ED HUSIC, MINISTER FOR INDUSTRY AND SCIENCE: Afternoon, everyone. Are we ready to go? Okay, in the absence of objection, good afternoon, everyone. It’s a real pleasure, I’m grateful that you could join with us today because we get to introduce our 10th and newest Chief Scientist, Tony Haymet. The Chief Scientist’s role, an important one, first created by Prime Minister Hawke back in 1989. It’s critical in helping advise government and help promote evidence-based policy development.

Let me say from the outset, Tony is an outstanding Australian who will make an exceptional Chief Scientist. While he’s very well-known and well respected in the science and research community both locally and abroad, I appreciate it might not necessarily be the case in the general public’s mind, so let me run through a few of his achievements and contributions.

Tony’s research experience, incredibly broad in oceanography, climate science, robotics and engineering. He has also got commercial runs on the board, successfully spun off his robotics inventions into the manufacture of marine robotics to monitor the health of the world’s oceans. And from our point of view, crucial experience given our Future Made in Australia agenda and our determination to turn great Australian ideas into secure, well-paid manufacturing jobs.

Tony is also an experienced leader and advocate here and around the world. Chief – he was chief of CSIRO’s Marine and Atmospheric Research Division as it was then known, Director and Vice-Chancellor of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography and University of California, San Diego, and Chair of the Antarctic Science Foundation and the Australian Academy of Technological Science and Engineering Climate Change Working Group.

Putting all that together, a stellar scientific career, deep commercial experience, leadership and advocacy. This is why I say I’m confident about his performance in the role as Chief Scientist and also confident he’ll hit the ground running and do a terrific job, championing science and research, scientists and researchers in this nation and championing their work not just hereby overseas, finding ways to commercialise know-how, being an independent voice to government as we work on the big issues facing our nation and, quite frankly, globally. And a big part of his job will be advising the National Science and Technology Council, which is chaired by the Prime Minister.

So there’s a lot to get on with, and I look forward to the energy and passion that Tony will bring, bringing over his expertise from past roles and shaping the Chief Scientist’s role to reflect those talents and skills.

And before we take questions I thought it would be great to have Tony speak up and reflect on his experience and obviously will want to say a few words in the new role. And congratulations again.

TONY HAYMET: Thank you, Minister. It’s a great honour and privilege to accept this role. It’s the job of a lifetime. And I hope that I can really contribute to Australia and the wellbeing of Australians. I do want to thank Cathy Foley, my predecessor, who’s done four years’ great service in the role. She has left things in very good condition. She was a great scientist at CSIRO when I was there and she’s gone on to even better things.

The 17th of October last year was an important day in my life. I was in Melbourne listening to the new fellows’ speeches from the ATSE academy, the Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering. And the minister was there for some of the time, and I heard three of the best talks I’ve ever heard. And over the coming months we’ll talk about those three talks. But the best one was about fairy circles out in the Pilbara and where Indigenous knowledge and western science had come together to explain why there are these perfect circles in bare dirt in the middle of the desert. They also happen in Africa. So if you’re curious about fairy circles, there’s a nice web page on the ATSE website about them. The other two talks you’ll have to ask me about.

What’s on the agenda for the Chief Scientist? Well, AI is a huge topic, and you’ve probably seen all of the hysteria about DeepSeek. I have to stop myself from saying “deep fake”. But DeepSeek is genuine and, you know, is really going to change our lives. Certainly, it’s changed the stock market. But it shows you the pace at which innovation and science and technology goes. Privately funded in Shanghai, a bunch of talented 22-year-olds without access to the world’s best chips, without access to Nvidia chaps, seem to have created something that’s even better than the best companies in the Western World have done. But it shows you how disruptive technology can be and how quickly things can happen.

So, I view AI as a great opportunity. I think it’s a great export opportunity for Australia because AI needs electricity and most of the world is demanding that we deliver AI with renewable electricity, and Australia is perfectly set up for that. No matter which way we decide to deliver that electricity, we can do it.

And so, we used to be a bit nerdy about it. We used the electrons here, and what we export is photons through the world wide web, through the optical fibre cables, so we’re not losing electrical energy by having deep sea cables to Singapore or wherever. We’re actually exporting the results of AI.

I think as Chief Scientist I’m going to be emphasising measurements, data and facts. I think that’s very important for Australia. We’ve got scientists out in our farms and deserts and Antarctica and measuring things in the ocean and atmosphere, and we need to use that data, figure out what it means and translate it into resources that our community can use.

