TOM CONNELL, NATIONAL PRESS CLUB PRESIDENT: Thank you, Minister. So you’ve mentioned the vulnerability. Obviously, you have teens accessing these social media platforms as a primary reason not to. Sixteen-year-olds and 17-year-olds are still pretty vulnerable – do you have a watching brief as to whether you’d increase the age? Most things, if there’s a limitation in Australia, you can’t do them until you’re 18.

MINISTER FOR COMMUNICATIONS ANIKA WELLS: Yeah, we’ve spoken about this before, the origin of this law was the campaign by hundreds of thousands of parents, and in particular Let Them Be Kids and 36 Months. And 36 Months asked for 36 more months. The official policy of these platforms is that the starting age can be 13, so 36 more months makes it 16. That’s how we got to 16, and you’ll see different ages being used by different jurisdictions across the world. But one of the things we’ve done is institute a two-year survey that eSafety Commission is going to run from when this law starts to monitor its progress, measure the data, see what the intended and unintended consequences look like and how we can improve the law. And, I guess, that would be an element of what we consider across that two-year scope.

CONNELL: The sporting reference I’ll give is we have close to an AFL team asking for questions, so I will keep to one. I’m sure my colleagues will, beginning with Clare Armstrong from the ABC.

JOURNALIST: Thanks, Minister, for your speech today. Enforcing this ban relies on multilayered age assurance. Lots of the platforms have spoken about the use of third parties collecting biometric data. What’s your assurance to parents who fear that that could be collected, stored and reused down the track in a way that wasn’t its intent? And to what extent do you actually think biometric data is going to play a big role here given that, for example in 2023, TikTok using inferred information alone kicked a million under-aged Australian users off the platform?

WELLS: Well, I think the very fun and snappy 1200-page age assurance trial report gave us all a great deal of comfort that these things are possible and that there is a range of techniques, and I think Julie would say a waterfall of techniques that these platforms are going to be able to use, including biometric data. But Julie as the eSafety Commissioner has also put in place a number of guardrails through our regulatory advice about the capturing of that data, keeping of that data, that they must not capture more than they need to. They must dispose of it as quickly as possible.

And the second point I would make to this, which I made in the speech earlier but I think always is worth repeating, we give so much of our data voluntarily to these platforms. They already have the data that they need about how old you are based on information you have voluntarily given them. And yes, there’ll be people who try to use their older siblings for their biometric data to erode facial ID, in the same way that there are kids who ask their older siblings to go and buy them alcohol because they’re not over 18 and their sibling is. We understand that there’s going to be ways around this, but this is about the cultural change so that the class is off social media. There’s maybe an outlier on it, not that there’s one person who’d really prefer to be off it or have strict parents or can’t afford a smartphone, whatever it is, and they’re the outlier because everybody else is on it day and night. 

CONNELL: Mark Riley from the Seven Network.

JOURNALIST: Minister, I think parents understand why you’re instituting this ban. But they’re also asking, why don’t you ban the content in the first place? There’s stuff on the internet telling kids how to kill themselves, the most pernicious content that if any of we regulated licensed broadcasters were to run, we’d very reasonably have our licenses removed. What’s the government doing to stop this content being broadcast in the first place?

WELLS: I think you make a very good point, and that’s why I refer constantly to the fact that seven out of 10 Australian kids have witnessed harm online. And the next step of this, which is a holistic response that we are banking to online safety as part of our response to the Online Safety Act review, is the digital duty of care. And that captures all the ‘what-abouts’ of this law, I think. That is an open question to Australians: what do we expect of our social media platforms? What responsibility, what legal duty of care do they owe us as Australians? So consultation is currently out on that. We’ll be working on that over the next year, and that will be about the broader question of content and what duty of care do platforms owe us when they offer these things and then sell our data for advertising revenue.

CONNELL: Amalee Saunders from the Nine Network.

JOURNALIST: Minister, Google has today announced how it plans to roll out this ban on its platforms. It says that children will be less safe without accounts. What’s your message to parents who are now concerned they won’t be able to monitor what their kids watch online?

