SALLY SARA, HOST: Well, Federal Parliament is debating the government's Digital Duty of Care Bill today, which will require platforms to take reasonable steps to protect Australians from serious harms. The Coalition plans to vote against the bill, meaning the government will need the support of the Greens in the Senate. The Prime Minister made this appeal to MPs yesterday.

[Excerpt]

ANTHONY ALBANESE, PRIME MINSTER: This is the moment for this parliament to act to make the social media and the online world safer. To pass the government's Digital Duty of Care Bill, and by doing so, require tech companies to take responsibility for the safety of the products and services they provide that have made them hundreds of billions and trillions of dollars.

[End of excerpt]

SARA: That's the Prime Minister yesterday. Well, Anika Wells is the Minister for Communications and Sport. The Minister joined me a short time ago.

Minister, welcome back to Radio National Breakfast.

MINISTER FOR COMMUNICATIONS ANIKA WELLS: Good to be with you.

SARA: Later today, Independent MP Sophie Scamps will put forward an amendment to the government's bill to establish a new industry-funded online ombudsman to deal with disputes. Is this amendment something the government would consider supporting?

WELLS: Look, we do agree and understand how frustrating it can be for Australians to report a complaint to any number of the tech companies and hear nothing back. That, to me, is sign and symbol of the status quo not working. So, the next step here is for the Digital Duty of Care to empower the eSafety Commissioner to create enforceable standards for dispute resolution. Right now, there's nothing that says the platforms have to have effective complaints pathways.

SARA: So that's your preferred path, rather than the proposal from Sophie Scamps.

WELLS: Well, the problem right now is that the codes are completely voluntary, completely unenforceable. So let's take the next step and make them enforceable before jumping several steps ahead and making them externally enforceable.

SARA: What's the situation when it comes to any possible amendments from the Coalition?

WELLS: Look, the opposition say they care about kids' safety online, and I believe them. But Parliament is where you prove it. So, where are their amendments? If they really care, the test is simple here, they should bring an amendment, not a slogan to ‘kill the bill’. There are Australian parents out there who elected Coalition MPs who expect their views to be part of this debate, and at the moment, they are not part of negotiations because the Coalition is refusing to participate.

SARA: Earlier this month, you signaled that the government would consider a Greens’ proposal that would give individuals the right to take legal action against tech companies for online harms under proposed laws. Have you come to a position on that proposal?

WELLS: No, I'm still in good faith negotiations with all manner of parliamentarians, lots of different colours, about ways to improve the bill. And my door remains open to those who want to come and find ways to improve the bill.

SARA: What are the sticking points?

WELLS: Well, at the moment, we are waiting for amendments to come in. We're expecting to debate consideration in detail in the House later today.

SARA: Greens' communications spokesperson Sarah Hanson Young says the Greens want fines for breaches of the proposed laws to be tied to social media platforms' global revenue. Is the government open to that?

WELLS: I agree that penalties need to be a deterrent. Sarah Hanson Young and I are completely aligned on that. That's why we've proposed the fines that are in the bill because they're consistent with consumer protection fines. And I would also say, and I make this point privately and publicly, we're not doing this alone. We're leading a global movement that's having a cumulative impact. We want to see behavioural change from these companies. That's the end goal. So you know you've just seen Meta unblushingly pay $24 billion in the states. We need to look at all manner of doing all manner of ways to change their behaviour.

SARA: Would tying this to their global revenue would that hit them harder?

WELLS: It might, and like I said, I'm going to continue to negotiate in good faith. But I think what these companies care about more than penalties is their reputation and their social license and that's why we've got to get this bill passed, and we've got to help other countries working as part of a global Coalition to make this responsibility borne by tech platforms across the globe.

SARA: You're listening to Radio National Breakfast. My guest is the Minister for Communications, Anika Wells. The Prime Minister had to admit yesterday that a six million dollar grant he promised to the Marrickville Golf Club in his electorate was not for fixing sewerage issues, as he'd previously claimed. Why did we only find out yesterday the true purpose of the grant? Are there problems with the grant scheme and the information available to the public?

WELLS: My view would be no, and as has been made clear through lots of different parliamentary processes, now, as is right, the original announcement and the proposal include the sewerage upgrades, and what we now deliver is complementary to that. And those final designs are underway.

