MELISSA CLARKE, HOST: Now, the federal government is expected to introduce its gambling ad legislation to Parliament today, but it's already facing calls for amendments and a Senate inquiry. Anika Wells is the Minister for Communications and the Minister for Sport. Minister, welcome back to Radio National Breakfast.

MINISTER FOR COMMUNICATIONS ANIKA WELLS: Great to be back with you this week.

CLARKE: Now, can I just confirm – the legislation, it is going into Parliament today?

WELLS: Yep, we'll introduce it today.

CLARKE: Excellent. How far advanced are you in your conversations with the Coalition and the Greens and others in Parliament about the prospects of it passing?

WELLS: This is something that has been debated for a long time. In fact, the Coalition and the Greens have obviously talked about how they'd like to see action sooner. The legislation's finally ready. It's been through the exposure draft process, so I guess everybody's had a chance to weigh in on that. We'll introduce it today. And, like I said earlier this week, it is usually the case that these things go off to a Senate inquiry. It's usually the case that members of the House of Reps will make amendments, and we would expect that to happen from today.

CLARKE: How willing are you to make further changes to meet the demands of, say, the Greens? We had Sarah Hanson-Young on the program yesterday saying that this bill doesn't tackle things like the inducements that are made to people who are known to have gambling problems, that it doesn't deal with issues like having a proper national regulator. Are you willing to make changes to address those concerns?

WELLS: Well, we do genuinely believe we have addressed the issue of inducements with BetStop. There's obviously always more we can do in social policy. The pen is never down. But I guess we will always consider, in good faith, amendments that are put forward by any parliamentarian, either in the House or in the Senate.

CLARKE: I doubt that's going to satisfy the Greens. It may not satisfy the Coalition. Have you had productive discussions with the Coalition about their position?

WELLS: Yes, of course we talked to the Coalition about this alongside the Greens, alongside the crossbench. Everybody's received briefings on this. And, like I said, we've been through an exposure draft process. This will now go off to a Senate inquiry. I think it's due to report back on 17 August. So that process will now play out as it usually does.

CLARKE: There's been some reporting in the Financial Review this morning suggesting that the bill will prevent former athletes and other prominent people from promoting gambling on podcasts or social media. Is that right?

WELLS: That's right. One of the things we wanted to do with this package of reforms is address the influence of influencers in this space. But at the heart of the package, which is really significant reform, is trying to remove the insidious effect of gambling advertising on children where they experience it incidentally. So that's at the heart of the package.

CLARKE: Yeah, children can still be exposed if they are watching matches at timeframes- on television -we will still see some gambling advertising in certain hours. Children might very reasonably want to see a full game and be up after 8.30. So if that is the objective, if that is the core of the bill, why does it not go further to make sure kids will not have exposure to ads if they are watching major sporting events, regardless of the time of day?

WELLS: Well, there is the ability for you to not have your child see that no matter what time of day they're watching, which is the triple-lock function, watching any of these programs through a streamer. So we know that free-to-air has to have major events through our anti-siphoning laws, but if you chose to watch- I don't want to name any particular given that we're on the ABC - but if you are watching the Football World Cup on SBS, another public broadcaster, for example, you have the ability to opt out of seeing gambling advertising and from 1 January-

CLARKE: [Interrupts] if you’re streaming?

WELLS: On streaming. And we know the trend for viewing in Australia is that more than half of the population now view these things online through streamers. And that is how, as technology evolves, households will continue to evolve. So we've set this law as a way to phase out, but knowing that's where we're going. So, ultimately, if you don't want your child to see advertising, you will have the ability to lock it out completely.

CLARKE: Well, that assumes that you have access to streaming. And as you say, that might be where the trend is going. But a lot of people rely on free-to-air television and analogue television services, and that doesn't apply in this circumstance.

WELLS: Well, we've still capped it at three ads per hour. And like I said, we would like this delivered, implemented 1 January, because we understand people have waited a long time. People care deeply about this issue. Every delay to this, be it Senate inquiry, be it any other shenanigans that might go on.

