Artificial Intelligence

Briskey rejected the motion's premise, stating that the government had a clear plan to support workers through technological change. Briskey highlighted the $12.6 billion National Skills Agreement and fee-free TAFE as key measures to upskill Australians. Briskey noted the establishment of a permanent AI Safety Institute with $29.9 million in funding. Briskey also mentioned a new five-step framework requiring tech giants to contribute to renewable energy infrastructure and grid upgrades.

Kennedy argued that the Coalition had published an AI action plan in 2021, predating the government's efforts. Kennedy claimed Australia was losing the global AI race due to high energy costs and lack of investment in chips and data centre infrastructure. Kennedy cited a 40 per cent rise in retail energy prices and argued that unions were driving AI policy in a way that hindered progress. Kennedy called for fast-tracked permitting and secure energy supplies to attract private capital.

French defended the National AI Plan as a coordinated framework to ensure AI benefits were broadly shared. French stated that artificial intelligence might add as much as $200 billion each year to the economy and help create 150,000 positions by the decade's close. French emphasised the role of the industrial relations system in ensuring AI deployment was transparent and safe. French argued that existing laws covered workplace safety and privacy, while the new AI Safety Institute would address emerging risks.

Rebello expressed concern that the government lacked a specific transition plan for workers displaced by AI. Rebello noted that small businesses in his electorate were seeing both efficiency gains and job security concerns from AI adoption. Rebello argued that the government needed to work with the private sector and listen to tech leaders. Rebello criticised mixed messages from government ministers regarding the regulatory approach to AI.

Clutterham stated that the National AI Plan included a dedicated goal to ensure workers were not left behind and were appropriately upskilled. Clutterham argued that AI could reduce human error and handle dangerous tasks, while humans remained superior in creativity and emotional decision-making. Clutterham emphasised the government's commitment to protecting worker conditions and sharing productivity gains fairly. Clutterham highlighted the importance of lifelong skills and training programs.

Hamilton argued that Australia needed cheap, reliable energy to attract AI data centre investment. Hamilton claimed that productivity had dropped over five per cent since Labor came to government. Hamilton stated that data centres required 24/7 power and could not rely on intermittent renewable sources alone. Hamilton suggested that coal, gas, and potentially nuclear energy were necessary to win the global AI race.

Husic warned against a laissez-faire approach to AI, calling for a comprehensive national AI act. Husic noted that 65 per cent of Australians believed AI created more problems than it solved. Husic highlighted the energy intensity of data centres, which could represent 11 per cent of electricity consumption by 2035. Husic proposed that overseas tech firms should pay transmission levies and demonstrate benefits for Australian industry and communities.

Chaney criticised the government's hands-off approach, noting that Australia invested significantly less in AI than countries like Canada and Singapore. Chaney called for a digital duty of care to prevent harms from AI chatbots and scams. Chaney argued that the AI Safety Institute needed more funding and independence from standard public service bureaucracy. Chaney urged the government to plan for significant future risks, including workforce displacement and economic concentration.