March 6, 2024
LAURA JAYES: Joining me now is the shadow Home Affairs and Cyber Security Minister, James Paterson, also congratulations on your new role James announced yesterday. First of all, what power do we have to push back against Meta here?
JAMES PATERSON: Thanks, Laura. Well, the Albanese government has all the power it needs because the previous government legislated a scheme to force major tech platforms to support the news media industry in recognition that a lot of the advertising dollars that used to go to news media now goes to these online behemoths. And so the government can designate these platforms as relevant for the news media bargaining code, they can force them into arbitration, that has binding outcomes. And the support that they provided to the news industry, which, as you rightly point out, has been a lifeline for many publishers. small, medium or large, can flow again. And all the Albanese government needs to do is to show some strength, stand up and follow through on the powers that the Parliament has given them.
JAYES: Okay, so they can force Meta into arbitration here?
PATERSON: Absolutely, the legal power of the Parliament envisaged for this purpose is very clear. The idea of that was that you wouldn't need to use it, but the threat of it would force the platforms to negotiate with publishers. And that was successful under the previous government. They did enter into commercial arrangements with news media organisations to share revenue in appropriate way. But this is always a backstop, understanding that they may one day try and do what they are doing, which is walk away from the table and so that power exists right now.
JAYES: Okay, sure, that is a threat. What if, you know, the government was to follow through on the threat? What are the consequences for Meta and are they going to care?
PATERSON: Well, that could face crippling, eye watering fines if they don't participate in the legal processes of the Australian government and the law of the land in Australia. And I really think it would call into question their licence to operate in this country if they failed to comply with lawful legal directions passed by the Parliament of Australia and enforced by the courts. So really, I don't think they have an option except to participate. I assume their reason for walking away is they want to try and reduce the amount of payments that they make. I think they understand that the law applies to them, and that they will ultimately be forced through this process to provide some support for the Australian industry and the Albanese government shouldn't let them walk all over them like that and walk all over Australia like that.
JAYES: Okay, so what's the next step then? What isn't the Albanese government doing here that you think it should? Is this the kind of thing that should happen with a megaphone, or would you endorse this being done behind the scenes?
PATERSON: Well curiously, the Treasurer who normally has these powers has referred them because of apparent conflict of interest or potential conflicts of interest to the Assistant Treasurer, Stephen Jones.
JAYES: What's the conflict of interest?
PATERSON: I don't want to go into personal circumstances. I understand family member of the Treasurer works for a media organisation, and that's the potential conflict. But that's for him to disclose and resolve. In any case, the ball is in Stephen Jones court, he can step up and issue the directions. He and the Communications Minister did give a loud press conference last week when this was announced. But their rhetoric isn't going to deliver anything, it's the legal powers that they have that will and they need to step up and actually enforce the law.
JAYES: Okay. So you're confident that they'll have to come back to the table and this money will be eventually forthcoming?
PATERSON: Only if the Albanese government does what the parliament has provided it the power to do. That is the key piece here Laura, and their willingness to do so is yet to be demonstrated.
JAYES: Okay. Let me ask you about Paul Keating's comments. He always, you know, gives us some great headlines. Do you think he has a point?
PATERSON: No, not in this instance. I'm someone who respects Paul Keating legacy, particularly, his record of economic reform as treasurer in the 1980s and 1990s that set up Australia for decades of growth and prosperity. But on the question of Australia's international relationships, our strategic circumstances and our relationship with China, he is badly out of touch and badly out of date, and his continued public interventions are a reflection on him. He's entitled to make whatever representations he wants, but in response we have to again see some strength from our Prime Minister and our government to stand up and adequately deal with it. Because right now, I can tell you, every member of the intelligence community is looking towards their Prime Minister, who they professionally and loyally serve, and wondering whether he's going to stand up for them and defend them because they cannot defend themselves. They are professional public servants. They cannot go into the media and defend their own integrity, which has been besmirched by Mr. Keating. They need the Prime Minister to do that on their behalf. He hasn't shown an ability to do that in the past. It's a real test for him today, whether he'll stand up and refute what Mr. Keating said.
JAYES: You would have seen Penny Wong's comments this morning? She's walked a very fine line. You have to give her a bit of credit for that, do you or no?
PATERSON: Well, I don't think this is a question of walking a fine line. I understand that Paul Keating is a revered political figure, particularly on the left of Australia. Many people respect him for his service as Prime Minister and Treasurer. But this is a question of the integrity and the professionalism of our intelligence community. It has been repeatedly, publicly besmirched. This is not the first time he done it. He did it last year at the National Press Club. And when he attacked Penny Wong and the intelligence community, both the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister leapt to the Foreign Minister's defence but said nothing at all in the defence of the intelligence community. Now the Foreign Minister is the one person who can respond and is perfectly capable of doing so herself. No one would question that. But our intelligence community can't. They are professional public servants. They are in the shadows for obvious and important reasons. No one can defend them except the Prime Minister and their ministers, and they really need to step up today and do that. Shows some strength, not continued weakness. They can't be publicly intimidated and bullied by Mr. Keating yet again.
JAYES: Okay, James, you've got enough on your plate at the moment? Any more shadow portfolios coming your way? Perhaps a move to the lower house, I don't know?
PATERSON: No, it's not on the cards at all. Very happy with my existing responsibilities and the new ones that Peter Dutton has generously given me. I'm really excited to be supporting the work I know my colleagues have already been doing on a very ambitious, very comprehensive and very positive policy plan to put to the Australian people. The very diligent, behind the scenes work has been going on for months now, and I'm confident the Australian public will be very pleased when we're in a position to reveal it publicly.
JAYES: I look forward to that happening sooner rather than later. James thank you.
PATERSON: Thanks Laura
ENDS
