MINISTER FOR COMMUNICATIONS AND SPORT ANIKA WELLS: Thank you all for coming. Today is another major milestone in the Albanese Government’s commitment to reducing online harm. Research reveals that one child in every classroom in Australia has now been a victim of deepfake imagery. eSafety reports, digitally altered intimate images for people under 18 has doubled in the past 18 months. Four out of five those reported are young girls. In fact, 99 per cent of sexually explicit deepfakes are estimated to be of women and girls. In one high-profile Melbourne case, investigators found 50 female students at a single high school were victims of sexually explicit online materials.

These harms are too great for us not to act, so today we are announcing the Albanese Government will use every lever at our disposal to restrict access to nudification and undetectable stalking apps. There are gaps in current restrictions when it comes to eliminating nudify imagery. While there are laws against publishing illicit material, there are no Commonwealth restrictions or offences regarding the use or distribution of nudify services.

So, from today, we will investigate at a national level how to stop nudification and undetectable online stalking harm before it occurs. We seek to take reporting responsibility from the victims and, instead, stop it at the source. I am going to work with industry and advocates to make these reforms as tight as possible because it is too important not to. Because we must make the online environment safer for children.

I have heard from parents during a sit-down with the Prime Minister today when Wayne, Emma, Jane, and Fiona spoke passionately about protecting kids online. Every Australian should be able to share holiday snaps with friends without having to have their dignity stripped through AI. These apps are only designed to abuse, to bully, to humiliate and to harass, and we are determined to restrict them because, while the image is fake, the harm is very real.

Any questions? 

JOURNALIST: Minister, you’re cracking down on these tech companies, but it’s people that create, possess, and share this material. How’s the Federal Government working to hold these people accountable?

WELLS: We have previously criminalised the distribution of deepfake imagery - we have done that already. I guess where I feel we must go next is shifting the responsibility from people having to report harm after the harm has occurred, to stopping the harm from happening in the first place. And from putting the onus on tech platforms who conduct business in our country, use our data, make enormous profits. I think it is reasonable to ask them to use that tech and that data to protect us in our country as well.

JOURNALIST: Kate Chaney’s private members bill deals with some of the stuff you’re talking about here. It criminalises technology that is explicitly used to create sexual deepfakes. Why not ban that? That’ll create criminal penalties in line with what she’s calling for.

WELLS: I think what she’s doing is good. What I’m trying to do is stop it at the source. So, this is about maybe looking at ways maybe the eSafety Commissioner could block these apps from being on app stores or websites. Maybe we could direct the platforms to take them down or to be responsible for taking them down in the first place.

So far, and these are existing state laws, there is that private member’s bill that deals with the distribution of these images. Let’s stop that from happening before they get to a point where teenage boys are distributing them to their friends and the harm is occurring.

JOURNALIST: If the eSafety Commissioner has some of those powers that (indistinct)  … but it doesn’t seem to be working.

ANIKA WELLS: This is about going further.

JOURNALIST: How much further?

WELLS: This is about going as far as we can to keep kids safe online, and I would say that that work has begun.

I met with the International Centre for Missing and Exploited Children this morning. They held a roundtable here of national leaders at Parliament House. They have been doing this work for a long time and they have been desperately waiting on a government to take this on. We are that Government. We are taking it on.

And I think it will, a bit like social media minimum age reforms, the tech moves so fast. AI is developing so rapidly, that any one thing I said to you today as a viable model might be viable in two months’ time. So, it’s about saying this is the line in the sand. And we will work with experts, we will work with advocates to make sure that we are doing more to protect people online.

JOURNALIST: So just to clarify, are you saying that you are wanting to support that private member’s bill submitted by Kate Chaney?

WELLS: I think we, as the Federal Government, are doing the work to implement recommendation 27, which is what we’re talking about today, to do more to stop these things at the source. Why is it the case that, you upload such an outrageously, prohibitively predatory app to begin with and then have the ambulance at the cliff seeking to criminalise when the harm has occurred? Given the rates of harm that is happening to teenagers in Australia - like I said, just in the past 18 months, the use of deepfake, sexualised imagery in under 18s has doubled - we need to do more than putting an ambulance at the bottom of the cliff. We’ve got to stop it at the start.

JOURNALIST: So, what do you mean by restrict access? Like, is the app going to be not available for download or it depends on how old the person is in their device settings? Like, what do actually mean?

WELLS: What we’re going to do is take the advice from experts, take the advice from advocates, about the best ways to do this. And I think, much like with trying to reduce things in other tech spaces like social media minimum age laws, it might look different for every different app. They’ve all got proprietary technology and they all don’t share these things with each other.

But much like our commitment to the Digital Duty of Care, which is also part of the Government’s response to the Online Safety Act, this is about shifting responsibility from victims to the platforms who choose to engage here, choose to offer these services, choose to use our data, and choose to profit from them in this country, doing more to protect their users who use those platforms.

JOURNALIST: Will there be consequences for the platforms if they’re found not to have taken down apps that, perhaps, have enabled this kind of behaviour?

