Treasurer Jim Chalmers is positioning himself as a leading voice in the ongoing debate about artificial intelligence (AI) regulation in Australia. He recounts each disappointment, but remains confident that the benefits of AI will eventually outweigh its risks. He is an outspoken advocate of a more balanced approach that he refers to as a “sensible middle path.” This approach aims to find common ground between those who support unrestricted AI development and those who seek to halt its progress entirely.
Chalmers’ comments follow the Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU) recent call for a national artificial intelligence act. The group is calling for the creation of a new national AI regulator to oversee “compulsory enforceable contracts” in workplaces. These agreements lengthen notice periods to make sure employees are notified and able to provide input before any technology—AI systems included—is introduced.
Chalmers’ Middle Path Philosophy
Chalmers, who serves as chair of the Partnership on AI, highlights the need to steer a middle course in AI regulation. He believes that establishing a framework for AI should not involve extreme measures, arguing against both unrestrained adoption of technology and excessive restrictions.
His vision for AI regulation contrasts with the views of some stakeholders who either want to “let it rip” or “pull the doona over the head,” indicating a need for moderation. Chalmers highlights the government’s role in developing standards. That is going to be especially important for advancing the wise use of potentially transformative technology.
In two weeks, Chalmers is set to lead a reform roundtable aimed at discussing the government’s role in developing regulations governing AI. This convening will bring together government, private sector, and nonprofit leaders. We look forward to working together to find the best ways to promote AI technologies beneficially and safely across industries.
ACTU’s Demands and Industry Responses
The ACTU has been campaigning for a national AI act. This decision underlines escalating frustrations over the rapid pace of AI technology deployment with little or no oversight. The envisioned national AI authority would be responsible for enforcing such agreements. These contracts will ensure that workers are involved before AI technologies are deployed at their work sites.
Unfortunately, as our Executive Director Travers McLeod recently explained, this is a deeply troubling time in the world of AI regulation. AI has great promise, he cautioned, but it needs to be used in responsible ways to ensure we do not deepen inequities that are already present.
“AI has great potential to help community organisations work smarter, reach more people, and tackle long-standing barriers to access and equity — if it’s done right.” – Travers McLeod
McLeod stressed the necessity for “strong ethical guardrails and a clear framework for lawful and ethical AI use,” particularly concerning its environmental impact and implications for the care economy. Among other themes, equity was central to Mr. It cannot be a device that deepens poverty and inequality.
Existing Regulations and Future Considerations
While some industry leaders advocate for new regulations, others argue that existing legal frameworks, such as the federal Privacy Act, may be sufficient to govern AI’s usage. Many fields have developed industry standards to address AI-related harm. This has led some to call for more regulatory agencies and others to call for fewer.
Chalmers insists that, though new regulations are warranted, a prudent evaluation of our current laws will be imperative. He has promised to look beyond the activist agenda and listen to the people who actually build our nation’s infrastructure at the upcoming roundtable discussions.
Perhaps most significantly, Chalmers has ruled out one of the ACTU’s key asks so far in these negotiations. As the dialogue around AI regulation evolves, it remains crucial for all stakeholders to engage meaningfully in shaping policies that will guide the future use of technology.
