Aaron Violi (Casey, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That this House:

(1) notes that the:

(a) Digital Economy Strategy 2030 delivered on the former Government's commitment to grow Australia's future as a modern and leading digital economy, including building on regulation as required; and

(b) absence of a minister for the digital economy under this Government has resulted in a slow and unclear development of policy concerning artificial intelligence (AI);

(2) expresses its concern that the lack of clarity on an AI policy framework is damaging to Australian businesses which need certainty to grow and innovate on the global stage; and

(3) calls on the Government to:

(a) recognise the opportunities AI presents and implement a strategy that allows the Australian economy to reap the rewards of emerging technologies; and

(b) appoint a minister for the digital economy to ensure our nation remains globally competitive in what is an increasingly digital world.

It's crucial, when we talk about the digital economy, that we understand there are two elements we're talking about. We are talking about the sector, or the industry itself, which is well represented in Australia by companies like Canva and many others. But we're also talking, very importantly, about the wider impact that the digital economy can have across the whole economy. At a time when we've got a collapse in productivity, it's important that we look at the elements where the digital economy and tech can play a very important role in helping our economy. We look at AI as a great opportunity for us as a country. It covers many different areas, but it is a way that business can invest in their company to improve productivity and their return on investments.

But the reality today in Australia is: businesses are being asked to invest millions of dollars with no certainty from this government. Early last year, they launched their digital safe Australia strategy, around AI. We got to January this year and the minister for industry said that he was going to put on a committee, to have a look and a new review. There's no certainty. It's an example of why we actually need a minister for the digital economy. What's happening in businesses today is that CEOs are talking to their executives and saying, 'Do we invest $5 million in this AI program?' They are going through the opportunities and the risks, and then they're getting to the question: what's the legislative environment that they can work in? The reality is that those executives have to tell the CEO, 'We don't actually know what the government's going to do in terms of regulation.' They've developed a risk where they can invest the money and then they turn around and what they are trying to do is not actually sustainable. Without certainty, business can't invest. Many businesses that I've spoken to have to use the European standard—which is the toughest in the world—as the standard that they operate on. It means they have a limited opportunity.

I hear the member for Bennelong talking about the Tech Council. I'll get onto the Tech Council right now, just for him. I know, as the parliamentary co-chair of the digital economy, he is interested in all areas digital. We'll move to another example of where not having a minister for the digital economy really hurts this country and economy. When you look at the sophisticated investor reforms that the Assistant Treasurer is looking to bring in, they are going to change the level at which people can invest in tech start-ups and invest angel capital to get some of those VCs up and running.

So what did the Tech Council's heads of policy, now acting CEO, Ryan Black, say when asked about sophisticated investors and the changes that this government are looking to make in the space? He said:

We've been talking to a lot of companies in the investment space, a lot of VC fund managers and angel investor organisations, and there is a lot of concern about what has been mooted. A lot of the products on offer, particularly from venture funds, require investors to pass a sophisticated or wholesale investor test and so there is a direct impact on the potential flow of investment into venture capital.

As I said, the government are looking to make changes in this space that are going to directly impact VCs, which are one of the key drivers of innovation in the tech space. And it could not come at a worse time. Data from Cut Through Ventures has shown that 2023 was one of the lowest years on record for VC funding in this country. Things like angel investing are so important because they give businesses the start so they can get to series A, series B and series C and then become the Afterpays et cetera that are so well known and so successful in the tech sector. This is what happens when you have a government that does not have a minister dedicated to the digital economy and making sure that the right decisions are made to drive productivity—

Honourable Member:

An honourable member interjecting—

Aaron Violi (Casey, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm trying to get the member for Bennelong a promotion. You should put your hand up. The member for Fraser would also be good as the minister for the digital economy. We actually need it, because it will drive economic growth and productivity growth for our country.

Bridget Archer (Bass, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the motion seconded?

Jenny Ware (Hughes, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.

Dan Repacholi (Hunter, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Before heading up to the chamber today I had to double check my calendar and confirm that it is 2024. The carry-on from those opposite suggests that they believe it is still the 1980s and they have just got their hands on their first Commodore 64. What they haven't managed to grasp is the fact that the digital economy isn't merely a futuristic concept. That is why I thank my mate the member for Casey for bringing this important motion forward. The digital economy is the economy; it is now.

