RONALD MIZEN, HOST: Thank you, Minister. Your pathway through the Senate is not yet clear - obviously the Coalition is not one, which just left you to have to negotiate with the Greens. One of the things that they want is the ability of individuals and, potentially, groups through class actions to be able to take action under this legislation in the courts, rather than just leaving it to the eSafety Commissioner. Is that something that you would contemplate introducing? It's been successful in the US for example where individuals have been the ones often going after the social media companies. 

MINISTER FOR COMMUNICATIONS ANIKA WELLS: Yes, that's right. It has been successful in the US where that right exists. And I think it's fair to say that our eSafety Commissioner does a marvellous job at enforcement and compliance, but it's a huge burden and private right of action allows people to share that burden. It is something that we would contemplate because it has been something that has come in through the consultation process. 

The Digital Duty of Care has been worked on for about two years. The exposure draft has been out there and that has been something that groups, particularly women’s groups, have asked us to look at. So we’ll keep working that through, and we’ll negotiate in good faith with the Greens.

MIZEN: And then you talked about, in your speech, the car ratings in the cars - for example, having to have their brakes checked – and competing to the top in term of safety. I think ANCAP is the safety regime for cars. Is it in contemplation or would you ever consider putting in place a safety rating system for social media companies – AI companies?

WELLS: Dare to dream, Ron. I think what I would like to do first is legislate our first Digital Duty of Care. Wayne Holdsworth, who runs SmackTalk, talks about how when seatbelts were first introduced for him they weren’t retractable, they were only on the front seats not the back. Whereas these days, we have five-point harnesses. It’s improved as there’s been a race to the top. Different car companies want you to think that they are the safest brand. So, I need to get this through the Senate to legislate a baseline basic safety standard. But yes, it is my vision that, ultimately, we would be in a race to the top, where tech companies want you to know them as the safest place your child can be. 

MIZEN: And on the sock puppet account question, which you addressed in your speech, but there are still some concerns out there. Would you consider further tweaks around what's currently in the legislation to perhaps provide comfort to people that think that those accounts could be used nefariously?

WELLS: I'm happy to look at any amendment that any parliamentarian working in in good faith wants to put to us to improve the bill. And the eSafety Commissioner and I were just discussing at lunch that there is still regulatory guidance that we need to work through, just as we did with the social media minimum age. You remember people were saying, what on earth are reasonable step is going to be. The Commissioner put out extensive regulatory guidance that helped companies work through that. We've all learned a lot of lessons out of that process, I think, so we will certainly be doing that. And like I said, I will work in good faith across the Parliament. I would really like to continue the streak of all online safety laws in Australia being passed in a bipartisan fashion.

MIZEN: All right. Karen Barlow from the Saturday Paper.

JOURNALIST: Minister, thanks for being here. You have said in the past that you're not afraid of the big tech companies and you've just described them as the most powerful institutions in human history. You've also indicated the government has a social licence to do what you are doing. Is a limiter here though, the relationship with the United States Government? Tech is being brought up every time the trade minister is meeting his counterpart. So you know, what do you say to the United States Government - they will not like where the Greens want to take you?

WELLS: Well, I walked into the House of Representatives at 9am this morning and I introduced a Digital Duty of Care. We will now attempt to move that through the Parliament. It's been long slated as a priority of our government and, in fact, a priority of online safety in governments before us. We are a sovereign nation and we do not flinch from protecting Australian kids from known harms. We will continue to do that. And ultimately I, as the Minister for Communications, am seeking to make laws for Australian shores. These are Australian laws for people to abide by if they choose to come to Australian shores.

MIZEN: Are you prepared to potentially cop some consequences then from the US Government? 

WELLS: That is a hypothetical. But like Karen just noted in her question, these discussions are ongoing and we will continue to work well with all of our counterparts.

MIZEN: All right. Clare Armstrong from the ABC.

JOURNALIST: Thanks, Minister, for your time. I just want to pick back up on one of the questions that Ron had there before with relation to the fake accounts, the sock puppet accounts. It's something the Coalition has seized on saying that by allowing eSafety and researchers to operate these fake accounts, it's a pathway that would enable them to spread disinformation that's partisan and, essentially, politically influence real people. Now, probably as one of a few people that read this section of the bill, there are a lot of provisions that protect against some of those warnings, but it clearly hasn't cut through. What is your message to the Coalition and others who are arguing this is a way to influence real people to generate fake accounts that would be able to promote political ideas? Essentially, this argument that the Digital Duty of Care enables there to be political censorship?

