John McVeigh (Groom, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's an absolute pleasure to rise and speak on the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Industry, Innovation, Science and Resources consideration of Social issues relating to land-based automated vehicles in Australia. It has been a fascinating inquiry into a future that will encompass all of us and all of our communities. Ours is a generation, I think, wherein many of our parents used horse-driven or drawn modes of transport in their work in their younger years and later in their lives. Like so many in this House, for example, my father rode a horse to school in his younger years. He certainly worked with my grandfather on the family farm with Clydesdale horses as their main source of power on the farm. Our generation will also see and is already seeing the advent of automated vehicles. For our children, I predict that will be their main form of transport and source of power in the workplace in the years to come. In just three generations there will be that transition, and we are right in the middle of it.

So this has been a particularly important and relevant inquiry, and I believe that this report from our committee lays a firm foundation for future considerations of not just the federal government and federal regulators but also our state and local government counterparts. And whilst I for one have had my imagination extended in considering such futures, alongside my committee colleagues, the advice of some witnesses was particularly pragmatic and relevant. Just as marketing myopia blinded those who said that railways would never take over from stagecoaches or that motor vehicles would never replace the horse, so we must now not be blinded in considering these new futures. That particular witness suggested that we can still use the horse and carriage, especially for tourist and special event purposes, but not on freeways, which are designed for the modern motor car. Therefore it is feasible that the driven motor car that we know now can still be used in the decades ahead, but probably not on roads and infrastructure designed and developed specifically for the automated vehicles of the future.

Our report addresses a wide range of social impacts—as it should, given the title of our investigation. There are therefore a number of key considerations in our recommendations, which I'll refer to in just a few moments. We make special mention of issues that present potential benefits for some sectors of the community and challenges for others. Imagine the mobility benefits for the elderly, who can be confident in automated forms of transport that allow them to continue to engage in their communities, their social activities, and normal aspects of life such as shopping that nowadays are not possible for them. Many of them no longer hold a driver's licence, in a society that's currently designed around the driven motor car as we know it today.

Similarly, what are the benefits for the disabled, as well as the specific requirements for them in terms of continued access and facilitation of activities in totally automated vehicle systems of the decades in the future? What are the challenges for those living in regional and remote communities, where automated vehicle infrastructure, such as lane marking, road signs and other common features in urban areas that we'll notice emerging in the coming years, may not be available or even affordable in regional locations? For example, do they remain dependent on traditional motor vehicles only? Or can they expect a hybrid between automated and drivable vehicles so that they can traverse both worlds? Should they expect the same technology as their urban counterparts, perhaps? Our inquiry has considered many such issues with industry and academic experts from right around the country. Our recommendations are therefore very much couched in terms of providing direction for further consideration of these emerging issues at a federal, state and local government level.

I'd also like to address, while I'm discussing this report, the issue of changing job markets. There is significant evidence that, with the advent of automated vehicles, traditional driving jobs in the transport industry—couriers and taxi drivers, for example—may be significantly reduced or perhaps will even disappear in the long term. That future impact on our communities, on our economies, around the country must be investigated in more detail as our knowledge about the impact of automated vehicles improves.

We have during the course of the inquiry heard from a range of motor vehicle manufacturers, both Australian and foreign. While we're all conscious of the transition away from the domestic manufacture of Australian vehicles, it is instructive to consider the future directions our automotive industry is already taking in response. I'm particularly excited that Ford Australia, for example, oversees the 100 per cent design and development of the Ranger-Everest platform of vehicles here in Australia for manufacture in Thailand and distribution around the globe. That's an example of an automotive industry focused on its future in Australia, and it's pleasing indeed to know that these Australian based companies that we know so well, and other global companies that are setting up operations in Australia, will be extending their innovation into automated vehicle systems and technologies for use around the world, as we heard through evidence in this inquiry. I think this is testament to the ingenuity of our current and future local designers and engineers, who can participate and lead these innovations.

