A Parliamentary inquiry that heard evidence of rising worker surveillance, excessive data collection and unfair automated decision tools has called for artificial intelligence in the workplace to be classified as “high risk” and subject to strict mandatory regulation.
The inquiry has also called on the government to ban similar high-risk use of worker data, reform privacy and employment laws to protect workers, develop a code of practice for AI and automated decision-making (ADM) in the workplace, and review awards for jobs being disrupted.
The protections should be complemented by awareness, employee consultation, and responsible adoption of emerging technologies, the inquiry found, so Australia can also take advantage of the benefits of the technologies.
Unions welcomed the recommendations from the House of Representatives Employment committee on Wednesday, saying workers need to share in the benefit of digital transformation and emerging technologies.
But the business lobby lashed the findings, warning some of the changes would increase “union power by stifling innovation”.
The inquiry was launched last April to examine how AI and ADM are being used in workplaces, and the possible safeguards to guide development and use.
“This inquiry found that the digital transformation has exposed significant risks, including gaps in Australia’s regulatory frameworks and workplace protections. This is especially the case with data and privacy,” the committee’s final report said.
It makes 21 recommendations, including treating AI as high risk when it is used in employment areas like recruitment, referral, hiring, remuneration, promotion, training, apprenticeship, transfer or termination.
The committee made the recommendation in anticipation of upcoming ‘guardrails’ being developed for a risk-based regulatory scheme for AI, and expects it would force employers to “take specific steps across the AI lifecycle”.
The committee also recommended reforms to privacy law and the Fair Work Act to protect worker data and privacy.
“There has been a surge in employers collecting worker data, and concerns around its use,” the report said. “The Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) could also be amended to improve transparency, accountability and procedural fairness regarding the use of AI and ADM in the workplace. Employers must be held accountable for ADM or AI-driven decision making.”
The Finance Sector Union, which warned the inquiry of a lack of AI oversight in its sector and its potential to turbocharge unethical behaviour, welcomed the committee findings.
“Many of the recommendations of today’s report reflect what finance sector workers are calling for,” FSU national assistant secretary Nicole McPherson said.
“This includes stronger protections for workers against workplace surveillance – which our members tell us is pervasive in their workplaces.
“We support the recommendations for new worker consultation measures, rights for workers to control their own data, controlling the use of AI in high-risk settings, and greater transparency on employer liability around the use of AI.”
ACTU assistant secretary Joseph Mitchell said new technologies must benefit all Australians, not just businesses.
“Too often, we have seen AI used by multinational giants to undermine workers’ wages and conditions. Whether it’s workplace surveillance or using algorithms to sack workers, bosses should be accountable for decisions made using AI models and tools,” he said.
“Workers deserve greater transparency over AI adoption and the collection of personal data by their bosses. There should be no decision about us without us.”
Business Council of Australia CEO Bran Black said the case had not been made for award or employee entitlement changes and the report’s recommendations risk “allowing unions to dictate decisions about workplace technology”.
“Harnessing the power of technologies like AI is imperative to fixing sluggish productivity growth and we need sensible regulations that safeguard communities, while also fostering a culture of innovation,” Mr Black said.
“At a time when we have significant productivity challenges, this union-backed approach will simply add more red tape and slow down technology take up — ultimately this is bad for workers and bad for business.”
Do you know more? Contact James Riley via Email.