And it feeds back on AI, because AI is a machine learning. It’s training itself, and you’ve got to make sure that what it’s training on is correct. And I think Australia has always been a leader in this kind of measurement and we need to be a leader in AI. And I think we’re already doing that.

Let me say, you know, there’s already entrepreneurs and big investors in Australia doing AI, so it’s not as though people are waiting for, you know, some magic person in government to press the go button. The government is already doing well, but, you know, AI is going to happen, no matter what we do. I think the key role and the role that only government can do is governance. And, you know, there are some dangers with AI, and that’s where I’m proud of Australia’s record of governance at the states and at the federal level, and I think we’ll be in good shape.

So there’s more to say about resilience and climate change, but I think I’ll leave it there, Minister, and be happy to take questions with you.

ED HUSIC: Terrific. Now, before we start, I know that there’s – I would love to think that all the questions we’ll be talking about today will just be on the Chief Scientist and science more broadly, which I would love, but I’m also a pragmatist, so what we might do is we’ll deal with the science-related – Chief Scientist role first and then we’ll move on to news of the day, if that’s okay. And then I’ll start here and then with Ben and then – okay. I’ll work my way through.

JOURNALIST: I have one for the Chief Scientist and then I’ll come back, I have one for you later, Minister.

ED HUSIC: Terrific.

JOURNALIST: Chief Scientist, you’ve just talked about artificial intelligence a lot. And obviously you mentioned Australia’s governance of AI. We’ve put a lot of effort into bringing together an AI governance structure, particularly the minister has. But what we’re seeing in the US and out of China with DeepSeek shows us how rapidly AI is moving and how sort of given it didn’t use the chips that the Biden administration has been working so hard to keep away from them – at least apparently – it just shows that there’s a bit of a wild west when it comes to the AI development. Is Australia risking being left behind by trying to govern too closely AI development?

TONY HAYMET: Not at all. I mean, as I say, Australia’s entrepreneurs are already creating very large companies. You know, I’m only aware of a fraction of them, but they’re already in existence. They’re hiring people in Sao Paulo to, you know, work for Australian companies. There’s big investment, you know, from big banks in Australia. So, we’re already up and running.

I think we have to find a niche. Obviously, there’s going to be, you know, huge investment from the EU and from the United States and from China. But I don’t think we should be afraid. I think we’re already doing great stuff.

You know, from my travels around the world and working overseas, I think we have a terrific governance regime. I think we’re going to be able to keep our community safer from the potential perils of AI than many other nations. So, I don’t have a concern that we’re going to be overregulated. I think we’re going to get it right.

ED HUSIC: Amanda, Ben, then Jane.

JOURNALIST: Yeah, just one for the Chief Scientist. So, we’ve seen Donald Trump say that the US is going to go to Mars. Do you think that that is a worthwhile endeavour, and do you think that it’s even possible?

TONY HAYMET: Well, I always answer this question by analogy with the deep sea. Almost all the data we’re going to get about the deep sea is from robots. The same is true of Mars – a lifeless, waterless rock out there in the sky. I’m being a bit facetious. But it is true that humans are inspired by these voyages of discovery. So, I helped – my scientists help support James Cameron go to the bottom of the Mariana Trench again – I think it was in 2012 – for the first time since, I don’t know, 1962. And Scripps Institution sent robots down alongside Jim, and we collected a whole lot of data. But really what we did for him was we filmed him being in the bottom of the Mariana Trench, the deepest spot in the world.

I think the same is true with Mars. You know, if it were me, I wouldn’t be emphasising getting to Mars. I know because of the orbits of the planets, there’s only a very short window in Mr Trump’s four years where you could, you know, send a piloted spacecraft to Mars. And I think that’s in 2026, and I don’t think they’re going to make it. But they are going to be able to send fantastic robots that tell us absolutely everything about what’s on Mars and what’s under the Martian surface and what used to be on Mars.

ED HUSIC: And check out elo2 in Brisbane, their work in the Roo-ver that’s designed to traverse some of the terrain in Mars.

Ben and then James.

JOURNALIST: Minister, just on DeepSeek, are there any concerns that you have that it’s China now that seems to have stolen the march and the potential leadership in AI development? And what do you see are the strategic implications of this for Australia and its Western partners?

