AMANDA COPP, CO-HOST: Another big one that we're keeping an eye on and also that has the eyes of the world on it is this Digital Duty of Care, which if it passes, fundamentally shifts or could fundamentally shift how online safety is regulated by making tech companies themselves responsible for actively preventing harm, rather than just reacting to complaints after they've happened.

RYAN HEATH, CO-HOST: Yes, that's absolutely right. It's becoming clearer that this government sees its real legacy here and on the global stage around what it's doing to change how tech companies are regulated. And this is the next big piece in the puzzle, if Anika Wells can get it across the line, which she's about to talk to us about.

COPP: Yeah, Ryan, of course, speaking of Anika Wells, I caught up with the Communications Minister, Anika Wells, from the airport as she was on her way to Canberra. She's been tasked with this significant aim to mandate safety by design on the internet. It could be an impossible task. I spoke to her to find out, because she's certainly giving it a go.

[Excerpt]

Minister, welcome to the show. The Digital Duty of Care legislation will be introduced on Thursday. The Coalition has already come out against it. Have you been having conversations, in that case, with the Greens?

MINISTER FOR COMMUNICATIONS ANIKA WELLS: We have been having conversations with everybody and we'll continue to do that this week. Every online safety law that Australia has passed has had both parties' fingerprints on it, and I would like to keep that streak alive. Nobody, ultimately, remembers who passes the laws - like the seatbelt laws, they just remember that you have to buckle up. So we'll keep working in good faith.

COPP: Have you been speaking to David Shoebridge specifically, the new leader of the Greens?

WELLS: I haven't spoken with him yet, but I am happy to do so. Like I said, I'm willing to work in good faith with anybody across the parliamentary spectrum who, like me, believes that it's time for a Digital Duty of Care.

COPP: And what about Sarah Henderson, the Shadow Communications Minister? Have you had conversations with her?

WELLS: Our team has been speaking with her mostly to address the argument she's litigated publicly. She hasn't called me yet, but I'm sure at some point we will sit down because, like I say, I really would like this to be supported by all parts of the parliament, like each online safety law before it has.

COPP: And what are the essential elements of this bill? Obviously, you're going to be going into negotiations with various parties, but what is actually up for negotiation?

WELLS: Amanda, I really only have three non-negotiables when it comes to getting this law passed. We have to make sure we protect kids, we have to get illegal content off platforms, we have to give Australians more choice over what they see online. So if we're hitting those three targets, like I've said for about a month now since we released the exposure draft, if people have other ways of achieving those objectives, I'm very open to hearing them.

COPP: There's also concerns, as the legislation is currently drafted, around what actually classifies as harmful material online. There is a provision in the legislation that the minister can- after the legislation passes - can add in what is other things that are classified as harmful content. Why should one single politician have that power?

WELLS: The rulemaking power originated in the Online Safety Act under Minister Paul Fletcher, who was a Coalition minister before me. We've used it in other circumstances that- look, as I've said many times, we’ll work constructively across the parliament. I recognise this has been a stumbling block for the Coalition. From the beginning, I’ve said I’m prepared to make changes to secure their support for the core elements of the reform. So I invite the Coalition to work with us in good faith to deliver these stronger protections online, especially for children. There should be no reason why we can't get this done together.

COPP: Just on that, though, in terms of why it was included in the first place, can you think of any examples of things that might not be included in the legislation but are likely to pop up at some point in the future?

WELLS: One of the challenges of this area is that tech moves so quickly. And what you and I are discussing today, it may well be out of date by this time next week. I gave an example that we had across the Christmas-New Year break, Grok came out, you might remember. X put out Grok, it allowed people to digitally alter photographs to make them nude, and people were doing that at great volumes across the internet. It was causing people a lot of distress. People were saying, someone's got to do something about this. How do you ban Grok? How do you act on this in Australia? That rulemaking power would have allowed us to designate a new serious harm in nudifying photos. I think it meets an Australian common test law that nudifying a photo, particularly of a minor, is a serious harm.

COPP: Now, this is not your first piece of pretty major legislation in this space. What lessons are there from the teen social media ban when it comes to this new legislation?

WELLS: If anything, I stand more resolutely on the side of parents than on the side of big tech. We don't ask parents to crash test the car seat themselves. People that come and make these arguments that parents need to take more responsibility, you can't out-engineer an algorithm. Nobody can. And we do have examples of big tech leaning forward in this space who show that it is profitable to be the safest company in this space for families, for children. So I'll keep working with those companies who have come forward alongside the more than 20 countries who have now adopted the social media minimum age laws that we were the first to do so last December.

COPP: If you get the Digital Duty of Care laws passed, do you think that it could be a turning point for how people interact on the internet?

WELLS: I firmly believe that it should be. If you build it, you own the risk. And, for 20 years, big tech has not had to own the risk. Australians, Australian parents, Australian families, Australian teachers have had to own the risk of big tech. And social media, as we all know, as users of it, it came for our attention. But chatbots, they're now coming for our kids' attachment. So we're not regulating the technology, we're regulating what it does to our kids. And I genuinely hope this completely recalibrates the nature of how we engage with online and how we let online engage with our kids.

COPP: Off the back of the teen social media ban and also this legislation, you've actually been listed in Time magazine's top 100 world's most influential rising stars. It's quite a mouthful. Given the potential of the global impact of this kind of legislation, how do you wear that responsibility?

WELLS: I think it's not just me. I'm one member of the cavalry here, and there are people, particularly the parents like Emma Mason, Wayne Holdsworth, who now has SmackTalk, Mia Bannister, Robb Evans, who were fighting this fight against big tech, this David and Goliath battle, long before I got made the communications minister. And it is them who give me strength in this battle, and it's them I think of when it gets difficult. And I think that award was just one name on the guernsey of a team effort. And it's certainly, I think, the most compelling policy question of my generation. I've got young kids. I’ve grown up as a millennial, engaging with the internet from my teens. I'm really honoured to be doing this work, but it's work I know that has come too late for too many people.

COPP: And just on your own kids, when do you think that you'll have them accessing their own phones?

WELLS: [Laughs] As long as I can delay it, though I try not to make policy based on our own family experiences. Obviously, our family is quite an unusual one in terms of our logistics and arrangements. But when you read the research that comes across my desk, when you see the data, when you hear the personal experiences that people write to me every single night, the emails I read that come in overnight, there is no incentive to get them on a device any sooner than needed.

COPP: Do you think that this legislation, if it does get passed, will make the internet a safer place for your own kids?

WELLS: Yes.

COPP: Short and sweet. Speaking of your kids, and just to end on a bit of a lighter note, this legislation is not the only thing that you've got cooking in the oven. I hear that it's your twin boys’ birthday party at the end of this week, and that each year you spend a pretty long time baking them a cake. I have to ask, though, given that they're twins, do they each get their own cake?

WELLS: Yeah, they do. And, you want to talk pressure from stakeholders, this is the absolute week for it. Got vested interests coming at me from all angles, finishing with two birthday cakes for the twins. Another twin mum told me “two cakes, two boys, you sing it twice”. So each gets to request a cake, though usually there is broad overlap. This year there is broad overlap. One twin wants a strawberry Lionel Messi cake in pink and black for Miami. The other twin wants a blueberry and vanilla milkshake-flavoured cake with Charlie Cameron and the Lions on it. So that's what I'm doing.

COPP: Sheesh, that's quite a complicated request. So there's clearly no limits when it comes to your twins. Minister, thank you for joining me on the show to talk all things legislation and cake.

[End of excerpt]

And that was the Minister for Communications, Anika Wells.