Tom French (Moore, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to respond to the motion moved by the member for Casey. At the outset, it is necessary to address the premise of the motion. It presents itself as a defence of Australian workers in the face of technological change. That is a curious position from those who have consistently opposed stronger workplace laws, argued against lifting wages and previously supported the exit of industries from this country. The House has been asked to accept that those who say the government should get out of the way are now the principal advocates for workers affected by artificial intelligence. That is not a serious policy position. It is a contradiction.

Artificial intelligence is shaping the global economy. It is changing how Australians work, learn and connect. The issue before the House is how that change is managed and in whose interests. The government's position is clear: we do not accept that the answer is to step aside and hope the market resolves these issues. Technological change must be shaped so that its benefits are broadly shared and its risks are properly managed.

That is why the government has developed the National AI Plan. It is a coordinated framework to ensure AI contributes to a stronger and fairer economy. It is anchored in three objectives: capturing the opportunity, spreading the benefits and keeping Australians safe. Estimates indicate that AI could contribute up to $200 billion annually to Australia's economy and support around 150,000 jobs by the end of the decade. The task is not to resist AI but to ensure Australians benefit from it.

That begins with skills. Supporting workers through technological change requires sustained investment in training and education. Through the National Skills Agreement, expanded vocational education and fee-free TAFE, we are increasing access to the skills Australians need to adapt and succeed. We're also investing in advanced capability in artificial intelligence and emerging technology.

The motion suggests that workers will be left behind. That ignores both the current policy settings and the role of our industrial relations system. Workers and their representatives must have a voice in how AI is introduced into workplaces. That is why the government is engaging with unions, industry and stakeholders to ensure deployment is transparent, safe and fair. Artificial intelligence can increase productivity and improve safety, but it also raises legitimate concerns around surveillance, bias and the nature of work. These issues are being addressed through consultation, regulation and the existing workplace protections.

Productivity gains should be shared, not concentrated. On regulation, the motion proceeds on an incomplete understanding. Australia already has robust, technology-neutral laws covering workplace safety, consumer protection and privacy. These frameworks continue to apply. At the same time, new risks emerge. That is why the government is establishing an AI safety institute to support regulators and ensure our legal settings remain fit for purpose. This is a measured and evidence based approach.

The government is also putting in place the conditions for investment and growth. Australia has a skilled workforce, a strong research base and access to clean energy. These are significant advantages in attracting investment in AI and digital infrastructure. The National AI Plan provides the policy certainty needed to support that investment and build domestic capability. The motion speaks of uncertainty, but, in reality, uncertainty arises when there is no plan. There is a plan. It is coordinated and practical and is being implemented in consultation with industry, unions and the community.

Ultimately, this debate is not about whether artificial intelligence will change our economy; it will. The question is whether the change will be managed in a way that reflects Australian values: fairness, inclusion and opportunity. This government's approach is grounded in those values. We support innovation, but we do not abandon workers. We invest in skills, not slogans, and we ensure the benefits of technological progress are realised here and shared by Australians. For those reasons, the assertions advanced in this motion cannot be supported.

See this speech in context