Hon. Members:

Honourable members interjecting—

Dan Repacholi (Hunter, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The more they keep talking about this, the more they avoid changing. It just makes them look and more and more embarrassing. It is simple. Every part of the economy and the world that we live in is driven by digital technology, commerce and data. As a government, we know this and that is why we are continuing to invest in an inclusive, sustainable economy supported by technologies.

My good friend, the Minister for Industry and Science, Ed Husic, released Australia's first National Quantum Strategy in May last year to boost our economic competitiveness to our target of 1.2 million tech-related jobs by 2030. Australia has been a global pioneer in cutting-edge quantum research for decades. We are using a thriving quantum industry to boost our economic competitiveness and help solve our biggest national challenges. We finally have a government that is setting Australia up to be a success, and we are well on track. We are already seeing how quantum-sensing equipment is making a huge difference for industry.

In time, quantum computing will unleash incredible computing power that can hugely outperform traditional computing. Quantum industries are on track to create 19,400 direct jobs with $5.9 billion of revenue by 2045. Quantum technology uses the study of the smallest building blocks in nature, subatomic particles, to help solve some of the biggest challenges we face, such as cutting the time and cost for developing new medicines; helping the transition to net zero with more efficient battery storage; and safeguarding cyber infrastructure. By pairing our National Quantum Strategy with the National Reconstruction Fund, we are aiming to turn Australia into a global technology leader, building stronger industry and creating jobs for the future. We have seen eight per cent growth in workers in the tech workforce since we came to government. Like me, 40 per cent of the tech sector workforce did not go to university and do not have a degree. This presents an opportunity for everyone.

Our industry growth program is open for business. Those opposite like to talk about the importance of backing innovation. But the truth is that they failed to deliver for businesses and entrepreneurs. After all, they did vote against the National Reconstruction Fund, one of the largest investments to build a future made in Australia, which included $1 billion for enabling technologies. In the 2023-24 budget, the government delivered $41 million to extend the National AI Centre's work on responsible AI in industry alongside support for small and medium-size enterprise adopting AI for the first time. We also stumped up $40 million to deliver the Critical Technologies Challenges Program, which will deliver greater awareness and increase uptake in quantum technologies in Australia. In addition, we delivered $20 million to establish the Australian Centre for Quantum Growth.

When it comes to AI, this government is making sure the development and adoption of AI technologies are safe and responsible. AI presents a great opportunity to drive economic growth and productivity across the Australian economy, and we all want Australians to benefit from it. But we understand the need for strong safeguards to oversee high-risk AI advancements. This is why, after community consultation on safe and responsible AI, the government has outlined actions on AI in high-risk settings. The community made more than 500 submissions, and we are bringing AI safety in line with community expectations. We developed a voluntary AI safety standard with the industry and considered options for watermarking and labelling for all AI generated content. We are also considering the possibility of mandatory safeguards for organisations who develop or deploy AI in legitimate but high-risk settings. We will continue to build domestic AI capacity across industry and government.

Those opposite talk a big game when it comes to technology—and most other things as well, may I say. It would have been nice if they actually delivered around this whole industry in the 10 years they were in government. We are where we are now, and we've got ourselves out of the mess, and that's what this Australian Labor Albanese government is doing.

Jenny Ware (Hughes, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak in favour of this motion brought by the honourable member for Casey, who has been a passionate advocate for advancing and supporting Australia's digital economy. Our digital economy is now an integral part of the lives of Australians, whether it be ecommerce, emarketplaces, online education courses, streaming platforms, social media, videoconferencing, e-health or innovative work-from-home options. The digital economy now accounts for more than $120 billion of our economy's total value. Australians are renowned for our innovative spirit and inventiveness, as evident from our impressive contributions to the world in various fields. From the Hills hoist to the black box flight recorder, wi-fi technology, the winged keel, vegemite and the cochlear implant, our nation has consistently pushed the boundaries of human achievement. Australians have similarly embraced the digital revolution, whether as innovators, startups or users.

