Topics: Artificial intelligence, data centres, regulation
E&OE
Bran Black, BCA Chief Executive: Well, it was pleasing to see that the Prime Minister and the Federal Government are going to prioritise the development of AI policy at the very heart of government that would support the establishment and Office within the Department of Prime Minister of Cabinet to see that prioritisation forward on a day-to-day basis.
At the end of the day, it’s really important to recognise that there is an extraordinary opportunity for Australians, for Australia, if we can go down the path of harnessing AI to best advantage. Now, there are all sorts of ways in which that opportunity manifests. One, of course, is that broader point about GDP uplift. We’ve seen any number of different estimates, but they include estimates of a 4 per cent increase in GDP. So that’s about $100 billion over the course of the coming years. That’s great. I hope that we can harness it, if we get the settings right.
Day to day, we see that businesses, including businesses right across our membership, are already utilising artificial intelligence and seeing real advantages. We know, for instance, that the Commonwealth Bank is investing in AI to make sure that its scams and frauds division is able to dramatically maximise and increase the scope and the reach of its operations.
We see that companies like Lendlease and BHP and Woodside are using AI to augment their work practices and make sure that they are much safer. We see that companies like Transurban are using AI to reduce the extent of their energy use in the exhaust fans within the tunnels that they operate, and we see that companies right across the board in the healthcare space are using AI to make sure that carers can really focus on that person-to-person connection rather than the tedious tasks associated with taking notes and so forth.
Right across the board, there are great examples of how companies are using AI. If we get the settings right, we can realise the productivity gains. Of course, we appreciate that there are community concerns, and we know that trust in the transition is an issue that has been raised and that these concerns are genuinely held. We want to work with communities and we want to work with people through this transition because we see that as being fundamentally important.
At the same time, we appreciate that it’s only going to be possible for Australia to realise the full benefits of artificial intelligence if we get the appropriate balance in terms of the regulatory approach. We can’t go too far. We can’t be too prescriptive, because we are in a race and we are in a competitive contest in that regard.
We know, for instance, in terms of data centres, that companies are investing in other jurisdictions. In that room that we were just in now, AirTrunk was recognised and called out. It’s important to note that they’ve just made a $42 billion commitment to build data centres not in Australia but in India.
We want to make sure that we can get the best possible share in the global investment that’s going to be made in data centres over the coming years and decades, and we do that by getting the settings right. And whether you’re talking about data centres or the technologies more broadly, it comes down to balance.
So I would conclude by saying that the government noted, the Prime Minister noted his address that ultimately there will be a series of standards that are produced. We look forward to working with the Government. What we see is that there is an opportunity to do so in a way that really takes on board lots of stakeholders’ feedback in a measured, considered process. Of course, we appreciate that there is a need to move at pace, but there is also the importance of fundamentally getting that balance right, and that means appropriate and engaged consultation.
Journalist: From what you heard in that speech, does the balance look right? Getting that balance right, does it look right from what the Prime Minister said? Obviously there’s the balance of the need for investment, the concerns out there in the public, not impeding on jobs through the adoption of AI?
Bran: I think the key point is that we’ll have to wait and see what some of the detail looks like. The Prime Minister contemplated that there are going to be standards produced, and that those standards will cover, as you’ve said, a range of different matters. We’ll have to work through what that detail looks like.
One point that I would raise is with respect to data centres’ requirements in terms of energy and water utilisation. We would prefer to see that there are applications for new data centres that are prioritised in circumstances where they bring new generation to the table, or alternatively, when they’re minimising the extent to which they draw on water resources.
That’s the appropriate way of looking at it: prioritisation, in our view, rather than a mandatory approach, because if we go too far, as I said, we don’t want to see ourselves get out of step with international counterparts, and that as a consequence, we would lose investment.
Journalist: Yeah, that’s one final question there too. On that regulation, do we risk over-regulating and then it becomes onerous for business?
Bran: Well, that is absolutely a risk. It is absolutely a risk in any context when we’re talking about be it AI or other types of regulatory imposts. Australia already has way too much regulation. We see that regulation accounts for about 6 per cent of GDP in terms of cost on the economy. That’s $160 billion each and every year.
We see that other countries are very actively competing to try and reduce the burden of regulation on business. We’re not doing that to the extent that we need to, and we know that when large technology companies are looking at places to invest, certainly they do see Australia as having lots of advantages. But if we overregulate, we risk losing the benefit of those advantages, and that’s the worst possible outcome for all Australians.
Journalist: On that regulations point, are you worried by bringing the states into this process with National Cabinet and the engagement of, you know, states like Victoria and others in setting those standards?
