Tech billionaire Scott Farquhar says Australia needs to deregulate AI in speech to National Press Club
Scott Farquhar, Chair of the Tech Council of Australia, told the National Press Club in Canberra the uptake and rapid development of AI is comparable to the uptake of electricity in the 1800s.
He also warned that some jobs would inevitably be lost in the transition.
'It requires new infrastructure, and we will need different jobs,' he said, before adding that there needs to be a cooperation with the federal government.
'Today we need to partner with the government to pave the way.
'The scale of the opportunity and risks of missing out demand a new kind of partnership – one that moves at the speed of technology, not at the speed of bureaucracy.'
The uptake of AI by firms in Australia have rattled some unions, as the Commonwealth Bank announced it was letting 45 people go and replaced its call centres with an AI chatbot.
Mr Farquhar was questioned about the mass redundancies taking place across multiple industries.
In response he said that Australia was a resilient country, and that there would be opportunities to retrain the workforce.
'Particularly in Australia, I feel very privileged and blessed that we live in a nation that has a very strong social safety net and very strong skill training and opportunities for our people to re-skill into new areas,' he said.
Mr Farquhar urged the federal government to work on building large scale data centres, like the deal the Albanese government agreed with Amazon.
He also urged the federal government to embrace AI in its day to day operations, which he said would be leading by example.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Sydney Morning Herald
35 minutes ago
- Sydney Morning Herald
Albanese can make roundtable work for him, no matter where he sits on it
For those who doubt the effect of these changes, go and ask the populations of our AUKUS partners, Britain and the United States, how their health and retirement systems are going. The motivation behind the Accord was the labour movement's resolve to never repeat the errors that had contributed to the swift downfall of the Whitlam government: chiefly the lack of co-ordination between the unions and the party, and the failure to understand the implications of rampant wage claims made as the economy was suffering a shock from oil prices. In other words, the movement had to learn from its mistakes. In the 80 years since the end of World War II, the Labor Party has been elected to office from opposition only four times. Two of those governments – one headed by Gough Whitlam, the other by Kevin Rudd (twice) and Julia Gillard – went down the chute after just two terms. Both experienced sustained periods of internal chaos and failed to live up to their promise. The Hawke-Keating government is the standout success in the entire history of the ALP. It's still early days for the Albanese government, which is now in what was for the Whitlam and Rudd-Gillard outfits the death zone of a second term, but its early defenestration looks unlikely. A record lower house majority and a slide in the fortunes of the Liberals and the Greens offer the prospect of a sustained incumbency. The Albanese government is writing its own electoral script. The common experience of new governments from the early 1980s was that they were elected with a substantial majority that was reduced at the next election. Under Albanese, it has worked the other way around, with Labor just getting over the line in 2022 and then securing a landslide second time up. Right now, it is governing from an incredibly strong position. How could the government blow it? By not seizing the opportunity it's been given by the 8,553,231 Australians who voted for it. Those voters, who represented 55.2 per cent of the national electorate, want the country's problems fixed by the government. The extent of those problems has been demonstrated by the evolution of the roundtable, which began six months ago as an idea for a forum to find ways to kickstart productivity growth. It was not to be a summit that would produce a binding communique. Instead, it would be looser and smaller, with invitees asked to come with ideas, a spirit of consensus and a sense of shared responsibility. But as the lead-up to the roundtable has proceeded and the ambit proposals from stakeholders have dribbled out, it became more difficult to limit its remit to productivity. Fair enough, too, because the economic challenges are interconnected and go beyond that. Loading Quickly, to the government's discomfort, a focus on tax emerged. In any event, in a period when the care economy – a sector in which productivity is naturally difficult to measure – is big and guaranteed to grow, and artificial intelligence is poised to revolutionise most aspects of work, what will become of the existing concept of productivity? It follows that if a meeting convened by the national government has economic reform in its title, it needs to generate substantial results. The smartest thing the government can do will be to see the roundtable as an opportunity to expand its policy options, regardless of whether the industry groups or any other stakeholders play a spoiler role or not. If it tries to 'manage' the outcome, it will be shooting itself in the foot and letting down the people who gave it power. Chalmers, as a former staffer of Wayne Swan, treasurer in the Rudd and Gillard governments, will recall what happened to the 2010 Henry review of the tax system commissioned by the Rudd government. The review made 138 recommendations, only three of which the government took up. It was a political and policy disaster. And having studied Paul Keating's political career, Chalmers also knows about the ambitious and far-reaching tax changes Keating introduced in the Hawke government's second