Varun Ghosh (WA, Australian Labor Party) | Hansard source

This motion once again reveals that the Greens really are a nuance-free zone when it comes to serious issues in this parliament. Australia and countries around the world will need to grapple with the various ways in which AI will impact our lives, not only in terms of our working lives and our social lives but in terms of the way we live as a society and interact. The attack in the motion is misguided on two levels. Firstly, it's misguided because it mischaracterises what's actually going on. Secondly, it's misguided because what it doesn't deal with is the nuance and the necessity to grasp with the fact that this is an emerging technology. There are lots of different uncertainties involved, and it's natural that we will evolve the way we regulate it to ensure not only that it serves the Australian people and it serves working people in this country but also that we don't get left behind and we don't get excluded from the capacity to develop sovereign capability in this space.

I'm very glad to have Senator Sheldon in the chamber here, because Senator Sheldon was the chair of a select committee into this in 2024, and its recommendations were nuanced. They were detailed. They reflected a concern on this side of the house from the Labor Party and from the trade union movement that as we adopt this technology we are protecting Australian workers and that we're ensuring that they have a say in the way that this technology gets rolled out. So I do want to congratulate Senator Sheldon in that respect for that work, but it's clear that the writer of this motion and those who spoke to it before didn't read that report, because, if they had, they couldn't have made those attacks. There was nothing starry-eyed in it. It was nuanced, and it reflected a deep concern about how AI was going to be rolled out, but it also reflected a recognition that Australia cannot block its eyes and ears to this new technology. It can't prevent its emergence as the rest of the world embraces it and as Australians adopt this technology. So we do need a regulatory framework that protects workers and protects the environment but also doesn't exclude us from sovereign capability and doesn't exclude us from the economic benefits that this technology will bring, here and around the world.

What does that mean from a policy perspective? The government has been very clear: it means we should be embedding AI into our economy and guiding it in a way that seeks to lift living standards rather than deepen inequality, and in such a way that it can be delivered sustainably. That means that we should be embedding AI literacy into our learning institutions, including TAFEs and universities. We must also ensure that workers have enforceable rights to consultation over how AI is used in workplaces. AI must never be a shield against accountability for hard-won workplace protections. I also commend the ACTU on the work they're doing in this space, as well as the Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees' Association, whose recent report into this was so valuable.

It's important to remember in this debate that AI is a tool, and responsibility must rest with those who design and benefit from the systems. There need to be strong regulatory frameworks. There need to be bodies that are capable of enforcing and dealing with the challenges of AI, and dealing with the speed of the development of this technology, which is, at stages, quite breathtaking.

There's also no doubt that the increased use of AI will present risks to our society and have significant impacts, but we cannot pretend that the technology doesn't exist or isn't going to be used, here and around the world.