WELLS: I would say it is just absolutely nothing of the sort. The reason that it's in the bill is because eSafety and accredited researchers currently basing themselves outside of Australia because they experience no legal protection in Australia, want us to put this in to allow them to do this important work here, and for the evidence that they gather to be able to be used in compliance and enforcement. It's important that eSafety and researchers asked us to include this in the bill for good reason. And I think the idea that the eSafety Commissioner and her team, who are snowed under with demand of all the harms that are being experienced online - I've touched on some of the stats today, many of you have reported numbers and stats about children experiencing harm online in Australia - the idea that any capacity would be spent as an independent regulator trying to spread government propaganda rather than trying to shut down pro-terror content going to 13-year-old boys in Western Sydney or eating disorder content going to 14-year-old girls in Western Australia is- it's not a tenable argument. It is not a tenable argument. 

JOURNALIST: If it's for the sake of getting the support of the Coalition, though, would you clarify that? Things like there not being the ability to pursue the use of- if there's no civil ability for someone to pursue the use of a sock puppet account, if it's not been done in good faith. 

WELLS: I will tell you that since I introduced the legislation this morning the Shadow Communications Minister did reach out to my office, so perhaps green shoots. But we have had the exposure draft out for three weeks now. I have asked almost daily for amendments from people working in good faith who think that they have a way to improve the bill. If they agree with the pillars of the bill, which is keeping Australians safe online, I have yet to receive any amendment in that space.

MIZEN: Noah Secomb from AAP.

JOURNALIST: Thanks, Minister, for your speech today. Another headline-grabbing story of this week has been the proposed live stream of the US execution of Nidal Hasan, and the argument around this is that Australia is not well placed to prevent this from being shown in Australia if we get to that point. I wanted to ask, you've also mentioned some disappointment at the ministerial powers of the Digital Duty of Care being stripped when it comes to defining harmful content. Would you have seen that mechanism as a way to prevent something like this live stream in the future? And also, I understand you were recently in contact with Meta, and I'm wondering how that was? 

WELLS: I'm about to embarrass her, but may I acknowledge Antigone Davis from Meta who joins us in the room today. All of our colleagues from the platforms, welcome and thank you for coming. We discussed how we might and achieve the objective of not having Australians exposed to this in a scenario where this happens. You would have seen that President Trump has now since said that he's going to reconsider that decision. It’s scheduled for 3 December - a lot of water to flow under the bridge before we get there. But the eSafety Commissioner has written to the platforms about this, putting them on notice, and I will work with Meta and our other platforms to do everything that we can that is technically possible. There's a lot here that we don't even technically know about how that might even be streamed in order for us to take action to meet Australians' expectations in this space. 

JOURNALIST: But to the Digital Duty of Care ministerial power, was that something you wanted to be able to combat something like this coming up again in the future? 

WELLS: Well, at any rate, the Digital Duty of Care legislation would not be in effect by 3rd December so it wouldn't have allowed us in this situation. 

MIZEN: I think the question was a little hypothetical than that though. It's throwing forward beyond this event into others like it. 

WELLS: Yes. Well as you heard me argue, the ministerial rulemaking power was designed to act swiftly. When your child has photos of them being nudified online, you want the Minister to act as quickly as I could. I would have had to consult with the eSafety Commissioner for technical advice, make a rule that would have been disallowable in the parliament. That was clearly a stumbling block for other parties to support the bill. We've removed it.I will now have to introduce it by amendment to the parliament. So it will be slower - that's the payoff. But ultimately I want a Digital Duty of Care in Australia, and that's politics. 

MIZEN: Cam Reddin from News24. 

JOURNALIST: Thank you, Ron. Minister, thank you for your address. You spoke a moment ago about the intent of a lot of these rules and these components of the bill, like the sock puppet powers, for example. Can I just ask you to specifically address the worst fears about the capability that people have? Not so much the intent - I understand how you want this to be used - but the capability. For example, critics like Michael Schellenberger, you'd be aware, and others say that it will give the government the power to control the flow of information. The power, for example, to effectively spread propaganda. I know you say that's not the intent. But I'm wondering if you could address those concerns explicitly of why this could not be used in that way and why those powers would need to exist if that is a capability?

WELLS: There is nowhere in the bill that gives the government - and by the government in this instance, the independent regulator - that power. It's just not there. 

JOURNALIST: Does it prevent that from happening?

WELLS: Well, you can see in the section introduced, there is nothing in what you've just set out there as a worst-case scenario that is in the bill.

