CANBERRA, ACT, Aug. 6 -- The Treasurer of Australia issued the following transcript:
Note
Subjects: artificial intelligence, Investor Roundtable, data centres
Sarah Ferguson:
Treasurer Jim Chalmers joins me now. Treasurer, welcome to the programme.
Jim Chalmers:
Thanks very much, Sarah.
Ferguson:
Clearly, regulation is one of the early fault lines in this debate. But first of all, can you regulate a technology that is evolving so fast?
Chalmers:
I believe we can. But it's a complex task and it's a contentious task. And that's why, as you rightly identify in your introduction, there are a range of views about the best way to go about it. My view is that we can find a middle path between people who say let AI rip and other people who pretend that we can just turn back the clock. I think there is a middle path here. And when it comes to regulation, it's really all about doing as much regulation as we need to to protect people and as little as we can to encourage innovation. And that's how we maximise the big opportunity, the big game-changing opportunity of artificial intelligence, while also managing and mitigating as many of the risks as we can.
Ferguson:
Specifically, have you now completely dropped the idea of a separate AI act?
Chalmers:
That was one of the things that the Productivity Commission is talking about in its report today. And the question here that governments are grappling with right around the world is whether you need a standalone act or whether you've got some regulatory tools that you can use. The government is working through those issues. The PC's got a view, others have got a view as well. I think whatever the mechanism that you use - one act or a number of existing acts - that is important but it's not the most important thing. The most important thing is the nature of that regulation, whether you can maximise the opportunity and minimise the risk. And that's what the middle path that we intend to take is all about.
Ferguson:
Your colleague Ed Husic is still arguing for a single act. Is he barking up the wrong tree, essentially?
Chalmers:
I wouldn't describe it like that. And I personally take Ed's views on this very seriously. He has engaged and thought about these issues for a long time, as has the Minister, Tim Ayres, and I engage with them. There are people who've got a range of views. I don't think we should dismiss or ignore the legitimate views that people put forward. That's certainly not the approach that I take.
Ferguson:
Alright, so the ACTU told my colleague David Speers at the weekend that they want an effective veto for workers before AI technologies are introduced into a workplace. Could the government support that?
Chalmers:
We need to be realistic about it. And certainly I agree that workers need to be part of the conversation when it comes to rolling out a technology which has this game-changing potential and where there are very real potential risks in the labour market. I would always err on the side of workers having a say in how their work is done and so -
Ferguson:
- I think what they're asking, what they're asking for here is something much bigger than that. It is an effective veto that no new AI technologies can be introduced into a workforce without their say so. Obviously, business is very unhappy about that. Where do you stand?
Chalmers:
However you describe it, I think it's important that workers have a voice. And not just on this issue, it's why I support the union movement putting forward their ideas. I wrote a piece on the weekend in The Guardian which is all about recognising that we can roll out AI technology in a way that's consistent with our values. And the best way to do that is listen to our people, listen to our workers, and make sure that we skill people up so they can adapt and adopt this really important technology. And so I think there is a way through here.
I do acknowledge that there are different views being expressed. As I keep coming back to, I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing when we're talking about something this consequential and this contentious. There will be a range of views. That's a good thing. The government's job, which we embrace, the responsibility that we embrace, is to find that middle path so that we can get all of the game-changing benefits from artificial intelligence in our economy and in our society without dismissing or ignoring the risks, including in the labour market. And the people who know the most about the labour market are the workers themselves.
Ferguson:
I want to ask you a broader question about how to protect Australian, in fact, the sovereignty of Australians in this, in this area. So, if data is now the core economic or going to be the core economic resource in this age, shouldn't or should Australian citizens have sovereignty over their own data?
Chalmers:
Certainly that's one of the risks that we need to manage. And there are already restrictions in place. There are guardrails in place already. But it would be naive to think that we wouldn't need to catch up and keep up with this rapidly accelerating technology so that we're looking after people. And that's really the theme of all of the contributions I've been making on the weekend and through the course of today, is that we need to make sure that our people are beneficiaries and not victims of this technological change. We need to make sure that they're protected where that's possible, and protecting their data is a really important part of that.
