March 2, 2023
PETER STEFANOVIC: Let's go to Melbourne now. Joining us live is the Shadow Cyber Security Minister James Paterson. James, good to see you. Thanks for your time this morning. So just on this story that emerged yesterday out of the US, its move to ban TikTok from government devices. What are your thoughts on that firstly, and then secondly, should that be replicated here?
JAMES PATERSON: Well, Peter, for eight months now, I've been asking the Albanese government to act to protect Australians from this application after I secured a direct admission from TikTok in correspondence in July 2022, that Australian use of data is accessible in mainland China and therefore subject to China's 2017 national intelligence law and able to be handed over to the Chinese Communist Party and its intelligence agencies. As soon as I secured that admission, I forwarded it to the Minister for Home Affairs and Cyber Security, Clare O'Neil, and I asked her to act. And had she done so then Australia would have led the world, as we did with Huawei in 2018 when we were the first to ban it. But now we are falling dangerously behind our friends and like-minded countries, not just the United States but Canada, the European Union and Denmark. And it really is time for the
government to front up and explain why they haven't taken this action and why they're not protecting Australian users.
STEFANOVIC: So, I mean, obviously you support what the US is doing?
PATERSON: Well, really, it's up to the government to explain why they're not following US partners, Canadian partners, Denmark partners, the European Union partners. Why it is unsafe to be on the phone of a Canadian or American bureaucrat, but it is safe to be on the phone of an Australian bureaucrat?
Now, you might have had a plausible deniable case more than a year ago before I secured the submission for TikTok. But you certainly didn't have a plausible deniable case after December last year when TikTok finally had to admit that they were using their application to spy on journalists and that they had lied about it. They used their application to try and identify the sources of Emily Baker-White, a critical journalist at Forbes, and they tried to co-locate her physically with TikTok employees to see if they were her sources. Now, when they were first challenged on this, they said not only had they not done so, but that it was not technically possible to do so on the app. They subsequently had to admit that it was possible, that they had been doing it, and they fired four employees, two in the United States and two in China, proving that this is a very dangerous application that can be used for espionage and that the company is happy to lie about that. Now from that point onwards, inaction is inexcusable, but that's all we've had from this government.
STEFANOVIC: How popular or how widespread is the usage of TikTok within government departments here in Australia?
PATERSON: Well, that's actually something I'm trying to get to the bottom of right now, Pete. I have launched a new audit in January this year, following my audit of Hikvision and Dahua cameras, to find out whether government departments are using this application, whether or not they ban it. We've known for some time that the Department of Defence and the Department of Home Affairs have banned it, but it's not yet clear whether other government departments and agencies have banned it. And so, I've launched an audit of all federal government departments and agencies, and I hope to have those results soon so that we can get to the bottom of just how exposed federal government employees are to this application.
STEFANOVIC: Just while I've got you, James. A rift appears to have emerged between the Prime Minister and the Treasurer, two of the most senior members of the government when it comes to taxation, taxation reform, capital gains tax. Yesterday we saw all of that. What are your biggest questions when it comes to this change in super that the Treasurer is pushing this morning, he's going all gung-ho for?
PATERSON: Well, the Treasurer's interview on Sunrise yesterday was shambolic and embarrassing, and the Prime Minister had to clean up after him. But the Prime Minister said during the campaign categorically they wouldn't increase taxes on super, and they've done that anyway. So, I take no confidence in the Prime Minister's commitment that they won't end up taxing the family home, which is currently exempt. The main concern I have with the superannuation changes is because the government has chosen not to index that $3 million cap, the heaviest burden of this tax increase is actually going to fall on young working Australians, not rich retirees. So, because it's $3 million now but won't be indexed, if you're 45, your effective cap in today's dollars is not $3 million, it's $1.8 million. And if you're 35, your effective cap is $1.4 million. And if you're 25, your effective cap is $1.1 million. So, it's going to be young working Australians that are going to bear the greatest brunt of this tax increase from this government while they're trying to pretend that this is a hit on older, wealthier retirees. Nothing could be further from the truth.
STEFANOVIC: Well, I mean, and super's going to be increased in the coming years up to 12 per cent. Do you believe that something like that should be wound back?
PATERSON: Well, what it means is that this figure of 80,000 Australians who are going to be captured by is frankly a very low ball estimates. And over time, hundreds of thousands, if not millions of Australians, will eventually be captured by this for those two reasons. One, it's not indexed. The cap will stay at $3 million – in real terms, it won't be increased with inflation. And also because, as you say, superannuation is increasing, it's increasing to 12 per cent and that means a greater proportion of everyone's income, but particularly younger working Australians who'll be in the workforce for another 20 or 30 years, a greater proportion of their income is going to be put away. And this government is not going to allow those people to take the money out to buy a first home, for example, which we know is one of the most important financial events in someone's lifetime. We know that if you retire without a home, you're far more likely to be impoverished regardless of what your superannuation balance is. So, this really is a pigheaded attack by the government on young Australians.
STEFANOVIC: Well, Peter Dutton has already said he's going to, he's going to wind it back. If you guys win the next election, you're going to wind it back. But if it does, if it does get legislated before then, would you be of mind to have it indexed?
PATERSON: Well, let's be clear. If it is legislated before then, it is a broken promise by this government that said they would make no changes to superannuation this term. And I absolutely agree with Peter Dutton that we should attempt to repeal it if we win the next election, and we will fight hard to do that because we're not going to be party to the Labor Party breaking promises and increasing taxes on all Australians. Certainly, it would be less harmful if it was indexed, but we'd much rather just repeal it and hold the Labor Party to the commitment they made to the Australian people before the election.
STEFANOVIC: Alright, James Paterson, we'll leave it there. Appreciate it.
ENDS
