The Productivity Commission recommends AI-specific regulations only when the tech is beyond existing rules. The research establishment is not having it. In contrast, the peak universities industrial relations lobby suggests government will regulate best when it intervenes least. In a submission to the PC’s interim digital productivity report, the AI Institute at Uni NSW calls the commission “overly cautious” and announces its approach is “insufficiently aligned with the scale of transformation required.”
“Without bold intervention, Australia risks becoming a passive importer of foreign AI systems, with implications for jobs, competitiveness, privacy, national security, and ultimately productivity.”
Instead, the Institute backs the Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering and the National Reconstruction Fund, calling for sovereign capability, lest dependence on imported technology, “suppresses innovation” and will “create a structural productivity deficit.”
What AI UNSW asks for includes:
- Public investment in infrastructure, “beyond the bounds” of NCRIS
- Locally-trained foundation models for data, dialects, and public-interest domains
- Protect Australian copyrights
- A national AI safety institute
In contrast, the Australian Higher Education Industrial Association (AHEIA) welcomes the PC’s “prudent and proportionate” proposals.
AHEIA argues the existing industrial relations system will cover consultation between its members and their staff and enthuses, “AI is already enhancing productivity and improving staff contribution in student and research outcomes.”
And it warns against, “an overreach in regulation” to ensure “interventions are evidence-based and proportionate.”