National leader or problem rediscoverer? The issue with Malinauskas's AI royal commission

analysis SA's AI royal commission is genuinely novel — but critics have warned of glitches You would be hard-pressed to find a state government in Australia that loves describing itself as "nation-leading" as much as the current South Australian one does. A quick "ctrl + F" of the inbox throws up more than 50 Malinauskas government media releases that use the phrase over the last 18 months — some up to four times in the one email. The social media ban for kids and outlawing of political donations were only the tip of the iceberg; there were also nation-leading knife laws, a nation-leading tobacco crackdown, nation-leading civics education and a nation-leading "freight management framework". That's not to mention nation-leading sensory buses, nation-leading "spaces" within SA's new sports centre, and a nation-leading textile event to donate your unwanted clothes. Renmark's creek system recently got a new canoe channel and pedestrian bridge. A nation-leading design? You bet. Even Labor's intervention to stop paid parking at Tea Tree Plaza shopping centre — an issue that would struggle to register beyond Adelaide's north-eastern suburbs, let alone the country — copped the "nation-leading" treatment. A national first, but why? Lest anyone think the term was becoming devalued, Premier Peter Malinauskas announced a genuine national first on Monday. SA's royal commission into artificial intelligence will be the biggest Australian public inquiry yet into the policy problems posed by AI. Its terms of reference are yet to be drafted, but it's expected to examine the impact of AI on education, skills, work, health and infrastructure — almost everything except data centres (SA's already got a "nation leading strategy" for those). Mr Malinauskas made the announcement shortly after a business trip to the United States where "70 per cent" of his meetings were about the emerging technology. This included discussions with the leaders of Anthropic, OpenAI and Apple. Speaking to journalists on Tuesday, Mr Malinauskas said: "Maybe I've got the bug, I don't know, but once you really start reading about AI and getting into the depths of what this is going to mean, you can't help but feel a weight of responsibility to do something about it." "To do nothing about it I think would be completely reckless and foolhardy,"he said. But the SA royal commission has critics, as well as questions about its utility. Those questions are less about whether it warrants the nation-leading title, but more around why is South Australia leading. Shouldn't this be the federal government's domain? And will the royal commission's findings still be relevant by the time it's finished? The University of Sydney's Rebecca Johnson, who has a PhD in AI evaluation and safety, was among those with doubts. Dr Johnson said researchers had been studying AI's risks for years and a royal commission could be useful "if we can uncover evidence that the rest of us can't access". "But if we spend a year re-discovering that AI creates risks to jobs, privacy, security and accountability, well we already know that," she told 891 ABC Radio Adelaide. "So, the challenge now is to stop rediscovering the problem and to start using the expertise we already have here in Australia, before we start spending millions of dollars asking questions that we already know the answers too." The royal commission would cost $3 million, which Mr Malinauskas argued was "chicken feed" compared to the cost to society if the AI transition is managed poorly. Asked why he didn't float the possibility of a national inquiry with the prime minister beforehand, Mr Malinauskas said: "When it comes to our record as a state, we've got no reservations about acting as leaders in this area." "My responsibility is to the people of South Australia — now, I care about outcomes for the nation as an Australian, but I want South Australia to have a position of leadership," he said. He also credited Anthony Albanese for creating an office for AI within the prime minister's department, arguing he had shown "more leadership on AI policy development than I've seen other national leaders around the world". Counting in AI years The inquiry's three commissioners are yet to be appointed, but they will have a tight turnaround to meet a July 1 deadline. But even by then, some of their findings could be out of date, Dr Johnson argued. "I don't understand why we would spend a year — which is, in the development of AI, that's like five years — wasting time asking questions that people have already asked," she said. "That $3 million could also be spent actually enacting some of the guardrails and the changes that need to happen now." The premier hit back when asked about Dr Johnson's criticisms, arguing this was a challenge that "will be enduring not just for this government but the 10 that follow it". "There's a lot of professors that think they know the answers to everything when the truth is there are far more questions sitting around the future of AI and how it informs the work than there are answers," he said. "We don't announce a royal commission to win the universal applause of academics. We announce a royal commission because we accept our responsibility to embrace the opportunities this technology provides but also accept our responsibility to do something about the risks." The social media ban model Of the Malinauskas government's "nation-leading" reforms that have garnered attention outside of South Australia, there have been mixed results. For example, the state-based First Nations Voice to Parliament was meant to dispel fears about the federal Voice before the national referendum. That clearly didn't happen, and the state Voice still has its own share of problems. SA also continued to stand alone on its political donations ban. While the Albanese government has taken up some electoral funding reform, they go nowhere near the Malinauskas government's move to outlaw them. But the teen social media ban provided a compelling counterargument. Mr Malinauskas announced in May 2024 his government's intention to ban under-14s from social media. The idea took off so much that by December of next year it was being implemented nationally for under-16s, albeit with serious questions about its effectiveness. A similar scenario could play out with the AI royal commission, according to British computer scientist Toby Walsh. "I would expect perhaps we will end up in the same place here with artificial intelligence that the ideas put forward, the proposed legislation, the guidelines, rules, might be ones that then be picked up for national use," said Professor Walsh, who is also chief scientist at UNSW Sydney AI Institute. "If this is a way of getting the government to move faster, I welcome the idea that South Australia can again help us to get to a good place." Mr Malinauskas announced the AI royal commission this week in the same room he announced the teen social media ban in May 2024. He suggested having the commission's AI recommendations adopted nationally or by other states would be a sign of success. "I think this is far broader and more consequential frankly," the premier said. "I think AI gone bad will make social media look like a walk in the park. "All the more reason to have the highest level of inquiry examine it."