ED HUSIC: I think – thank you for that question because it is very important. Can I just emphasise, if we take anything out of today it’s to shake the misconception that China has not been involved in the development of artificial intelligence until the last minute. The reality is, as you would be well aware, some of their country’s goals has been by 2025, that they would be a world leader in artificial intelligence. How do we know it? They said it in the middle of the last decade. They set those targets. Way back then I was talking about our need to be able to lean into the development of ethical frameworks around this. In particular, because of, you know, some of the challenges posed by the way in which AI might be used. The two biggest countries on the planet look to seize probably around 70 per cent of the economic gain through the application of AI in their economies. One of them is China and the other is the US, and they’ve both been working pretty hard in this space.

I think we’ve got an opportunity to work here as well, which is why last year – just picking up on the comments of the Chief Scientist about the entrepreneurialism that exists here, we’ve got about 650 – 650 – firms that are engaged. We can do more, and it’s why we announced in December last year we’d develop an AI capability plan to ramp up Australia’s work in this space and leverage things like the billion in critical tech funding that exists in the NRF, because we do need to get it right. Because the other element of your question on the strategic side, there are a range of civil and dual-use applications of AI that have to be contemplated and that we need to prepare for.

In terms of – you know, I know there’s been a lot of attention that’s been generated by DeepSeek today. The Chinese develop products in their ecosystem on the understanding that, you know, there’ll be appreciation by their consumers about approaches, for example, on data and privacy management, for instance. Do they translate in an exportable product that might get embraced elsewhere? I think that’s an open question.

JOURNALIST: So are you concerned about the use of DeepSeek for Australian users?

ED HUSIC: I think people will naturally gravitate towards that. I think there’ll be parallels to what you’ve seen with discussion around TikTok that emerge around DeepSeek as well. I wouldn’t be surprised if that emerges. But we’ll – let’s see how that plays out. Obviously they would have contemplated that in trying to export a product as well, but that will be on them to give assurances about that approach too.

But the reality is there is a race in the development of artificial intelligence. It’s been going on since the aftermath of the Second World War. It’s been in fits and starts, and we are seeing the latest chapter play out, you know, in this case on stock markets, but it will continue and it won’t – as the Chief Scientist said, this will continue. This will be something that we have to get accustomed to.

James.

JOURNALIST: Question for the Chief Scientist: obviously we’ve seen a lot of the US in AI, particularly through that Stargate announcement, $500 billion US. I wanted to ask you, I guess there are billions of dollars in investment in data centre – AI data centres – here in Australia that are slated. How do – what role does the Chief Scientist’s office play in helping to generate spill overs from those multibillion-dollar investments? And, secondly, if we manufacture electrons and export photons, as you say, data centres obviously can’t be powered down. They’re huge consumers of electricity. They can’t – intermittent power is not an option for them. Would you rule out looking at nuclear as a power source for these energy-hungry data centres?

TONY HAYMET: Thanks for the question. It’s a great one. I don’t rule out energy – any energy source. But we’re going to need power for our AI data centres tomorrow, you know, next year, over the next five years. So I’m looking at the slate of energies that are going to be available to help us right now. I mean, if we wait until we perfect wave energy or nuclear fusion or, you know, some other source of power, we’re going to miss the bus.

I think Australia is in a great situation in that our resources are scaleable. So, you know, things may change a little bit under the current US administration, but all over Europe and the rest of the world people want AI that’s made with renewable energy, and we can scale up our cheap renewable energy – solar, wind, any other source you want to do it. But we’re going to have to do it quickly.

The other – I mean, you asked what the Chief Scientist can do. I mean, one thing I think – I mean, there are some things that the Chief Scientist supports, and AI is probably one of those. There are other things that the Chief Scientist can aspire to lead, and those are things that the government of the day directs me to do. But I think there’s a lot of waste heat from AI servers. So one of the things that I – I’m a thermodynamicist by training – forgive me for, you know, reverting to type. I think Australia’s in a position to think of clever ways to use that heat, whereas a lot of the rest of the world it's a nuisance, how do you get rid of the heat from your AI servers. So that’s how we’ll play it.

JOURNALIST: Just on –

ED HUSIC: Hang on a second. I’m just going to move this around a bit, so Ron gets a go, because I think Josh wants to ask about waste heat in data centres, do you, Josh?

