Sara Tomevska:
For another view from the government now, I want to bring in Assistant Treasurer Daniel Mulino. Welcome to the program.
Daniel Mulino:
Well, thanks very much for having me on, Sara.
Tomevska:
The US, through its embassy, has weighed in on Labor’s Digital Duty of Care laws, which they argue amount to extraterritorial censorship of protected speech. Are you prepared to change the legislation so as to not upset Donald Trump?
Mulino:
Well, look, we’ve worked constructively with the US government on a range of policy matters, including some in relation to digital platforms. For example, a measure that I had responsibility for, the news bargaining incentive, which was passed recently, involved some commentary from the US government and we worked constructively with them and maintain a very strong relationship.
As the Prime Minister has indicated, this is a policy which we’ve committed to for some time. It’s really important in the current environment, where what we’re trying to do is to protect people from algorithms that can be harmful and addictive. But we’re doing it through a means by which we’re providing people with choice, we’re also doing it in a way which is non‑discriminatory. So, it doesn’t matter from which country the platform originates, it’s going to apply across the board and that’s the right way to approach a policy like this.
Tomevska:
But America wants you to strip its social media platforms out of the scheme altogether. Would you ever concede that? Would you consider removing some social media platforms?
Mulino:
So, that’s not the plan. And look at the, as I said at the moment, this policy, just like the news bargaining incentive and the under‑16 –
Tomevska:
Not the plan, but can you rule it out?
Mulino:
Well, we’re adopting a non‑discriminatory approach and if you look at the way we’ve embarked upon other reforms in this space, like the under‑16 ban and the news bargaining incentive, they were both implemented in a non‑discriminatory way. So, that’s the right way to approach this. But it’s not about the country of origin –
Tomevska:
But it doesn’t sound like definitively ruling it out.
Mulino:
Well, look, this is not an area that I have policy responsibility for. But look, I think the Prime Minister has been clear that we’re going to implement a policy in this space. We want to protect people. We have made no apologies for the fact that we’re wanting to provide people with a choice. All of the policies that we’ve implemented in this space –
Tomevska:
Are you worried that pressing ahead means that the US could impose tariffs on Australia?
Mulino:
Well, as I said, we have implemented policies in relation to digital platforms already. The under‑16 ban and the news bargaining incentive, those are both world‑leading reforms which are really important. We’ve worked constructively with other governments with a range of stakeholders, including the US administration. So, we’ve already demonstrated that we can implement reforms in a way which is non‑discriminatory and which leads to positive outcomes for the Australian community. I’m very confident we can do the same here.
Tomevska:
Pressing ahead with this kind of legislation could affect Australia’s reputation as a jurisdiction that enables innovation. Could that also impact tech companies who are looking to invest in data centres in Australia from coming here?
Mulino:
Oh, no, I don’t see that. And again, I think when you look at Australia at the moment, we are a country that is leading the way and many of the reforms that we’re embarking upon here, like the under‑16 ban, are now being viewed by other countries as the way to go. Many other countries are now looking at ways to implement that. So, I think Australia is actually a country which is being looked at very closely and I think will be followed in many of these areas. I think –
Tomevska:
But the US is clearly not happy with these proposed laws. Do you accept that does increase the risk of tariffs being imposed on Australia?
Mulino:
Look, I think when it comes to technology being deployed across a community, I think the best way to move forward with technology, such as social media and digital platforms more generally, is to do so with the right protections, is to do so with social license. And that’s reflected in a range of policies that we’ve adopted and this particular one, the duty of care. So, I think that’s actually the best way for a country to deploy these technologies and to make sure that they’re deployed in a way that is for the greater good.
Tomevska:
So, just one last time to avoid any uncertainty, American social media companies won’t be carved out.
Mulino:
No, as I said, we’ve adopted a non‑discriminatory approach in all of our policies in this space, and that’s the way this one is designed. I think it’s not the right way to implement policy, to focus it on the country of origin and that wouldn’t also be consistent with a lot of our international obligations.
Tomevska:
Okay, I want to move on to another issue. Georgie Dent from The Parenthood addressed the National Press Club today. She’s calling for 52 weeks of paid parental leave. Releasing new data showing having children reduces the earnings of Australian women by an average of 55 per cent over the first 5 years of parenthood. Will Labor consider 52 weeks paid parental leave?
Mulino:
So, I think that we’ve made a lot of progress in this space over successive changes. We’ve lifted paid parental leave now to 6 months and that’s been significant. Paid parental leave is only at the current levels it’s at because of successive Labor governments. We’ve also of course, recently brought in superannuation on paid parental leave. We are always looking at ways to strengthen these kinds of arrangements over time.
