a role for these laws or the potential next phase or step in that national security space, be it domestically or from foreign interference?
PRIME MINISTER: The national security agencies are concerned about what's happening online. So, we will be engaging with them, have engaged with them regularly. Our NSC meets regularly, met yesterday. And one of the things that we will be considering is, what are the implications of this? One of the concerns which is there with some of the material that's got as well is the implications behind bad faith actors pushing material in order to undermine social cohesion. There is no question that that has occurred.
JOURNALIST: It sounds like there will be broad definitions of harms. How will you prevent mission creep or, you know, something like political speech getting caught up in them if it's down to the eSafety Commissioner and the platforms?
MINISTER WELLS: Because if you think about this as for kids and for adults, the Digital Duty of Care is about identifying and mitigating against risk, but it's about illegal content for adults, it's about serious harms for kids. And there are six of those which you'll see, which is content around the promotion of eating disorders. So, like I said, a chatbot giving a teenage girl advice about how to exist on 600 calories a day. Misogynistic content that promotes hostile attitudes towards women. So, that might be a particular platform circulating content that women or girls are equivalent to beasts or animals. Pornography. Content that glorifies crime or dangerous stunts. So, there's people at the moment that steal cars, circulate that footage online and then content that causes serious distress, and that includes abuse and cyberbullying. So, that is like a chatbot telling a teenager how to self-harm. So, these are all things that the eSafety Commissioner currently grapples with and has for some time. But we are making those the six serious harms that will be regulated for Australian children. For Australian adults, it's just illegal content.
JOURNALIST: Are you, Prime Minister, are you confident that the legislation will stand up to legal challenge, including potentially on constitutional grounds?
PRIME MINISTER: Yes, we are, otherwise we wouldn't be introducing it. We receive legal advice as part of the normal process of Cabinet consideration. Of course there will be opponents because what this is about is changing the power relationship. We're taking power from big global tech companies and giving it to ordinary Australians. That is what we are doing. It's the right thing to do.
JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, just following up on that question. What should big tech companies expect will happen if they flout these laws? If they try and build workarounds? What are the consequences?
MINISTER WELLS: So, there'd be big fines. For example, if you are breaching the social media minimum age law as one of the big tech companies, you would then be also breaching the digital duty of care. So, those fines would ratchet up to more than $200 million per offence. Now, many of you have covered whether very rich companies are concerned by fines. I guess putting that question to one side, that is what we have to do. That is Australian consumer law. These are the fines that we see reflected elsewhere where basic safety standards are breached in other Australian industries. We have to work as a coalition of middle powers across the world to see these kinds of reforms implemented in all countries so that big tech is required to make these kinds of changes across the globe. There's been some seismic cases in the past few weeks. Many of you have talked about the Meta case. This is our contribution, really important serious reform.
JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, what is your expectation when these laws are passed? Would you like to see every platform, offer all Australians the choice on day one or immediately? And also, how realistic do you think it is going to be that people are already addicted to the feeds? They may not know it'll be a aware of it because of the way they design these algorithms. How likely is it that they're actually going to stop doomscrolling and take up the choice?
PRIME MINISTER: Well, the point is that Ministers shouldn't decide these things. People will. People will decide what they want to take up. And that's the whole basis of this. This isn't about government decision making, this is about empowering people. And so we hope that that produces good outcomes. If people want to doom scroll as you call it, that's fine. That's up to them. That's up to them. But if people want to have a change, then this will provide them with the opportunity. As the Minister has said, this isn't a debate taking place in isolation here in Canberra. This is a debate which will be discussed at the United Nations. It's a debate that's taking place in countries all around the world because the sort of impact that we're seeing, the rise in mental health issues, the rise in eating disorders, a range of responses directly arising from some of the ways that these platforms operate is having an impact and governments are responding, some faster than others. But I'm proud that Australia isn't waiting for everyone else and the motivation for that is these fantastic people behind me.
JOURNALIST: Minister Wells, you told the Saturday paper, you know, you said the decline of trust in politics is problematic. You mentioned algorithms. Here you are now, I guess, deciding, you know, you were concerned about trust and politics and the algorithms. Here you are now legislating the algorithms, I guess. What's your response? And concerns that this is wide reaching and you know, it's pretty vague. I'm just going through the, you know, with you deciding ultimately what is harmful, I guess what is your. Sorry, got me -
MINISTER WELLS: Well, I'm not deciding -
JOURNALIST: No, no, no, sorry, sorry. My question was - sorry. You told the Saturday paper the decline of trust or politics is problematic, but wouldn't you argue that the Government itself walking back election pledges, for example, or, you know, concerns over wide ranging policies such as this, doesn't that add to distrust?
MINISTER WELLS: The observation I made at the Saturday paper interview was at mobile offices. I have people who have been reading online, coming to me, and they're not believing me when I tell them something that I am myself legislating in the Parliament. That is something that is discussed broadly not just in this building but in all places of democratic institutions across the country. That is a very separate question to the Digital Duty of Care that we are putting out for exposure draft today. I think you'll find that there is heightened debate in this country and it is upon us to try and restore trust where we can with our individual constituents. I was merely telling a story about how I was trying to do that one to one at a mobile office two weeks ago.
PRIME MINISTER: I'm going to have to, hang on, hang on. We're going to end reasonably soon. Everyone's had a fair crack.
JOURNALIST: Andy Burnham is announcing a ban on commercial activity with Israeli settlements in the West Bank to reflect the international law that they're not legal. Would you consider such a step?
PRIME MINISTER: Look, our position on the Middle East, I've made clear on a number of occasions. We support a two state solution in the Middle East. We think that is important for both Israelis and Palestinians to be able to live in peace and security. Thanks very much.
