SUBJECTS: Copyright and AI; Misinformation; Modern Slavery; Family and Domestic Violence.
SALLY SARA, HOST: Returning to federal politics and the Prime Minister has used a major speech on artificial intelligence to warn large tech companies that they must pay to use the work of artists or journalists to train their models.
GRAB: Australian writers, musicians, artists, and journalists must retain ownership and control of their work. No company should use Australian books, music, art or news, to build or train AI without the artist’s control, and that includes the artist’s control of the price and value of their work.
SARA: That’s the Prime Minister, Anthony Albanese, speaking in Sydney yesterday. Well, Michelle Rowland is the Federal Attorney-General and joins me now. Attorney, welcome back to Radio National Breakfast.
MICHELLE ROWLAND, ATTORNEY-GENERAL: Good morning.
SARA: Firstly, can I just ask you to explain to listeners why does AI challenge existing copyright laws and require a new approach?
ROWLAND: Well, in two key ways. Firstly, the sheer scale of what these AI ingestion models, you know, large language models, and how they process that information. The key here is that this is content that has been created by others. It is covered, as you say, in Australia, by our copyright regime, but the sheer scale and the way in which this technology has developed is, indeed, like nothing the world has ever seen. But to the second point, countries around the world are grappling with this. In the United States, there are literally hundreds of cases that are on foot at the moment about what constitutes fair use. In some countries, in the UK, for example, there was consideration of imposing text and data mining exceptions so that AI could be capable of using this work to train their models. It is an issue that governments, regulators, and the artistic community, creatives right around the world, are grappling with. I think the Prime Minister’s conviction, in which he stated that the issues that will underpin our copyright regime, should permanently demonstrate that we take very seriously, the issue of culture and the ownership of control, but also that we want investment in this country, and we want workable solutions in an AI age.
SARA: A basic tech and legal question, how does a writer or artist know that their work is being used to train AI models?
ROWLAND: Well, often not, but in some cases, as has been exposed by The Atlantic, you can go to a database and see whether or not it’s being used. So, in some cases, it comes as a surprise to those artists. But again, this is one which is an area that’s obviously rapidly developing, and a key here is how do we ensure that artists are properly recompensed for their work.
SARA: You’ve ruled out a total exemption from copyright for AI companies, mining data to train their models. Are you open to considering some sort of flat fee or minimum payment for data mining?
ROWLAND: Well, look, we’ve ruled out a text and data mining exception. We’re not revisiting that decision. We’re not going to settle for an outcome that trades away Australian rightsholders’ control and payment for their work.
SARA: There are also risks posed by the use of AI in a variety of contexts that intersect with your portfolio, including the ability to create realistic images and videos to spread disinformation or to harm individuals. Will you revisit plans to enact new laws, to combat disinformation?
ROWLAND: Well, we made it clear at the time when the Senate rejected those proposed provisions that we would not be revisiting them, and that hasn’t changed. The harm, however, is still there, and that’s the way in which we view disinformation. If I can give you practical examples for your listeners, one of the key areas where people, particularly vulnerable people, are being harmed is through scams. These are old problems that are turbocharged by AI. Our opponents in the Senate rejected taking legislative action on this, but we continue to undertake our scams framework – really important initiatives in this area. But, again, I think it just points to the fact that the harm lens is one that the Prime Minister is very focussed on, and that includes harms when it comes to technology, and particularly its impact on young people, the kind of harms that can arise from nudify apps, for example, in the use of AI to undertake child sexual abuse. All of these areas still remain huge risks and are turbocharged in an AI environment.
SARA: On another matter, you’ve announced today you’ll create a new criminal offence targeting larger companies which fail to prevent modern slavery in their supply chains. Earlier this year, the US announced it was planning to impose a tariff on goods from Australia, alleging that this country had failed to take adequate action on prevention of slavery and forced labour. Are these two matters connected?
ROWLAND: Well, firstly, your listeners may not be aware that we’ve actually had modern slavery legislation in place in terms of it being a reporting requirement for businesses since 2018. So, this is the first time that this legislation has been opened up in the way it is. But the important thing about what we are announcing here is that big businesses – so these laws apply to businesses over $100 million – need to demonstrate that they have taken action to prevent modern slavery in their supply chains. This has been a long period of consultation, extensive reports, both with industry and with advocates. But on the issue of tariffs, we have consistently made the case to the United States that any tariffs on Australian products are unjustified. They’re inconsistent with our bilateral free trade agreement. What we’ve announced today, in terms of our modern slavery reforms, they follow extensive consultation, and I think that they will be widely welcomed by Australians, who don’t want their supply chains in which they are consumers, to be tainted by modern slavery.
SARA: On a separate issue, there’s been widespread anguish and outrage at a spate of deadly domestic violence incidents around the country in the past week or so, including four alleged murders of women and girls in four days. There are calls for a royal commission from some in the sector into this. Does the government have a better idea on how to end this epidemic of violence?
ROWLAND: Firstly, I acknowledge the pain and anguish that so many Australians are feeling at this time, not only for those people and families who are involved, but also the traumatising impacts that this has on victim-survivors. In the last couple of weeks, and indeed even yesterday, I’ve been conducting round tables in my role as Attorney-General on the next action plan to prevent violence against women and children, and particularly countering child sexual exploitation. It is very clear, from stakeholders that we are dealing with, that this is an enormous problem. We shouldn’t shy away from that. But we also know that there has been deep expertise gathered over the years, and we need to operationalise that expertise in everything from ensuring that we have victim-centric models, that they are trauma informed, that we reform, where necessary, our family laws system. In all of these areas, we are taking action now. I acknowledge the views of many stakeholders, some of which are divergent. But again, I would just point to the enormous efforts that have been put in right across the government to combat this scourge.
SARA: Attorney-General, thank you for joining me this morning.
ROWLAND: Pleasure.
