From the government on that, let's go, though, let's return to our story on Facebook, of course, back down to the big tech company. Liberal Senator Andrew Bragg joins me now for more on this.
What did you make of this, has Facebook just blinked?
Well, I think this is an important development in our argument against big tech. I mean, we think that there should be more regulation on big tech companies that have an enormous amount of power. And of course, the first thing we're trying to do is to rebalance the playing field in the media landscape.
And so it looks very encouraging that those deals are going to be done. I mean, we ever wanted to have regulation for regulation's sake, though. We wanted to get the deals done. So the interesting part about this is Facebook hasn't totally taken away the threat. Does it show that our landscape right now is really vulnerable to whatever Facebook wants to do? I mean, it can switch off any sort of they have a huge amount of power.
And I think the way that they used their power last week blew back in their faces. And I think now having them back at the table, getting them to do these deals is exactly what this legislation was designed to do.
But we should think about going further and look at all the information that's on these platforms, which is driving incitement or is defamatory. I mean, I think that there is a lot of work we need to do in the big tech space over the next few years. And what does that mean exactly?
Well, I think we need to have an open mind about putting more regulation onto these these companies. I mean, compared to a telecommunications company or a bank or an energy provider, there's very little regulation on big tech companies, which are effectively utilities. Right. So we shouldn't resile from this this agenda.
So more regulation because already there's been a push for them to take down things such as live streaming. I mean, the horrific example of the Christchurch massacre, for example. But you think more specific regulation is needed?
Personally, I'm more concerned. I mean, I'm concerned about information which is driving incitement or that is defamatory because we have laws in those two areas. I'm less concerned about misinformation because I have a freedom of speech, concern about how that even during the vaccine, you think people are free to peddle whatever they want.
I think there is a space for it, but you can be very careful. But there is a clear need for there to be more regulation in relation to defamation and in relation to incitement to violence, but not misinformation.
When you have people say, oh, you know, lying about what a vaccine might cause in a time of Covid, you just got to think very carefully about how you would actually administer that.
Whereas I think there's an open and shut case on the other things. You think it might be too hard to do? That regulation,
I don't I think, is too hard. I think there's an open and shut case of these other things where these big tech platforms are operating at, you know, against the laws that already existed in state superannuation.
You're part of this push to not go ahead with the increase. Is it tough to run when voters either know or they increasingly know that you get fifteen point four percent Super?
I'm happy to take this super. I don't think that's a reason for anyone to go into parliament. But I mean, the real judgement for the government to make here is how are we going to make the system work better for people? Right. Because system costs so much, it doesn't get many people off the pension. So we actually want it to work properly. I think in the current environment, we've got a you know, you've had a recession on your hands.
Is it really the right thing for us to plough more money into the never, never through super fund?
So when you say you're happy to, it's part of your campaign to lower superannuation for politicians as well? Sure, sure.As of now,
I'd be very relaxed about having less super well,
There's being relaxed. And then they're saying, yep, let's make that.
Yeah, I would take my super now if I could.
Right. But this is about an overall policy where no policy.
I think we should be giving people more flexibility.
And I would apply to everyone. I mean, if people like this is not money that falls out of the sky, this is people's wages, which is deferred and sent into different schemes.
And so I would say let's let's put people in control of their own money and let them buy a house with it, let them do other things.
so and just on this as well, I mean, you might this a big part of your maiden speech in twenty sixteen, which is not an aeon ago, you wrote about being self-sufficient in retirement. You cited modelling from Rice Warner saying most people need to save close to 15 per cent across a lifetime of work. Typically, this is 40 years many Australians until a 12 per cent compulsory contribution and three per cent more in voluntary savings.
It's probably actually more like 20 per cent.
But I don't think the answer is paternalism, and I don't think we should be forcing people to do that. But it was then 12 per cent compulsory contribution.
So one of the things well, I think one of the good things on my side is we're not owned by any particular vested interest or lobby group. So when people on my side come into parliament, they look at all their positions and they were put put forward.
What I think is in the best modelling.
The modelling hasn't changed, has it?
So my view is if people want to be self-funded based on the modelling, you need to save about 20 percent, 15 to 20 percent for an average worker. Now, how many people do you think would do that? But why does it have to be compulsory?
I mean, I don't know. Why are you saying these people. Journalistic approach.
But why was that?
I don't think it's worked particularly well, right? I mean, the system does get many people off the pension, cost the budget more than it saves. So I think we want to make sure the system works. I'm not a. I mean, I don't think this scheme should be abolished. You find people in this building to think the system should just be abolished.
So I think we should try and fix it rather than throw it in there.
So no one got in your ear about this?
Oh, a lot of people are very unhappy with me for, you know, not running the lines from the finance sector or from the unions. But I mean, what you see on the labor side is they run the same arguments that I ran when I worked for the union as a running parliament because they're confused who they work for.
I know who I work for. I work people of New South Wales.
Andrew Bragg, thank you, Tom. Thanks, Tom. When we come back, we'll discuss today's top stories. Our political panel is next.