ANTHONY ALBANESE, PRIME MINISTER: Good morning. Firstly, I want to recognise three parents who join us here this morning. Mia Bannister, whose son, Ollie, lost his life last year. Ollie was just 14 years old. Robb Evans, whose daughter, Liv, lost her life in 2023. Liv was just 15 years old. And Emma Mason, whose daughter Tilly lost her life in 2022. She was just 15 years old. No parent should lose a child at that age. Mia, Robb and Emma are three parents, but their stories are felt by countless other parents and by communities right across the country. We know that social media is doing social harm, and my Government and this Parliament is prepared to take action to protect young Australians. Social media companies have a social responsibility. That’s why today we’re pleased to announce that our Government is tabling rules that specify which types of online services will be captured in our world-leading laws. Importantly, following advice from the eSafety Commissioner, young people under the age of 16 will not be able to have accounts on YouTube. They will also not be able to have accounts on Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, TikTok, X, amongst other platforms.
We want Australian parents and families to know that we’ve got your back. We know this is not the only solution, and there’s more to do, but it will make a difference. We know as well that there are those who will say, ‘oh, young people will find their way around it’. That’s not a reason to stop the other laws that we’ve put in place about alcohol consumption, or about purchasing of tobacco, or other areas where governments act to identify clearly what are the community’s expectations. I’m proud to lead a Government that is on the side of families. And I want to acknowledge that there’s broad support across this Parliament for this reform, and I want to make sure that that broad support continues, and I’m confident that it will. I also want to thank and acknowledge the 36 Months and Let Them Be Kids campaigns. They have been important in mobilising support and showing that those parents who say to me that this is what we talk about before and after school at the drop-offs, this is what we talk about at the sidelines of sporting events. It’s not just them. It’s not just their school, or their cricket club, or netball team. It’s parents right across Australia who feel like this. Parents want to get their kids off their devices and onto the playing fields. They want children to be able to enjoy their childhood, and that is what this is about.
I’ll call upon Minister Wells to make some comments. We’ll then hear from Mia on behalf of parents, and then we’re happy to take questions, first on this and then if there are any other matters. Minister Wells.
ANIKA WELLS, MINISTER FOR COMMUNICATIONS: Thank you, PM. And I also wanted to start today by saying thank you to 36 Months and to the courageous parents who join us here today, Mia, Robb, Emma. It’s because of your efforts that we are all here today in the Prime Minister’s Courtyard, and because of your determination to let tragic loss in your life be a cause to improve and save the lives of others. So, thank you very much. Today, our Government again shows that we are placing families at the heart of our decision making. Today, we are prioritising parents ahead of platforms. We will not be intimidated by tech companies. The Albanese Government is pushing forward with our mission to keep Australian kids safe online, with new rules to support our world-leading social media age restrictions. And we have a key update. In response to advice from the eSafety Commissioner, the online safety rules tabled today specify which types of online services will not be captured by the social media law, including online gaming, messaging, education and health apps. These types of online services have been excluded from the minimum age obligations because they pose fewer social media harms to under 16s. All services that meet the definition of age-restricted social media platform and are not specifically excluded in the rules will be subject to the social media minimum age law. This includes Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, TikTok, Twitter/X, and YouTube, amongst others.
We are implementing these rules and this law on behalf of parents, who want and deserve better protections for their kids online. We want kids to know who they are before platforms assume who they are, which is why I want to be clear about YouTube. The evidence cannot be ignored that four out of ten Australian kids report that their most recent harm was on YouTube. And as parents, we are really trying our best when it comes to the internet, but it is like trying to teach your kids to swim in the open ocean, with the rips and the sharks, compared to at the local council pool. We can’t control the ocean, but we can police the sharks. And that’s why we will not be intimidated by legal threats, when this is a genuine fight for the wellbeing of Australian kids, a fight the parents beside me have tragic reasons to wage with fearless determination. There is no perfect solution when it comes to keeping young Australians safe online, but the social media minimum age laws will make a meaningful difference. And we haven’t arrived here alone. There have been many campaigns like the Let Them Be Kids campaign, like the 36 Months campaign, like these incredible advocates, who have worked to get us all here today. There is a place for social media. There is no place for predatory algorithms, and that’s what we’re cracking down on. And there is no cure, but this is a treatment plan, and this is too important for us not to have a good crack on it. So, please welcome Mia.
