Sally Sara:
The Trump administration has made an extraordinary public intervention into Australia’s debate about proposed Digital Duty of Care provisions, warning the Albanese government that the policy would be, quote, ‘extraterritorial censorship of protected speech’. In a written submission from the US Embassy in Canberra, the administration has called on the Australian Government to exclude US social media companies from its plans to give users the option to opt‑in into algorithms which are used to push social media posts. It comes as the US President overnight rejected a push from more than a dozen countries, including Australia, for tougher global controls on artificial intelligence. Daniel Mulino is the Assistant Treasurer and the federal Minister for Financial Services and joins me now. Minister, welcome back to breakfast.
Daniel Mulino:
Oh, thanks very much for having me on Sally.
Sara:
What does the federal government think of this submission from the US embassy?
Mulino:
Well, can I just firstly say in terms of the broader context that there are clearly huge potential upsides from AI, both in terms of particular applications and the broader potential productivity gains across the economy. But what the Prime Minister has rightly said is that we’re only going to be able to embrace those benefits if we bring society with us on that journey and if we put in place appropriate protections along the way. And we’ve seen the government do this on a range of fronts already, for example the under‑16 ban, where Australia embraced world‑leading reforms which the rest of the world is now looking at and many are following the news bargaining incentive, which I worked on directly.
Now of course, we in working on these important reforms to put appropriate safeguards in place. We’ll work with stakeholders in a very complex and dynamic environment. And you know, we work with our very close allies, the US on a range of policies. We don’t always agree on every single aspect of policy, but we work really constructively with each other. And so I think it’s not surprising that they’ve put some views forward on this important policy area and we’ll work very constructively with them on that.
Sara:
What do you think about the views that have been put forward by the US Administration?
Mulino:
So, what I would say in relation to the duty of care is that we have highlighted the need for protections in relation to what can at times be addictive algorithms, algorithms that can create harm. We have stressed that at the heart of our policy response is choice; we’ve said that people should have the right to opt out of the algorithms. But that, on the policies that we’ve put forward in their current form, that the default would be for those algorithms to be what would apply, but that people would have choice. And so I think some of the criticisms around this reform from a range of stakeholders at times haven’t acknowledged, I don’t think, the fact that there is choice for people. And that’s very important.
Sara:
So, the US Embassy in its statement is calling on the government to consider excluding US social media companies from plans to give users the option to opt in or out of algorithms. Given that most of the social media companies are US based, is that something that the federal government here in Australia would even consider?
Mulino:
So, again, I’d just take one step back and just say that as with the news bargaining incentive, these proposals would apply right across all digital platforms, no matter which country they come from. And so that’s something which I think is very important. This was a point that I stressed when the news bargaining incentive legislation came into parliament. And I think –
Sara:
– so excluding the US is not something that the government would consider by the sounds of what you’re saying, is that right?
Mulino:
Well, look, I think a non‑discriminatory approach is generally the right one in these kinds of settings. So, look, I don’t want to get into all the details of another minister’s portfolio, but I think that a non‑discriminatory approach is the right starting point. And I would expect that would be the place where this policy ends up, that we would apply this to digital platforms no matter where their origin is. And that’s the right position to take when it comes to regulating technology in a way that is achieving the right policy outcomes, but that is also consistent with all of our international obligations.
Sara:
In broader terms, does the federal government welcome the US government’s views on proposed domestic laws here in Australia? Is it an inappropriate submission?
Mulino:
Oh, I think it’s appropriate for us to work with stakeholders right across the board when it comes to very important policy areas like this. I certainly don’t see a problem with the US or other governments expressing views around novel policy developments. And as I said, when it came to previous policy areas in relation to digital platforms, such as the news bargaining incentive, you know, we worked constructively with a wide range of stakeholders, some in Australia, some international, and ended up with a position that I think was very sensible. So, I think it’s appropriate that in these kinds of complex policy areas, which are novel, which involve new areas of development, that we work with a range of stakeholders.
Sara:
You’re listening to Radio National Breakfast. My guest is the Assistant Treasurer Daniel Mulino. Meanwhile, the US President Donald Trump has addressed the UN General Assembly and rejected a push from more than a dozen countries, including Australia, for tougher global controls on AI. Can Australia and other middle powers forge ahead without US support?