WELLS: My particular response would be that you can still use parental control measures on YouTube Kids, which is not captured by these laws, and I would urge parents who are worried about that to look at eSafety.gov.au, which has great materials to work through what this looks like for your household. But I guess I’m going to level with you. I find it outright weird that YouTube is always at pains to remind us all of how unsafe their platform is in a logged out state. And if YouTube even this morning is reminding us all that it is not safe and that there is content not appropriate for age restricted users on their website, then that is a problem that YouTube needs to fix.

CONNELL: Ron Mizen from the AFR.

JOURNALIST: Thank you, Minister. Already kids are starting to talk about moving to Yope, Locket Widget, RedNote, Lemon8, Coverstar, Discord. There are no doubt many others. You ban them, others will pop up. How confident are you that you can really crack down on this and keep up with the pace of new companies which will no doubt see the profit incentive of targeting them? And also increasingly, social element here isn’t the problem for kids. It’s the AI content that’s coming at them and encouraging them through predatory algorithms, you referred to it. How are you looking at AI in this space?

WELLS: Your first question, I think Julie as the eSafety Commissioner and I have previously referred to the whack-a-mole nature. It’s a dynamic evolving industry. Tech is constantly evolving. We also must be dynamic and agile as we respond. We published the list of the 10 platforms mostly to help parents and teachers and people who look after under-16s with one source of truth, which they can find on eSafety.gov.au. That’s why I keep referring to the list as dynamic, because it will need to expand as different platforms receive migratory patterns like you’re saying. But I guess the law as it stands applies to all social media platforms. All of the platforms, many of which you just named, are now working with eSafety to self-assess, are they an age restricted social media platform? That's the law. But the way we name the 10 platforms is mostly to try and inform parents and help them work through this transition with their kid.

JOURNALIST: AI, sorry?

WELLS: AI, I spoke to our determination to ban nudify apps, that's a response. I think what you can see is a targeted and measured response to a particular challenge of AI in this space. Julie has referred to some early work she has done this year on AI bots in particular. You’ll see, yesterday, we announced the AI Safety Institute, which will have particular assistance with us as we try and deal with these different parts in the different lanes. So, it’s work in progress, Ron.

CONNELL: Next question, Anna Henderson from SBS.

JOURNALIST: Anna Henderson, SBS. If you buy alcohol for someone under age, it's illegal and you're punished. So, if someone over 16 sets up an account for someone who is under age, what happens to them?

WELLS: There is not a punishment for them. This isn't about punishing under 16s or parents who have allowed under 16s to establish social media accounts up until 10 December – that is legally possible in Australia. This is about putting the responsibility back on the social media platforms who have been able to operate, essentially, in a wild, wild west for 10, 15, 20 years, with immeasurable harms. The things is, they're now measurable. We now have so much data and evidence about what is happening to our kids online, that we feel we must act.

JOURNALIST: Would you consider it if there is a proliferation of these accounts being set up by people over 16?

WELLS: We are focused on systemic breaches of the platforms, and that's why I outlined in my speech today exactly what that will look like from 9 December through. Like I said, this law isn't set and forget - we're always going to look at ways to improve it. But I think, for the most part, this is about changing the responsibility and the onus to being, what do social media platforms owe us as their users as they seek to operate in our country.

CONNELL: Your review at the end of two years, would it not look if there are a massive number of accounts that parents had helped children get, and you action on that – wouldn’t that be logical?

WELLS: Absolutely.

CONNELL: Okay. Reuben Spargo from Sky News.

JOURNALIST: Minister, thank you. It's been revealed your recent trip to New York to spruik this ban cost more than $100,000. For yourself and two staffers air fares cost $94,800; accommodation cost just under US$12,000; and, ground transport cost US$4,000. How do you justify spending this amount of taxpayer dollars?