Tomevska:
Could that ever be 52 weeks of paid parental leave?
Mulino:
I think we’ve just brought in improvements. Well look, I think the point I’m trying to make is that we’ve just brought in extensions of the arrangements and we’ve as I said just brought in superannuation. These are material improvements in the arrangements and I think we will in future look for opportunities to further strengthen those arrangements. I’m not going to announce any particular changes right now but I think we’ve made significant progress.
Tomevska:
So, I guess look, there’s, there’d be a huge cost attached to that. But is 52 weeks paid parental leave a kind of aspirational policy you could see Labor eventually moving towards?
Mulino:
Well, look, I think as I said we’ve, we’ve been very proud of the fact that we’ve moved paid parental leave up over successive changes. We’ve also added super to it which I think is really important. We’ve also undertaken a range of other changes in relation to support in this space but also support for childcare, the 3‑day guarantee. We’re implementing significant reforms in the last Budget through Tanya Plibersek’s portfolio in relation to child support and that’s part of a broader set of reforms in relation to financial abuse. So, look, there are a lot of reforms in this space more generally and lifting paid parental leave further is something that we would consider but as I said, there’s a lot that’s already been achieved and there’s related reforms that are already in the pipeline.
Tomevska:
In 2020, as Opposition Leader Anthony Albanese stood up in his Budget reply speech saying that a government he leads would deliver universal childcare. Why isn’t Labor moving forward faster towards that goal?
Mulino:
Well, so we have achieved a lot in that space there. The recent changes have included the activity test changes and 3‑day guarantee. That was significant. And as I mentioned in the last Budget there was a very significant set of changes in relation to child support which are really important and that financial abuse piece is something which I’ve been working on along with Tanya Plibersek. Part of her set of reforms includes expanding the ATO’s resources. It also includes changing the ways in which families can move from private arrangements to government arrangements. So, there’s a lot of pieces there that have been recommended by policy experts for a long time and which we’re now delivering.
Tomevska:
Okay. On –
Mulino:
There’s a lot that’s happening in that space.
Tomevska:
Just on superannuation. Andrew Bragg put forward the idea of using super as collateral for a home loan, which isn’t Coalition policy. We’ve heard from the Treasurer, the Coalition hates super, that they always have, that it just wants to weaken the super system. But why isn’t Labor open to any debate on the future of superannuation at all?
Mulino:
Well, no, we are open to discussion of super. And in fact, I went to the press club a couple of weeks ago announcing a series of reforms which would strengthen super and consumer protections and advice.
Tomevska:
So, but, in terms of people accessing their own savings, why can’t that be an option that’s on the table?
Mulino:
Well, I won’t support measures which weaken preservation and which weaken people’s retirement outcomes. And so if you look at the specific proposal Andrew Bragg put out today, using super as collateral, I think it’s pretty clear why Angus Taylor distanced himself from it pretty quickly, which is, how is that going to work in practice? Are banks going to have the power to reach into people’s accounts if they default on a mortgage payment? It’s really unclear how this would work. It’s not based on modelling, not based on rigorous policy. It’s really just a thought bubble. But the problem here is also that it’s one of a succession of thought bubbles, including, in the lead‑up to the last election, people accessing tens of thousands of dollars early for deposits. And it appears, if reports are correct, that –
Tomevska:
Daniel Mulino, I’m going to cut you off. I just have time for one last question about the United Nations. Look, we’ve heard Donald Trump say he might annihilate Iran, that he may choose peace. This war doesn’t show really any signs of ending. The Energy Minister is overseas trying to shore up Australia’s fuel security. Fuel prices are above $2.40 a litre in most places. Why won’t Labor look at cutting the fuel excise again?
Mulino:
Well, so I think one thing I would say first up is that the Minister for Climate Change and Energy has done a remarkable job of securing fuel supplies and that has been incredibly important for Australia –
Tomevska:
But why not cut –
Mulino:
– and that was, has been achieved to a greater extent than many would have forecast. I think that what we’re looking at at the moment is providing people with broader cost‑of‑living support. And as the Treasurer has flagged, we’ve provided people with tax cuts through 5 different times, through 3 different mechanisms.
Tomevska:
But another fuel, another cut to the fuel excise.
Mulino:
So, we’re not looking at that at the moment. And as the Treasurer said, we’re looking at providing support for people more generally. And I would note something which the Opposition has opposed or not supported on every single occasion.
Tomevska:
Alright, Daniel Mulino, we’ll have to leave it there. Thank you for your time.
Mulino:
Thanks, Sara.
Tomevska:
And that was Assistant Treasurer Daniel Mulino on America’s threats to Australia’s proposed Digital Duty of Care law, superannuation and more.