Jacqui Lambie (Tasmania, Jacqui Lambie Network) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister for Industry and Innovation and the Minister for Science. An AI advisory body was promised by former industry minister Ed Husic in 2024 after he appointed an interim expert panel to start work to ensure the technology was safe. In 2025, Minister Husic said that mandatory guard rails would be prioritised by the second term of the Albanese government. But, on 24 February, the government scrapped the permanent AI advisory body after spending 15 months and $200,000 working to identify experts to sit on it. Minister, you then announced a replacement AI Safety Institute that will be established in early 2026. Can the minister please explain how an institute with no powers other than to offer advice can protect Australians from the worst of AI?

Tim Ayres (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Industry and Innovation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator Lambie, for that question. As you would be aware, the Albanese government announced the national plan for artificial intelligence some months ago, and that did include establishing an AI Safety Institute funded with just under $30 million to play that role. That work occurs against the backdrop of the efforts put into, in the previous term including by Minister Husic, establishing the government's approach to this vital technology, which comes with enormous opportunity and with some risk.

The national plan for artificial intelligence is about making sure that Australia captures the opportunities of this technology; that we spread the benefits so they're not just in the central business districts of our big cities but are spread to small businesses, to the tech sector, to regional communities to make sure that schools and everybody gets access to the benefits of this technology; and importantly that we keep Australians safe. The AI Safety Institute's role will be to do the technical evaluation work, particularly testing new frontier models, to make sure that we understand what the platforms are that are accessible for Australians and to do the work in terms of safety and alignment with the interests of Australians to perform a regulatory support role so that we make sure as a government—working with colleagues like Minister Gallagher and others across the government to ensure that our regulators, our agencies, our departments, have the capability that they require and the regulations they need to make sure— (Time expired)

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Lambie, first supplementary?

Jacqui Lambie (Tasmania, Jacqui Lambie Network) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

South Korea, Denmark and the European Union are all bringing forward new AI laws, not relying, like our government, on existing laws to regulate AI and protect its citizens. Why does the government think Australians can be protected by laws that were prewritten before AI even existed or was invented? When will we actually get new laws to protect our citizens from the worst aspects, once again, of AI? I just don't understand how you can possibly use old laws when you haven't brought new ones in.

Tim Ayres (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Industry and Innovation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thanks, Senator Lambie, for that second question. As I was about to finish the previous answer—you've touched on exactly where I was to go next, which is that part of the function of that safety institute is to cooperate with partners overseas, including the jurisdictions that you referred to, who all have AI safety institutes themselves as a key piece of their architecture. There are different approaches being taken in different economies and jurisdictions around the world.

The AI Safety Institute, in this government's judgement is an important adjunct to having our capability as a government to make sure that we're capturing the opportunities and spreading the benefits and dealing with those safety issues adequately and effectively. We don't believe that an additional piece of legislation—I might have to come to this in your second supplementary.

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Lambie, second supplementary?

Jacqui Lambie (Tasmania, Jacqui Lambie Network) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The government uses GovAI to build, test and deploy customised AI solutions, including using OpenAI's ChatGPT and Anthropic's Claude, and Microsoft's Copilot underwent a trial. Members of the general public and organisations now get an email telling them that their submission will be first assessed by AI. Can you tell me exactly which AI models are being used for this, and can you assure Australians that their data isn't being shared with big tech globally?

Tim Ayres (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Industry and Innovation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'll just finish that first point. We have a regulatory framework in Australia. Our job is to strengthen it and to make sure that it is fit for purpose, and that may engage future regulatory change in some areas to make sure that Australian laws, whether dealing with financial harms, dealing with protecting young Australians or dealing with whatever, are up to scratch, modern and fit for purpose.

On the question of which platforms are being used in the context that you've referred to, I'm not in a position to answer; I don't know the answer to that question. I'll happily come back to you about that in more detail.

Jacqui Lambie (Tasmania, Jacqui Lambie Network) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On a point of order, I just wanted to know how you can assure Australians that their data isn't being shared with big tech globally. That's the assurance we want to hear today. Thank you.

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Did you have anything further to add, Minister Ayres?

Tim Ayres (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Industry and Innovation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I don't believe so. Data protection is a core principle of the government's operation here.