JOURNALIST: That sock puppet power says that there aren't limitations around how that can be used in the bill.

WELLS:  Yeah. I’m looking at the eSafety Commissioner because of the look that she's giving you. I don't accept the premise. I do not accept the premise of this argument. I don't think the eSafety Commissioner or I accept that that is something that could happen as a result of the way that the bill has been drafted by the Office of Parliamentary Council. Yes, these people claim to know what is deep within my heart, better than myself or the government or the eSafety Commission or the Office of Parliamentary Counsel - that's their right. And they will still have the right to make those points online, after a Digital Duty of Care is legislated.

JOURNALIST: Would you just say in the bill, that can't be used for those purposes - government propaganda and so forth?

WELLS: It can't. It can't. 

JOURNALIST: [Talks over] In the worst-case scenario. The worst person you imagine gets the power of the eSafety commissioner one day, for example.

WELLS: It cannot. I don't know how to be more emphatic. It doesn't exist. It is not possible. 

JOURNALIST: Thank you. 

WELLS: You're welcome.

MIZEN: All right. Nick Newling from the Sydney Morning Herald and The Age. 

JOURNALIST: I just wanted to ask about two aspects of the bill that jumped out to me today, and just some clarification on why these things were changed. The first is the serious harms list. The promotion of illicit drugs has been removed from the list. Why has that happened? And then also, when it comes to the remedial directions from the Commissioner in terms of policing the Digital Duty of Care, the penalty has gone down from 60,000 points to 6,000 - so that's a drop from about 22 million to 2.2 million. That seems like it would seriously hamper the Commissioner's ability to have these platforms act under the duty. What are your responses to those two elements?

WELLS: So with respect to illicit drugs, under Section 25C, I want to say, from memory, illegal and criminal activity is prohibited - so illicit drugs are criminal- is criminal activity, it is therefore prohibited. We are moving 17 codes and standards into law so there is a bit of consolidation, but that is absolutely captured by criminal activity under Section 25. 

JOURNALIST: Including the promotion of that?

WELLS: Yes.

JOURNALIST: And then on the matter of the eSafety Commissioner's penalties, coming down from 60,000 points to 6,000.

WELLS: Well, I don't think anyone's going to make the argument that we are going too hard on fines. In the social media minimum age laws that we passed in the last sitting, we doubled the fines for the eSafety Commissioner to be able to seek from the Federal Court. And there is cumulative effect with the introduction of the Digital Duty of Care. So if you breach both the social media minimum age and the Digital Duty of Care, you'd be up for double the fines. And ultimately, the question of the fines - be it coming from your angle or the opposite angle that Ron mentioned in his first question - ultimately, this is about social licence and about behavioural change. We want fines to force behavioural change, and we want social media companies to redeem their social licences. So that is how it stands. But like I said, happy to take any amendments in good faith that would improve the bill. 

JOURNALIST: Sorry, I know we have a one question rule, but I am going to push on this.

WELLS: To your third?

JOURNALIST: To my third.

WELLS: Fire away.

WELLS: So sorry. Actually, you're a judge, Ron.

MIZEN: Go for it. 

JOURNALIST: Sixty thousand points to 6,000, was that a mistake or was it intentional to lower the remedial directions penalty by 10 times?

WELLS: There is nothing in this bill that is designed to make it easier to be neglectful to children online.

MIZEN: Is it an ambit claim? Is it a case of you've brought it down- the Greens want far larger penalties, I think they want the global revenue taken into consideration. Is this an ambit claim – we’ll bring it back up to 60,000 get it through the Parliament?

WELLS: I think you are inferring more strategic nous into this than just a consolidation of 17 codes and standards into one new piece of legislation. 

MIZEN: Elizabeth Pike from The Australian. 

JOURNALIST: Thank you, Minister, for your time today. Despite the green shoots you mentioned today, the Coalition has repeatedly ruled out supporting your duty of care legislation. It really means the only pathway for these forms to pass the Senate is with the Greens. Will you say today that you will meet their demands for greater fines for big tech as well as a compensation scheme? And are you worried that you'll face a harder time getting the Greens support now that David Shoebridge is Leader?