We need a government that will support this revolution and prioritise the digital economy. The Albanese Labor government's failure to prioritise the digital economy is therefore incomprehensible. The digital economy is not just a passing trend. It is the foundation of our future economic landscape. It plays a critical role in driving economic growth and creating new job and study opportunities for Australians. However, unfortunately, the Albanese Labor government has taken a 20th-century approach towards the digital economy and artificial intelligence. This is a government that, as we can see by its attitude towards AI, lacks vision, is backward thinking and refuses to act in the interests of citizens and industry. By all measures, this appears to be a government that has little enthusiasm for digital transformation. This comes as no surprise. The government does not have a minister for the digital economy, nor does it have a clear national goal to be a leading digital economy.

I was here when my friend, the member for Hunter, said that we had no plan. However, Labor inherited a fit-for-purpose digital economy strategy from the former coalition government. It provided the Public Service and industry with certainty and confidence about the government's commitment to this crucial and ever-emerging area of the economy. However, since this government was elected, we have gone backwards. Part of the problem, we can see, lies in the government's IR agenda, prioritising a union driven agenda, deeply hostile to the kind of workplace flexibility and choice which typically is a feature of technology businesses.

As I said, Australians have always been early adopters of new technology, and we can see that at the moment with such things as Uber, Menulog and Airbnb. Consumers embrace online platforms for their choice and convenience and savings in time and sometimes money. Australians have benefited not just as consumers but also from the new work and business opportunities that have arisen from these platforms. There's the opportunity to work flexibly when it suits them, be it a few hours a week or 40 or more hours a week, on these platforms. But the Albanese Labor government is actively hostile, and why is that? The reason is pretty obvious. The reason they don't like the gig economy is because their great mates, the union bosses, hate the gig economy. Their IR legislative agenda clearly shows this. Australia is returning to an interventionist, centralised workplace relations system, with no mention of productivity or actually trying to lift the standard of living of all Australians.

The government's failure to have a minister for the digital economy has meant that the government has taken a slow approach towards engaging with artificial intelligence policy settings. This is despite AI already being widely used in consumer-facing services without controversy—for example, serving up suggestions to you on Spotify, YouTube or Amazon for your next song, video or book. Australia should be a world leader in AI thanks to our strong and growing technology sector and advances in scientific research. Rather than leading to a reduction in jobs, in many of these instances, artificial intelligence is instead resulting in an increase in activity. Just as the development of the automobile and the computer created a range of new professions and jobs, AI will do the same. It is now time that the Albanese Labor government started prioritising the digital economy and artificial intelligence policy settings.

Jerome Laxale (Bennelong, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I represent the electorate with the largest tech workforce in the country. Bennelong is home to 18,000 tech workers and understands how important technology is to our economy. This government gets how important technology is to our economy. Every facet of our economy, from agriculture to finance and from retail to advanced manufacturing, is impacted by digital technology. From small businesses moving across to digital point of sale and listing their goods online to multinational medical technology companies like Medtronic using AI to diagnose and screen patients, the digital economy is alive and well. It would be important for any government to foster its growth and ensure that it remains safe and that it remains acceptable to all Australians.

Since coming to government, we have got straight to work to ensure we can unlock the potential of technology and also AI. From our National Quantum Strategy to a world-first $5 billion capability investment by Microsoft to our ambitious target of recruiting 1.2 million tech related jobs by 2030, we are laying the groundwork for a prosperous digital future. Importantly, we are doing so by investing in our workforce. Currently, Australia is creating more tech jobs than we have tech graduates. This is unsustainable. Tech jobs are good, well paid and flexible. The sector has identified that we have severe skills shortages in a sector that we know will help productivity. In response, the industry has asked the government for help. From fee-free TAFE to changes to our migration strategy, we have put policies in place to ensure that Australians and Australian businesses can take advantage of well-paid tech jobs in the future. As the Tech Council has noted, shortages of experienced tech workers can put Australia's security and economy at risk. As a government, we are doing things to address that.

