Ed Husic (Chifley, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

It is with both an even mix of pleasure and a daunting feeling that I follow the member for Macquarie. She applies a great deal of thought to this area because of a deep passion and a belief in the creativity of her fellow Australians. I want to commend her for the contribution that she just made to the House. There are a lot of elements of what the member for Macquarie touched on that I want to retrace the steps of, not the least of which is that we last year marked 50 years since the dismissal of Gough Whitlam's government. It is a point of major reflection for our side of politics because it goes to a perennial question within the party about how much or how little reform we undertake.

Prime Minister Whitlam's administration is seen as having created lessons to learn from in both a positive and negative way. I take a different view. The election of the Whitlam government was designed to usher in significant change after a period where not much change had occurred whatsoever. What was underpinning a lot of Prime Minister Whitlam's reforms was an inherent belief in something that we rarely reflect on, which is Australian exceptionalism. What Prime Minister Whitlam believed in was the power of the Australian voice. He believed in the power of Australian ideas and refused to take any suggestion that Australians, regardless of their background, should take their place in line or that we were not worthy of making contributions not only in the Australian context but also globally. I am not, by any stretch, suggesting that his administration was perfect. In fact, he later acknowledged, in his own way, some of the shortcomings of what he had done.

But the important thing is that a lot of what Prime Minister Whitlam undertook survived to this day. In this debate, around these reforms, his moves are important because it was under his administration that we first looked at being able to improve the way in which authors were remunerated for their work—not because we were reducing it to a simple matter of dollars and cents but rather because we put a value on the contribution, the thought and the fact that Australian writers considered the Australian experience, they interpreted it for Australian audiences in a way that resonated for them, and, if they undertook that work, that they were entitled through their labour to a better deal. That reform, as much as people may reflect on how much the Whitlam government did and if it did too much, too soon, endured over that period of 50 years. They made a mark, and they continue to make a mark today. Hence what has been brought forward to the parliament. I just want to commend the Minister for the Arts for championing this bill in terms of recognising and supporting Australian creators and publishers. It brings the entire scheme into a single contemporary legislative framework, it replaces the Public Lending Right Act 1985, and it also makes sure that it is fit for current purpose, which is incredibly important.

I also want to reflect on future challenges in this area. These public and educational lending rights are there for a very straightforward but important reason, and that's to ensure that creators and publishers get the money that they deserve when their books are made freely available, particularly through public and educational libraries. It is the transmission of that knowledge, that guidance, that know-how, that goes on from one generation to the next in an educational setting, in many instances, that should be recognised and remunerated. Whilst not everyone who writes a book, according to the minister, seeks to be a full-time author, he did point out—I thought this was important to restate for the record—that the average income for an Australian writer in 2021-22 was reportedly just over $16,000, which would surprise a lot of people given what is required to produce those works.

There is also an admission that the creativity captured within that work is their property. It should not be, quite frankly, stolen by those who wish to use it for other purposes or to profit from it in a way that is not right, fair or gives an opening to the author or the publisher. As I indicated earlier, it was in 1974 that Prime Minister Whitlam approved the Public Lending Right Scheme, and it was inherently underpinned by a notion of fairness, recognising the value of that work and the importance of supporting Australian voices. That endures 50 years on. The bill itself is a critical way of modernising something that took a foothold 50 years ago, has been amended from time to time and now needs to be updated.

There are, as people would be aware, threats to the ability of authors and publishers to earn what is owed to them and for their work to be respected. The principal threat comes in the form of artificial intelligence. Some of the biggest models on the planet require data—huge amounts of it—processed regularly to refine and improve the operation of those models. That means soaking up data from wherever it may sit. In some cases, it would involve taking up the works of creators and churning them through their systems. There is, rightly, an objection to the way in which that may occur. If that occurs without remuneration, that is fundamentally wrong. It is theft. There should be a mechanism for the remuneration of authors and creators for their work if it's used to train an AI model.

The view of those developing the models is that that is too much to ask for, and that is a ridiculous proposition. The reality is these models have had huge amounts of money—billions of dollars—poured into their development, and they will ultimately create a reward, a profit, for the developers of those models. From my point of view, and certainly from the point of view of many in the public, the work of authors, creators and publishers should be properly, fairly remunerated. This is a commercial transaction, and the hard work put together by creatives should be paid for. It's important to note some of the creators may not even be aware their works are being utilised to train AI models, which is something that we should be alert to.

The Copyright Act in this country, in its current form, does not yet contain provisions specifically addressing AI generated content. Understandably, artists and creatives want the government and the parliament to ensure that they are properly remunerated and protected from some of the changes that have been sought by US tech to dilute the Copyright Act in this country to allow them to access those works. That should not happen. It is not right. It is not fair that that should occur. Big Tech should also not be allowed to get away with the argument that allowing access to copyright material or, in particular, remunerating it will stifle economic growth in innovation. This is wrong. It is a red herring of an argument. The models that are being developed by those firms pay every step of the way. The people that run those companies are very well remunerated. The employees that help develop those models are remunerated as well, both in salary and in shares. They will become wealthy people. They have got their slice. They cannot say that they should do better by taking money off of authors, creatives and publishers and arguing that, by being forced to pay, innovation will be stifled. As I said, this is a completely false argument and should not be allowed to stand. They should pay their way and also recognise that, if compensation is good for them, it is good for authors as well.

The other thing is that AI generated content can be produced at a speed and a scale that are not comparable to the output of human creatives. Genuine creative work will often require significant human time investment, and that should be recognised in any future deal. This is but one argument—this is a pinprick—that is now being enlivened as a result of the rapid uptake of Generative AI. Parliaments, governments, the world over are being challenged by the ways in which AI is starting to impose itself on societies. We cannot afford to have a hands-off approach to a technology that will touch every part of our lives. There should be a unified, clear set of guardrails that governs the way AI is used in societies. Anyone who thinks that the general public is permissive of the widespread use of AI is woefully mistaken. Australians are genuinely concerned about the impact of artificial intelligence. They do not believe it is a free-for-all. They do believe there should be guardrails.

Also, no-one believes that there is a choice between regulation and innovation, that they cannot exist together. As I often remark, anyone who takes a medicine at a time when they are ill puts great trust and faith in that medicine. They have not tested it themselves; they have hoped that somewhere along the line that medicine will be safe to take and use. That is because there has been a very thorough, strong, complete regulatory framework that has guided the development of that medicine. And yet we continue to have remarkable breakthroughs in medical sciences in spite of the fact that a heavy regulatory framework exists.

People are seriously concerned about what AI will do to them. In Australia, nearly 75 per cent of people believe that, even when they use AI, it still poses a threat. In the American context, polling has shown 77 per cent of Americans think AI is not a force for good. It means we have a responsibility as a parliament to be across this issue, to prepare the country for this issue and the threats that are posed and, in doing so, to not be framed as Luddites but do what we're meant to do for the Australian public, which is identify risk, mitigate risk, build confidence and get the most out of new technology when it delivers for us and, importantly—I end on this point—where the technology works for us, not the other way round. That is critical.

See this speech in context