WELLS: Well, the reason you know all those things is we're transparent about them, we'll disclose them and we'll continue to disclose information about that through the usual processes. That trip was undertaken as the Minister for Communications. And I think, and I would think the people who were there for that UN event who join us in this room today, would agree with me that it was incredibly important. 

That event fueled a global momentum in this space. You have seen a number of different jurisdictions come out from that moment, as recently as last week, to announce they're going to do exactly what Australia is doing. They're going to mimic Australia in this space. It's important and I’ll continue to be transparent about what that cost, what it looks like, what we did, in the usual way.

JOURNALIST: You don't think that was expensive for air fares - over $94,000?

WELLS: I’ve answered your question.

CONNELL: Ellen Ransley from News Corp.

JOURNALIST: Thanks, Minister. Some of the methods kids are talking about online of how they’re going to circumvent this includes involving their parents, for example, helping them - using parents' emails, using parents' faces for age verification, putting owned by parents in their TikTok bios, for example. What's your message to parents who are willing to help their children circumvent these laws? 

WELLS: Whilst I have seen some of that in the media reporting of this issue, I have yet to have a single Australian parent walk up to me and give me that message as the Communications Minister. What I have had is countless Australian parents come up to me and say, thank you. I have been completely helpless in this space. We are just at a loss of what to do with this in our house. It is a fight every single night. I am a perfectly competent human being in my professional life, and I'm at a loss on this issue.

What we're doing with this is giving those parents another weapon in the arsenal in this fight. Like I said, it's not a cure. It's a treatment plan. And obviously, not everyone’s going to agree with these laws - we appreciate that, that's democracy. But these laws experience incredible popularity and are, of themselves by creation, a response to more than 120,000 Australian parents who asked us to step up.

CONNELL: What about adults? I mean, there's a lot of Australians look pretty addicted to their phones from where I'm sitting.

WELLS: Yeah, I’ve had that feedback too - can you ban me as well?

CONNELL: I'm not going to single anyone out. Is there a role - for example, you can get apps. I downloaded one because I just thought I'm looking at my phone too much when you're trying to put down your kids or whatever it might be, and then it costs however many dollars a month. Is there an actual role for Government? Maybe a free service that you can try to - not a ban, I don't think that would go down very well – but try to help people use their phones less? Would that be a good thing?

WELLS: I think this is incredibly important public policy space. Part of the challenge of it is that it's ineffable, it’s fast moving, things that Julie and I are fighting today, there may be three or four new challenges by the end of the month. But where we're going, I think we’ve set out clearly, is the digital duty of care - that's our big parcel of work for 2026. And I think what’s been useful in the past couple of weeks in particular is households have prepared for this law that's coming, is it sparked a really useful national discourse around this space. 

I would hope that everybody who’s coming up with ideas, suggestions, about how this might look or how this might be improved or be more expansive to provide better public policy, will make contributions and submissions to the digital duty of care consultation so we have a great snapshot of what Australians expect social media platforms to care for us, what a digital duty of care should look like.

CONNELL: Next question, Natassia Chrysanthos from the SMH.

JOURNALIST: Thanks, minister. Just to follow up on Reuben's question and on transparency, could you explain perhaps why those flights cost upward of $34,000. For example, were the first class flights? Given the Government's kind of sensitivity to cost of living issues, do you think it passes the pub test?

WELLS: No, they weren't first class flights. We will disclose further, through the usual IPEA processes that haven't rolled out yet. The reason you have this information now is because it was a question on notice that we provide it ahead of the Senate Estimates process – all absolutely usual and we'll continue to comply with all of the usual rules. 

I would refer you back to the fact that this is about one of the most important public policy challenges of our time. The event that Emma spoke at, the event that Let Them Be Kids and 36 Months hosted alongside the Prime Minister and I, was attended by multiple world leaders, the President of the EU. And, as we heard on the day as we heard since, really helped contribute to the global momentum in this space.

CONNELL: Was it a last minute fare, is that why it was so expensive? Was it a last minute decision to go?

