‘Tech bros get all the benefits’: Mixed reactions to Productivity Commission’s AI report

The Productivity Commission’s recent AI report has stirred the industrial relations pot ahead of the Economic Reform Roundtable just weeks away.

“Short-sighted”, “sensible”, and “reckless” are some of the mixed reactions that have poured in across the Australian workplace about the Productivity Commission’s (PC) recent AI report.

In just under two weeks, business and union leaders will be congregating at Treasurer Jim Chalmers’ Economic Reform Roundtable to debate what Australia’s economic and productivity pathway forward should look like – with AI and innovation slated as a discussion point on day two.

What was already going to be a heated subject of debate for the differing attendees has now increased tenfold after the commission’s report emphasised the prioritisation of innovation and productivity over strenuous AI regulation.

“While governments should aim to mitigate the risk of serious harm, burdensome regulatory requirements can stifle innovation,” said the report.

“The policy challenge is that, if implemented poorly, privacy regulation can harm productivity – whether because compliance unduly burdens businesses or because it fails to protect the privacy interests of individuals, thereby undermining trust.

“The mere threat of regulation can hinder innovation if firms believe it may be overly onerous or its direction is highly uncertain. This can lead to firms holding off on investments into emerging technologies out of fear that forthcoming regulations will make the use of these technologies financially unviable.”

Sensible or short-sighted?

Australian Industry Group (Ai Group) chief executive Innes Willox welcomed the commission’s findings, reiterating that behaviours should be regulated, “not technology”.

“Many of the behaviours that are cited as risks of the use of AI, such as misinformation, discrimination and unfair practices, are already regulated under various pieces of existing regulation,” said Willox.

“Whether you are standing on a snake oil box, using a fax machine, or AI tools, misrepresenting your products and services is already prohibited.

“We need to have a mature conversation about access to data that both recognises the rights of private individuals and maximises the potential for the productivity uplift so often promised.”

Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU) assistant secretary Joseph Mitchell, who, along with Willox, will be attending the Treasurer’s roundtable, unsurprisingly lamented the commission’s findings, comparing the report’s recommendations to the United States’ current AI regulation stances.

“The Productivity Commission’s only ambition for Australia’s digital future seems to be that we turn ourselves into a mini version of the United States, where tech bros get all the benefits of the new technology and productivity benefits are not fairly shared,” said Mitchell.

“Rather than engage reasonably with the Australian public’s desire for appropriate regulatory responses to manage the risk of AI so that we can undertake this tech transition in a way that benefits all Australians, the Productivity Commission has taken a knee-jerk stance by asserting that any appropriate economy-wide regulatory response will hinder productivity.

“This report offers absolutely nothing to working people who want to get the benefits of AI in their work while being protected from its misuse by bad-faith actors …”

Business Council chief executive Bran Black claimed that the ACTU’s stance will mean that Australian businesses miss out on the numerous benefits AI can offer.

“AI can help us work smarter, not harder, supporting workers and businesses to spend more time on the things that matter most,” said Black.

“The PC has recommended a sensible middle ground approach to regulation, using existing laws to ensure the AI opportunity is realised while providing appropriate protections.

“History shows the ACTU’s approach of trying to cut off Australia from global technology change will not work, and it will simply mean our community misses out on the benefits.”

AI’s theft of art

Fearing a rollback of AI regulation standards needed to protect the work in their sector, the Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance (MEAA) accused the PC of throwing Australian artists “under the bus”.

“There are no recommendations in this report that protect Australian workers or creative assets,” said MEAA chief executive Erin Madeley.

“We know that Australian voices, music, and artwork have been scraped overseas, that ChatGPT is substituting the work of our journalists, and that AI-generated clone hosts have been used for radio programs – with no disclosure to audiences.

“Companies like Meta, which recorded $US165 billion in revenue last year, should be paying for the creative assets, works, and ideas that they have stolen, but that is not happening.

“That’s theft – plain and simple.”

The MEAA called on the government to “reject” the PC’s “short-sighted” outlook on AI regulation, with The Greens cosigning their concerns, arguing that “green lighting” AI would “rip off creators and spy on individuals”.

“Australia is becoming AI’s wild west while Europe, Canada and the UK build proper AI laws,” said Greens Senator and digital rights spokesperson David Shoebridge.

“People want to be able to say no to their personal information being used in training AIs, yet this report says their consent is less important than corporate profits. That is not thought leadership.

“This report confirms the Greens’ position that a standalone AI Act is needed with an AI Safety Commission to manage and regulate emerging risks. Leaving this critical sector to existing regulators and agencies like the Productivity Commission is already failing Australians.”

With tensions continuing to rise on what AI’s role should be in the Australian workplace, the conflict could be set to boil over at the economic roundtable on 19 August, despite Chalmers believing the agenda will “give us the best possible chance of building consensus on the direction of economic reform”.