E&OE TRANSCRIPT 
TELEVISION INTERVIEW  
NEWS 24  
WEDNESDAY, 28 OCTOBER 2026 

TOPICS: AI; DIGITAL DUTY OF CARE; POLITICAL VIOLENCE & THREATS.

LAURA JAYES: Let's go live now to Social Services Minister Tanya Plibersek. Tanya, thanks so much for your time. AI is certainly a feature now and it's going to be a big feature of the next election. But the problem we have is no one trusts these big frontier AI companies and they certainly don't trust the government either. So, what's the avenue to get something done here?

TANYA PLIBERSEK, MINISTER FOR SOCIAL SERVICES: I think AI has enormous potential. It can really help with our national productivity. It's an incredibly powerful tool and what we're seeing now is the slowest, dumbest form of AI. It's only going to get more sophisticated as time goes on. But we need to make sure that this incredible new technology is actually being harnessed for human good, not for some of the more dangerous predictions that people have seen about what AI can be used for. You've just had an example there of AI being used to generate ads and a lot of them look like you could probably work out that they were AI. What I'm more worried about is how convincing some of the AI can be where there's no indication that in fact the content's been generated by AI and used deliberately for misinformation and disinformation. So, it is something that we need to consider, as Don Farrell said in your package just then, it is something that a couple of parliamentary committees are looking at. There's a few things I think we need to do very quickly. The big AI data centres that are being built around Australia. The Prime Minister has already said we want to make sure that they bring with them their own, that they are water efficient, that they are built in places where they're not impinging on the utility of the neighbourhood. Thats something that we need to do.

And then right now we've got a digital duty of care in our Parliament, a really important set of legislative reforms that would actually ask these big mega wealthy companies to consider the safety of the products that they're releasing into the environment. Like you can't import a car to Australia that doesn't meet Australian safety standards. You can't put food on the shelf if it's not safe for Australians to consume. You can't just sell medicine in Australia if it hasn't been tested for safety. And yet the big tech giants think that they're the only ones who have the right to send products out into the market with no responsibility for the harm they do. What we've seen with social media, for example, is as the use of social media media has increased. Young Australians have got more mental health problems, they've got more eating disorder problems. They're being engaged by criminals from overseas to carry out acts of crime here in Australia. They're doing dumb stuff that is really dangerous and the social media companies are like, not our problem, nothing to do with us. So, actually asking some of these companies that make trillions of dollars to take some responsibility for what their products do in our community and to individuals, I think that's a really important first step.

JAYES: Yep, I agree with you that they're kind of non controversial aspects of it. I think when it gets really controversial is who has control, who decides what harm is and how this relates to free speech and, you know, political claims and political advertising. I mean, at the moment we're having this big debate about, you know, political civility, civil debate, how we argue better. Yet, I don't think it's. I think it's a really important point, this whole golf club grant scandal around the Prime Minister where adding to that is these lack of, of straight answers. I know it's a bit of a segue there, but is it fair enough? I mean, you, I've known you for a long time, the way you conduct your office is very different to how others do, including the Prime Minister. Does there need to be a bit more transparency, honesty and explanation?

MINISTER PLIBERSEK: Well, Laura, I think to be fair, the Prime Minister said yesterday in Question Time that he did get the detail wrong of the inclusion of the sewerage works in that proposal. However, it is very clear that when he made that original commitment, the sewerage works were part of the original commitment. The scope of that changed because the state government stepped in to do the sewerage works. Now, there's two things I'd say about this, two really important things. Every election campaign, political parties make election commitments. We've got all these people now complaining about the fact that the government is keeping its promises. And if we weren't keeping those promises, the same people would be complaining that we hadn't kept the promises. I think if an election commitment is made publicly, the amount of money that is needed is disclosed, that's all disclosed during the election campaign. And then once the money is provided, that's scrutinised through Parliament processes. We've got question time. It's been ventilated in question time. It's been ventilated in Senate estimates, Theres no secrecy about this.

JAYES: What about the National Anti Corruption Commission? Shouldn't it be referred there? $60 million grant. Darcy Byrne's involved. It's in the Prime Minister's electorate. In this this environment, it stinks.

MINISTER PLIBERSEK: No, I actually don't agree with that. I think it's a local commitment that the Prime Minister has made in public. Like, there's no secrecy about it. He’s posting about it in social media before the election. There's no confusion about it and it's been thoroughly scrutinised now in Senate estimates and in question time, any Member of Parliament can refer something to the NACC if they wish. They can knock themselves out if they want to do that, they can. I'd go back to the point that if the Prime Minister didn't keep his commitment to his electorate, what would people say then? They'd say that he hadn't kept, by national standards, a very small promise that he'd made in his own.

JAYES: I mean, he doesn't mind breaking a big promise, though we do know that on the referral to the NACC. So, does one referral meet the threshold for investigation? Would you maybe encourage the Prime Minister to refer it himself?