WELLS: Well, it's a matter of public record I delayed my departure because of the Optus outages, so I wouldn't be able to give you a definitive answer, Tom. But like I said, we'll continue to be completely transparent about this.

CONNELL: Jack Quail from The Australian.

JOURNALIST: Thank you very much, Tom. And, thank you very much, Minister, for your address. I want to ask you about another area of your portfolio, which is regulation of gambling. I want to ask about the efficacy of existing Government schemes that you’ve introduced to reduce gambling harm. BetStop – Government research, last week, showed that only one in three punters knew that the scheme even existed. We’ve had research data from e61 today as well, showing that the credit card ban is having the least impact on Australia's most aggressive punters.

I guess my question to you is, are you concerned about the efficacy of these existing schemes, and are your efforts to date really up to scratch?

WELLS: I think this is another area of public policy in my patch that requires a holistic response, and that is whack-a-mole in its nature. Wherever we make a measure here, there's going to be a response over here. As you have heard me say before, the Albanese Government has made the most significant reforms to tackle online wagering harms in the Federation, some of those measures are the ones that you’re talking about. 

One of the nice things when I get asked about this by journalists, by yourself, is that I get to talk about BetStop and the fact that more than 50,000 registrations have now occurred. And the data coming back from those people who’ve registered is significant increases to their mental health, significant improvements to their quality of life – that’s what they’re reporting. 

Yes, we would love more people to sign up to it. Thank you for the opportunity to talk about it and encourage people watching on today to know they can register for BetStop if they're struggling with online wagering harm.

CONNELL: Matthew Franklin from Capital Brief.

JOURNALIST: I also want to ask about the gambling ad stuff. I know that if you talk to media companies, you talk to sporting codes a lot of them say, were you to make greater limits on gambling ads this would be a big blow to their revenue - cost a lot of jobs. You're the Minister for Communications. Do you actually believe that, were these companies not being able to run gambling ads they would not be able to find commensurate revenue in other sectors? And do you actually believe that with all the changes in the state of the Australian media, were you to make greater limitations on gambling ads, lots of journalists, including people in this room, would lose their job?

WELLS: Well, I think you've identified one of the elements that's at play when we try to settle what we do next. And you would have seen as recently as last week in the Parliament, the Government committed to further measures in this space. But there's no silver bullet or we would have pulled the trigger already. I think the You Win Some, You Lose More report even said in of itself there is no one singular response that we can do and that these things are complicated. I've said that before. I'm not going to repeat it again. 

But yes, I mean, in this space, there is a global trend where advertising revenue has moved hugely and swiftly to platforms, and that has had impact in other parts of the public policy ecosystem that rely on advertising. And that is an element that I am working through with the sporting companies, with the broadcasters. I keep meeting with them. I will continue to do it.

JOURNALIST: So, this is an issue about keeping people in work?

WELLS: Absolutely not. That's not what I'm saying, but that's my answer.

CONNELL: Next question. Dana Daniel from The Canberra Times.

JOURNALIST: Thank you, Minister. I also have a media related question about the news media bargaining incentive the Government's consulting on led by the Assistant Treasurer. The incentive aims to spark commercial deals between social media companies and publishers. As the Communications Minister, will you be seeking to ensure that the smaller regional publishers are not left at a competitive disadvantage and sort of left with the scraps when hundreds of millions of dollars are channeled towards the big media companies? And, when the Government's divvying up any funds raised by those platforms that do have to pay the levy, sorry, will you be looking to use that to boost rural and regional publishers?

WELLS: I think, speaking in the broad, yes, we are always concerned with the future of news media in this country, and it also furthers on what Matthew's question about, where is the revenue coming from, where will it be going, is it sustainable when we need a thriving fourth estate. And particularly, we need it in our rural and regional areas. We need it for ethno-culturally diverse communities. I announced $64 million towards journalistic cadetships a couple of Fridays ago to particularly address rural and regional areas and multicultural groups that rely upon news media. 

