BUSINESS

Ms LE (Fowler) (09:48): I second the motion of the member for Calare. I spoke last week about the good and the bad of this new world we're living in of artificial intelligence—its ability to make us work more efficiently and more productively but also its potential harm to humanity. Let me start with what artificial intelligence gets right.

It can reduce paperwork for small businesses, improve services and help people work more productively, if used well. For small-business owners in Fowler, that matters. A task that once took a day may take an hour.

Paperwork that kept someone at the kitchen table late at night can be dealt with before they open the shop in the morning. I, too, want the people of Fowler to have every safe AI tool that helps them compete, grow and spend more time with their families. I'm not here to stand in the way of that.

But a tool this powerful needs rules and guardrails. We are already seeing the harm. For a community like Fowler, the risk can be even greater.

More than six in 10 people in Fowler speak a language other than English at home. A scam can arrive in someone's first language sounding urgent and convincing while a legitimate warning does not reach them the same way and at the same speed. An increasing example is AI voice cloning imitating loved ones and demanding money.

Once that content spreads, it is hard to pull back. And when people cannot tell what is real, trust breaks down—trust in information, trust in institutions and trust in our democracy. That's why I support this motion and the member for Calare's bill.

It is not about banning AI; it is about keeping people in control of a powerful technology. The bill requires providers of certain advanced AI systems to maintain the ability to intervene, stop a system's outputs, suspend access, restrict dangerous uses or shut the system down when necessary. This is not a one-big-red-button action.

It is a graduated response—restrict a harmful capability; slow the system down; suspend access; move to a safe backup; shut it down when there is no safe alternative. That is not anti innovation; it is common sense. For example, many of you who use today's cars would have—my car at least has it—a reversing safety sensor.

So, when I'm reversing out of a car park or my driveway for instance, even though I can see an oncoming car, my car senses an oncoming car and automatically stops my car from reversing further. That way, we do not collide, or there's a prediction that we can collide. Sometimes, it's annoying to use, because I think I have my driving under control.

But it has been designed to protect me and others from a mistake that I may not see coming. So we accept that safety feature because we understand the cost of getting it wrong. If we expect safety systems in cars on our driveways, surely we should expect meaningful safety systems from the companies developing the most powerful technology of our time.

There's also a physical side to the AI revolution—data centres, as the member for Calare mentioned. AI does not exist only on our screen; it needs enormous infrastructure, using electricity and water and land. Australia has around 165 operational data centres, with at least 225 more proposed or under development, and they are being fast-tracked before any legislation to safeguard them is in place.

They are being built as we speak. Much of that growth is in New South Wales and Victoria. At least two data centres have been approved in Fowler, with more proposed.

People deserve answers. Who pays for the electricity, the water and the infrastructure? Can the government guarantee that Fowler families will not face higher power bills?

This needs to be addressed, and the member for Calare has done so in this bill. I welcome innovation. But innovation must serve the people, not leave them behind.

And this bill is a sensible step towards responsible planning, stronger safeguards and putting ethics back into infrastructure like data centres and AI development. We need to have that in place, and we have to do that—if we're taking the lead in the world with other legislation, such as the banning of social media for under-16s, surely this is more critical.

This will have wider impact on our community and our society. That is how we can make AI work for Australians. Rather than asking Australians to simply adjust to AI, we need to ensure that the Australian public can trust this new technology that's being rolled out so fast in front of us.

Thank you.