MIA BANNISTER: Thank you. Firstly, I’d like to say thank you to the Prime Minister and Minister Wells and 36 Months for having us here today. I’m here to represent my fellow parents, Emma Mason and Robb Evans. Ollie, Tilly and Liv. Their lives mattered. Thank you to the collective of individuals, charities and organisations who came together and sang from the same song sheet to make this legislation a reality. It wasn’t the result of one voice, but the power of many, united in purpose, driven by hope and committed to protecting our kids. A special thank you to 36 Months for their kind invitation to join them in Canberra for this significant announcement. This restriction, whilst specific to account creation, is a good starting point. We won’t stop pushing for real, meaningful reform. Together, we made change happen, and together we will keep going. Thank you.
PRIME MINISTER: Well, thanks so much, Mia, and thank you for the courage that you and Robb and Emma have shown. And we know that Ollie, Liv and Tilly are with us today in spirit.
JOURNALIST: PM, you said you’re not going to be intimidated by the tech companies. You’re going to be at the UN in September. Will you seek to mobilise international support so you can stare them down?
PRIME MINISTER: I’ve written to James Larsen, our representative at the UN. We’ll be holding an event in New York along with 36 Months and the Let Them Be Kids campaign, and we will continue to advocate. This is our position. It’s up to other nations what they do. But I know from the discussions I’ve had with other leaders, that they are looking at this, and they are considering what impact social media is having on young people in their respective nations. And it is a common experience. This is not an Australian experience. This is a common experience which is seing governments including – I'll be with Prime Minister Luxton in a couple of weeks, just across the ditch - New Zealand for example, is acting along pretty similar lines.
JOURNALIST: One for the Minister if I could. It’s four months until these regulations, these rules come into force. The Age Assurance Trial is still ongoing. Some of the big platforms say they’re still unclear, under the legislation, reasonable steps – they're still unclear about what reasonable steps actually mean; what they have to build, what they have to implement on their platforms. When will you give them more clarity, and when will Australians actually know what sort of verification processes they’ll have to go through to access these platforms for people above 16?
WELLS: Well, a couple of elements in there. We are still waiting on the Age Assurance final recommendations to come back, and we’ll publish those for you as soon as possible once we get those. I’ll make the distinction, though. There has been 12 months allowed for this to happen. Social media platforms have been on notice since December last year that this was coming. They have had 12 months to work with the eSafety Commissioner to determine what that looks like for their individual platforms. Obviously, there’s proprietary technology. Obviously, each platform works differently, Obviously, they’re all competitors. That means they need to work on a one-on-one basis with the eSafety Commissioner. But I think reasonable steps is reasonable. We are backing parents. The platforms have a responsibility, a social responsibility as the PM would say. The onus here is on the platforms. Come 10 December, if your kid has a Facebook login, Facebook account, it is on Facebook to deactivate that account. It’s not on the parent to police that on behalf of Facebook. And there are sort of four reasonable steps that platforms have to take: they have to deactivate existing accounts that they know; they need to make sure that no new accounts are activated; they need to take reasonable steps to make sure that any workarounds or mitigations, because kids, god bless them, are going to find a way around this. And maybe they’re all going to swarm on LinkedIn. We don’t know. These are meant to be working rules, and they also need to sort of correct any errors as they arise. Because these are not set-and-forget rules, these are set-and-support rules. They are world-leading. But this is manifestly too important for us not to have a crack.
JOURNALIST: This restriction on YouTube only applies to account holders, as you both touched on. What guarantee is there that kids won’t still be able to see harmful content on YouTube if they don’t have an account?
PRIME MINISTER: Well, one of the reasons why that’s been done, for example, is to allow teachers in classrooms, for example, if they want to show a YouTube video or what have you – or parents, for that matter – something that’s educational, we recognise that many of these – social media isn’t all bad. We're not saying that. So, what we want to make sure though is that we restrict the harmful content.
JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, there are potential legal challenges in the works with these laws, particularly with the inclusion of YouTube. The Minister’s just said that these are working rules. Are there any non-negotiable elements that the Government is not willing to work further with the tech companies to potentially avoid a legal challenge?
PRIME MINISTER: Well, we want this to be cooperative. We make this point, that social media does have a social responsibility and they also need a social license. So, there’ll be demand from the community for social media companies to engage constructively. We don’t do this easily. What we do, though, is respond to something that is needed here. And so, we said when I stood here with Minister Rowland last December or November of last year, we acknowledge that this is not going to be simple or easy, to go back to the previous question. Some of this will be inevitably a work-in-progress, a response. Like, if people are trying to get around it, how do we then respond. But what we know is that social media does have more information about what Clare Armstrong does than perhaps some people who are your close friends. Where you go, who you talk to, what you’re interested in, you know, they do keep that information. And during the election campaign, if they could identify for political parties in order to encourage us to invest on their platforms on an issue like child care, identifying women between a particular age in a particular seat, in a particular demographic, with particular postcodes - then they can help out here too. They can use the capacity which we know that they have.
JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, it has obviously been highly publicised around the social media age limit. The eSafety Commissioner has also released industry codes talking about age verification requirements for people using search engines. Are Australians ready for that?
WELLS: Well, this is exactly the kind of thing we’re hoping to push forward with this week in taking the time to meet with parents and make sure that this is in the national spotlight, so that everybody is prepared. Industry codes are an ongoing project between the eSafety Commissioner and the social media platforms, and I guess what we want parents to know is that yes, we’re in a new term, and yes, these laws were legislated in the last term, but they are coming. They are coming on 10 December. And we want to have parents’ backs, and we want to make it easier for them. And if it makes it easier for them, and if it makes it easier for them, we can say it now, you know, kids who are watching on the news tonight, these laws are coming. Your parents are telling the truth. We are banning social media. We want to make it easier for parents and we’ll continue to work with the eSafety Commissioner about how best to do that.
JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, if I may on another matter --
PRIME MINISTER: No, we’re doing this first, and then we’ll go to other matters.
JOURNALIST: Can I just ask, parents will be hearing this and thinking it’s a great thing to limit kids’ access to this harmful content, but they’ll also be asking, ‘why is that harmful content there in the first place?’ If any of us in our media organisations were to publish or broadcast this stuff, we’d be straight up in front of ACMA or the courts, justifiably. When will the day come when governments can stop these organisations allowing this stuff to be posted in the first place?
WELLS: That’s a great question, Mark, and ultimately one for the social media platforms to answer. We were saying earlier in our meeting with parents that if you could put all of the content on social media in a library, you would never let your child walk in. And it is on social media platforms to explain why any child would be able to see age restricted content on their platform. And that is something that the eSafety Commissioner will work with them on each individual platform and something we all stand together in wanting to see stamped out.
JOURNALIST: A lot of the companies the Minister just named had their CEOs in the front row of Donald Trump's inauguration. Is this something that has come up in your discussions over trade or any of the discussions with the President? And given this event will be held in New York that you're organising, would you like the US to get on board and be part of this push globally?
PRIME MINISTER: I want everyone to get on board because this isn't an ideological issue. This is an issue about looking after young people and so the media bargaining code has come up in discussions with the United States. This issue has not been raised by them, but I have certainly asserted Australia's position because we are not doing this slowly or discreetly. We're doing this in a way which is transparent. We're seeking transparency from the companies, and the Government is equally transparent. We came here, we gave them a year's notice and we're going through it. The first available opportunity, we've had the eSafety Commissioner undertake her work. She went to the National Press Club and outlined the findings that she had. The Government dealt with this through our appropriate government processes. This is a decision of government, and it had certainly overwhelming support as well of government. So, we will continue to push forward here. We think this is important.
JOURNALIST: I know the Age Verification Trial is still ongoing. There are question marks around that, but can you assure that Australians won't need to upload a document such as their driver's licence or a passport to prove their age in order to access these social media sites?
WELLS: Yes, I can offer you that. Platforms have to provide an alternative to providing your own personal identification documents to satisfy themselves of age. Though I'd make the point that the PM just made to Clare's question, these platforms know with deadly accuracy who we are, what we do, and when we do it, and they know that you've had a Facebook account since 2009, so they know that you are over 16. There's lots of ways that this can be done and we look forward to receiving the latest in the age assurance research from the eSafety Commission.
PRIME MINISTER: I am conscious of the physical health of people here and how many of my office, and myself you might've noticed, is struggling with the cold that seems to have infected most of the building. So, I don't want to cut things off, but is there an urgent question on this issue before I go to other matters?
JOURNALIST: Minister Wells, you mentioned earlier this morning that a part of YouTube's lobbying effort was to introduce The Wiggles to speak to you about this. What were their arguments against the ban on YouTube and were there other kids' programs that were advocating against this?
WELLS: Well, it was – for clarity because we've got a lot of incomings on this. It was the black skivvies, it was Wiggles Inc., it was Wiggles management, not individual members of our cherished national icon The Wiggles.
PRIME MINISTER: We're not here to sledge The Wiggles.