JOURNALIST: Could I ask about AI regulation here in Australia?

ED HUSIC: Sure.

JOURNALIST: Minister, you’ve been laying out options for a couple of months now about what Australia might do, potentially an AI act here. Whereas in America we’ve been seeing Trump sort of moving sort of in the other direction, looking to take some of the guardrails away, large amounts of investment into, you know, open AI and so forth. How does that, you know – those sort of global trends, how does that bode for, I guess, the government’s plans here to put more guardrails on AI companies and what of your idea for an AI act?

ED HUSIC: Okay. Governments – there’ll be governments of different persuasions, different countries reflecting different realities on the ground in their neck of the woods that will make calls that are best placed for their national interest. We have been saying – and I don’t think we’re alone – in being able to identify, one, the concerns the public have about the unfettered application of artificial intelligence, what does that mean, are there areas where we think there are some risks, and we need to be able to identify those and work with those. And then also I’m a big believer that the application of AI can help in terms of not just economic but social benefit as well. So if we get that right it will be a huge benefit to countries.

So from our point of view, Josh, to answer your question, we’ve been going through that consultation process. We’ve welcomed the input that we’ve got. We are now in the final stages of developing what the shape of that regulatory response will be. The US is flagging their approach. The EU has theirs. Canada likewise will have a different approach. And our regional partners as well are looking at this. And so we will do – as I’ve often said, we will harmonise where we can and we’ll localise where we have to, and that’s the approach that we will take.

JOURNALIST: Does it mean –

ED HUSIC: Sorry, I’m just going to go – sorry, to give everyone a chance, then I’ll come back for second rounds.

JOURNALIST: Thanks, Minister. Australia obviously has guardrails against Chinese telecommunications technology in our 5G network.

ED HUSIC: Yep.

JOURNALIST: A bit of a follow-up to Ben’s question, is something like that conceivable in AI considering the whole world is going to change because of AI in the coming decades?

ED HUSIC: At this stage I’d say it’s too early to make that call. We’ll obviously remain open minded. We’ll clearly be informed by the advice of national intelligence community in relation to threats as they might present at different points in time. How do we respond, how do we shape up that response, we’ll take that on board and deal with it then.

JOURNALIST: This one to you, Professor. You talked about emphasising facts and data. To you, where do the facts stand on small modular reactors as technology? Can they play a role in our energy mix and get us to net zero?

TONY HAYMET: Well, I was quoted as saying I’d like to go and see one. I mean, the fact that I can’t means that they don’t exist yet. Look, you know that I used to work for CSIRO, and so you may not be surprised to hear that I think the CSIRO report is a very fine piece of work. I don’t know of any mistakes in it. And if you do, please let me know.

Having been inside CSIRO, I see the care and the diligence that goes into these reports. You know, when I worked in universities, you know, as a professor, you write up your paper, you send it in for peer review by other people. In CSIRO it goes around a complete, rigorous internal review where all your toughest critics are jumping on you. And that’s what’s happened to that report. And that’s why I think it’s proved to be so robust.

So I think the evidence is not looking positive in the short term. I will venture that I think – you know, I said yesterday that I lived 40 kilometres south of the San Onofre nuclear reactor. Just to be correct about the data, it was 40 miles – I apologise for the units. But that reactor was – and my scientists did work for that reactor, looking at the faults underneath the reactor. It was decommissioned after 18 years. You know, if you want to look at a nice story, look at what happened to it on the 11th of September 2011, the great California-Mexico blackout.

You know, there’s a couple of questions, and I think the people that build nuclear reactors would say this to you: they have two problems. They have to prove that they can build one on budget and on time. And I know they’re willing to accept that challenge, but that’s an ongoing thing that you’ve seen all the data in the literature. And the second thing is they’ve got to work on their social licence to operate. So just look at when Fukushima happened, when did TEPCO, the Tokyo company, admit that they’d had three separate meltdowns? It wasn’t until two weeks after they’d happened. And our society just won’t tolerate that anymore.

And if you go back and look at Chernobyl and Three Mile Island and so on, there wasn’t enough transparency and openness. And, again, I think the nuclear industry has accepted the fact that they have to rebuild their social licence to operate. You know, for the next Chief Scientist in 2030, 2040, I think you can re-ask your question.

ED HUSIC: We’ll give you some time.

Olivia, and then I think Amanda wanted another question and Josh.