So, yes. The answer to your question is, yes, it's always on my mind as the Communications Minister, where are we going in this space? What does this space look like in 10 years’ time? What is a stop gap measure versus what is structurally required to make sure that everybody's here and thriving and that we have the fourth estate that we need in 10 years’ time? I'd also point you to the News MAP money that we put particularly towards that cause.

CONNELL: Jason Koutsoukis from The Saturday Paper.

JOURNALIST: Minister, thanks very much for your speech. Back onto the social media ban. What are the key criteria that you'll be looking at to tell you whether or not this law is actually working?

WELLS: It's funny you say that because, as you've heard me emphasise today, this is about cultural change. So I've been thinking about what other cultural changes did we have in this country, what did it look like. So, when seat belts were made compulsory, when tobacco advertising was ruled out. It’s surprisingly hard to find measured data around cultural change. But it's been something that we've been looking at, and that's one of the reasons why Julie and I have put in place the two-year survey to actually measure and work out how to demonstrate to Australians the value in what's happening but, some of which was in my speech today. I would point to you specifically on, which is we're asking social media platforms for the numbers on 9 December, for the numbers on 11 December, and for every month for the first six months to make sure that it's trending down.

CONNELL: Will that be published?

WELLS: Yes.

CONNELL: Grace Crivellaro from AAP.

JOURNALIST: Thank you, Minister. Just leading on from Dana's question, under the News Bargaining Incentive, digital platforms will face financial penalties for failing to negotiate commercial deals. But what about AI platforms that scrape Australian news content? If those platforms are subject to the same penalties, how does the Government plan to prosecute those platforms that aren't necessarily Australian and are in another jurisdiction?

WELLS: Look, those are issues that we have identified. We've identified the scale of the problem, I guess, and the Assistant Treasurer and I are working through what that looks like. We're sort of in early stages at the moment because, as you know, News Media Bargaining Code is out for consultation. So we're waiting for submissions to come back in - I think they're due end of the month. And so, once we get those back in, we'll continue to look at what that response needs to be.

CONNELL: Josh Butler from The Guardian.

JOURNALIST: Hi, Minister. Thanks for your speech. I also wanted to go to gambling advertising, please. We're two years on from Peta Murphy's report which called for a gambling advertising ban. People in the industry are expecting some news on this issue in coming months, I think. But I wanted to get into sort of your thinking on the issue, the sort of framework of how this is coming together. Is your starting point that there will be major restrictions on gambling advertising, or is that in itself still a live question? What will it look like? Will there be compensation for, say, media outlets or sporting codes that might lose sponsorship or advertising revenue from such a change? And when do you expect that this long-awaited reform would actually be realised?

WELLS: Good try, Josh. Thank you for the questions that I've heard from you several times in the months running up to now. I am not going to prosecute this through the media. I'm not going to provide a running commentary on my progress in this space through the public sphere. I didn't think that that was a particularly helpful way that it went around last term of Parliament. We're trying to do things differently this term. 

Just because I'm not giving you monologues by way of update week by week or whenever I'm asked doesn't mean that I am not focused on this. Doesn't mean that I'm not working on this. Doesn't mean that I don't consider this to be a policy imperative. And again, I'd steer you to the fact that, just last week, the Government said there will be further measures.

JOURNALIST: Would you imagine it would be major restrictions on gambling advertising though? It’s not a trick question. There was a very major report that's had - and I know that you had obviously a relationship with Peta Murphy, and it's not a slight - there is major public support for this sort of issue. I think it's not unreasonable to ask where your starting point on this would be.

WELLS: It's not unreasonable to ask, and I imagine that you and others will continue to ask, but it's also not unreasonable to say there, will be further measures. 

CONNELL: Do you agree with the premise that Australians have largely formed a view along those lines on this?

WELLS: I certainly agree with the premise that online wagering harm is a spiraling problem that was particularly worsened by COVID, and that we have to find a way to work through how we deal with it. There's a lot of different recommendations in a huge variety of different public policy spaces. I am working through the ones that, as Minister of Communications and Sport, are for me to try and resolve.