WELLS: We love The Wiggles.
PRIME MINISTER: Let's be very clear. My Government is pro-Wiggles.
WELLS: Their argument was – they had a few – but in essence that they are a video streaming platform, not a social media platform, which I'm sure they'll say again today, they said it last night. But they also self-identified as a social media platform in February this year for the purposes of working with the eSafety Commissioner on the industry codes.
JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, we've had first France and now the UK give specific timeframes on recognising a Palestinian state. Given the emphasis that your Government has put on working – given we've had some of the countries we've worked with in the past on issues related to Gaza announce specific timeframes for recognising a Palestinian state, and given that both you and Penny Wong have talked about there being greater power in working in coordination with other countries when it comes to issues such as this, will your Government now be looking at a specific timeframe for recognising a Palestinian state?
PRIME MINISTER: What I've said is that it's not the timeline, it's not what we're looking at. What we're looking at is the circumstances where recognition will advance the objective of the creation of two states. I was in contact with Prime Minister Starmer overnight. There are time issues of course, where we are located in the world, that make some of that one-on-one contact – I expect to be speaking with Keir in the coming couple of days as well. I've said for a long time, my entire political life, I've said I support two states. The right of Israel to exist within secure borders and the right of Palestinians to have their legitimate aspirations for their own state realised. That's my objective. Not making a statement, not winning a political point, but achieving that. That's very much my focus. We have signed a statement today, another statement with many nations. That statement I think has a number of things in it that are important. One is the statement by the Palestinian Authority that they made on 10 June that condemns the 7 October terrorist attacks, that calls for the liberation of hostages and the disarmament of Hamas, that commits to terminate the prisoner payment system, that commits to schooling reform, commits to calling elections within a year to trigger generational renewal, and accepts the principle of a demilitarised Palestinian state. That's a very significant step forward. What we will continue to do is to put forward a principled position consistent with our unwavering commitment to the vision of the two-state solution. In an immediate sense, we continue to call for a ceasefire. We continue to call for hostages to be released. We continue to say that Hamas can have no role in a future Palestinian state, and we continue to call for aid to be allowed to the people of Gaza. Every innocent life matters and when I look at the statement that was carried by this Parliament, the resolution after 7 October on a bipartisan basis, I think it stands quite well the work that went into producing that statement.
JOURNALIST: What tariff rate is Australia expecting from the United States and have you heard any more from the Trump Administration about what we'll be hit with?
PRIME MINISTER: Well, obviously there are statements on a day-to-day basis on these issues. We continue to argue our position, which is that these tariffs are unjustified, they're an act of economic self-harm and that if we have reciprocal tariffs on Australia, then that rate should be zero. The US administration obviously has a position of tariffs on every country. We'll continue to advocate for Australia's position.
JOURNALIST: Just back on Keir Starmer, obviously this must influence your thinking on recognition. Can I ask how it does influence your thinking?
PRIME MINISTER: Well, the world is continuing to engage with each other both informally and formally as well, through statements. The world was horrified by the terrorist act and atrocities committed by Hamas on 7 October. The world looks at what is happening in Gaza and expresses that it is unjustified, and that it is a tragedy. That the ongoing loss of innocent life, the ongoing impact of the decisions to restrict aid – we stand by the comments that were made. Anyone who looks at that – it is producing a response from the world as well, that, as I have said to the Israeli President Herzog in May, that Israel increasingly is seeing people express their opposition to those actions. People who are friends of Israel have to be able to say, what you are doing is losing support and that is what is happening.
JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, you’ve now recognised in the last week or so that Israel is clearly breaching international law. Why haven't you imposed sanctions on the broader Israeli government?
PRIME MINISTER: Well, what we haven't done is go for slogans, frankly. I mean, when asked this, which is the sanction that you would like?
JOURNALIST: Similar sanctions on the – it’s not what I would like, to start off with, it’s what people have been calling for, is sanctions on the broader Israeli government. You just pointed to a statement, that you released a statement. Surely that would make a statement?
PRIME MINISTER: They don’t call for that. That’s the point. What we have from some of the campaign that has taken place is slogans, and what we are about is meaningful action, not slogans. This is a real issue. And frankly, just like the people who caused my office once again to be shut down last Friday by throwing balloons full of fish oil and stuff in an office, that means my staff had to abandon it. Great cost to the Commonwealth. Means no constituents can get service. That doesn't advance it. We do not send arms to Israel. We do not. We have sanctioned ministers in a democratic government, in a democratic government. Putin's regime is not a democratic government. It is an authoritarian regime. There is considerable opposition in Israel as well to the actions of the Netanyahu Government. They are a democracy, and we have, I think, taken appropriate action and it's been, as I say, sanctioning ministers in a democratic government. If you can point to a comparison where that's occurred, I'd be happy to hear it.