WELLS: I won't say that today, but I will continue negotiating in good faith. I have been working with Sarah Hanson-Young, who is the Greens Communications Spokesperson, for the duration of my time as Communications Minister. We've gotten a lot of things done together. We've got the News Media Bargaining Incentive laws passed. We've got the gambling reforms passed. We've got the social media minimum age laws strengthened in the last parliament by working together. Where we share values, we are able to work pragmatically to get things done. So I'll keep negotiating in good faith with whomever the Greens would want to put in front of me, be that Senator Shoebridge or Hanson-Young. But at the moment, I've been working with Senator Hanson-Young. 

JOURNALIST: I understand you've had some wins with Sarah Hanson-Young, but David Shoebridge has indicated he will not be as cooperative as Larissa Waters, his predecessor, was. Are you concerned about that moving forward?

WELLS: No. 

JOURNALIST: Thank you.

RONALD MIZEN: Ellen Ransley from The Courier Mail. 

JOURNALIST: Minister, thanks for your time today. One of the provisions in the bill is that online platforms have to undertake an annual risk assessment that they have to hold for six years. I know small business organisations had put to you during the consultation period that low-risk websites like those of the millions of small businesses in Australia should be exempt from that. Why weren't they made exempt in the legislation you introduced this morning, and is that something you're open to considering as you move forward?

WELLS: We tried to finesse what we introduced this morning based on the feedback that we received out of the exposure draft, and I did spend particular time in my second reading speech today speaking to the nuances of that. So I would encourage you and your readers to look at what I had to say in the second reading this morning. 

JOURNALIST: Can you tell us about it again today here?

WELLS: We're short of time, but like I said, we tried to address the feedback from small business with nuance and that's the changes that we've made into the legislation.

MIZEN: All right. James Mayger from Bloomberg. 

JOURNALIST: Thank you for your time today, Minister. Just on you mentioned earlier about you wanted to see companies rating themselves or a safety rating for parents to say, this is a safe company, this is not a safe company. And then in your talk, you mentioned that Pinterest has, in your instrumentation, has done quite well. And other companies, like you mentioned the girl in Western Australia who was on Roblox. Then you said there was a boy who was using various unnamed chatbots, AI chatbots. Is it part of this could just be naming and shaming companies who are not effectively protecting children online? Is it your hope that in the future you will have the ability or do you plan to be able to just name and shame companies - like, this company is terrible like you named Roblox today? In the future, you could- I mean, you don't have to have legislative authority to just go out and say, name the AI chatbots, for example, that the boy was talking to that you mentioned.

WELLS: I'd say that platforms have, some for 15 or 20 years now, had the ability to clean up their act of their own volition, and many of them have chosen not to do it. So I would say that the name and shame effect has been in place for 15, 20 years hasn't worked. The numbers are getting worse. So, we're going to legislate.

MIZEN: Can I ask as an extension of that, the Prime Minister continues to occasionally post an official statement to X and distributes that as the this is what I've said about a topic. I mean, X is not exactly been one of the government's favourite platforms, there's been plenty of criticism of it. Why continue to use it as an official platform for things if you've got such concerns?

WELLS: Question for the Prime Minister, Ron. I don't think we've used X - certainly not in my time as Communications Minister. There's always a tension between trying to meet your electors where they are, trying to talk to people where they want to talk to you, and whether that is a safe place for- I'm thinking particularly of the staff that help us monitor all of the comments, all the posts. And ultimately as parliamentarians, we all make our own decisions, and it has been something that many parliamentarians have had to struggle with. And that's why it was great Meta came yesterday and spoke to some of the female parliamentarians about that to try and see if we can make it a safer place.

MIZEN: All right. Caitlyn Rintoul from the West Australian. 

JOURNALIST: Thank you for your address, Minister. Child safety advocates I've spoken to this morning, they argue that tech operating systems and digital devices should already be incompatible with child sexual abuse material - it should be embedded. This is a technology that already exists - HarmBlock technology is an example. Also in the UK, they're moving to - Apple and Google - to embed this into their devices. They say that this is still missing from this legislation that you've tabled this morning. Is this a missed opportunity and would you consider or would you be open to amendments on that?

WELLS: Well, I think what we're doing here is holistic. It's meant to be putting all online services on notice that they are responsible for the harm and the onus of responsibility is on them from the design point. Some of those you're talking about are bolt-ons, they are things that people need to add because systems are failing. We want systems to work. We want systems to be safe. The Digital Duty of Care is about legislating so that tech companies have to make their systems safe, so that we aren't having these hard-working agencies doing important work, that they're cleaning up harm after it's occurred. We want to do more to make sure that the harm doesn't happen in the first place. 

JOURNALIST: But is this something you would be open to? These are advocates that have long engaged with this government for this technology to be embedded in mobile devices.