Mulino:
Well, I think what we’re seeing at the moment is the beginning of a journey on a range of fronts where as I said, we want to embrace the benefits of AI. But I think in Australia we are rightly elevating the regulation of AI to the highest levels, to the Prime Minister’s Department, so that it can be coordinated centrally at the federal level, but also to national cabinets. So, on areas like renewable energy use and water management, that it be coordinated across the federal government and all states and territories. So, we are now looking at the various ways in which we can put in place appropriate safeguards. We’re working with a range of like‑minded countries.
Clearly, when it comes to international technology like AI, the more countries that are working together, the better. And I think what we’re seeing already is that some of the initiatives that Australia has taken, like the under‑16 ban, are now being explored seriously and I think will be undertaken by other countries. And that’s a reflection of the fact that initiatives undertaken by individual countries can be meaningful. And what we will see is, I think where they’re proved to be effective, broader coalitions of countries will emerge.
Sara:
Just briefly, on a separate issue, Coalition frontbencher Andrew Bragg, we’re about to hear from him shortly, has argued that there needs to be a national policy debate around the use of superannuation to increase home ownership in Australia. Does the government agree that these are ideas that need to be explored?
Mulino:
Well, I’ve got to say I find it hard to keep up with the non‑stop cavalcade of ideas from the Opposition and One Nation around weakening super for other policy goals. We saw at the last election, Peter Dutton brought forward people withdrawing tens of thousands of dollars of their super for house deposits. Then we saw One Nation nab a policy that Sussan Ley’s cabinet supposedly had drawn up around reducing the 12 per cent to 9 per cent for 3 years.
Now Andrew Bragg is saying that you should be able to use super for collateral, but without seemingly having worked up what does that mean? Does the bank have a right to come in and grab your super? But interestingly, with all of these ideas, Angus Taylor’s sitting on the sidelines saying he’s got an open mind. So, none of these ideas seem to come forward with any kind of official support or sanction from shadow cabinet or the leadership. It’s really a very strange process. There’s very little modelling, there’s very little genuine policy rigour.
But there’s also doesn’t seem to be any kind of authorisation from the top. So, it’s just one idea after another. But what’s central to all of these ideas is that they undermine our super system. They undermine people’s capacity to save their future. They all too often involve pressuring people to steal from their future for their current. They undermine preservation. So, I’m not particularly. I’m not impressed at all with the latest round of ideas. But more than anything, it’s just the lack of rigour from the other side.
And then of course, we hear Barnaby Joyce saying that he’s in discussions with senior Liberals. And does that mean that with all these ideas floating around from One Nation and the Coalition, that they’re going to split the difference and it’s going to be some mix of all of these different ideas One Nation and the Coalition are putting forward. So, I think we need to have super achieve what it was there to do, which is to provide for dignity in retirement. And we need to deal with other issues like housing through dedicated policy.
Sara:
Did the government commission or receive any modelling on the wages and employment consequences of its immigration policy?
Mulino:
So, the migration policy has gone through very, very rigorous consideration and I think the policy that –
Sara:
– was any modelling done?
Mulino:
What we’ve seen with the migration policy is a policy that balances the broader economic impacts with the need to bring migration down in a sustainable way. And so the broader economic impacts were taken into account. And I think the policy that we’re seeing now reflects the fact that the government has already brought migration down –
Sara:
But just to bring you back to the question, minister, was there any modelling done specifically on the employment consequences of the migration policy that’s just been announced, particularly on wages? Because in sectors like agriculture and so on, if there’s less labour available, labour costs will go up. Have the employment and or the wages implications of this policy – did the government seek and or receive modelling on that?
Mulino:
So, what I would say is that this is a policy that balances the need to bring migration down to sustainable levels with the broader economic impacts and that’s the appropriate frame in which this should be considered. And what I would say is that we’ve already brought migration levels down by just under 50 per cent. We’ve now committed in the Budget to bringing the net overseas migration level down to 245,000 and then 225,000. That’s really important and we’ve now got the mechanisms in place to do that, but we need to do this in a balanced way. What we’ve seen from the opposition in One Nation are migration levels, which are just completely unrealistic for our economy. And that’s the contrast. We have set these levels in a way that balances all the different policy objectives in an appropriate way.
Sara:
Daniel Mulino, thank you for joining me this morning.
Mulino:
Thanks very much, Sally.
Sara:
Daniel Mulino is the Assistant Treasurer and the Minister for Financial Services.