Peter Stefanovic:
Joining us live now is the Assistant Treasurer Daniel Mulino, the Shadow Home Affairs Minister Jonno Duniam. Good morning to you, gentlemen. So, Jonno, look, it’s an interesting divergence of views here. You’ve got the federal government with the blinkers on whilst Chris Minns, who’s at the coalface dealing with crime, which is partly funded by tobacco wars, he wants it cut. Your thoughts?
Jonathon Duniam:
Well, Chris Minns speaks absolute common sense there because you keep doing the same thing and getting the same result, something is not working. And you have the Canadian example where they did what this government is doing in Australia now, and illicit tobacco and smoking generally, consumption went up. It wasn’t until they dealt with the tax settings in Canada that, of course, the rates of illicit tobacco consumption went down and the crime gangs were smashed.
You’ve got to do more than just law enforcement, and, as I say, you know, you heard Tony Burke saying there before saying ‘Well, it’s all about law enforcement.’ It is not working. And for the crime gangs when their goods are seized or someone might get fined or imprisoned, that’s a cost of doing business. They don’t care. This a lucrative model and they’re going to keep going. And Chris Minns, who is responsible for policing in New South Wales, he’s the one bearing the brunt. The Commonwealth don’t do it. So we think the changes need to be made to the excise, more money for law enforcement and, of course, that investment of $60 million in educating people about why smoking is bad. The whole package will kill this industry.
Stefanovic:
So, Dan, I mean, the gang – the tobacco wars are most prevalent in your state of Victoria. So do you honestly think the current path is working?
Daniel Mulino:
So, Pete, what Tony Burke explained yesterday was that even if you dropped the excise very significantly or, indeed, to zero, organised crime could still make a profit. And that’s backed up by evidence that was given by the Commissioner for Illicit Tobacco and E‑Cigarettes. What she said was that, at the moment, organised crime has set up in such a way that they can make a profit even if we reduced the excise to almost zero. And that suggests that the government’s focus on enforcement is the right one.
What we’ve seen is that governments working together – the federal government working with Queensland and South Australia in particular have disrupted a significant amount of this business. And what we need to do is to increase our efforts to continue to ensure that governments at federal and state and territory level work better together. That’s the right focus at the minute.
Stefanovic:
Go on, Jonno. Get your response to that. So the fact is that, okay, if you lower the tobacco excise, then the criminals, well, they’ll just keep lowering it further. Has Dan and Tony Burke got a point there?
Duniam:
No, well, if you just – One Nation’s policy, of course, is just to reduce the excise. That’s disastrous. That wouldn’t do a thing. And I think then you’d see what Labor are saying, which is their reason for doing nothing, changing nothing and allowing the same thing to continue; their argument would stack up. When you combine a reduction in excise with $200 million for law enforcement in a short period of time, along with money to educate people not to smoke – something I assumed most people understood – then you will actually start smashing and disrupting their business model. If you keep doing nothing – which is what Labor are doing, saying, ‘Oh, the model we’re deploying now is working,’ it’s not. Smoking rates are going up. Illicit tobacco consumption is going up. People are dying because of fire bombings in Victoria and mistaken killings. This is not good enough to say the current settings are working.
Stefanovic:
Yeah, well, wasn’t there another fire bombing in your own electorate on the weekend, Dan?
Mulino:
Look, I don’t know about that in particular. But, look, there’s no doubt there is a higher level than – of criminal activity than we would want to see –
Stefanovic:
In St Albans?
Mulino:
– so what we want to see is different states and territories moving to best practice. And we have seen examples of significant disruption of this illegal material entering Australia. We have seen examples where the retail side of this has been disrupted. So it is possible for us to do better. This government’s invested over $360 million. What we’ve seen on the Opposition’s side is that One Nation offers a 75 per cent cut and then the Opposition says, ‘Oh, look, we’ll slightly trump that with 80 per cent.’ I mean, it seems on this area when it comes do super – and Phil Coorey released –
Stefanovic:
Yeah, but back to the question. Back to the question.
Mulino:
The other side of politics are just trumping each other at the minute in policy area after policy area.
Stefanovic:
So back to that question, though: another fire bombing in St Albans. You’re not aware of that?
Mulino:
So I don’t want to see that. And, look, I know that there have been incidents –
Stefanovic:
So doesn’t that show that the policy isn’t working?
Mulino:
No, no, but what we know is that if we invest more in actions on the enforcement front, we know that if we improve our practice, if we have governments working together, we can do better.
Duniam:
More of the same will not work.
Mulino:
But the problem is that the Opposition are pointing to the price differential as the solution when we know that even if you significantly reduce the excise it’s possible for organised crime to make a profit. And that’s the error in their approach.
Stefanovic:
Okay, let me ask you this – so I know that the Treasurer was asked about this – can you guarantee that you will not cut the excise, Dan?
Mulino:
No, so we’re not getting into rule‑in, rule‑out games on this. What we’re saying is that we are focused on –
Duniam:
They’ll copy One Nation, too.