Other social issues considered included changes to urban design, particularly parking lots, which we won't need in the long-term, it is suggested; road design; and, of course, resulting changes to town planning. There are also consumer behaviour considerations—those used to public transport and, therefore, not concerned about privacy, while others not as used to that may be, particularly in regional areas. There is the issue of acceptance of other technologies that seem to accompany automated vehicle development, including, in particular, electric vehicles. There is the issue of change in vehicle ownership and the fact that significant private equity may be freed up in the years to come. Will we as individual consumers still own vehicles if there is an automated fleet available to us? Are we responsible for registering them? Will we be responsible for maintaining them? Will we, therefore, need to insure them; and, if not us as individual consumers from a property and personal insurance perspective, who might take up that responsibility?

So our recommendations include a working party with industry and academia to identify specific industry needs, covering: consideration of people with a disability, older Australians and regional Australians; trials of automated vehicles; consistency and regulation across the states, standardisation of road infrastructure in the future across the states to accommodate automated vehicles; the need to work with software and motor vehicle manufacturers; proper public engagement about what this means to all of us; and consideration, as I said, of employment ramifications as well as data security, legal liability and insurance implications in the future.

I thank most sincerely our secretariat for the fascinating program they arranged for this inquiry so that we could truly understand the social issues associated with automated vehicles of the future and the necessary areas for future research and development. I also appreciate the truly bipartisan approach that this committee took to this important area that will impact on all of us in the future and most definitely on all of the communities that we represent in this place.

Ed Husic (Chifley, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary to the Shadow Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is an excellent report. I must at the outset commend the Standing Committee on Industry, Innovation, Science and Resources for putting this report together. It is exactly the type of report that is required in a place like this, giving us the opportunity to lift ourselves from day-to-day skirmishes and think about things that will affect our communities across the country, be they city or region based, in the longer term and how we manage that change. So I wanted to commend the committee itself and echo the complimentary remarks made about the secretariat. In particular, I wanted to thank my opposition colleagues who were on that committee. I thank the member for Solomon, the member for Lyons and also the member for Wills for their contribution.

The reality is that driverless vehicles are coming. They are around the corner. In the next few years, it is more and more likely that you are going to be driving alongside a vehicle that is autonomous. For some people, it will be novel and different. For others, it will be a time saver and a stress saver. But it will also pose a challenge. Not only will it pose a challenge to the 250,000 Australians that earn their living from driving—the truck driver, the bus driver, the taxidriver—but it could also have an impact in ways we haven't considered. These vehicles are likely to actually make an impact on those terrible accident statistics that we see—for example, the human factor believed to be the cause or an influence in 90 per cent of accidents, and the 1,200 Australians who die from car accidents each year. If autonomous or driverless vehicles improve safety then that is a great thing. What impact will that have, for example, on police, who may not necessarily have to be called out so often to accidents, or on emergency departments, who might no longer be required to staff in a particular way as a result of the tragic accidents that occur on our roads?

It goes right down to salespeople when you consider that these days we are more and more prepared to buy a vehicle or other things online without seeing the product. Look at the extraordinary demand for Tesla vehicles—they didn't necessarily need a salesperson to explain to people why these vehicles were necessary. This will change the way in which vehicles are purchased. This is going to have a big impact.

Are we ready? Are we thinking about this change? The answer is no. We can see a future where cars can drive themselves, but we have in this country no direction. No-one—in particular, this government—is plotting how the country will manage the impact of automation. This change is coming. Automation, we know, will affect a large number of jobs. About 13 out of 19 Australian industry sectors are going to be affected by technological change in some shape or form, and there is absolutely no evidence that we are preparing for this. This is a great report, but the threat to this report is that it will gather dust like other reports before it that have talked about the need to prepare. Those who wrote the report have given a lot of thought to this and have talked to a lot of people. They have come up with some excellent conclusions. The worst thing that can happen to this report is that its recommendations are ignored. We should be very concerned about that.

