Laura Jayes:
Let’s go live to Canberra. Now, Assistant Treasurer Daniel Mulino joins us. Thanks so much for your time. I appreciate it. The people building the world’s most powerful AI are telling us that they’re afraid about the speed of development. What are we doing about it as a country and you as a government?
Daniel Mulino:
Well, thanks for having me on, Laura. And look, it’s a really important issue, obviously, for our economy and our society. I think the warnings that we’re seeing vindicate the Prime Minister’s speech a few weeks ago to elevate this issue to Prime Minister and Cabinet, to elevate it to National Cabinet, to bring all the states and territories in. So, first and foremost, we’re bringing into the national regulatory approach the management of issues like privacy of copyright, of data centres. We are also a country that is leaning in on many areas of protection for our community, such as the under‑16 ban. In my own portfolio, we’ve recently passed legislation, the News Bargaining Incentive, which forces big tech to compensate news media for the material that is used by big tech. So, there’s a range of areas where we’re world‑leading in this space in bringing in protections, but we also need to have a nationally coordinated approach, which is where the Prime Minister has really leaned in.
Jayes:
But forgive me, Dario Amodei’s talking about 6 to 12 months and an AI system sufficiently capable of, with AI agents potentially taking over the internet, mass cyber attacks – I mean, can we really rely on a speech made a couple of months ago and then this just being taken into the Prime Minister’s portfolio? What more are we doing, or are we at the mercy of them self‑regulating?
Mulino:
No, no. Well, I don’t think it’s self‑regulation, and as I mentioned, there are concrete laws that we’ve passed. So, the under‑16 ban is a really good example, the News Bargaining Incentive, and this week we’re discussing the duty of care. So, there have been a series of laws, and there’s one in the parliament this week which we are seeking the Opposition to support. But when it comes to some of those warnings, the Deputy Prime Minister actually met in person with some of the leaders of those big AI companies recently and was talking through the details. So, look, we need to engage with those big AI companies, and we are doing that in person.
Jayes:
Yeah, but news media bargaining code is one thing. I mean, what about massive cyber attacks? Are we just at the mercy of these major tech companies in the US, and it seems like they are self‑regulating and pulling back on their own, but what about China?
Mulino:
Well, look, when it comes to cyber, there’s all sorts of measures that the government has taken and again, in my portfolio I’m working really constructively with the super sector to strengthen cyber arrangements there. I’ve had a number of meetings with all the peak organisations and with all of the peak Australian security organisations. So, we’re really stepping up when it comes to cyber in financial services, but that’s happening right across. So, this isn’t something where we’re just leaving it to self‑regulation. We are passing laws, and we are empowering our regulators. But we also have to acknowledge that there are some aspects of this which are international, and so we need to work with other governments, and we need to work with the big AI companies that operate globally, which is what we’re doing, and the Deputy Prime Minister meeting with some of the CEOs just last week in the US was a really important and constructive engagement.
Jayes:
Yeah, but just yesterday we had OpenAI issuing somewhat of an ultimatum about our copyright laws. Are you under pressure to come up with something quickly?
Mulino:
Well, as the Deputy PM said this morning, we are going to protect creative rights, and that’s something the PM has said very clearly in his speech a few weeks ago. But we need to engage with AI because we want AI models to become increasingly productive. We want to embrace the benefits of AI. There are discussions going on, as you refer to, around whether or not we can have pilots of training here in Australia. So, look, I think the PM indicated that based on his discussions that had occurred in the US, he feels there’s a lot of scope for us to engage positively, and I think that the government is well engaged in that.
Jayes:
So, you won’t compromise on copyright?
Mulino:
No, we’ve made very clear that we’re going to have strong protections for copyright and for creative rights. And I think that that is very much consistent with what we did with the news bargaining incentive, where we said, if big tech is going to use news content, we’re going to force them to pay a reasonable amount; we’re going to incentivise them to enter into commercial arrangements. So, I think our commitment to support copyright is very consistent with what we’ve already legislated in relation to public interest journalism.
Jayes:
Not completely unrelated, but more broadly, we’re all looking at harmful content online. In fact, you have a bill before parliament that’s doing exactly that. This is a persistent question, but I think a pertinent one. Why should any politician have the power to decide what is harmful?
Mulino:
No, I think what we’ve seen with the duty of care bill is that it’s been, I think, terribly mischaracterised by an Opposition who so far, at least, I don’t think has shown a willingness to engage in good faith. What we’re wanting to put in place are appropriate protections around algorithms, but it’s based around choice. You can opt out of the algorithm, but as I said, there is choice at the heart of this. Now, the ministerial powers is something which we’ve flagged. We’re open to discussing with the Opposition. That is something for the Minister for Communications to engage with her counterpart on. But my understanding is that the ball is in their court on that.
Jayes:
Sure. So, you have concerns around this being up to a Minister, with advice from the eSafety Commissioner as well? You can see how that is not just a political but a practical problem as well?