Bran: We think that ultimately what we need to do is make sure that we’ve got the most uniform approach possible. It is, of course, best if we can align our national standards with international standards, and it’s of course, also best if we can make sure that there’s a common single approach in terms of the development of standards that covers the entire nation.
So, yes, by all means, consult – we would always support engagement and consultation right across the economy, including with different levels of government, businesses, unions, community groups, and so forth, take the time to do that and do it well. But ultimately, we’d like to see a simple standard. And obviously, at the end of the day, as I mentioned, we’d like to see a standard that applies as closely as possible with respect to the way in which companies operate at an international level as well.
Journalist: Okay so that’s a plus, so on that pace, you’d like to see the time taken to consult but not legislating until you know next year, are they taking too long, is that something that really should come faster to give business certainty?
Bran: Well, it depends on what the legislation is saying. So, I think what the Prime Minister spoke to is, of course, developing a series of standards. It could be the case that there’s legislation that establishes a framework for standards to be developed, and then that standards are subsequently rolled out over a period of time, and that they are prioritised in different ways.
What we would say is that ultimately, it’s the devil that’s in the detail for all of the standards. That’s what really counts. So, from our perspective, what we’d be looking to do is engage very carefully and in a considered and measured way with government and with the other stakeholders that the Government’s engaging with to ensure that we can get these standards developed reasonably quickly but accurately.
Journalist: And so, if they spend a year legislating just a framework, that may be taking a bit too long to give business the certainty it needs?
Bran: Well, I think talking about particular timeframes is probably getting a bit ahead of ourselves at this particular point. What I would say is that we’d like to be able to give businesses certainty as quickly as possible. We appreciate the Government wants to move quickly. We heard that, and that’s a good thing. But we have to take the time to get it right. The devil is always going to be the detail, and you can only work through that in the best possible way if you’ve done the engagement that facilitates taking in lots of different perspectives and views.
Journalist: What do you think some of the key details that business wants to see, outstanding questions from this, that are really the top priorities to get cleared up?
Bran: So again, it depends on the different types of standards that you’re looking at. But the Prime Minister, of course, touched upon data centres, and he was reasonably specific in terms of talking about the particular requirements that the Government had in mind with respect to water utilisation and electricity utilisation.
We would say that we have a different view in terms of how we would frame that. As I mentioned a little bit earlier, we would say that it’s important to prioritise those projects that bring new generation into the energy systems that we have in this country, and also those projects that minimise the utilisation of water resources. But the key there is focusing on the prioritisation rather than the mandatory approach.
Journalist: Have they made a mistake with that mandate enforcing?
Bran: Well, as I say, we think that the appropriate approach is to have a prioritisation rather than a mandatory approach. What we will look to do is work through that with the Government in terms of this consultation opportunity, which is forthcoming, but I go back to that point: we would emphasise prioritisation rather than being very prescriptive, because if we take too prescriptive an approach, we risk making ourselves out of step.
The Prime Minister went to great pains in his speech, as he should, to point out that Australia has any number of different advantages in terms of its capacity to secure investment, from a stable democracy to abundant natural resources, but we risk losing those benefits if we take an approach to regulation that is out of step with other countries.
Journalist: And just lastly, so with that, with a bit of clarity provided on data centres and their approach to data centres now. What’s the next issue that you think really should be the priority for giving a bit more detail and direction?
Bran: Well, I think the key thing that we need to do is to continue to consider the evidence base as it develops and what I would emphasise is that that’s what the new Office that’s been established in the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet appears to be doing, and that’s important because there are issues that are being dealt with and discussed now, but which need to be considered on an ongoing basis.
A good example of that is the impact of AI on workplaces. We know that people have concerns with respect to trust in terms of how AI is rolled out in workplaces. We’ve gone to pains ourselves to try and emphasise what good practice looks like by releasing our own guides in this regard. We see that the evidence is very clear at this particular point in time that far from reflecting the fears that have been expressed over the course of the last few years by some commentators, AI has in fact led to more jobs being created. And indeed, the most recent reporting from the Government’s own Department of Workplace Relations shows that across all sectors, we are seeing an uptick in jobs rather than a reduction in the number of jobs.
But that doesn’t mean that that position will always be the case. We do need to be alive to the fact that, with any technology, as it evolves, different opportunities emerge, different risks emerge, and as those opportunities and risks emerge, we need to have the policy dexterity to be able to deal with them, and that’s what I think an important component is with this new Office that’s been established, will give us the scope to do that.