I have been to Palo Alto and I have sat in driverless vehicles in two forms—there are the ones where someone is behind the wheel, ready to take over, but there are other vehicles that have absolutely no dashboard whatsoever and can drive completely on their own. These are being developed by tech giants like Google. Uber is investing a lot in this in the United States. A lot of firms are thinking about driverless vehicles. It will change the model of car ownership. For example, with ridesharing you can potentially foresee a future where people will be using someone else's vehicle, an autonomous or driverless vehicle, and the cost of using that vehicle will already be sorted out through ridesharing apps that are already in existence right now. What is the impact of that on cities, on the way that we roll out our infrastructure, the way that we move people on our roads and the way we invest to deal with that? You can see that cities will change shape, and it will challenge urban planning as well in the longer term. How are we prepared for that type of event?

All this will prompt a huge data challenge. Ford, as the report points out, is going to spend $200 million converting an assembly plant into a data processing facility. The CEO of Intel figures that for every eight hours that an autonomous vehicle is operating it is going to generate 40 terabytes of data. This is huge. How will that data be used, and what are the protections in place to prevent people hacking into cars? What's the safety impact of that? There was an instance where a Fiat Chrysler Jeep was deliberately hacked to test the vulnerabilities of the system. It drove off by itself, and then it had the brakes slammed on by another person with a laptop sitting some distance away. They were able to demonstrate that, despite the manufacturer's claims that the vehicle was safe, it could be hacked. People are going to be concerned about the vulnerability of these vehicles.

We have other concerns about what standards will be enforced and what leadership role government will have. The report traverses legal liability, safety issues, even things like the future of drivers licences and how prevalent drivers licences will be in a future where autonomous vehicles can make their own decisions about how they operate. We've heard already the benefits for mobility, for people who are not able to drive—particularly older people, who will lose their licences due to advancing age. This may open up mobility to people in that type of circumstance. Public transport applications are also important.

The report devotes a significant amount of time to the employment impacts that these developments might bring. I touched on some of these earlier. There are two things, involving what the government isn't doing and what the government is doing, that will have an impact on employment. While the committee was bipartisan on this, and I respect that, the government do need to be held to account for this. First, they aren't providing any further thought on the impact of automation on work. The employment minister last year released a report that had been authored by the CSIRO—Tomorrow's digitally enabled workforce. I know for a fact that this report is just gathering dust in the Department of Employment. This is not good for the nation in the longer term. What the government are doing that will have an impact is currently cutting $20 billion from support for schools. They already cut $600 million from TAFEs. We are now considering legislation that will cut investment in universities. Automation is going to demand a higher level of skills to be possessed by Australians. At a time when automation will demand a higher level of skills, to deny investment in this area is not only economically irresponsible; it is socially irresponsible as well. The government have to be held to account for that.

I will end on this quote. When you look at technology—

Government Members:

Government members interjecting—

Ed Husic (Chifley, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary to the Shadow Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They have a lot of time to interject but no time to think and no time to act—that's what happens from those opposite. The critical quote that was contained in this report was from Dr Matt Wenham of the Australian Academy of Technology and Engineering, who said that when you look at new technologies, social licence is the key. He said:

Pick your technology; the issue is rarely with the technological aspects—that will be resolved with research that is going on in markets and that sort of work—it is around social acceptance and social licence. If the conversation is not structured properly with the community and people do not understand the issues around this and are not able to feel that they can have a say in how these technologies are deployed, you will have the sort of problems that you had with other technologies. We should not underestimate that social licence.

He is absolutely right. This is a conversation we need to have more with the public. We need to focus more on this issue, but more than anything else we need to prepare. The government is holding back the longer term benefit of automation and technological change, and it's increasing the risk of the downside on people. We as a nation cannot afford that. I commend the report, but I certainly condemn the government for their inaction in this space.

Debate adjourned.