term. At the 1984 election, Labor pledged to hold a tax summit if re-elected. After the summit in 1985, Keating cut the marginal tax rate from 60 to 49 per cent and introduced a tax on capital gains and fringe benefits, along with a range of other changes to such things as wholesale sales tax and the company tax rate. Several measures, especially the fringe benefits tax, faced serious pushback from vested interests. The government had no direct mandate for those outcomes, but it pushed ahead and got them through. It was rewarded by voters for its courage, winning in 1987, 1990 and 1993. The roundtable could turn out to be a bust, as some critics have predicted, but that shouldn't matter. If it founders on the rock of self-interested pandering or head-in-the-sand behaviour, Albanese should say it was worth a try, thank the participants for coming, and then get on with doing big things anyway. There is an appetite for this in the community, especially among younger voters, who are getting the rough end of the economic pineapple. Loading A report this week found that house prices are 14 times the annual average wage. To let this continue would be unconscionable and a social catastrophe. The prime minister and treasurer are breathing rare air. They will never get a chance like this again. Then again, who's to say they actually share any historically significant, politically risky ideas for the economy? Postscript: What of my massive career-defining national scoop in 1983? Four paragraphs appeared in a late edition on a left-hand page deep inside the paper, with no byline. On the following Monday morning, I got a call from a senior colleague on the chief of staff's desk, a decent bloke: 'Mate, the other papers have got some of the details of this Labor-unions agreement that they're voting on today. Have you seen it?'
The Age
35 minutes ago
- The Age
Albanese can make roundtable work for him, no matter where he sits on it
For those who doubt the effect of these changes, go and ask the populations of our AUKUS partners, Britain and the United States, how their health and retirement systems are going. The motivation behind the Accord was the labour movement's resolve to never repeat the errors that had contributed to the swift downfall of the Whitlam government: chiefly the lack of co-ordination between the unions and the party, and the failure to understand the implications of rampant wage claims made as the economy was suffering a shock from oil prices. In other words, the movement had to learn from its mistakes. In the 80 years since the end of World War II, the Labor Party has been elected to office from opposition only four times. Two of those governments – one headed by Gough Whitlam, the other by Kevin Rudd (twice) and Julia Gillard – went down the chute after just two terms. Both experienced sustained periods of internal chaos and failed to live up to their promise. The Hawke-Keating government is the standout success in the entire history of the ALP. It's still early days for the Albanese government, which is now in what was for the Whitlam and Rudd-Gillard outfits the death zone of a second term, but its early defenestration looks unlikely. A record lower house majority and a slide in the fortunes of the Liberals and the Greens offer the prospect of a sustained incumbency. The Albanese government is writing its own electoral script. The common experience of new governments from the early 1980s was that they were elected with a substantial majority that was reduced at the next election. Under Albanese, it has worked the other way around, with Labor just getting over the line in 2022 and then securing a landslide second time up. Right now, it is governing from an incredibly strong position. How could the government blow it? By not seizing the opportunity it's been given by the 8,553,231 Australians who voted for it. Those voters, who represented 55.2 per cent of the national electorate, want the country's problems fixed by the government. The extent of those problems has been demonstrated by the evolution of the roundtable, which began six months ago as an idea for a forum to find ways to kickstart productivity growth. It was not to be a summit that would produce a binding communique. Instead, it would be looser and smaller, with invitees asked to come with ideas, a spirit of consensus and a sense of shared responsibility. But as the lead-up to the roundtable has proceeded and the ambit proposals from stakeholders have dribbled out, it became more difficult to limit its remit to productivity. Fair enough, too, because the economic challenges are interconnected and go beyond that. Loading Quickly, to the government's discomfort, a focus on tax emerged. In any event, in a period when the care economy – a sector in which productivity is naturally difficult to measure – is big and guaranteed to grow, and artificial intelligence is poised to revolutionise most aspects of work, what will become of the existing concept of productivity? It follows that if a meeting convened by the national government has economic reform in its title, it needs to generate substantial results. The smartest thing the government can do will be to see the roundtable as an opportunity to expand its policy options, regardless of whether the industry groups or any other stakeholders play a spoiler role or not. If it tries to 'manage' the outcome, it will be shooting itself in the foot and letting down the people who gave it power. Chalmers, as a former staffer of Wayne Swan, treasurer in the Rudd and Gillard governments, will recall what happened to the 2010 Henry review of the tax system commissioned by the Rudd government. The review made 138 recommendations, only three of which the government took up. It was a political and policy disaster. And having studied Paul Keating's political career, Chalmers