Lisa Chesters (Bendigo, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On behalf of the Standing Committee on Employment, Education and Training, I present the committee's report entitled Study buddy or influencer: inquiry into the use of generative artificial intelligence in the Australian education system, together with the minutes of the proceedings.

Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e).

by leave—On behalf of the Standing Committee on Employment, Education and Training, I am pleased to present our unanimous report Study buddy or influencer: inquiry into the use of generative artificial intelligence in the Australian education system. GenAI has started to impact the Australian education system as well as the future of work in our country. It is not something that 'might' be used; genAI is already being used in different degrees across our education system.

It is the committee's view that the uptake of genAI in the education sector should be a national priority for various reasons. When genAI, as an education tool, is used appropriately, it can provide equitable access to students, educators and teachers alike. The committee has recommended that genAI be used as an education tool and integrated into Australia's national curriculum. Where these tools can act as a study buddy for all students and used in terms of appropriate content, it is critical for the integration of genAI technology in schools. These tools need to be fit for purpose, relative to the Australian context, sensitive to gender and cultural considerations and trained on data that is based upon our national curriculum. This is why the committee has recommended this. It needs to be based on our national curriculum.

The committee's report identifies these exciting opportunities for the adoption of genAI in education. We identify that genAI can help drive better educational outcomes for some of Australia's most vulnerable students. Indeed, students from low socioeconomic areas, students from non-English-speaking backgrounds, students with disabilities or who have learning difficulties, students from regional and remote areas who may struggle to have access to subjects otherwise and First Nations students all stand to benefit most from the rollout of this technology, if done appropriately.

Whilst I've highlighted the important opportunities presented by genAI, the committee is mindful of the risks with this new technology. The committee heard evidence on the risk presented by genAI and has considered how the education system can enact sufficient guardrails and safeguards to protect users, especially minors.

I would also like to remark on the technology related reforms already implemented in the education sector by the government and say that they will help protect the safety and wellbeing of our Australian children, but we must go further. I'd like to draw particular attention to the reforms being undertaken by the eSafety Commissioner to protect children from deepfakes and cyberbullying, all of which can be exacerbated through the use of genAI.

The committee also heard about additional risks in relation to the technology itself. Of particular importance is the need to protect users', especially children's, data to ensure that educational providers do not select genAI products or tools that store students' data offshore or sell that to third parties. This is an area that needs critical attention.

The integration of genAI will affect not only schools but also tertiary education, the Australian education workforce and the future of work. GenAI has broad implications for the design and implementation of assessments and academic and research integrity. The higher education sector is struggling to address the misuse of AI in assessments—another area which is critical and where urgent attention is required. It is therefore imperative that students are adequately trained to use genAI technology appropriately and ethically, particularly when it comes to its integration into classrooms as well into assessments.

The committee has made 25 recommendations in this report. These recommendations focus on how schools can maximise the opportunity of education-specific genAI tools, promote quality edtech products, support the implementation of the Department of Education's Australian Framework for Generative AI in Schools, integrate AI literacy into the next school curriculum review when it occurs and develop strong safeguards, standards and frameworks for the use of genAI in our education system.

It's important to state that these recommendations are fit to regulate the application of AI in the education sector today. However, we acknowledge that as AI technology is developing and evolving, the committee may need to review these recommendations at a later date.

During the inquiry the committee visited two schools that use genAI differently. I'd like to take a moment to thank Pymble Ladies College, an independent school, and the Grange P-12 College, a public school, for sharing their experiences with the committee. The committee also heard that the Grange College will likely be reliant upon guidance from the Department of Education and government grants for funding to roll out technology in its school, whilst the committee heard that Pymble Ladies College has already successfully integrated genAI into its curriculum and is well positioned to share its expertise with other schools. It demonstrates, again, the digital divide that we have within our schools. GenAI presents an opportunity for all governments to work together to address that divide.

These findings and recommendations contained in the report were informed by over 100 submissions and 15 public hearings, including three interstate public hearings in Victoria and New South Wales. I'd like to thank my committee colleagues for their work on this inquiry, evident in the fact that this is a unanimous report. I'd also like to extend my thanks to our expert panel and the committee secretariat for the work that they've done on this report. I would like to thank the individuals and organisations that made submissions and participated in public hearings, especially the students who shared their experience.