JOURNALIST: Question about the AUKUS review –
PRIME MINISTER: Hang on.
JOURNALIST: Can I ask for Minister Wells?
PRIME MINISTER: Sure.
JOURNALIST: Thank you. We've talked a lot about child safety today and young people. I just want to get your response to when the government will respond to the Murphy gambling review and whether inducements, such as what we see on apps like SportsBet that promote certain odds, but there's no transparency or accountability. So, I just want your take on transparency within apps. So, for example, you can – there's a guy called Bet with Confidence, and you can follow his bets, but you can't go back and see what their strike rates are for example. Should that be advertised or pushed to young people?
WELLS: Obviously, getting my feet under the desk as the new Comms minister, I have met with all the different groups that have a stake in that ongoing work. I would say that the Prime Minister and the previous minister, Minister Rowland, along with Minister Rishworth - the majority of recommendations for that review sit within the portfolio of Social Services - did the most significant things in more than a decade last term. And there are now more than 44,000 people registered on BetStop as a result of that work. Obviously it's important work, obviously it continues. I look forward to giving you an update on it as soon as I can.
JOURNALIST: Question about the AUKUS review, the US Department of Defence this morning, they're saying they're delaying the outcome of that review until the spring. Is that a cause for concern at all in your view?
PRIME MINISTER: No, it's not surprising that that would be the case and it's something we expected, something like that. We expected a review from an incoming government just like the Starmer Government did it. We expect that those things take longer than just 30 days.
JOURNALIST: Are you concern that they're using the review as leverage?
PRIME MINISTER: No.
JOURNALIST: You've been very clear that a red line for Australia is Hamas play no role in the future governance of Palestine. In your view, how sweeping would that be? Would it apply to say, senior bureaucrats that have been involved in the health administration? And if Palestine's going to be a democracy as the Palestinian Authority is flagged, how's that red line enforceable in the long term?
PRIME MINISTER: The idea that we're at that point of detail is – we are not there. Clearly, one of the things that the PA have said, the Palestinian Authority have said, is to speak about a demilitarised Palestinian state. What that implies isn't just no military in the conventional sense, but also obviously no paramilitary. We want – if you're going to have, advance genuinely, a two-state solution, then you are going to need to have not just the legitimate aspirations of the Palestinians for their own state, but Israel needs to be recognised by the states around the Middle East. Israel needs to be able to be confident as part of that that they're able to exist without a threat to their security. So, that is what we talk about in a mature way and that is where the discussion is actually at. Not so much some of the sloganeering that does nothing to advance the cause.
Nothing – if people are serious, and I've been serious about the right to Palestinians and them having justice since, well before I came to this place – there hasn't been an advance. One of the things that I've said, and there's been some reporting from Caucus yesterday, is that sometimes out of a crisis comes a moment of opportunity to actually advance forward in a real way, advance forward for Israelis and Palestinians. When I visited a long time ago before the Intifada, it struck me that walking around the historic streets of Jerusalem, an important site for the three great monotheistic religions, people don't feel secure when you see people whose guns are bigger than their height.
That's an insecure situation that has an impact on people. And that's why I say for all those as well who are engaged to engage in a respectful way that's appropriate in a democracy. The cause is not advanced by some of the activities that have occurred. There's no place for antisemitism, there's no place for Islamophobia, there's no place for hatred in this country. And one of the things that I'm trying to do, and I wish that everyone in the Parliament was trying to do but I don't think that has been the case, is to promote social inclusion here as well. Because if there's two things I'm confident of, it's one - that most Australians who don't follow this on a day-to-day basis, who don't think this is fighting for a team in a game, that what they want is for innocent lives to not be lost, for people to stop killing each other. That's what they just think about when they think about the Middle East. And the second thing they want is they don't want conflict brought here. People are not responsible for what the actions of either Hamas terrorist organisations or governments do. And my priority has been to try to navigate what is a very difficult situation. But the young Jewish boy or girl going to the local school should not be harassed because of who they are. They are not responsible for what is going on in Gaza. And Arab Australians or Muslims are not responsible for what Hamas did. And the media have a responsibility as well to actually report things that aren't just backing a team in this. And I just ask you to do so. Thanks.