JOURNALIST: I’ve got one for you, too, Chief Scientist. President Trump has pulled out of the Paris Agreement. In your view, what does that mean for the global effort to reach the Paris Agreement goals? Is it a disaster waiting to happen? And can you kind of speak to what opportunities there are for Australia in that?

And, Minister, if I can ask you about DeepSeek – I also keep going to say “deep fake”. Can you – are you concerned about censorship that Chinese – that the Chinese model is seeking to impose by not allowing users to look – get answers on Tiananmen Square, alleged human rights abuses?

ED HUSIC: Okay, do you want to go first and then I’ll answer the soft log?

TONY HAYMET: Okay. Look, last year in the northern hemisphere the concentration of CO2. increased more than it ever has. So not only have we reached the point we hoped for – to stay below 1.5 agrees global warming – by beginning to roll over that Keeling Curve – my colleague David Keeling – but we’ve been increasing the rate of CO2. So that’s in the northern hemisphere, and, you know, there’s an interesting story about how long it takes for that CO2.. to get down to us in the southern hemisphere. But, you know, that’s the challenge of our government and every government. We really have to convince the northern hemisphere to stop emitting the CO2.

Now, the US has been doing a great job of that. They’ve been ramping down coal at a great rate. If you look at US emissions they’ve been going down, not by any particular actions of the President, just because financial reasons it’s cheaper to use renewable energy and a bit more gas. So if you drive across Texas today, you’ll just see huge wind farms and huge solar energy installations. So actually I think the economics Trump’s – if you’ll forgive the expression – you know, presidential decrees.

And, really, you know, coming from an intuition that’s been measuring CO2 since 1958, four years doesn’t seem that long. I think – you asked about opportunities for Australia, you know, we have to meet our goals. Every political party in Australia has goals. But we have four sectors. We have electricity, we have liquid fuel, we have mining and minerals and steelmaking and we have agriculture. The first three we’ve got great science and technology. I think we have huge opportunities in agriculture, and we need to in order to reduce the methane and CO2 that we make just by growing our food. But that’s an export possibility for us, because all other countries that are trying to meet their Paris targets have exactly the same problem with agriculture. So we have a great track record of innovation in agriculture, and I think you’ll see that we do the same in reducing greenhouse emissions.

ED HUSIC: I’m going to walk past the fact that you wouldn’t for a twofer – getting two questions in one. I’ll answer very quickly. I guess there are two – funnily enough – ways to respond. I think people’s individual experiences with particular products will guide them as to whether or not they stay with it or go elsewhere. I think with a lot of generative AI and the products we’ve seen, I think, you know, to be completely frank, even ChatGPT in its early generations of its product would acknowledge that quality wasn’t always meeting customer expectation as well and they keep refining. I don’t think that is a static thing that cannot be resolved. They’re always looking to improve the way technology worked, and I suspect that might be the case with anything else that follows afterwards.

So there will be an element of it from a consumer’s point of view about what they trust. But we’ve also seen people take up, even though there’s been a discussion that we’ve all had about some of the challenges posed by generative AI, people have still gone and used it. So consumers will vote with their feet, as it will.

Whether there are – similar to my answer to Tom – I would say, you know, if there is anything that presents a risk in the national interest, we will always keep an open mind and watch who occurs. I think it’s too early to jump to conclusions on that. But, again, if we have to act, then responsible governments do.

Amanda – sorry, Olivia, yes, and then Amanda, sorry.

JOURNALIST: Thank you. In the past couple of days we’ve heard US President Donald Trump suggest that 1.5 million Palestinians be cleaned out of Gaza and taken in by neighbouring countries such as Jordan and Egypt. What did you make of those remarks, and were you concerned at all with his language?

ED HUSIC: Can I emphasise countries will take their positions, as we have. We have said our priority is on full implementation of the ceasefire deal, including the release of the remaining hostages. We’re supportive of all efforts globally to build on the momentum of the ceasefire deal because we think it’s in the best interests of long-term peace throughout the region. It’s long been – well, it’s been our view certainly that one of the best ways to end the cycle of violence that we’ve witnessed is through a two-state solution. It is a day of mixed emotions for people in Israel and in Gaza. Obviously in Gaza you’re seeing elation from people being able to reunite with loved ones and re-enter. And I think that is an important moment for Palestinians. But I also feel very heavily for the families of the eight of the 20 hostages that cannot be reunited because they died while being held captive, being held hostage.

