INTRODUCTION BY PRESIDENT MELONI

Good morning everyone, 

thank you for being here, thank you to the Ordine dei giornalisti [Order of Journalists], thank you to the Associazione della stampa parlamentare [Parliamentary Press Association].

I’ll keep this introduction quite brief as I want to leave time for your questions; I just have a few things to say.

The first is of course to wish you all a happy new year, to wish us all the best for a year that will be very complex for everyone. There are many important things happening this year, such as the European elections and Italy’s Presidency of the G7, so we will clearly all be very busy.

As far as I am concerned, I will do my part so that you can do your job in the best way possible, and I of course expect nothing but respect, although I certainly do not expect any concessions either.

The second thing I want to say is that I must of course apologise that this press conference was postponed twice for health reasons; I had no other choice. I am frankly sorry that this also caused some controversy but, as can be seen here this morning, there was no intention on my part to run away from journalists’ questions; I have seldom run away from anything in my life.

I believe I must provide a response regarding the issue of the Federazione Nazionale della Stampa [Italian National Press Federation] protesting against the so-called ‘gagging law’. I believe you are aware, Mr President, that this law is the result of a parliamentary amendment which, among other things, came from a member of an opposition party. The Government has certainly given its favourable opinion, but this is not a Government initiative, and I am saying this also to tell the Italian National Press Federation that the demonstration in front of Palazzo Chigi against something that is not a Government initiative should probably have been held in front of Parliament, because it is Parliament that has assumed this responsibility.

In addition, with regard to this issue, the amendment was linked to the European Directive on the presumption of innocence and states that pre-trial detention orders may not be published, in full or as an extract. This basically takes article 114 of the Code of Criminal Procedure back to its original scope, according to which it is forbidden to even only partially publish documentation relating to a hearing being held behind closed doors. As you know, in 2017, the Orlando reform at the time introduced an exception to this provision of our Code of Criminal Procedure, allowing for this specific type of documentation relating to detention to be fully or partially published.

In my view, this does not take away journalists’ right to provide information, because they still have the right to know about that documentation and to report on it with news stories that are important for keeping citizens updated. It is of course possible to say, and it should be said (I believe this is right), that someone has been arrested as well as why they have been arrested and what charges are being brought.

Frankly, I therefore do not see any ‘gagging’, unless it is also said that the press was gagged up until 2017, because this was the case until then and I do not recall press conferences with the President of the Council of Ministers being deserted in the past because this provision wasn’t there. 

This initiative – which, I shall say again, I did not take personally and probably would not have taken personally (and indeed I didn’t) - appears to me to be a law that balances the right to provide information with the right of citizens not to find details about themselves in the newspapers that may not be significant and that may harm their reputation, before being convicted and often before being able to exercise their right to defence.

Then, with regard to the matter of the Order [of Journalists], I know this issue is of particular concern for the Order’s reform, in particular the voting system for the Order of Journalists, as you know, I am fully ready and willing. I know that a parliamentary intergroup has been formed during this legislature which pays attention to journalists’ issues and, based also on the proposals put forward by the National Council of the Order [of Journalists], is working on a proposal.
I personally believe it would be better for such an initiative to come from Parliament, but I can also tell you that, should we see Parliament taking an excessively long time for this kind of initiative, then I have no problem discussing action. As we know, the regulations date back, unless I am mistaken, to 1967; objectively speaking the world has changed and it is right that the rules on how things work change too.
 

I shall now say the last thing. I very much agree with what you said regarding artificial intelligence: the Government will include this issue among its priorities for the Italian G7 Presidency, because I am particularly concerned about the impact of artificial intelligence at various levels, and especially with regard to the labour market.

We have always been used to a world in which progress worked to optimise human skills. However, in the past, we always saw mainly physical work being replaced, allowing people to focus on more specialised work, i.e., on concept-based work and organisational roles. Today, we are facing a completely different revolution, with the risk of intellect being replaced, meaning the impact that artificial intelligence may have on the labour market also concerns highly specialised jobs, and we risk the devastating effect of a labour market in which fewer and fewer people are needed.

I believe this requires serious assessment. I can’t tell you whether we are still in time, as I see how fast progress is being made and I see how long it takes for political decisions to be made, especially at multilateral level. These decisions have to be made at global level in order to be effective, and I am very concerned. However, we will be organising a very specific focus on the issue of artificial intelligence at the G7 and, even before the G7 leaders’ meeting which, as you know, will be held in June, I want to do, and am already working on, a specific initiative regarding the impact of artificial intelligence on the labour market. 

This is clearly an issue that concerns and is of interest to you, because this is one of those professions that we are not fully realizing may be put at risk by artificial intelligence. Whereas, until now, progress has had a positive impact, helping us to work better, today we are effectively at risk of replacement, and so I trust that we can perhaps work and reason together on this.

I shall stop here as I said I would be brief but I haven’t been. Please go ahead.

[Courtesy translation]