Prime Minister, thanks for joining us at the end of this Labor conference.
So, a young Anthony Albanese once came along to these conferences with an aim to change minds and change the party platform. Have you heard anything here these last few days that's going to shift your position on anything?
Well, what we've had is really constructive engagement and deliberations done in full public view, broadcast live with 400 delegates, 400 proxies having their say about the range of issues that will then feed into the government's short as well as long-term aspirations. That's the role of the conference here, and it's been really constructive. And it's been good to get that input from working people, from union delegates, from people who are in workplaces hearing about what's going on right around Australia about the full range of economic, social, environmental issues.
But is there anything that's changed your mind on anything?
Well, our government does listen to people, but there's broad consensus about the direction in which we're taking the government. We're a government that doesn't sit idle. We don't just occupy the space, and there's recognition of that from delegates. We are a united party. We're cohesive. There is broad agreement about our general direction. We know who we are and what we stand for and the direction in which we want to take the country, and that stands in stark contrast with the chaos on the other side of politics.
There was one debate on the floor of the conference. It may have only been the only debate that there should be a conscience vote in the parliament on whether telehealth consultations can be used for voluntary assisted dying. Where do you stand on this?
Well, it's a conscience vote, but I haven't changed my position on that. I'm a supporter of voluntary euthanasia. I think it is important that people have the right to die with dignity, but it's also important that protections be placed around it. Now, if someone has a heart attack or an acute health condition, they need a doctor. They can't do that over Telehealth. And I think that someone ending their life is just as important, and I think that it should be face-to-face recognition and face-to-face engagement because otherwise, from our perspective, what that would do as well is undermine voluntary assisted dying.
So, you're opposed to using Telehealth for voluntary assisted dying.
That's my position. These are very personal decisions, so that's why it's a conscience vote. So, I respect the fact that there are different views on this.
I've been approached. I've had some discussions about it. But I'm yet to be convinced that any move down that track. My concern is that the potential for misuse, but also the potential that it has to undermine the system in itself.
But will you allow the parliament a conscience vote on this? Will this come forward to the parliament now?
Well, that's a matter for government to determine.
Well, the Labor Party has said it should.
But governments determine what governments do around our cabinet table. What the conference does is put a general direction of what they want, and it's clear that it is a matter of conscience, all of those issues, so...
But it's clear that the Labor Party platform now says there should be a vote in the parliament. You can't defy that, can you?
We can make decisions as a government. That's what we do.
And the Labour Party platform also says that it's a conscience vote.
So, will you allow it or not?
On these issues, well, that will be a matter for conscience.
I have a position and I haven't changed that position, but you know, colleague.
Will you allow the vote in the party?
Colleagues, what I will allow is for colleagues to express a view.
About what processes should occur.
So, that's now for the caucus to decide.
Well, it's up to the cabinet to decide, our government, and cabinet makes decisions after and in consultation with the caucus. We're a very orderly government, Dave.
That's one of the things that has put us in good stead over the last 4 years, and as we go forward, my government will continue to be an orderly cabinet level government that engages not just with the caucus, but importantly as well, engages outside with business, with unions, with civil society on all of these issues.
Okay. Look, there's been an important debate leading up to and during the conference over artificial intelligence. You gave a major speech on this as well in the lead-up. A few days ago, there was a fascinating moment where an autonomous open AI model went rogue during a test. What did you think of that? Are you worried about AI reaching the point where it's making autonomous decisions and doing its own thing and starting to hack data logs?
Of course, and this is one of the reasons why we need to have Australian standards for AI and why we need to shape change. AI is here. It's having an impact on the way that we work, on the way that we function, on the way that the media functions as well. And we need to make sure that humans are in control of it. That was one of...
Can you? I mean, can this example seem to suggest humans can't always control?
To make sure that that occurs and that is why there are defense and security related issues here.
And what are they? Because I was keen for your thoughts on the national security implications here.
Well, national security implications are serious. One of the advantages that we have as a country in setting not just national standards for us, but I think in potentially leading the world is we are a five eyes country. And that puts us in a strong position. Now, we know that with defense we're actually seeing it on the ground or in the sky in the Ukraine-Russia conflict, the role that AI is increasingly playing. You can have better targeted, more efficient, more timely use of defense issues both offensive and defensive with artificial intelligence. So, all of these issues all need to be debated. And we do need humanity to be at the center of it. That was the reason why I think the Pope gave his first papal encyclical on these issues saying that we can't afford as a society for human beings to be left out of this process. We need to be front and center. We need to be in control of it and that is something that my speech at Sydney University was about elevating...
But we also need to make sure Australia's got the best AI because Anthropic has put some restrictions on access to its most powerful model, the Mythos model. Will Australia get access to that?
Well, we're in discussions with Anthropic and other companies as well. The speech that I gave was about setting parameters for that. We want to make sure that the Australian standards include issues of energy use, water use, location, but also that they protect our sovereignty rather than undermine it. These are complex issues. One of the reasons why I will take the issues to the national cabinet next month in August. We'll develop legislation that I'll introduce at the beginning of next year. Hopefully, we might do an exposure draft at the end of the year as well. And we've already got the office of artificial intelligence up and running in the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet.
Just coming back to the conference, your former minister, Ed Husic, has been pushing various changes at the conference, including much stronger condemnation of Israel. He didn't get his way. He says he's disappointed. There wasn't debate over this on the floor of the conference and was surprised at the pushback. Were you keen to avoid a debate over whether Israel has committed genocide?
Well, there has been contributions on the floor of the conference, including from Josh Burns and Bassam Abdoh. Two people who are considered in their approach, two people who recognize that it's in the interests of both Israelis and Palestinians to have peace and security in the Middle East. We want to see a two-state solution. We want to see Israelis and Palestinians living side-by-side. And we want to see that issue advanced. There's been like-minded partners have a similar approach, whether it be the UK, Canada, European allies as well, or indeed countries in our region. But what do you say to that push to have a recognition of Israeli genocide in the party platform?
Look, what I say is that the party platform has got the balance right. And what we need to do is to make sure that we as a country this is a conflict a fair way away from us but that everything that we do is balanced that we say that I support the right of Israel to exist within secure borders. I also support the legitimate aspirations of Palestinians for their own state and to live in peace and security with prosperity. Now we want to see that coming together in Australia can play a role in promoting harmony rather than conflict and that is a role that I want our government to continue to play.
What about the role Ed Husic has played at this conference more broadly not just on this issue? Is he helping or hurting the Labor Party?
Ed like every other delegate has a right to come along and to pursue whatever they say is or see as their objective and that's fine by me.
You got no problem with what he's been doing?
I've no problem with any delegates of the conference having their say and making their contribution.
But they're being managed so that it's not happening on the floor of the conference, right?