In conclusion, genAI presents an exciting opportunity yet high-stakes risks for the Australian education system. If managed correctly, genAI in the Australian education system can be a valuable study buddy and not an influencer. I commend the report to the House.

Terry Young (Longman, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—Firstly, can I thank all the members of the committee and the chair, the member for Bendigo, for their valuable contributions and probing questions. Can I also thank all of those who sent in submissions and gave evidence, either in person or electronically. Lastly, I'd also like to thank all the APH staff, including the technical media staff and the hardworking secretariat staff, led by Fran Denny, who worked tirelessly on what must be said was a complicated yet very enjoyable and intriguing subject: AI in the Australian education system or Study buddy or influencer, as the report has now been named.

I tried to approach this inquiry from the perspective of not just the deputy chair of the committee or an elected member of parliament. I tried to see this from all the different perspectives: those of the student, the teacher, the business owner, an employee, a parent of a student as well as a concerned citizen that may not be any of the above. One of the great challenges we face as legislators is getting the balance right. This is where we all have different views, even within our own party. This, of course, is one of the major benefits of the committee process, that hopefully with six to 12 committee members with different cultural, educational, geographical and vocational backgrounds we can be challenged in our thinking to come up with a report that addresses the concerns of all of these different cohorts in our community. For me, as a former small-business owner and as a parent and grandparent, my greatest concerns were around getting the balance right: ensuring that future generations of Australians, from the business and employment point of view, won't be left behind the rest of the developed world in a highly competitive global market, balanced—when I put my parent and grandparent hat on—with ensuring that AI won't be used by governments, individuals, corporations or other organisations to coercively nudge our younger people in a particular direction.

After 18 months of listening to evidence and submissions, I must say that these concerns have not abated. In fact, they have only increased in their intensity. I have now seen the potential power of this technology, and, of course, if used in the correct manner, it will improve productivity, which is so important in business, particularly in a country like ours where we have some of the highest—if not the highest—costs as far as employee costs, energy costs, red and green tape and the cost of tenancy, not to mention other costs associated with doing business, like insurance.

But we must ask ourselves: at what cost will these improvements in productivity come? Will it risk critical thinking? If problems are just submitted to platforms like ChatGPT and the like and answers are just churned out according to the algorithms and parameters that the human developers of these platforms decide, where will students learn to simply figure things out for themselves? Not to mention that this is where the moral issue of coercive control comes in, because, if the same answer is being given to the same question, if there is one dominant platform, do we risk our individuality and basically become sheep? Or could it be worse? We have platforms where answers are always skewed to the left or right, depending on what platform is being used. I have observed firsthand the development of social media platforms and YouTube, where I personally only receive recommendations that are all the same. This, of course, pushes people almost unknowingly further left or right in their thinking, which I think is very unhealthy for us as a society, as neither far-right nor far-left ideologies are healthy for individuals or society as a whole. Balance is always the key.

I also have concerns around the validity of the information. It must be remembered that AI only draws its conclusions from the most common consensus, from mainly the internet. In fact, ChatGPT was brutally honest about its own failure to present the correct information when I asked it, 'If ChatGPT had been around in 1500 AD and I asked it if the world was flat, what would the answer have been?' The very honest answer I was given was: 'As the general scientific and religious belief of that day was that the earth was flat, ChatGPT probably would have said the earth was flat,' which we all know is incorrect. Apologies to any flat-earthers out there!

That brings me to my final comments. Whilst I have real concerns about generative AI, they are somewhat curtailed by what I can only describe as my delight in the current generation, who have in some ways been forced to have one of the best BS filters of all time. This generation have been bombarded almost since birth with information on devices handed to them, in many instances, way too early for young developing minds in my opinion. Ironically, as often happens, this negative practice has developed this positive outcome of a filter that I believe will hold them in good stead as they navigate this brave new world that will increasingly include more and more machine learning in our everyday lives.

My final words to all are to constantly ask the question: what is the source of this information I'm receiving? And question, question, question the information given, and don't take it as gospel. I commend the report to the House.

Lisa Chesters (Bendigo, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the House take note of the report.

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The debate is adjourned, and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.