CLARKE: [Interrupts] Do you think the inquiry is a shenanigan?

WELLS: No, a good faith Senate inquiry or any other political hijinks. I'm thinking of the social media shenanigans that the Coalition have put forward.

CLARKE: We'll come to that in a minute.

WELLS: I guess my point is there are deeply entrenched views on this issue. That is why it has been so difficult to land a package that is workable for everybody. We put at risk the 1 January implementation by any form of delay.

CLARKE: I find it interesting you say there's deeply entrenched views when there was ability to get consensus with the Murphy report. Part of the reason it was so extraordinary was because it did manage to get consensus across the political spectrum for its reforms, yet you haven't gone as far as that. Is it really as hard to go further as you suggest?

WELLS: Well, in some cases we have gone further than the You win some, you lose more report. For example, they spoke to restrictions on pocket pokies. We are banning them completely. We've also gone further in some of the lotteries, both overseas lotteries and some of the dodgy lottery operators that operate in Australia. Those three pieces of work go further than what You win some, you lose more recommended.

CLARKE: Anika Wells is the Minister for Communications and the Minister for Sport. Now, you mentioned the social media regulations, the changes that the government's looking to bring in to strengthen the social media ban for under 16. So tougher fines for social media platforms and new information gathering powers for the eSafety Commissioner. So the Greens and the Coalition have voted together in the Senate to send this to an inquiry until late August. What discussions have you had with them about their concerns about the details of the bill?

WELLS: Well, the Prime Minister leads on this because this issue is close to his heart and he has showed world-leading leadership in getting us to the position that Australia is in. We were just talking about the gambling reforms going off to a Senate inquiry. Yesterday, the Coalition took the decision to piff this bill, a four-page, 500-word bill, off to an eight-week inquiry. That inquiry will report back later than the gambling reforms inquiry. We have Australian parents who come to Parliament and say to us, please don't make this a political football. This has been bipartisan, born of 120,000 parents asking Parliament to act because parents feel powerless in this space. We have a law in place that is world-leading. Twenty other nations have followed us. Of course, it's not perfect. No first law ever is. But, as the Minister, you'd want me to do everything I can to improve it where we can. The eSafety Commissioner asked the Parliament to give her these powers. We urgently brought the law forward so that we could give them to her so that she could take big tech to court and they've piffed it off for an eight-week inquiry. It's inexplicable.

CLARKE: Is eight weeks an unreasonable timeframe? Why is eight weeks too much?

WELLS: Because it's a 500-word bill and you've already outlined the two particular things that it does. It's not complex. And I think Angus Taylor should explain why he is honestly giving big tech eight more weeks to prepare their case, eight more weeks to get their ducks in a row, potentially eight weeks to shred documents now that they know these changes are coming.

CLARKE: Do you think big tech companies are shredding documents?

WELLS: I think you can look at what the eSafety Commissioner has said overnight about that risk, given that the point of these laws is to give her the ability to compel documents. And I think this is genuinely urgent. I'm crestfallen Angus Taylor has decided to walk away from bipartisanship and he should explain why he would make such a craven and expedient decision.

CLARKE: The Coalition has said that part of its concerns is that it's not sure what the government is going to do in its plans on a digital duty of care. Could you bring more information forward and speed up the work on a digital duty of care to make it clearer so the Coalition knows what the bigger picture is of what you're trying to achieve with a combination of these laws?

WELLS: So we have been doing consultation on digital duty of care. We hope to have an exposure draft prepared in the next few months for everybody to weigh in on. And I would love- like I said, I want to bring that to the parliament this year. That is the bigger piece of work, you're right. But that should in no way stop the parliament giving the eSafety Commissioner, a woman appointed and reappointed by the Coalition, specific powers to do a specific job to see the laws that we all want to work better, work better.

CLARKE: Anika Wells, thanks very much for speaking to us on Radio National Breakfast this morning.

WELLS: Have a good morning.

CLARKE: That’s Anika Wells, the Minister for Communications.