MINISTER PLIBERSEK: I think that's a matter for the Members of Parliament who are claiming that this is the worst thing that's ever happened. They can take responsibility for doing that and then it's up to the NACC to decide what they do with that. We don't politically interfere with the decisions that the Anti Corruption Commission makes. That would be completely inappropriate. We don't direct it to investigate or not to investigate any particular matter.

JAYES: Ok, this is all I thought. Jess Wilson made a really good point yesterday. When the Prime Minister says, let's bring the temperature down, she also says there's, you know, this real frustration about truth in politics and keeping promises. Do you think that is part of the frustration?

MINISTER PLIBERSEK: Laura, as you say, I've been around for a long time and, you know, even before I was an elected Member of Parliament, I followed politics very closely from the time I was in primary school. I don't ever remember a time when Australians didn't kind of roll their eyes about politics and say, oh, politicians are all in it for themselves. That is a feature of our Australian democracy. We are a sceptical people. We’re always looking to make sure that our parliamentary representatives are doing what they said they would do, that they're up front with the Australian public. That has not changed. What has changed is the way that people feel emboldened to do that using death threats, threats of gang rape, rape, threats to your family, threats to your staff. This is not just about politicians. Like, we've had police officers killed in recent years they go to work every day, they deserve to be safe during doing their jobs. We had in NSW an Environment Protection Agency officer killed doing his job. We get nurses, teachers, principals, paramedics every day not just being threatened with violence, but being attacked in schools and hospitals. That is not acceptable. That is not acceptable. So, it's not just about politics and the way we speak to each other. This is a broader thing in our community where we have to return to the basic civility. Scepticism's fine, holding people to account, we should do that. What we shouldn't be doing is threatening or committing violence against people who are just doing their jobs.

JAYES: The primary vote's changed as well for the major parties.That's what's changed.

MINISTER PLIBERSEK: Yeah and look I don't think it's a bad thing for democracy to have a contest with more parties in it. If people want to vote for the extreme left or the extreme right, that's their right. In a democracy, it is not right anybody in public life to encourage violence or to excuse it in any way. All of us have a responsibility for greater civility and all of us have a responsibility to say, never, not ever in this country should someone doing their job feel that they are putting their life at risk, just doing their job. And that's not just about politicians, as I say, that's about all of these frontline workers, shop assistants, flight attendants, actually being abused.

JAYES: Its a picture of modern society, isn't it? There's signs and overhead warnings of needing to, you know, treat staff with respect and violence will not be tolerated. Tanya, yesterday you told the Parliament that it is worth it, as you say, you've been in and around politics for 30 years. I imagine that these threats that you talk about, you have personal experience with each and every one of those type of threats. Is it really worth it?

MINISTER PLIBERSEK: Yeah, it is. I've got so many examples, Laura. One that I go back to, we had a mum who didn't have any teeth. She had really bad dental care and her kid had just got into year seven, a scholarship to a really prestigious school. She wanted to go to school with that child on their first day, a lot of family violence in the background, single mum, had a tough life. We helped get her teeth before that first day of school so she could go with her child to do that. Like every week there is something like that in the electorate where a member of Parliament does their job and genuinely helps someone at the most difficult time in their life. I can't think of anything that is more worthwhile than that. I love my job because it has moments like that all the time. And if you're a Minister, you get to do that on a system wide scale. You can change lives because of the decisions that we make here in the Parliament. Like right now, the money that we're putting into emergency accommodation for women and children escaping domestic violence. I go out and I see these projects and I talk to the people who are being housed because of the investment that Clare O’Neil’s made in the housing portfolio, that our government has made. I cannot think of something that is more worthwhile and more rewarding than that.

JAYES: Well, you're a better woman than I, that's for sure. Yeah, it is really tough indeed. Do you think. I mean, maybe you're just desensitised. Maybe you're desensitised to it. Right?

MINISTER PLIBERSEK: Look, I think. I think it has been more of a shock for the newer members of Parliament. I'm not sure that they really knew what they were letting themselves in for. Perhaps I have become a bit too accustomed to it, like there’s a court case right now.

JAYES: And that is a problem, don't you agree, Tanya? That is a problem. That. Looks, I've been a journalist, excuse me, 20 years, I've come accustomed to it as well. The threshold for what is acceptable has gotten much higher. And I just look at the state of politics and think, who would go into it for the pay that they're being offered and the hours they have to do and now the threats on their life.

MINISTER PLIBERSEK: But, Laura, that is the problem right?  Perhaps I'm desensitised, but I think the other thing that is probably a real character flaw of mine is I am very stubborn. And when people try and bully me out of doing my job or threaten me and get me to shut up, that just has the opposite impact on me. It makes me more determined to do my job and it makes me more determined to be out in my community talking to people. I won't let bullies win.

JAYES: Good to talk to you today, as always. Thanks so much.

MINISTER PLIBERSEK: Always a pleasure to see you.

ENDS