Ferguson:
Let's go to this issue that's being discussed today, which is the issue around copyright, which flows on from that. Now, Scott Farquhar, one of Australia's most successful tech bosses, he wants Australia to host massive data centres and to enable that, he wants to see a change in the copyright law to allow exceptions for text and data mining for AI companies. Does that mean giving up copyright for unique Aussie content?
Chalmers:
I think when it comes to those 2 issues, I think that there's a massive opportunity for Australia in data centres and AI infrastructure that doesn't necessarily rely on the change that he's proposing to the copyright law. I was asked about this earlier today. I pointed out we've already got copyright law. We're unlike a number of other jurisdictions in that regard. We don't have any plans to change or weaken those copyright arrangements. And as the Attorney-General rightly pointed out through the course of today as well, there's already a process to manage the complexities. But we really value the contribution made to our society by artists and musicians, content creators, journalists and others. And so we come to these important considerations in that light.
Now, on data centres, that's a really important opportunity for Australia. As it turns out, Sarah, I've spent a few hours this afternoon with $3trillion of Australian capital. The biggest investors in Australia, super and other institutional investors. And we've been grappling with this question: how does Australia make the most of this opportunity when it comes to data centres and AI infrastructure more broadly? And we've got a big chance here. We'd be mad not to grab it. We've got to get the energy piece right, the regulation, planning, zoning, approvals piece right, the skills piece right as well. I'm confident that we can, and we can be a big player in data centres. In Australia we've got so many natural advantages. But that doesn't rely, in my view, on making the change necessarily that Scott is proposing.
Ferguson:
It's not just Scott Farquhar, it's also the Productivity Commission, because they're suggesting, or they are at least considering relaxing copyright rules and obviously urging you to think along the same lines. The Productivity Commission has raised this, what are you saying to them about copyright rules?
Chalmers:
First of all, we commissioned the work. We asked them to do 5 pieces of work about making our economy more -
Ferguson:
- you sometimes get answers you don't like, though. Is this one of them?
Chalmers:
But I think that's inevitable when you're genuine about seeking people's views, there'll be a range of views provided. Some of them you will like, some of them you will find difficult to like.
Ferguson:
So, what are you going to do about that in this case in relation to copyright and the protection of Australian's copyright?
Chalmers:
First of all, it's a draft report. The final report is due at the end of the year. I try to be very respectful to the independence and the contribution of Danielle Wood and the Productivity Commission. I spent time with her yesterday and today talking about some of these issues, and I want to be respectful to the contribution they make. People are free and should and will respond to the draft report that Danielle Wood and her colleagues put out overnight. That's a good thing.
I've already told you my position when it comes to these copyright arrangements. We have copyright arrangements. That's a good thing. We haven't been working out ways to weaken that. We value the contribution of our artists, musicians and journalists and content creators. And we come to this really complex and key question in that light. And Michelle Rowland, the Attorney-General, in her characteristically diligent way, is working with all of the industry participants in her reference group to make sure that we get it right.
Ferguson:
I just want to come back to the story that we ran just before you came on, and it included a visit, talking to GPs, about using AI and the recordings of those conversations are held by the AI company for 7days. Would you personally want an AI company to hold on to your medical chat for 7days?
Chalmers:
It's not a very specific consideration that I've thought about or grappled with before, Sarah, I've got to be upfront with you about that. I listened to probably about a third of that story, and I found it very interesting. I think AI has a role to play in health, but again, we've got to make sure that we protect the interests of patients and people more broadly. There are thousands of questions like this when it comes to AI.
Our broad approach to it is let's work out how we can make it work for us, not against us. There will be issues around privacy and scams, misinformation and disinformation. They're important considerations in the labour market. We don't dismiss or ignore any of those sorts of challenges. But every country is grappling with these challenges and we've got a chance to get it right. And we'll get it right if we listen to the ideas that people put forward in good faith.
Ferguson:
Treasurer Jim Chalmers, thank you very much indeed. For your company.
Chalmers:
Appreciate it, Sarah. Thank you.
Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.