I’ve said from the start, Olivia, that I feel strongly that Hamas has to be held to account for the brutality and the depravity of October 7. That should absolutely occur. I think it’s in our best interest not just on the ground in Gaza and in Israel but I think globally there is a desire to see a resolution that is sustainable and durable, peaceful and allows Palestinians and Israelis – ordinary Palestinians and Israelis – to go about their lives, pursue their ambitions for their families and their loved ones and to do so without feeling that weight of fear.

So Amanda, Josh and I’ll come back there

JOURNALIST: Just back on the –

ED HUSIC: And then we’re going to wrap it up after these questions, because I think –

JOURNALIST: Just back on the nuclear question, do you think that the current debate around nuclear, particularly when it comes to perhaps comments that the opposition has made around the CSIRO and their reporting, do you think that that is undermining trust in scientific institutions in this country?

TONY HAYMET: Well, I think we should have a civil debate about it. Look, the minister has described my approach as curiosity, and that’s actually the way it is. You know, when I talked to the Australian Financial Review yesterday, I mentioned three forms of energy – one is wave energy, and Australia has probably the greatest wave resource in Australia, and also fusion, that other way of doing nuclear energy, which doesn’t make waste, you know, which has been around since 1946, and no-one’s got it to work. But there’s a company in Massachusetts, Commonwealth Fusion – not the commonwealth of Australia, but the commonwealth of Massachusetts – that’s actually building one. They’ll work on it. But that’s the way science goes.

So there are actually lots of candidate energies that might be great for Australia, you know, once they’re built, once we’ve paid the cost of developing and, you know, eventually building them and then deploying them. The trouble they all have, including my favourites, is they’re up against an incredibly cheap competitor in solar and wind. And that is really the commercial factor arresting those energies.

But as we see, you know, there may be some bright spark who figures out how to get one of these forms of energies to work, and then Australia will be in great shape. I have to say, I’m looking at the things – I mean, sustainable biofuels is another one – where Australia as a natural advantage. Now, we have an advantage in sustainable biofuels and in wave energy, if it comes to that and in solar and wind. So, you know, I’m putting a much greater share of my energy into those things that are really special to Australia.

ED HUSIC: I’ve avoided – we’ll go one, two, three and then final questions, if you don’t mind. But I’ve avoided jumping in on some of the questions, but I wouldn’t mind just on this one very quickly – we get a lot of – you know, I think I – you know, it’s understandable you phrased the question the way you did. There are three groups represented in this room right now – there’s your good selves, there’s my vocation and there’s his. I’ll tell you what – his vocation, got a lot of trust. And there’s a reason for that. People have trusted science. And I don’t just say that as a feel-good sentiment, but you actually look at it. We went through once-in-a-generation event in a pandemic. We developed a vaccine. People globally worked together to develop a vaccine, and it was developed in record time and tested and rolled out and saved lives, and people put their trust in that. And it speaks to a great volume about what people do back in terms of their scientists and the work that they do.

And I completely understand that there’ll be controversial things said from time to time designed to undermine the science or undermine science more broadly. The reality is our science and researchers are held in high regard. And the other reality is, too, Australian ideas matter. They get picked up globally and they get used elsewhere, and there’s a lot of trust in what we do.

And so I would celebrate the fact that there is a lot of trust in science. We certainly have wanted to do – to demonstrate that by creating a dedicated portfolio in government on it and to be able to see where we go next, and hence the R&D review as well, which will provide a longer term pathway about what we do there. But I think in the mind of average Australians they trust and respect Australian scientists and scientists more broadly, and I think that’s something that’s definitely worth celebrating.

Josh.

JOURNALIST: Just a follow-up to my earlier question about AI regulation, granted your point about every country doing its own thing. But does it make it harder when momentum might be swinging back the other way in terms of like a freer, less regulated sort of sector in the US especially where it is the world’s largest economy where a lot of these tech companies are based, where the President is cultivating quite close relationships with some of the CEOs of these companies? Does it make it harder for Australia to kind of then go in the opposite direction? And if not, I mean, what future of this AI act that you’ve raised, I think, in about December last year?