WELLS: Yeah, there will. There’ll be consequences and exactly what those look like will be work that we continue to do as part of our broader response to the Online Safety Act.

JOURNALIST: When do you expect- say, results from this work, when would a change actually occur?

WELLS: Look, I would like to say as soon as possible. I’m sure you’d like more specific answer than that but, as is always the case, I’m finding in my new role as Minister for Communications, tech moves so fast, it is always a case that you are sprinting to catch up. And I think you can all observe that Australian laws, like laws the world over, have not kept up with the pace of technology and with the harm that is occurring as a result of that.

Step one, you have to draw line in the sand about what you will and will not tolerate as a government. I am making very clear to you today, the Albanese Government will not tolerate this, and we’ll be working with experts in the field who have been waiting on a government to take this on to get this done.

JOURNALIST: Minister, where are we at with the Digital Duty of Care Bill? Where’s that progressing?

WELLS: So, the Digital Duty of Care is part of the recommendations in the Online Safety Act reforms. So, we are working with the eSafety Commissioner. We talked about them this morning at ICMEC, the International Centre for Missing and Exploited Children - with people like Grace Tame and Sonya Ryan who are there to give a victim-led account of what they want to see governments do. That work, together with the work that we do with the eSafety Commissioner, continues.

Like you heard me say when we talked about the social media minimum age laws with the PM a few weeks ago, all of the what about questions direct you to a digital duty of care. It’s about what we expect of platforms who choose to conduct business in this country. We expect them to have a duty of care for their users. They haven’t had to have one to date. It’s been entirely self-nominated what they choose to do and not do. We don’t think that’s good enough, and so we’re mandating a duty of care.

JOURNALIST: Specifically, what else do you have to do before you respond to the Murphy recommendation to ban online gambling advertising?

WELLS: Well, with respect to the recommendations which sit with the Minister for Communications as opposed to the recommendations which sit with the Minister for Social Services or elsewhere, I would make the point that some of those recommendations ask state and territory jurisdictions to do things. Some of those recommendations ask for a MOG change. Some of those recommendations ask for budget allocations.

I am doing the work in my spaces about plotting a pathway forward and I look forward to giving you an update on that as soon as I can.

JOURNALIST: Minister, I was asking specifically about online gambling advertising. My understanding is that sits under you, not Minister Plibersek or a state and territory counterpart. Who else are you meeting with and what other consultation? It’s been longer than two years

WELLS: My answer to that is exactly what I gave you in the first place.

JOURNALIST: On that state and territories, are you going to hold a roundtable with state and territories’ gaming ministers then to come to a national conclusion or to be able to coherently address the Murphy recommendations when it comes across jurisdictions?

WELLS: I think one of the recommendations, and correct me if I’m wrong, was that the Ministry for Social Services coordinate a national coming together. Gambling in and of itself sits within the social services portfolio. So mostly, not entirely, but mostly carriage of those responsibilities and any response from state, territory or Federal Government jurisdictions sits there. And I am working with Minister Plibersek, our offices are meeting regularly to advance this work.

JOURNALIST: But the recommendation said there should be a single minister in charge.

WELLS: That’s right. Which is why I’m saying one of the reasons why you haven’t seen a response to this yet is that would require a MOG change.

JOURNALIST: Minister, just regarding the BetStop program, are you concerned about the number of gambling companies that are falling foul of their obligations under that program?

WELLS: Absolutely. And like I said, I am doing the work and I look forward to giving you an answer as soon as I can. But, a bit like tech, offshore gambling websites and when people are acting malevolently, you’ve heard me talk before about the increasing and alarming rate of Australian athletes who are being targeted by these people offshore and that is impacting the Australian sporting ecosystem.

JOURNALIST: But for local companies, about BetStop, though, you know, local companies that are operating here, like Unibet, PointsBet, they’re falling foul of their obligations under BetStop. Are you concerned about that, that they’re going to keep getting pinged by ACMA?

WELLS: Absolutely, and we are always looking at ways, we are working with ACMA on how we can give them more powers to crack down on this, because we want to see it stamped out.

JOURNALIST: Do you think extending the scheme to other forms of betting - retail betting, keno, online, poker and stuff like that - is that something that you would consider? Would you consider extending BetStop to other forms of gambling?

WELLS: I think we would consider anything that advances the cause of reducing gambling harms online, in so much as the spaces online are mine as Minister for Communications to navigate and to improve.

JOURNALIST: Minister, the Greens have just put out a statement saying Bob Katter should either apologise or resign, warning that across the world we’re seeing journalists targeted by violence and threats. Do you agree? Should Bob Katter apologise or resign?

ANIKA WELLS: I would say that Bob Katter should account for his actions and I think he should apologise to Josh Bavas. However, that is a matter him to consider. If I was in his position, that’s what I’d do.

JOURNALIST: Minister, about the Age Assurance Technology report that came out yesterday, what’s your response to some pretty significant concerns about the safety and reliability of those services?

