NewsWrap: Crossing the blurred lines of the AI inquiry

When does the government’s input into a parliamentary inquiry cross the line to be more accurately characterised as interference? Well, the lines are blurred, but it probably occurs at the point where the Prime Minister’s office is caught marking up a committee’s recommendations.

That’s what played out this week on the Joint Select Committee on AI, where a draft of a letter to Anthony Albanese was heavily vetted by staff in his office before it was issued in its final form.

The letter – already highly peculiar for a parliamentary inquiry, even one with such a tight turnaround – also later turned out to have originated in the PM’s office. So much for the separation of powers.

Independent senator David Pocock raised the alarm shortly after the letter, which set out recommendations in “areas of consensus”, according to committee chair Jo Briskey, was circulated on Monday night.

His main objection was what was left out of the letter. That includes many of the concerns repeatedly raised by creatives about changing copyright laws to allow AI training in Australia.

The letter does touch on copyright but treats it as a problem to be solved. Yet the question is far from settled even in permissive jurisdictions like the US, where lawsuits are still working their way through the courts.

For the senator, who has won few fans in government for questioning what has been a largely secretive reform process amid persistent lobbying by the AI giants, this is as close to a “stitch up” as it gets.

“After this, I am increasingly concerned that the work of this committee is being used to serve a political purpose rather than provide genuine parliamentary scrutiny and policy input,” he said earlier this week.

Both the chair and deputy chair Liberal senator Jonathon Duniam, who is retiring from parliament this year, meanwhile see it differently, even a “hallmark” of the lawmaking process.

“This is an example of the Parliament working well. There’s been no guidance, no interference. There has been a lot of discussion, a lot of consultation,” Senator Duniam said on Tuesday.

They found support from Communications minister Anika Wells, who played down the significance when she was asked the same question after introducing her digital duty of care laws in parliament.

“I think the office gets consulted, but it’s a complete back and forth because there’s always lots of different people on the committee,” Ms Wells told the National Press Club on Thursday.

“But what’s the purpose here? The purpose is to get the best outcome possible. Don’t you want everybody invested in that, working in where they can?”

The message here seems to be that as long as you have good intentions, find bipartisan support for what you’re doing and, most importantly, remember to remove your markups from any documents, you’re all sweet.

But if the government vetted the committee’s recommendations, or drafted them, as has been reported, that raises genuine questions of improper interference under rules governing parliamentary privilege.

A genuine separation of powers requires just that: a separation between the executive and the legislature. That doesn’t go away just because the government has done months of work on the topic, or years if you count the work of former industry minister Ed Husic.

Lawyers with expertise in parliamentary privilege and public law contacted by InnovationAus.com were reluctant to weigh in on the quagmire this week, unsure whether the line had been crossed. Perhaps that is the problem.

Not everyone was so cautious. Mr Husic, the outspoken Labor MP who is leading his own inquiry into technology and productivity, offered a plainer verdict on Wednesday.

“If we’re going to do an inquiry, the expectation is it’s done thoroughly,” the outspoken Labor MP, who is leading his own inquiry into technology and productivity,” he told the ABC’s Afternoon Briefing.

“Normally, the process would be: if you want to do an interim report, you do a report, and the secretariat gets involved and it puts it together, and the committee has a chance to go through it and make sure that it’s a thorough response.

“So, you know, I can understand why there would be some discomfort about, you know, a letter being put forward in the way that it was done. If you’re going to do it, do it right.”

It is one thing to take advice. It is quite another to mark your own homework.

We can only hope that when it comes time for the committee’s final report, the government does a better job of staying out of the margins.

Stories that shaped the week:

Do you know more? Contact James Riley via Email.