Topics: Digital duty of care, superannuation, AI
E&OE
Patricia Karvelas, Host: Bran Black, welcome to the program.
Bran Black, Chief Executive: Thanks so much.
Patricia: The White House has signalled concerns over Australia’s latest plan to clamp down on social media and algorithms, predominantly American tech companies, of course, they’re concerned about, warning that President Donald Trump has made it unequivocal and clear that he sees this as inappropriate. Are you worried about economic retaliation?
Bran: Well, I think it’s always one of those considerations that we need to have regard to. But I do agree with the broad proposition that’s been put by the Government that we should be in a position to make policy that is in Australia’s best interests. The question, of course, with this policy is how do we craft it so that we get the right outcomes.
Patricia: Okay, and as it’s currently crafted, are you concerned?
Bran: Well, we don’t object to the idea of a digital duty of care, but we do see that there are important policy considerations that need to be addressed along the way. I should say from the outset that I think it is appropriate that it is an opt-out arrangement that’s proposed. At the end of the day, there are lots of businesses that depend on being able to utilise the algorithm to get reach and access to potential customers.
But there are important questions that we need to look at in terms of, for example, is this consistent with other types of similar regimes overseas, are the definitions sufficiently clear so people know what the duty is. Those are really important considerations, and as we work through the consultation, we’d be looking to make sure that we can address them.
Also, questions like what type of sites, what type of online programs and platforms are covered by all of this, and what’s the extent of the duty based on the size of the business that you are online. Because if it covers everything, which it appears to, then there are different types of steps that might be regarded as reasonable based on the size of your operations.
Patricia: Okay, there are members of the Coalition that are raising freedom of speech concerns. Are you concerned about that?
Bran: Well, I think in this type of conversation, it is important to recognise that those types of issues need to be discussed. I think there are probably other commentators that are best placed to talk about the specifics of the freedom of speech implications here.
But what I would say is that we would invite the conversation, and we do appreciate that there are important types of communications constitutionally that we need to be able to protect.
Those, of course, can’t be undermined. But from our perspective, from a business perspective, we’re focused on making sure that the obligations are very clear and that the obligations aren’t overly onerous based on the size of businesses.
Patricia: Okay. Do you think the social benefits, however, and the broader case for needing to do something, given the very well documented harms, particularly to young people, radicalisation of men, you know, young women being encouraged to have eating disorders, do you think the social benefits, ultimately, if they get, you know, I understand some of the detail right, outweigh the economic repercussions?
Bran: Well, it depends on what the settings look like, but broadly speaking, as I say, we don’t object to the idea of a digital duty of care at all. We see that, of course, there are online harms that arise, particularly with respect to young and vulnerable people, and they need to be addressed as much as possible.
We also see that it is exceedingly obvious that you would want to make sure that illegal activity or content isn’t disseminated online. That makes perfect sense to us. As I say, there are settings that you can address that make sure that ultimately the implementation of the duty is as seamless as possible, and we want to work to try and make sure that that takes place.
Patricia: I want to move to another topic of this week, and that’s superannuation. One Nation’s put out a proposal for that 3 per cent to go to your wage essentially for three years. Is that an idea you’re open to?
Bran: Well, I think our position is always that we’ll look at any policy and assess it objectively, and we haven’t seen the detail associated with this as yet. I think there are important questions that need to be addressed in terms of what does this look like in practice?
We know, for instance, that people already have access to superannuation when they are facing hardship and real hardship. So the question that immediately springs to mind is what is the extension of this policy proposing, and how do you balance that against the really legitimate interests associated with superannuation, maintaining the capacity for us all to have a safe and secure retirement.
Of course, there is also the fundamental question that arises: if the intention here is to address housing, as I’ve said consistently, the best thing that we can do is invest in more supply-side measures. And what is absolutely clear from my perspective is that we haven’t seen in government, at a federal level or at a state level, all of the steps taken that could be taken to move that supply lever forward.
Patricia: Okay, but fundamentally, as a concept, do you think it dismantles super as we know it?
Bran: Well, I think in these situations, it’s appropriate to have that conversation. As I say, to my mind, I’m interested in understanding what the extension is beyond the existing scope for people to access superannuation when they’re facing hardship. That, for me, is the critical question.
Patricia: And you don’t think it’s been answered?
Bran: Well, I haven’t seen the detail of the policy to be able to understand that. But what I would stress is that people should be able to, in certain circumstances, access their super in order to prevent those extraordinary harms that might arise in the present right now. But at the same time, we’ve got to protect the importance of superannuation to the long term.
Patricia: I want to talk to you about, you know, a rare interview from the Deputy RBA Governor overnight. He was, in fact, on 7.30, an impressive communicator. He warned that the jury was still out on whether AI companies would prove to make the money and growth that it promised for them.
He says, and I’m quoting here: “much of it may turn out to be a wrongful allocation of technology to tasks that won’t actually solve its purpose.” Do you share some of those concerns?
Bran: I think it’s a good question because what we see across our membership and indeed what I hear when I’m travelling as well is that there are many companies that have allocated significant resources towards AI, but they’ve rushed to do it largely because I think in many instances, boards have said, “We’ve just got to be investing in this”, but they haven’t been clear on what is the problem that we are trying to solve.
And as a consequence of that, the feedback that I’ve had again here and overseas is that we haven’t seen the type of productivity uplift from AI yet that we would like to see. My encouragement is, therefore, be clear on the problem that you really want to solve, and that leads to, I think, a logical conclusion, which I put as a proposition, which is engage with your workforce at the earliest possible stage, because more often than not, it’s going to be your workforce that knows what the problems are in business and what AI can do to try and address those.
Patricia: We are not taking up AI at the sort of rates that you’re seeing in the US, why?
Bran: Look, I think we do need to see a greater level of AI uptake here. There’s no two ways around that. I think there are concerns that people have across the community in terms of AI, and employers are conscious of those concerns in terms of how they go about introducing AI into the workplace. But I do see as well that a lot of the concerns that we seem to have in Australia appear to be imported.
And the point that I would make there is that a lot of the concerns stem from the type of activities that you just wouldn’t see in Australia. Data centres are a good example of that. The types of concerns that we’ve seen arise with respect to reduced access to energy or reduced access to water, our planning systems would operate to make sure those types of concerns just wouldn’t arise.
There are legitimate issues that we need to address along the path towards greater AI adoption, and we need to recognise that issues will change and new issues will arise as we undertake the transition. For instance, we haven’t even seen the integration of AI and robotics and what that means across industry. But I think what this all points to is just being open and communicative and transparent in the approach that you take to the transition, both at a government level and at a business level.
Patricia: Thank you so much for joining us.