WELLS: The bill is only hours old in the Parliament, so I’d encourage everybody to read it and see the changes that have been made since the exposure draft. But like I said and I will say it with my last breath, if people have amendments in good faith that they think would improve the bill, I would love to read them.

MIZEN: Paul Karp from POLITICO. 

JOURNALIST: Thanks for your speech, Minister. Julie Inman Grant has copped a lot of abuse in her role – from Elon Musk calling her the Censorship Commissar, to more recently Pauline Hanson calling her a Karen at CPAC over the weekend. Is Australia's eSafety Commissioner the worst job in the world? Why do you think Inman Grant has copped this abuse? And is the solution, when her term is up, to move from having an eSafety Commissioner to having a whole commission to collectively deliberate? 

WELLS: Let me make this point. We were the subject of a lot of discussion at CPAC over the weekend, Julie and I. And I hope they've all had a lie down after they'd run off all their steam. It was a very excitable bunch. I would make the point that Julie has not only done an outstanding job, she was appointed by the Coalition and then she was reappointed by the Coalition. And now many of those people who made that decision are leading the charge in the criticism against her, and they should be held accountable for that change of position and for their conduct. I think it's an incredibly difficult position. We have talked- we catch up frequently. We talk about the pressure and abuse that a position like the eSafety Commissioner gets put under. It is testimony to the fact that online is not safe, and particularly it is not safe for women. And part of legislating a Digital Duty of Care is about making it a safer place for all people who work here in Australia, and thank you Julie, and I'm sorry that happened to you.

JOURNALIST: Is a group of commissioners rather than one ultimate decision maker a good solution to that?

WELLS: It's certainly one solution. I am considering at the moment, given the resourcing required for the Digital Duty of Care and the volume that rises- is rising sharply in complaints and people seeking recourse, how we re-gear our system so it's modern. The way that we do it with the classification board, with eSafety, with ACMA reflects a slightly different time, I think we can agree. And I really want to be a forward-facing minister, I want this to be a future-oriented portfolio. I believe that the Communications portfolio is essentially infrastructure for the future, and I'm always looking at ways that we can do that.

MIZEN: That sounds about as close to you get as- to a yes without something having been approved yet by the Cabinet. When do you think that we'll get an answer or a final outcome on that?

WELLS: I'm up to pussy's bow. We might have four pieces of legislation passed this week just in my portfolio alone. My priority is getting the Digital Duty of Care through the Parliament by Christmas and then I will regroup. How about that?

MIZEN: Alright, Josh Butler from The Guardian.

JOURNALIST: Hi Minister, thanks for your speech. You mentioned earlier that in a lot of the big pieces of online social media change that you've shepherded through, the Coalition has been a partner on that or supported it. I know that you're still going through negotiations, but so far this is not one of those pieces of legislation. I guess I'm sort of reminded of, especially around some of the criticisms of the Digital Duty of Care from sort of right-wing campaign groups and so forth, of some of the reactions to the mis and disinformation bill from the previous term of Parliament under your predecessor. Obviously, the government wasn't successful in getting that through in the face of a quite ferocious sort of backlash, some of the criticisms that were levelled, Orwellian censorship and those sort of things. I guess the question I wanted to ask is, what do you think you and the government have learned from that particular episode about shepherding through some sort of change in this contentious area against such a backlash from, particularly, right-wing groups?

WELLS: A lot to that question, Josh. What would I say? I think- I'm confident that I can get a passage through the Senate. I found it extraordinary and puzzling and a complete 180 from the Coalition who previously, particularly under Peter Dutton for example, really held online safety and online safety for children as a beacon of their party and the work that their party does. Last parliamentary sitting week when I introduced the exposure draft and released it to everybody, they convened a special party meeting to reject an exposure draft. That is an extraordinary series of events. It's on them to explain why they would want to deal themselves out of a law that is either the next logical step in a proud bipartisan history of online safety or, if this is so reprehensible but they know that the Greens are supportive of the principles, want to see it amended, why they would deal themselves out of anything that might improve the bill. It is on them to explain that. In terms of lessons I've learned, all I can do as a lawmaker is set out what I seek to do. And like I've said, and I know you're going to be sick of hearing it after being in NPC and Q&A here with me, but this is not about what people say on the internet. It's about what platforms do on the internet. And your right to disagree with me or the government or believe whatever you want to believe will not be impinged by a Digital Duty of Care. Your right to be free from harm, hopefully, will be improved by a Digital Duty of Care. 