ED HUSIC: Yeah. I – so to be completely direct with you, obviously with a country the size of the US, they have influence, they have some pull. So, you know, it would be ridiculous of me to suggest otherwise in response to your answer. But the other reality is, as I indicated in my response to your earlier question, we’ve got a job to do for the Australian people. People have spoken up and, you know, people can choose what they like in terms of opinion polling and testing and engaging of Australian opinion, but I am mindful of a uni of Queensland bunch of polling that was done where people were asked, you know all the benefits that AI can bring and you know the risks; do you think the benefits outweigh, and only 40 per cent said that the benefits outweighed the risks of AI and that they wanted to see some sort of response to deal with it.

I don’t think that’s a random, sporadic example of statistical deviation. I think there’s an element of people wanting governments to get it right. I think it’s actually in the interests of developers and designers of the models that people have confidence in the product as well, because the more that we use it, the better it is for it. And I can rattle off this range of economic stats that will bore you endless, but the reality is, the indication is that it will play a big part in productivity and economic growth if we get it right. The big thing is to release the handbrake, and that handbrake is constituted by a lack of confidence and trust in technology. And I think we’ve got to work on that.

Second last question.

JOURNALIST: Just hours ago President Trump said that he would be placing a range of sanctions on things incoming – well, imminently he said, including aluminium and copper, both of which are very big exports for Australia, particularly aluminium. How confident are you that Australia can avoid those sanctions? You know, how confident are you and the government that Australia can avoid those sanctions?

ED HUSIC: I have a degree of confidence based on the long-running relationship we’ve had with the US, the nature of the trade relationship, the fact that we’ve done a lot of work obviously engaging with the new Trump administration. We’ve had our Foreign Minister present for the inauguration. I think there’s an understanding that countries like ours need to work together to build up, in particular, supply chains and where especially we reduce dependencies on concentrated ones. So my confidence in answering your question takes into account all those factors. And I think any issues that do or may arise, again, they’re hypotheticals, we’ll sort them through. But I think more likely the strength of our relationship will prevail.

Last question.

JOURNALIST: Thank you, Minister. Just back to the –

ED HUSIC: My great pleasure.

JOURNALIST: – implications, if I remember rightly, AI is an AUKUS pillar 2 priority.

ED HUSIC: Correct.

JOURNALIST: So back to the strategic question: how important is it that the US regains superiority in the AI race, and should we help them do that through funding potentially the Trump AI mission?

ED HUSIC: Fortunately we’re talking here and no-one outside is going to here what you just said, because I don’t think the US has given up its leadership in this role, right?

JOURNALIST: Well, should we help bolster it?

ED HUSIC: This is gentle chiding on my part. But I have to – yes, sometimes I pull them out. You just have to get used to my press conferences. I would say the US has had a big leadership role in AI development historically. I mean, if you look at the breadth of their engagement, they’ve really, you know, I would say led the way. There are other countries that have made a contribution. I think we have a lot of firms here that are working in this space, and you’ll see some announcements made in due course in relation to that. But I think it has been well understood – I’ll put this to you – that both America and China have been in a big race on this for, you know, the best part, in particular, a focused race over the course of the last decade. I don’t think the US has any intention of giving up its lead by virtue of the Stargate announcement that was made just in the last few days which builds on top of everything else that’s happening over there. And we have great research relationship with the US as well, so I think we get those right that will benefit.

The point you’ve made about AUKUS pillar 2 is a highly relevant one in the sense that it demonstrates yet again that Australia can bring a contribution to the table, and to do that we do need to invest in these technologies. And as much as it doesn’t get attention except from time to time, I mean, we’ve had what we’ve got in the last 24 hours and there’s been some general interest over some time about the amount of money that’s been put through the private investment market into AI, but the reality is if we get this right and why we want to develop an AI capability plan is because it will yield a lot of benefit to the country. I’ve mentioned the economic, but also the social, us being able to develop, for example, medicines way quicker, or come through breakthroughs – you know, develop breakthroughs in diseases that have confounded us for years, being able to use AI to plough through data quicker, more efficiently than, you know, the years it would take, decades, dare say, of human researchers to do that work and then apply it in other ways. This is massive. So we’ve got to be able scale this up I think longer term. And there’s obviously also a pathway in the AUKUS arrangements.

Friends, you’ve asked a bulk of science questions. You’ll all be getting a gold star as a result. I’m sure that’s what you live for. But we might end it up. And I thank you very much for your interest, and congratulations, again, to Tony.

TONY HAYMET: Thank you. Thank you, Minister.