ANIKA WELLS: I didn’t see pretty significant concerns. I saw fairly positive and relieved feedback that, clearly, what the Age Assurance trial has shown us is that there are private, efficient and effective ways for all platforms to assure themselves of people’s ages on their platforms in this country. And that as of yesterday with the full release of the report, all 1200 pages of it, there is no excuse for platforms not to have age assurance tech in place for 10 December.

JOURNALIST: But there are concerns from some security experts about the privacy implications. And people did speak out yesterday saying this is a monumental shift in how we operate online and having to actively hand over information. Is this a huge trust exercise with the social media platforms to not misuse or use that data for other purposes?

ANIKA WELLS: I mean, two things can be right in your answer. One this is a huge trust exercise for the digital platforms. Absolutely, they are on notice. Yesterday demonstrated there is no excuse for 10 December for them not to discharge their duties and to improve their duty of care to Australian users online.

But I would also say, there is a misinformation campaign out there about erosions of privacy. The Albanese Government has always stood for privacy and for improvements to privacy laws. And that is why we have enshrined in the social media minimum age laws a requirement that platforms offer an alternative to age verification than having to upload your identification online.

JOURNALIST: Is there truth there that some platforms will have to hold on to identification information for a possible future audit? And that obviously goes against current privacy laws. So, can we guarantee that that will not be a part of any future identification verification laws?

ANIKA WELLS: Yes, I can. That is a conspiracy theory out there and I’m happy to knock it off today.

JOURNALIST: Minister, on the tightening of the FOI. AI bots, foreign actors were to blame. You know, it’s something that you want to act on. But can you put evidence out there, is there a prevalence of AI bots and foreign actors? And which foreign actors are seeking to tap into information that you can only obtain through FOI?

WELLS: As the Minister for Communications, we’ve been deluged with FOI’s. Which are, if you are a human person reading the request, very apparent has been auto-generated. And I have heard tales of that being across the board. There has been a prolific increase of FOI requests.

Public servants are now spending a million hours a year working on FOI requests. And those FOI requests are not all a sincere and earnest private citizen trying to get to the bottom of a public policy matter. A lot of those FOI requests are vexatious and malicious.

And I’m sure, as members of the Fourth Estate, you want us answering your very sincere and valid FOI request. Not spending a million hours a year tied up in vexatious and frivolous requests that people can use AI to generate.

JOURNALIST: Why isn’t simple recapture technology put in place to stop AI bots? Isn’t that a simple answer, rather than putting fees on members of the public to access government documents?

WELLS: Well, that is not the case that private citizens will have to pay fees to use FOI. And you will hear more from the Attorney General on this space shortly.

JOURNALIST: Private citizens will have to pay to use FOI, just not to access their own information. So, everyone will have to pay.

WELLS: You will hear more from the Attorney General on this later.

JOURNALIST: Just on that, Mark Butler did say that foreign actors are part of this, and bots and AI. So, did he provide or did the Attorney General provide any evidence? 

WELLS: I haven’t spoken to Mark Butler about this and you will hear more from the Attorney General in this space to answer all of your very worthy questions soon.

JOURNALIST: Going back to gambling, you mentioned before foreign gambling companies as a part of a problem. But if you speak about banning gambling advertising, which is the key recommendation

WELLS: There are 31 recommendations in the report.

JOURNALIST: So, the keystone was to address gambling harms by phasing out advertising and by stopping inducements. So, just going back to the foreign gambling problem that you mentioned. How does blocking advertising across Australian platforms or in Australia then give a leg up to foreign kind of platforms? How is that in the discussion with you?

WELLS: What you’re talking about is recommendation 26, which is one of 31 recommendations in a holistic response to reducing online gambling harm. The offshore markets and, I guess I’m leaning into my Sports Ministry here when I talk about the Macolin Convention, legislation I’ve been working on to address the harms that Australian athletes are suffering as a result of offshore gambling markets and the predators that associate themselves with that work.

So, for me, I have been working on that for some time. It is linked to this. It is not tied together. But that is one recommendation from the review.

JOURNALIST: How is it linked? How are those two- you mentioned that link but not overlapping, can you just that link for me?

ANIKA WELLS: I think I’ve already said it but I’ll say it again, and I apologise if I wasn’t clear in the first place. As the Sports Minister for three years, Sport Integrity Australia has been working with me about an alarming rate and rise in harm suffered by Australian athletes. And also, migrant athletes who come to this country to play soccer or what have you being targeted for offshore gambling markets and extorted, essentially.

So, you might have seen cases, sometimes it comes out in the media, where people throw yellow cards or red cards and they are paid to do so by an offshore gambling market so that offshore gambling company can profit.

So, that is an existing problem that I’ve been working on as the Sports Minister for three years. And I’ve been working on some legislation in particular to bring to the Parliament that will address things like where that is identified in WA about something happening in Victoria. The federal rules do not allow those two different agencies to speak to each other or me to intervene to stop it from happening. 

In this review, one of the recommendations talks about how offshore gambling companies and offshore gambling predators use the Australian markets. And then you’re talking about Rec 26, which is about how gambling advertising companies should be used.