SARA: But these are very different outcomes, aren't they?

WELLS: I think the PM was very clear yesterday. The grant included these works at the outset. New South Wales then stepped in to help, which shows how significant the issue was. And the final plan is now underway.

SARA: Why was the Prime Minister not aware of the true scope of these works as they have eventuated?

WELLS: Look, I can't speak to what is in the Prime Minister's mind, but I can speak to my own experience. These things do evolve. And, speaking as the Comms Minister, when we look at mobile blackspot grant programs, for example, we have to change those grant guidelines. We have to change things as things work out and don't work out, as companies tender and don't tender along the way. If we helicopter up here, what's the point? The point is that these promises were made. They should be delivered. The counterfactual here is that if we didn't deliver these commitments, the local community and, I imagine, the media, would be pretty outraged that we hadn't, and rightly so, to be honest.

SARA: Will the government be using these invitation-only grant schemes at the next election, or in any other way in the future?

WELLS: Again, I can't speak to a hypothetical in the future. But I make the point: MPs make commitments. We're expected to deliver on those commitments. We should do so within our parliamentary guidelines. Parliamentary processes allow those to be scrutinised. That's what's happened here.

SARA: Is delivering on promises and having a proper process, are those two things mutually exclusive?

WELLS: No, not at all. And I challenge anyone to say that it is.

SARA: The Australian Signals Director it says more disruptions to essential services are likely as AI increases the risk of cyberattacks. Are you concerned about what this could mean for Triple Zero?

WELLS: Well, I have the interim report from the Triple Zero Custodian, and that's in response to the outages we've had in Telstra and Optus, your listeners will remember. We want to look at a more holistic approach to Triple Zero and make sure it’s forward-facing and meets modern requirements. Something you were talking about there is exactly that – does it meet modern requirements and what we're expecting to come down the line? I think we need to create pathways for future access methods. I think we need to review our regulatory scope. Something I would say as the Comms Minister working in this space, whether it's Digital Duty of Care or things like how AI impacts our telcos, is that this is constantly evolving. We are in complete uncharted waters and it's moving very quickly. So the reason why we're trying to legislate a Digital Duty of Care is that the status quo isn't acceptable. It isn’t acceptable, and it's extraordinary that the Coalition would argue that it is acceptable in outright rejecting the Digital Duty of Care.

SARA: Liberal Senator Sarah Henderson told Estimates that answers about some of your travel expenses were due in July, but were only tabled by the Communications Department yesterday. What happened?

WELLS: We work through them and we table them as soon as we can.

SARA: Why was there a delay when there was a July deadline?

WELLS: I think that the secretary spoke to that because these are internal processes within the department, and that's what Estimates is for.

SARA: Did you request any delay from your office perspective?

WELLS: I certainly did not.

SARA: Just on a final issue, the ABC told Senate Estimates last night it will be taking further action over One Nation's use of Bluey in its online cartoon series, which shows Bluey and former Labor Premier Dan Andrews both hitting each other with a car. The managing director of the ABC thinks that it's a breach of intellectual property. Do you think it is?

WELLS: Look, I'm a huge fan of Bluey, and at the National Press Club, when I was speaking about Digital Duty of Care, I invoked Bluey. Look, satire is one thing, if people want to describe those cartoons as that. But the potential breach of intellectual property, like you say. It's quite another. Bluey is one of Australia's biggest, most loved, most well-known exports. I think the ABC is well within its rights to be concerned here. Given it's now looking at legal options, I shouldn't say any more, but I will say for you that Bluey has a lot more production value than One Nation's cartoons, and we can all learn a lot from Bluey.

SARA: Beyond the IP issue,  does this go over the line of what satire is, depicting this kind of stuff?

WELLS: Look, it's certainly not something that I would produce, or that I would ever ask my team to produce. Satire is one thing, scrutiny is important. But look, something Jessica Rudd wrote in an op-ed yesterday, I think, was quite poignant. She said that somewhere along the line, we've gotten confused about our absolute right to hold politicians to account with a carte-blanche to make their lives unbearable. And I think that the people that are making this cartoon should explain why this errs on the side of satire and not something more.

SARA: Anika Wells, thank you for joining me this morning.

WELLS: Thank you.

SARA: That's the Federal Minister for Communications and Sport, Anika Wells.