CONNELL: Caitlyn Rintoul from The West Australian.

WELLS: Thanks for your address today, Minister. You’ve spoken about the digital duty of care being the next big parcel for 2026, but this is something that was flagged last term. Despite that, in Estimates yesterday, we heard that there has been no direct consultation around digital duty of care. Why has it taken so long to get this up, and are you satisfied with that rollout? And in an ideal world, would you have liked the digital duty of care to run concurrently with the ban?

WELLS: I don't think that's right. I just don't think that's flat out right. Whether or not it was said in Estimates, I accept that might have been what said in Estimates, but I don't think it's right. And consultation for digital duty of care is open right now. So we are working through it right now.

JOURNALIST: My question is around it was flagged last term. Why has it taken until the last few weeks for digital duty of care consultation to start?

WELLS: I don't accept the premise. These are big public policy questions. We are currently one week out of the world-leading social media minimum age restrictions that are part and parcel of the same public policy space. I think the digital duty of care is important. It's answered several different questions that you've had about where to next, what else should we be picking up. 

But I would think - and I know Julie's there on your table as well - we're working as hard, and fast as we can. The wheels of government don't turn as quickly as we'd like, but we have been making big gains in this space. And the fact that digital duty of care is open for consultation right now is a good thing, and I look forward to seeing you all again here next year to talk about where we're going after that.

CONNELL: David Allen from InnovationAus.

JOURNALIST: Thank you for your address, Minister. You mentioned AI bots and AI-enabled nudify apps in in your speech. Now, the Government this week announced its national AI plan, which is going to eschew regulation, direct regulation, for artificial intelligence as it develops in Australia. AI, we've seen in the last 12 months as well mounting evidence that it has just as much potential to be harmful to young people, if not more than social media. So, won't taking different approaches between portfolios like this inevitably undermine these new world-leading laws?

WELLS: No. I guess I don't accept the premise. AI is something that affects almost every portfolio within the government. And like I said, we're really proud of this law. This is world-leading. Like Tom said, we're the first to do it. It's going to look a bit untidy on the way through, but it's not the end. And like I said in my speech, this isn't a law that cures the internet. This isn't a law that cures all harms on the internet. And even by next week, if I was to come back to you to speak to you here there'd be more things for me to address, that's how fast tech goes. So I think the fact that Tim Ayres is leading the space, you've seen developments even in the past two weeks alongside Andrew Charlton. You'll continue to see work in this space, and that's a good thing. 

CONNELL: When it comes to the large majority of some of those apps, nudify and so on, they're blocked in Australia but still used. Obviously the usual use I assume is VPN, it's the same way we're talking about kids getting around this. Is there any way to limit VPNs? Is that something you've looked at all? Try to limit their use? 

WELLS: Look, I do defer to eSafety as my technical guide in this space. As the Minister for Communications, I'm looking at the public policy. And I think even in doing what we're doing currently, we are the first to move on this space. And that's not to say that we won't be the first to move in other spaces as well. But we have to get a balance right. In the same way that we talk about people who are under 16 need a balance between the harms that they suffer online versus their right to a digital life, to creativity and connection, we have to get the balance right in regulation between minimising harms where we know that they are occurring - particularly things like nudify apps, I mean, justify the public policy for that - up against private companies' right to exist and conduct business on our shores. That's why I think and why I keep returning to digital duty of care. It's so important because it asks what kind of responsibility these companies, be it social media or others, as we move on, have to their users as they conduct their business on our shore and make millions, if not billions of dollars off our data. 

CONNELL: So it's something technically perhaps achievable, but it would be a pretty extreme would be a pretty extreme ban, would it?

WELLS: Well summed up.

CONNELL: Yes. Okay. Melissa Coade from The Mandarin.