Mulino:
And we’ve invested over $360 million in that, and as the Minister for Health said yesterday –
Stefanovic:
Just observing that there’s no guarantee there.
Mulino:
– we can put – we can point to –
Duniam:
Come on down.
Mulino:
– jurisdictions that have done better, and we need to make sure that all of us lift our game to the best practice.
Stefanovic:
Sounds like there might be some real [inaudible], Jonno.
Duniam:
There you have it. I reckon that’s right. It sounds like they may be copying One Nation’s policy as well after all of that. So they realise it works – law enforcement, cut excise, educate people, kill this criminal gang trade.
Stefanovic:
All right, there’s a lot of people –
Mulino:
This is just me avoiding your gotcha question, Jonno.
Stefanovic:
We’ll see. We’ll see. We might have to come back to this very interview, Dan. So many issues I want to talk to you both about today, so let’s move on to Digital Duty of Care reforms. It’s to be unveiled today. Jonno, big tech or big government? Which is more trustworthy?
Duniam:
Well, I’ll tell you who is most trustworthy – parents. And, you know, while we want to see the details of what the government will ultimately bring before parliament, there are questions given their track record when it came to the social media ban and the mis‑ and dis‑information laws about how they structure these things, we want to make sure that anything that is brought forward gets it right. You know, big tech companies obviously have their own interests at heart. Government are supposed to have the community’s interests at heart. I think we’ve just got to find ways through what we’re doing here to empower parents to protect their kids and themselves. That’s where real change could give some effect.
Stefanovic:
I had a good chat with Matt Canavan a little bit earlier today, too, Dan. And as he pointed out, what algorithms are you trying to opt in or opt out of?
Mulino:
So, look, can I just firstly say in terms of the broader context, this government understands that big tech is ubiquitous, but we are leaning in on a range of areas in a world‑leading way. We’ve got the under‑16 ban, and many other countries are now following Australia on that. We had the News Bargaining Incentive that passed in the last sitting week, which forces big tech to pay media a fair amount through commercial agreements. And now on this what we’re saying is that there needs to be safety by design. With this kind of technology, what we’re saying is that we need to ensure that when it’s being rolled out right across our community that these companies have an obligation to ensure that the kinds of practices that we see in the rest of our community, where products and processes are designed safely –
Stefanovic:
Okay, but I’m losing time now, Dan. What algorithms are you opting in or opting out of?
Mulino:
So, look, I don’t want to give the detail of this before it’s announced, but what I want to stress is that there’s an overarching principle here that I think is the right one, which is that we need to ensure that these kinds of platforms are designed in the interests of consumers. And you’ll see the details announced today.
Stefanovic:
To take Jonno’s point, why not leave it to parents?
Mulino:
Parents are a part of it, and I think we want to empower parents. I mean, I’m a parent, and I play a very active role when it comes to my daughter and her engagement with technology, with digital platforms and with texting. So, yes, parents are absolutely central. But that’s not to say that there’s not a role for safety by design, and we use that with products right across our community to say that it’s not one or the other.
Stefanovic:
Okay, I’ve got a minute left, and this one’s for you, Jonno, because this one jumped out at me today. So One Nation initially got the jump on you with the tobacco excise, as Dan correctly pointed out. Its super plan was apparently going to be unveiled by Sussan Ley before she was knifed. Is that right?
Duniam:
That’s not something I’m aware of, mercifully. And can I tell you, you know, watching that train wreck of an interview by Barnaby Joyce last night, you know, this idea that they have a brain fart somewhere and decide they’re going to run it out as a policy the next day but can’t answer questions about it is somehow – I’m pleased that media are now picking up on this sort of stuff. But, look, not aware that that was the part of the former leader’s policy offering. It’s not something that I understand is on our agenda.
Stefanovic:
Are you concerned about any type of leak coming from your offices that’s, you know, leading to these One Nation policies, whether it’s superannuation or tobacco excise?
Duniam:
No, look, I’m not. I think that obviously, clearly, One Nation, if they are taking ideas from anywhere else, including if they’re talking to colleagues – and, as I say, I’m not aware of that being the case – it does demonstrate they lack a bit of imagination.
Stefanovic:
Okay, just to be fair, Dan Mulino, we’ve got 30 seconds left. Can you just give us your biggest concern with this One Nation policy?
Mulino:
Well, look, firstly, the leak would be a concern, but the fact that they’re both aligned on policy is the bigger concern. But, look, the big concern with the 9 per cent policy is it’s unwinding super. We got to 12 per cent after decades of effort. And now the policy that One Nation is supporting is going to mean that a person on a medium wage is going to be $25,000 worse off in retirement, a couple 50,000 worse off. We prefer to give people support for what I understand are cost‑of‑living pressures through wage rises and tax cuts, which have been opposed by One Nation.
Stefanovic:
Yeah, no, it would certainly have an impact on compound interest and reduce the effects of that over time, you’re right. Dan Mulino, Jonno Duniam, good chat. Enjoyed that. Thank you.