Interviewer: Welcome back to the program. Let's go live to the independent member for Curtin, Kate Chaney, who joins us. Thanks for your time. You've released a policy paper on artificial intelligence. You're calling for an AI safety institute in Australia. Can you explain to our viewers your thinking on this, Kate?
Kate Chaney: Sure. AI is moving really fast and we need to have structures in place that mean we can respond to the risks as they're emerging. And many other countries like the US, the UK, Japan, Singapore, Canada already have an AI safety institute — it might be a different name but they all do the same thing — and we need the same thing here in Australia. So that institute would be about monitoring and identifying emerging risks from AI use, working to support regulators to develop regulation around how to deal with those, and also work collaboratively with other countries so that we are developing consistent frameworks and standards that apply to developers around the world.
Interviewer: Are you concerned at the moment by the speed with which the pressure for Australia to be one of the first movers on this? Because there's an argument being made right now that if we don't get in early and generate a lot of the investment dollars here that we'll miss out.
Kate Chaney: So we're not a first mover. We do need to realise the efficiency benefits and the productivity benefits that AI presents, but I think putting guard rails in place will build public confidence in AI and mean that companies are more likely to take that up if they know that they're not creating new risks. And when I talk to people in my community, they're pretty concerned about not just the frontier risks — the long-term sort of science fiction risks — but also the deployment risks that are happening right now. We know that young people are turning to chat bots for mental health support. We know that it's changing how education works and the impact on critical thinking. When AI is used in decision-making processes, it can discriminate against people if it's deciding who gets a loan or those sorts of things.
Interviewer: Indeed. And so there's a range of issues here, whether it be deep fakes, kids bullying, political discourse being affected. And I know from a personal level, Kate, and I'm sure many of our viewers are the same, that they look at images and think, is that real? Is that AI? I mean, we're already second guessing ourselves multiple times a day.
Kate Chaney: Absolutely. And those things are going to continue to change, which is why I'm focusing on getting the structures right. We will need new legislation and we'll need to build up the capacity of our regulators to deal with the holes in our laws at the moment. So having a body that can give technical advice to government and to regulators will mean that we're set up to actually deal with these issues as they emerge. We're not designed to make laws fast, but this area is changing so fast that we need to look at new structures and many other countries have gone down this path and we're just a little bit behind on actually getting on with it and putting an AI safety institute in place.
Interviewer: You've put out some statements this week in relation to reports on gambling advertising as well. You want the government to push ahead with gambling bans. This comes at the time as the industry has put out research that suggests more than a third of online gambling in Australia is happening offshore — really an ungoverned space in many respects. Do they need to put more attention on that issue where people will have no protection at all?
Kate Chaney: Well, first I would take with a grain of salt any research that's commissioned by the gambling lobby group. It's notoriously difficult to measure the size of an illegal industry and the UK regulator and others have said, you know, don't believe what you see about that. In the Murphy report, which I was on the committee for, it actually also suggests that the government should deal with offshore gambling companies. If the government responded to the Murphy report, then that could be addressed as well. But I think it is being used as a distraction by the gambling companies that operate in Australia who are saying, "Look, we're not the problem. The problem's offshore." What other countries like Spain and Norway have shown is that cutting out the gambling ads does have a huge impact and it doesn't create this migration to offshore sites despite the fact that that's a really popular talking point from the gambling companies.
Interviewer: Onto the issue of the COP. Australia won't be hosting it. Chris Bowen still leading negotiations apparently. Susan Lee has had a crack at the government, saying that Chris Bowen needs to focus on the top priority of getting power prices down, not on the global talks, and shouldn't be distracted — that essentially Australia needs a full-time minister in terms of its energy policy. What do you say to that?
Kate Chaney: Well, I would like to see Australia being part of international discussions on important issues like climate, and I think it would have been great if we'd won the COP and played that significant role. That was not to be because of some pretty crazy decision-making processes, but I think it is important that Australia has a seat at the table globally. Of course we need to focus on reducing power prices, but presenting it as a choice between reducing power prices and rolling out clean energy is just a false dichotomy. That's not how it works. So I think we can chew gum and walk at the same time and we need to play that global role and also look at what that means for domestic policy as well.
Interviewer: You won the seat off the Liberals. It’s a long-standing Liberal seat — Curtin — not anymore. I mean, obviously you've held it for a term and a bit. What's the feedback you've received on net zero and the Liberals?
Kate Chaney: A lot of shaking of heads, Kieran. I think it's not a great look. And when we're watching the coalition tying itself in knots, trying to please everyone and ending up standing for nothing and pleasing no one. Climate change is one of the three top issues that constituents contact me about. My community cares deeply about Australia taking action in that space. And I think this really — if the coalition is going to try and thread the needle through saying, well, we don't support net zero but we still want to be in the Paris agreement — people can see through that and it's not going to go down very well in communities like mine.
Interviewer: Kate Chaney, thanks for your time. We'll talk to you soon.
Kate Chaney: Thanks, Kieran.