JOURNALIST: Hi Minister. So in public policy terms, your priority actually hits a lot of good notes. It is ambitious. You will know whether or not it's working because you'll be examining the reporting every month. And then there's a bit of a question as to whether it's understandable and achievable given it's a cultural shift you're really aiming for. My question is, what if it works? What if it works so well it railroads really innovative spaces when we think about deliberative democracy and involving more citizens in the way we work towards a better society? What if it railroads the way government can effectively communicate to certain demographics, like, for example, a consent campaign on social media, if they're no longer in those spaces? You know as the Government where people hang out, where their attention is commanded, and social media is a primary place for that. So many government departments spend a lot of money every year on advertising important public messaging through social media. Are we losing, as government, our capacity to communicate with this group if they're not there? 

WELLS: Okay, I get you. I guess two things. One, there'll be lots of you in this room who are highly politically engaged and became highly politically engaged before social media platforms were ever invented. You became engaged because you watched the six o'clock news, because you heard your parents and your parents' friends talk about politics. You went to protests, you signed up, you attended things at events at community organisations. That is the nature of politics in Australia. That all continues, whether or not under 16s can have a social media account. And the other thing about big tech is that we don't know where we're going next. So yes, we're in a moment where social media platforms have immense power and we all give them immeasurable hours of our time. But like I said in my speech, there was a time where that was Myspace. We don't know in a year or two's time what that will be. So we're trying to guide this on principles for good policy and, as Julie would say, on the features and functions. So we try to limit on balance where features and functions of social media or nudify apps are demonstrably and on an evidence basis causing harm, particularly to young Australians. 

CONNELL: NPC Director, Julie Hare. 

JOURNALIST: Thank you very much for your speech. You listed quite a long list of the number of countries which you say will mimic Australia, or at least are watching very closely and indicated they will follow. The United States was missing from that list. Do you anticipate retaliatory action from the Trump White House, especially given how close his ties are to big tech in Silicon Valley? 

WELLS: Individual states within the United States have moved in this space, and a couple of the cases I talked about in my speech today were the Northern California District, where the Governor of California has tried to do even bigger moves in this space. I met with the Governor of Utah probably four or six weeks ago. Many of you would have come to know him through the Charlie Kirk saga. You would have seen him on television trying to lead his state. He has tried to do what we are doing and he has been tied up in the courts. That’s why I talk about this isn't just bipartisan, although my Coalition counterpart does her best. It's nonpartisan. It's really nonpartisan. It's one of the great issues of our time, and people from all parts of the political spectrum are trying to act in this space and I will work with anybody who is trying to work and to stop harm online for kids in this space. 

JOURNALIST: But the Trump White House is very reactive to things that it sees as against its agenda. 

WELLS: Look, we had a very successful visit to the United States only recently. The Prime Minister met with President Trump for hours and hours. We haven't seen any reporting about it. I think we are and we stand firm in what we're doing here. 

CONNELL: He likes a bit of late night TV, Donald Trump. What would you say to him if he's watching right now and worried about revenue maybe for the companies?

WELLS: I would switch hats and congratulate him on becoming the President of the LA 2028 Organising Committee. Quite unusual for the President of a country to take that role. And as the Vice President of Brisbane 2032, I'd love to work with him on the Olympic and Paralympic Games, and all of the prep that's required in the run-up. 

CONNELL: Sounds like a neat pivot. Next question is Naziya Alvi from The Epoch Times. 

JOURNALIST: Has the Government considered the potential impact on the influencer market that is now valued at almost $889 million? 

WELLS: Yes, we have done extensive consultation about this, and through the 12-month period we've also continued to work with, and particularly I commend Julie on her leadership out of eSafety, the range of consultation that they have done with different groups who will be impacted by the law. And that's why I'm being really honest and accountable about the fact that we will have a two-year survey run so that we all have a really good snapshot of how this has worked, how it hasn't worked, what the intended consequences were, what the unintended consequences were, so that we can improve the law if we need to.

JOURNALIST: Also, you mentioned about that two-year reporting that you're going to do. And if you can give me more specifics, like what specific indicators, such as reductions in online harm, cyberbullying, grooming attempts, what will you measure in this regular reporting that you're doing? 