Despite what the member for Casey has put in this motion today, we are absolutely a government that have acknowledged the need for a comprehensive response to the emergence of AI. We recognise the immense potential of AI to drive economic and productivity growth, but we also understand the importance of ensuring its safe and responsible development. That's why, after extensive community consultation on the safe and responsible governance of AI, the government has outlined actions on AI high-risk settings, including developing a voluntary AI safety standard in collaboration with industry stakeholders. We are also exploring options for mandatory safeguards for organisations involved with high-risk AI, and we are doing so alongside the rest of the world. As signatories to the Bletchley declaration, we have put our name to global initiatives to encourage the safe, ethical and responsible development of AI. We are working with the EU, the US, the UK and China to ensure that AI is designed, developed, deployed and used in a manner that is human centric, safe, trustworthy and responsible, because we have to get this right. Our strategy cannot stifle innovation by being too prescriptive, but it also must ensure that AI remains safe and trusted.

It seems the only solution proposed by the member for Casey, seconded by the member for Hughes, is to increase the size of the Albanese ministry. All they want to do is appoint an extra minister; 'That'll fix the problem,' they say! I think this is a second time he has come in here and said, 'We want a bigger ministry.' Titles and name badges don't make good policy; good ministers make good policy, and we have, in the Minister for Industry and Science, a good minister who is doing important work on this issue. On the regulation of AI, he has been measured, consultative and deliberate, and his approach has been backed by industry and the public alike.

Don't take my word for it; here is a quote from the CEO of the industry peak body, the Tech Council, from only a few weeks ago—and it's actually relevant, unlike the quote the member for Casey read out:

Providing clarity on the Australian Government's approach to AI regulation is good for business and consumer confidence. It means businesses can better plan for building, investing in and adopting AI products and services, and the public can take confidence that AI risks are being safely managed and regulated in Australia.

This approach is the best way to balance innovation with the need to ensure that AI is developed safely and responsibly.

I couldn't have said it better myself. Australia possesses the talent, resources and ingenuity to lead the way in the digital age. We've got a government and a minister that understands how to do it.

Paul Fletcher (Bradfield, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Government Services and the Digital Economy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There's no doubt that the extraordinary transformation of our economy being driven by digital technology and multiple manifestations and waves over the last 30 to 40 years has been absolutely profound. There's also no doubt that the speed and extent of change is only going to increase over coming decades. It is absolutely critical that Australia as a nation and that the Australian government are focused on the economic opportunities which the digital transformation of our economy can deliver.

Unfortunately, we have a government which is nostalgic for the 1950s, which is looking back to a time when most employees worked full time, when most employees were men, when the workforce was very heavily unionised and when longstanding workplace rigidities suited very much the interests of union bosses. It's true that consumers came a long way behind, and we discovered they paid higher prices and got poorer service than in many other countries in the world. Notwithstanding that, we've seen go through the House today a piece of legislation which speaks volumes to the essential hostility of this government and of key ministers—including the minister for workplace relations—to technology, to the digital economy, to innovation and to productivity. They are doing everything they can to turn this country in a backward direction, back towards the 1950s era, before computers were widespread and before there were such annoying things as smartphones, flexible employment and the internet and the cornucopia of choices and options it offers for consumers, and all the new business models it's created. Every one of these business models is hated by this Labor government and by the union bosses, and that is why the approach of the Albanese Labor government towards the digital economy and, indeed, towards artificial intelligence is backward thinking, disappointing and not fit for purpose. The previous government—the Morrison government—had a minister for the digital economy and had a very clear strategy in relation to the digital economy and Australia being a leading digital economy. That goal has been dumped by the present government—a complete lack of ambition—and the best justification we've just had from the member for Bennelong is that apparently he is now an enthusiast for small government. That would make him a pretty lonely enthusiast on the other side of the House. He certainly won't find his career advancing as he continues to advocate that enthusiasm. He is not credible at all. The real reason that he is opposing what we are calling for in this excellent motion moved by the member for Casey and seconded by the member for Hughes, two outstanding new coalition members doing such a great job, is that he, like all on that side of the House, is under the yoke, the suffocating orthodoxy, of the union-friendly government that is so committed to doing everything it can to hold back growth, hold back progress and hold back technology.

