Tania Lawrence (Hasluck, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Maribyrnong for this timely motion, because the minister for science, technology and the digital economy—Tim Ayres and his assistant minister, Andrew Charlton, will be delivering the government's National AI Capability Plan before the end of this year. The plan will encompass three overarching goals: capturing the economic opportunity of AI, spreading the benefits of AI and keeping Australians safe. Realising the benefits of AI will require a commitment to the common good that I hope will be shared across the parliament.

AI is not merely another app or tool that will change work around the edges. Rather it's a revolutionary change. AI is expected to contribute up to $116 billion a year to Australia's GDP, to create an additional 150,000 jobs by 2030 and to increase annual labour productivity growth by over four per cent across the next decade. As a result the Albanese Labor government is making AI a national priority by supporting Australian AI companies through the $15 billion National Reconstruction Fund—which has $1 billion set aside specifically for critical technologies, which, of course, includes AI; through the $392 million in the Industry Growth Program to support innovative SMEs; through the research and development tax incentive—which supported $980 million in business R&D expenditure on activities associated with AI, machine learning and robotics, which is a 50 per cent increase on the previous year; and through the Medical Research Future Fund, which is a $24.5 billion ongoing fund with 'artificial intelligence and digital health' being one of the funding principles.

The OECD envisages AI transforming whole industries such as with transport and autonomous vehicles—already we can see that at the cutting-edge in Western Australia in the mining sector; with optimisation in agriculture where, again, Western Australia is leading the way with farmers embracing the technology and with its connectivity to space and satellites; with automation in financial services; with enabling better fraud detection; with marketing and advertising; with science and technology; and, of course, with health research. Natasha Banks of Day of AI suggests that in the near future most jobs will be augmented by AI and that there'll be new jobs arising such as an AI engineer, but there'll be many more hybrid occupations where technical expertise is combined with background experience in areas such as health care, education, energy or public policy. She foresees a great need for upskilling across the workforce.

Last month the ACTU called for AI agreements, including for guarantees around job security and skills development and retraining. Assistant Secretary Joseph Mitchell quite rightly stated that we want to see good AI and that it's something not merely efficient but that serves people's real interests. This approach is already being adopted in the European Union under their AI act. I note that Minister Rishworth, who is alive to the skills challenges referred to above, stated in September, in an interview with the Guardian, that it makes commercial sense—if you want to get the job right and if you want to have the best adoption of AI—to consult with the people doing the job.

Just this month I heard from Gerard Dwyer, national secretary of the SDA, on this topic, where he addressed the national conference delegation of that union. He foreshadowed the work that is before us and before every government in the world at the same time. He asked, 'Will we build an AI ecosystem that has humans at the centre, or will we just allow one to evolve that has a small number of wealthy tech bros hoodwinking us into believing that their interests are our interests? Those who promote a light touch on AI are actually out of touch. People, workers and our communities need to be protected by strong AI guidelines. The argument that we have to choose between productivity gains or protections is a false frame. We can have both, and we have achieved both with previous technological advances. Our lawmakers need to put their citizens at the heart of their decision-making.'

I want Dwyer's question and his answer to guide our work here as we consider the necessary legislation that will allow us to benefit from AI while avoiding the pitfalls that the application of any new technology can bring. As the Treasurer stated, we want to make Australian workers, businesses and investors beneficiaries, not victims, of that change. We have already seen examples of that today with our attorney-general making clear the protection of copyright laws, so we know we can do it, and we will continue to work in the interests of Australians with AI to support our efforts and endeavours.

See this speech in context