WELLS: I'm conscious of time. I have a good answer for you, and I think we'll send it to you after this. But that stuff is all available through eSafety. 

CONNELL: Thank you. Not quite last, that's David Speers 

JOURNALIST: Minister, can I just pick up something you did say a little earlier? The wheels of government don't turn as quickly as we'd like. Just tying together some of the questions you've had this afternoon. On social media, clearly, you're taking on this world-leading reform against very powerful vested interests in the social media giants. You've stuck to this timeline a week away from the age limit coming into force. Yet on gambling advertising, it is two years since that Murphy review. You've been very reluctant this afternoon to even lay the groundwork for where your thinking is on this now. Why is there sensitivity and such a long timeframe and difficulty in spelling out what you intend to do? 

WELLS: Honestly, what I was thinking of when I said that earlier today was aged care, where the reforms in aged care took- we hoped they would take six months, they took nine months to deliver, and you would have seen the new Minister for Aged Care quite quickly after becoming the new Minister for Aged Care had to delay them again still. So that's what I was thinking of when I said to you the wheels of government don't turn as quickly as you like. And you'll remember when I was the Aged Care Minister and we had the dreadful COVID winter, we had the spiraling numbers and people saying, where is this outcome? I mean, honestly, it's a little bit the same. Each week we were asked, where are negotiations up to with the Coalition? Why can't you spell out for us your thinking on this? What is the hold-up between you and Peter Dutton settling this outcome? And I didn't elaborate. And that got us a huge structural bipartisan reform. And that's why I'm sort of using that method again with this. That's all I was trying to say. 

JOURNALIST: So we'll get a stronger outcome if you don't tell us where you intend to land?

WELLS: That's not what I'm saying. I’m just saying that is the experience I'm drawing upon. The fact that every single day that I couldn't get that reform landed, I had someone who was contacting my office saying, I can't find my mum a bed. That was so conscious in my mind as week in, week out, the different elements of what happens in federal politics affected our ability to land it. We will be able to give you, I guess, a much more frank discourse of how this all landed when we land something. And like I've said to you today, there will be further measures. 

CONNELL: I think this is the last question, from Ellen Ransley.

JOURNALIST: So we're a week out from these new laws beginning. YouTube only unveiled what they were doing today. We've still yet to hear from TikTok, Reddit, Kick and X about how they will implement these laws. What's your message to them, and is there any possibility, are you aware that any of those will resist these laws when they come into effect next week? 

WELLS: Well, the eSafety Commissioner and I have had meetings with some of those platforms that you talk about directly, because one of the things that we've been trying to do is help everybody get there and comply with the law. So one of the things we've done is meet together, both the Minister and the eSafety Commissioner, with these platforms. We've offered everybody that opportunity so that they can settle all of their questions and we can help them resolve any difficulties or hesitations they might have before 10 December. My message, as you've heard in the speech today, is this law starts in seven days on 10 December, you must comply with the Australian law. 

CONNELL:  I’m thinking it’s 19 December, school’s out, day nine or ten of the ban and parents are getting browbeaten, just let me on. What would you say to a parent thinking my kid is 15, they’re pretty savvy, all their kids are on it. What’s the harm?

WELLS: What’s the harm? I think Rob, Mia and Emma being here with us today would remind you of what the harm can be, and demonstrably seven out of 10 kids are witnessing harm online, in Australia, as we speak. That is what we are trying to fix. And yes it will be difficult, we don’t shy away from the fact that this is a rough transition. But like I said, every single parent who has talked to me about this since I’ve been the Minister for Communications has said thank you, do not back down, and thank you for being the bad guy. Thank you for allowing me not to be the bad guy. Thank you for allowing me to say this is against the law. The Government has made this law. So I ask them to draw strength, ask them to ask their child to write to me if that would be of any assistance. I do video messages to transmit this message, whatever it takes. But I do not, for a second, think that this isn’t worth doing.

CONNELL: Ladies and gentlemen, please thank the Minister.