Let's talk a bit about artificial intelligence. Professor Anton van den Hengel, of Adelaide University, a leading thinker in his field, points out that there are only about 200 PhDs in Australia focused on artificial intelligence. We heard lofty words about how we're working cooperatively with Europe, with the US and with China on dealing with the risks. I'll tell you what the real risk is for Australia. The real risk when it comes to artificial intelligence is that we get caught napping when every other country in the world is using these tools to improve the productivity of the resources sector, of the agriculture sector, of the manufacturing sector, of the retail sector. We need to see a much more determined focus on productivity. I feel like I'm howling into the wind after the productivity-destroying legislation that's been passed today, but that does not change the imperative that our nation faces. We need to be more productive. We need to take advantage of the technology. At the moment, this government is sleepwalking into disaster. They've got no interest in the digital economy, and they are demonstrating that on a daily basis.

Daniel Mulino (Fraser, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I disagree with this motion in large part because I disagree with the approach that the move of the motion takes in relation to AI. I might say that I disagree with the long bow and the massively overblown rhetoric of the immediately preceding speaker, but I will leave that largely to one side and focus on the contribution from the member for Casey.

I think there is probably to some degree and overlap of ambition and aspiration when it comes to AI across this chamber, across both major parties and across the crossbench. I suspect there's a recognition across parliament and all chambers that this is, in all likelihood, an extremely important transition for our society and for our economy. Where I disagree with those opposite is where they say somehow we need some kind of quick fix. Their quick fix seems to be that CEOs need certainty for the next $5 million investment, that we need to adopt this mysterious AI strategy now, that what we really need is another 50-page glossy document, that more important than anything is having the term 'AI' in someone's title. For goodness sake, someone has to have 'AI' in their title! This is all we've heard from them. It is not really much content at all other than symbolism.

What we have from this government, in contrast to that quick fix and, frankly, symbolic approach is a recognition that this is actually an extremely complicated emerging phenomenon. I want to touch on a couple of the pros and cons that are emerging. Experts put different weight on the pros and the cons and on where they see the risks and the potential benefits. Clearly, AI has a lot of potential upside and could actually be the next generalised industrial revolution. For example, it creates the potential for types of functionality which otherwise don't exist. Autonomous vehicles are one example. Vehicles that have to process vast amounts of data about their surrounds in real time couldn't operate safely and in a coordinated way without AI. This could be extrapolated across many parts of the economy. So there is that functionality.

Secondly, there's the capacity to replace and improve a whole raft of decision-making—for example, diagnosis based upon facts. This could be used in all sorts of situations, such as medical, legal or engineering contexts. There is also the use of big data to inform the activities of large organisations like governments and even large corporates.

Thirdly, there's outright creativity. We know, for example, that AI is now writing essays. AI is probably writing better speeches than most private members' bills generate! But, even in the context of chess, chess geniuses now see the moves that AI generates, and there are often moves that are clearly the optimal move but human beings have no idea why. They just call them 'computer moves' now because they don't know why they're good.

But then, of course, there are all the potential downsides. There are the downsides around privacy. What does the interpretation of all this data mean for ordinary citizens? We don't yet know what AI will do on that front. There are the ways in which it might change market structures, where, if AI requires massive amounts of research and development to get to the cutting edge, it might entrench the largest players or the winners in markets. It could also lead to the replacement of many human tasks, many more than previous waves of automation and industrialisation. What does that do the role of humans in the workforce?

The point I make is that we don't quite yet know what the balance of all these trends is. We don't yet know the trajectory of each of these trends. That's why, in my opinion, we need to take a cautious approach. We don't want to over-regulate too quickly, because we might kill the golden goose. At the same time, we probably do need to set up some guardrails, what one might describe as a regulatory sandbox. That's exactly what this government is doing. It's taking an approach which is looking at AI in high-risk settings. We've received 500 submissions. The government is developing a voluntary AI safety standard with the industry. We're looking at safeguards that would include testing, transparency and accountability.

With something as broad ranging as AI, something with huge potential upsides which could boost productivity growth in ways we can only imagine, but something that also has potential downsides that we can find hard to conceive, we have to take an approach that is measured and staged, and that's exactly what the government is doing. The right approach here is not to wade in and just regulate for its own sake; it's to take a measured approach.

Sharon Claydon (Newcastle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.