PK: Independent MP Kate Cheney has today proposed artificial intelligence safety institute to provide advice to the government as the AI revolution rolls on. She's my guest this afternoon. Welcome.
Kate Chaney: Thanks, Patricia.
PK: Why do we need a AI safety institute? What would that actually do?
Kate Chaney: Well, the problem is AI is moving really fast and government moves slowly. And because it's moving so fast, we don't have those technical skills within the government. So what we need is an AI safety institute that is independent and well resourced and can provide that technical advice to policy makers and also regulators so that they can identify and monitor emerging risks, work with those regulators to see how to address those risks and also cooperate internationally so that we're part of that international conversation about what standards we need relating to AI. Many other countries have an AI safety institute already. The US, the UK, Canada, Japan, Korea. And we're being left behind on this. So I think urgently we need to get the structures in place so we're in a position to actually respond quickly to these risks as they emerge.
PK: Are we being left behind? I mean, because there's the other view which of course comes from, you know, groups like the Productivity Commission who want less regulation around all of this.
Kate Chaney: Well, I think we need the guard rails in place so that people do actually are able to trust AI and I think part of getting broader roll out and making the most of the productivity benefits is having the rules in place to make people feel safe. So I think they are two sides of the same coin. We're certainly getting left behind on the regulation and on how we're actually dealing with these issues. I introduced a private members bill to ban AI tools that are specifically designed to generate child sexual abuse material. Now this is a clear gap in our laws, but it's not something that we've actually seen any action on. And there are lots of issues like that that need to be addressed. And we need to be part of those international conversations and have those technical skills in Australia that are independent and able to give frank and fearless advice to the range of regulators that are going to need to get better at understanding how these tools change their regulatory environment.
PK: K Channy, I want to move the topic if we can talk about gambling. What's your message to the prime minister? Is he making interventions like this on gambling? We're waiting for a response on gambling, but there has been reports that they're looking at dumping plans for a ban on online gambling.
Kate Chaney: I think if the prime minister decides not to act on the Murphy report, that will be his legacy is that he has listened to the gambling companies, not to the Australian community. We saw some research put out yesterday commissioned by the gambling industry that unsurprisingly says we're not the problem. someone else is the problem. But that research is pretty deeply flawed and I think really the prime minister has an opportunity here to do for gambling, online gambling, what we did for tobacco a generation ago. Stand up to big gambling companies like we stood up to big tobacco and do what the Australian public wants, which is get rid of all the ads we see polluting our sport that make gambling and sport inextricably linked in the minds of young Australians. We're grooming a new generation of gamblers and this is a public health issue. And I just am horrified to see the prime minister again and again paring the talking points from the gambling industry instead of listening to communities.
PK: You say paring those points. Look, there's lots of reporting around this. They haven't announced a policy to be clear, but they look like they're going to potentially opt for that crackdown on offshore illegal gambling. And that report that you refer to that you contest and I certainly challenged the person who was speaking on behalf of them yesterday, is that something that you think deserves to be cracked down on or not?
Kate Chaney: We do need to look at illegal gambling sites, too. And that was part of the Murphy recommendations. That was recommendation seven. But it can't be used as an excuse not to deal with where the bulk of the problem is, which is companies that are operating those sites in Australia and advertising in our stadia, on jerseys, on social media, on TV. They are the real problem. And the report yesterday said that it would increase traffic to offshore illegal sites if we ban gambling ads here. The evidence in Spain and Norway is that that just doesn't happen. It isn't like that. People are exposed to gambling ads in Australia and that's what prompts them to gamble. Of course we're not making gambling illegal. Anyone can still find ways to do that. It's the flooding of the market with those ads that's the real issue and the illegal sites cannot be used as a scapegoat for avoiding the real action that needs to happen in Australia now.
PK: They look like they are going to opt for that though. Is there a sense of urgency that they need to announce something by the end of the year?
Kate Chaney: Well, it's been 874 days now since the Murphy report was presented and they have not yet provided any response to that. I think if they just announce that they're going to act on one of the 31 recommendations on illegal sites and avoid responding to the other 30, that is not good enough. And I think Australians will be able to see through that. So I think they really need to listen to public opinion and act on the full suite of recommendations, including ads, including a national regulator, rather than just picking the one thing that the gambling companies that operate here want them to do.
PK: Thank you so much for joining us, Kate.
Kate Chaney: Thanks, Patricia.