MIZEN: Megan Poore from Women's Advocate.

JOURNALIST: Megan Poore, the Women's Advocate. Minister, I'm going to ask you to pivot. Your address today has been advertised and you were introduced under both your portfolios, Communications and Sport. So as Minister for Sport you have power under section 11 of the Australian Sports Commission Act to direct ASC policy. Minister, we're hearing that clubs are afraid to exclude males from female categories because ASC guidance makes female-only sport sound like a legal risk, despite section 42 of the Sex Discrimination Act. Guidance from the Commission does shape how clubs view that risk, will you direct the ASC to clearly tell clubs when female-only competition is lawful?

WELLS: The ASC already does that work. 

JOURNALIST: Minister, the guidance does frame section 42 as excluding an individual, rather than providing for a class exemption for women and girls. So there is a matter that does need to be addressed. Section 42, of course, being where strength, stamina and physique are a factor. The recommended process for clubs is burdensome. I'd welcome a response.

WELLS: Kieren Perkins is the CEO of the Australian Sports Commission, works with me and is the author and arbiter of that regulatory guidance. What I would say from having worked with Kieren in this space is that there aren't classes because each sport is different, and the requirements of physicality looks different for each sport, which is why we need to work individually with NSOs - national sport organisations or international federations about this particular matter, and the guidance that we need to give our clubs. 

MIZEN: Minister, there's been a bit of, I don't know, brouhaha this week might be the right word. We had a letter sent to the Prime Minister from the AI Committee making a whole bunch of recommendations around artificial intelligence. I think some of which probably would fall into your patch, others into Andrew Charlton's, others into Michelle Rowland's patch. But it looked like there were edits made, some input from the Prime Minister's office. I mean, you've been involved in the committee process in the past. Is that normal? Does that usually happen?

WELLS: I actually wasn't involved in the committee process in my first term, which was my only as a backbencher because it was the COVID term, which everything was strange and everything was unusual. Usually, this same question comes from the other angle, which is which minister is in charge of AI? So, yes, I work in AI and with our Chair who joins us today, I've certainly provided some input into the committee about things that I would like the committee to consider in my space, which is online safety and AI. And I've asked for particular matters to be considered, which I don't think have happened yet, but are still on the books. So that's an example, I guess, of how I contribute.

MIZEN:Do you get consulted by the chairs of parliamentary committees when they want to write recommendations in reports? Does your office get consulted?

WELLS: I think the office gets consulted, but it's a complete back and forth because there's always lots of different people on the committee. There's the Secretariat, there's the Minister's Office. I myself, usually it falls more to the policy advisers than me but, like, what's the purpose here? The purpose is to get the best outcome possible. Don't you want everybody invested in that working in where they can?

MIZEN: Alright, now our final question comes from the Sydney Morning Herald and the Age’s political editor, Peter Hartcher. 

JOURNALIST: Thanks, Ron. Thanks for your address, Minister. Overnight, Donald Trump has posted an AI video of himself wrestling a tiger. It's apparently a commentary or a spoof on an incident in Britain where a man was mauled to death by a tiger. The victim's family has said that they find Donald Trump's spoof of their- of the victim's death to be very distressing. So my question is twofold. First, is his platform, Truth Social, one of the platforms you envisage that would be captured by your bill? And the second question is, if so, would that sort of content fall afoul of any of the existing powers or proposed powers for you or the eSafety Commissioner to block or to punish?

ANIKA WELLS: So, the answer to the first part of your question is that, yes, it would be captured as an online service on Australian shores, so as it exists, as its footprint exists here in Australia, yes it would be captured. And as to the second part of your question, it goes to the heart of it which is, this is not about any individual post, any individual person, any individual comment, any individual reply or meme or video. It is about the platform that hosts that piece of content having systems in place that identifies where content might be risky for its users, and taking steps to mitigate against those risks. So, in this instance, it would be the obligations on Truth Social to have a risk assessment in place about those risks. And it would be not for me to determine, based on my own views, ultimately a question of compliance would be determined by the eSafety Commissioner, if it came to that.

JOURNALIST: In which case is that a practical outcome to try to pursue? To ask Donald Trump to police himself, because he is a part owner, his corporation is a part owner of Truth Social.

ANIKA WELLS: Well, it wouldn’t be about a particular post. It would be about a 12-monthly risk assessment that Truth Social conducts across its entire systems.

RONALD MIZEN: Alright, please join me in thanking Communications Minister Anika Wells.