Mulino:
No, no, what I would say is that this is an incredibly important measure, that we see the risks of algorithms, and this bill is very important. But we, like all important bills, are willing to engage in good faith in discussion. So, it’s not for me to get involved in a discussion in real time on national TV on what the details might be. I think what I would say to the Opposition is, engage with the government on this. We want to see a sensible law passed, we want to see Australians protected. And like a number of other bills that we’ve put in this place over the last few weeks, dealing with important issues, we’re open to dealing with other parties in the parliament to get the best possible outcome.
Jayes:
Yeah, there are always unintended consequences with the Minister having power over being able to say what is harmful. One of those unintended consequences because AI, or anyone, can produce material that is wrong, offensive, confronting, politically controversial, but none of it makes it harmful. Do you know where I’m going with that?
Mulino:
But again, you’re going to a very specific element of the bill. And as I’ve said, I think the Minister has made clear that she’s willing to engage with her counterpart. That’s not for me to flag in detail in this forum. But I would just say to the Opposition, engage on this. If they’ve got specific concerns, we’re willing to engage and talk them through.
Jayes:
But Minister, as a crucial member of that Cabinet and, if I might say, one of the smarter ones, aren’t you concerned about this? You know, this is a society‑wide problem, and it’s not going to go away. Who decides what harm is a really important question right now. It goes to censorship, it goes to what shapes our society.
Mulino:
Well, look, that was a very generous element of the question, of the question you just gave, which I won’t accept, obviously. But look, can I – can I just say that, look, if I go back to the News Bargaining Incentive. You know, I engaged with the Opposition on this, as did the PM. They made some suggestions, and we made amendments. So, look, this is something which we’ve seen on a number of bills. This is a government that wants to see outcomes, that wants to see significant reforms go through this parliament. You know, the issues that you’re flagging are ones that are in the public realm. If the Opposition has particular concerns, they need to raise them specifically. And if they want to raise particular amendments, we’re now at the point where the obligation is on them to engage in good faith.
Jayes:
But why is it just the Opposition? I mean, there’s a lot of people raising concerns with you, is there not? About the unintended consequences of who defines harm and how this algorithm control might work?
Mulino:
Well, the usual process, and again, this has happened in my own portfolio, is that you put a bill to the parliament. We’ve worked through – I know that the Minister has engaged with stakeholders throughout the process of designing that bill, and there’s been a great deal of consultation. There’s been a great deal of engagement with experts. The government puts a bill to the parliament. If other parties in the parliament or Independents want to suggest amendments, then it’s appropriate for them to raise issues and put specific issues. I mean, this is normal kind of parliamentary practice. What I think is not appropriate is for a party to just point‑blank reject an idea that I think is absolutely important and timely.
Jayes:
Hang on, that’s their prerogative, isn’t it?
Mulino:
That’s what I think –
Jayes:
They can absolutely reject the idea.
Mulino:
They can, but I think then they deal themselves out of working through reforms, and what I haven’t seen from them is a justification for rejecting an idea that is built around choice. I haven’t seen them reject in principle the idea of a reform that is going to reduce harm on the internet. So, what I’ve seen is that they are not engaging with the detail. They’re raising concerns, but in a way which is not in good faith if they’re not willing to actually engage with the government and put suggestions.
Jayes:
In a week, we’ve seen a couple of unsavoury things. We’ve seen Pauline Hanson attack Andrew Hastie. We’ve seen comments made about Anthony Albanese’s mother. Now, in news through not that long ago, news.com.au by Samantha Maiden reports that Rhys Muldoon has been sacked as a Labor staffer for pretty vile sexual comments, one of them referring to my colleague, Peta Credlin, as a strap‑on wearing fantasy for the Liberals. I mean, what’s going on?
Mulino:
So, can I just make a broader comment that I think the Australian public expects politicians to deal with the issues and not with gratuitous attacks on people. I think it’s very unseemly. It doesn’t help debates if people resort to gratuitous attacks. So, look, I found the comments that Pauline Hanson made in relation to Indigenous people appalling, and I think that’s been attacked by right across the political spectrum. I found the comments on the Prime Minister’s mother, again, highly inappropriate and didn’t add at all. I haven’t actually seen the detail of the posts, but I understand that the Senator in question reviewed them, found them to be inappropriate and has discontinued an engagement, which I think is appropriate.
Jayes:
Does this whole episode show that Labor’s no better than any of the other parties in parliament?
Mulino:
No. Well, as soon as he found out about it, the Senator discontinued the engagement, is my understanding. So, he’s taken action, and he’s very clearly flagged that he doesn’t find that kind of commentary appropriate. What I haven’t seen is Pauline Hanson back away from her comments about the PM’s mum or Pauline Hanson backing down on her comments on our First Nations people. So, there’s a big difference there.
Jayes:
Okay, another week. Quite a week in store for us, I reckon. Daniel, thank you so much for your time, as always.
Mulino:
Thanks, Laura.