also knows about the ambitious and far-reaching tax changes Keating introduced in the Hawke government's second term. At the 1984 election, Labor pledged to hold a tax summit if re-elected. After the summit in 1985, Keating cut the marginal tax rate from 60 to 49 per cent and introduced a tax on capital gains and fringe benefits, along with a range of other changes to such things as wholesale sales tax and the company tax rate. Several measures, especially the fringe benefits tax, faced serious pushback from vested interests. The government had no direct mandate for those outcomes, but it pushed ahead and got them through. It was rewarded by voters for its courage, winning in 1987, 1990 and 1993. The roundtable could turn out to be a bust, as some critics have predicted, but that shouldn't matter. If it founders on the rock of self-interested pandering or head-in-the-sand behaviour, Albanese should say it was worth a try, thank the participants for coming, and then get on with doing big things anyway. There is an appetite for this in the community, especially among younger voters, who are getting the rough end of the economic pineapple. Loading A report this week found that house prices are 14 times the annual average wage. To let this continue would be unconscionable and a social catastrophe. The prime minister and treasurer are breathing rare air. They will never get a chance like this again. Then again, who's to say they actually share any historically significant, politically risky ideas for the economy? Postscript: What of my massive career-defining national scoop in 1983? Four paragraphs appeared in a late edition on a left-hand page deep inside the paper, with no byline. On the following Monday morning, I got a call from a senior colleague on the chief of staff's desk, a decent bloke: 'Mate, the other papers have got some of the details of this Labor-unions agreement that they're voting on today. Have you seen it?'
ABC News
35 minutes ago
- ABC News
Defence and trade top of the agenda for Anthony Albanese's meeting in Queenstown
Defence and trade are expected to be at the centre of discussions between Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and his Kiwi counterpart Christopher Luxon when the pair meet in Queenstown on Saturday. How the two nations continue to respond to the humanitarian crisis in Gaza and the question of recognising a Palestinian state are also likely to be discussed, after both leaders spoke with French President Emmanuel Macron about the issue this week. Neither Australia nor New Zealand have set a timeline for recognising a Palestinian state, despite other like-minded countries including France, Canada and the United Kingdom all signalling they would do so at a United Nations meeting next month. Mr Albanese on Thursday flagged that would be among the issues discussed. "No doubt as well, our cooperation on international issues, including … we have released a number of joint statements together with other like-minded countries on the Middle East, for example," he told reporters. Talks between Australia and New Zealand are held annually, with the countries taking turns to host visits. Outside of that, the two leaders have met on the sidelines of several summits, making this their seventh meeting. Jennifer Parker, a defence analyst at the Australian National University, said defence would again be a central discussion point, including procurement. She speculated New Zealand might follow Australia's decision this week to award a major contract to Japan's Mitsubishi Heavy Industries to build new warships. "I think New Zealand is highly likely to, so long as they're not priced out of the market, make the decision to also acquire the Mogami frigate," she said. "Their two ANZAC-class frigates … are having the same problem that ours do. They're old, they're overused and they need to be replaced." Ms Parker said the pair was also likely to discuss defence spending, given the global push, particularly from the United States, to increase it — although she said that might be done privately to avoid further questions on Australia's spend. New Zealand has vowed to boost its spend to about 2 per cent of GDP within eight years, while Australia's forecast is about 2.33 per cent, a much higher dollar figure given the size of the economies. The analyst also hoped the pair would discuss their "increasing alignment" on China's behaviour in the region and the changes in the United States. Prior to the visit, Mr Luxon released a statement highlighting the strength of the alliance. "In today's uncertain world, one certainty is that the Australia-New Zealand relationship is the bedrock as we look out into the world," he said. Mr Albanese struck a similar tone. "As neighbours, friends and family, the bonds between our countries, our economies, and our communities are unmatched," he said in a statement. As well as formal bilateral talks, Mr Albanese — who will be joined by his partner Jodie Haydon — is expected to meet with business leaders, attend an ANZAC memorial service and get a glimpse of nature. Ahead of the meeting, both leaders also highlighted their desire to boost economic ties. "With two-way trade of $32 billion, I look forward to discussing what more we can do as we tackle economic challenges on both sides of the Tasman," Mr Luxon said. Mr Albanese said he looked forward to discussing how the nations could "work together to build on our Single Economic Market, modernise the rules-based trading system, deepen our alliance, and back our Pacific partners". While both leaders have emphasised the long and close friendship between the countries, disagreements have emerged at previous meetings — including under other leaders — particularly over Australia's policy to deport Kiwi criminals, even if they have spent the vast majority of their life in Australia.
