Liberal powerbroker's truly astonishing admission about her search for answers after election defeat exposes how clueless the party has become: 'Can't make this up'
Liberal senator Anne Ruston has come under fire for revealing she used artificial intelligence to find the policy shortfalls that cost her party the federal election.
Viewers of ABC Insiders on Sunday morning were shocked to hear Ruston admit she'd used 'off the shelf' AI to assess the reasons behind the loss.
Although she was unable to draw a 'clear theme' from her research, the online response to her interview made one thing clear: Aussies don't want AI in politics.
'Anne Ruston is aware that AI isn't magic right? She knows it's not an oracle?' one social media user wrote on X.
'Anne Ruston, Liberal Senator, tells ABC she has asked AI why the Liberal Party ran such a poor electoral campaign and lost the election. Is this more evidence the Liberal Party is now a political entity that can be best be described as having artificial intelligence?' another said.
'What a wooden, uninspiring interview with Anne Ruston. Even AI can't help here,' another wrote.
'They need to use AI because none of them show any intelligence at all!' another said.
'Senior Liberal Anne Ruston suggesting the Liberal party should ask AI to get a better handle on why the party failed at the last election. God forbid they talk to and believe what ordinary Aussies tell them,' another wrote.
Insiders host David Speers took his interview with Ruston as an opportunity to quiz her on what role AI could play in the Liberal party.
'Very interestingly, last week after the election result I just used some off the shelf AI to ask what AI thought about the Liberal Party and the election result,' Ruston said.
'More than anything, it showed me that there were so many different issues that Australians were considering when they went to the ballot box to vote.
'I think it shows us that we absolutely have to look at everything because there was no clear theme apart from, quite clearly, the Australian public went to the ballot box and didn't vote for us.'
When pressed more on whether she believed the best way for the party to analyse its election results was through AI, Ruston backtracked and said it could be used as part of a larger process.
'There's many ways that we need to address this,' she said.
'We need to speak to our party members, we need to speak to the front bench and the backbench. We need to speak to the Australian public.
'But, obviously technology gives us an opportunity to be able to collate the broader commentary across Australia, that's something that we haven't had access to before and we should use that as well.'
A parliamentary inquiry in October 2024 released a report regarding the effects of AI on Australian democratic processes.
It found AI could be used to 'help voters better understand political debates, legislation and policy proposals, and to undertake data analysis'.
However, it also carried several risks included the creation of fake political content - such as videos and speeches through deepfakes, the spread of political disinformation, and sharing its own biases.
The committee made several recommendations on how the government could safeguard against these risks, including enforcing mandatory watermarks on AI-generated content.
It also called on politicians to voluntarily disclose their use of AI.
'The ANU Tech Policy Design Centre noted that politicians had an important role to play in maintaining the integrity of elections,' the report stated.
'It recommended the development of a pledge for transparent and democratic use of AI in campaigning for politicians, by which they could publicly disclaim any use of AI in their advertising in order to maintain trust and engagement in the election process.'
Daily Mail Australia contacted Ruston for further comment.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
3 hours ago
- The Guardian
I study the history of Nazi resistance. Here's what the US left can learn from it
Around the end of 2022, I had an idea for a book about the history of resistance to Nazism. I wanted to show that Nazism has faced nonconformity, refusal and protest ever since it was born in 1920. I also wanted to explore beyond a handful of famous heroes and cast a spotlight on people who changed history without entering popular memory. When I began my research, Donald Trump had just announced his candidacy for the Republican ticket in 2024. When I gave the manuscript to the publisher a little over two years later, he was president-elect. His comeback, the darker version of Maga that came with him, and the Democratic party's collapse gave fresh relevance to the stories of resistance to far-right extremism that I was finding. Even as I was piecing them together, they began to intrude on the present. It was a haunting transformation – and it helped me to understand why the resistance to Trump has been flawed from the moment he stepped on to the political stage. We've never been shy about broadcasting our opinions. We've worn pussy hats, put up lawn signs, and trolled Trump and his supporters, both online and off. But while such acts may get attention, their capacity to create change is less certain. This can even be true for mass protests. Americans have sometimes underestimated the effectiveness of protest – recent demonstrations in Los Angeles and across the country are an important part of resistance. In the era of social media and the 24-hour news cycle, though, protests can risk becoming a spectacle. And when the government is given a chance to portray them as violent, their effectiveness is extinguished – because they end up benefiting the forces they mean to challenge. The resisters that I researched, by contrast, were laser-focused on creating change. Whether they were satirists drawing anti-Nazi cartoons in 1920s Germany or former neo-Nazis becoming peace advocates in the 21st-century US, they sought to improve life for themselves and others in the here and now, in any way that they could, no matter how small. The German activist Emmi Bonhoeffer is a powerful example. She built a support group for the Holocaust survivors who testified in the 1960s Frankfurt Auschwitz trials, where Nazis were tried for their roles at the death camp. In doing so, Bonhoeffer resisted the Nazis' desire for both their crimes and their victims to be forgotten. Her group – most of them homemakers – ultimately helped nearly 200 people as they took the stand. They inspired similar groups to form around other war crimes trials in Germany, too. But they didn't advertise. They didn't have a slogan or an outfit or a flag. They didn't even bother to give their group a name. Their first and only concern was to clear a path toward justice for at least some of the Nazis' victims. For Bonhoeffer, resistance wasn't about getting attention. It was about creating change. What's more, the resistance to Trump has always been stained by a judgmental streak. Whether we're denouncing them as a 'basket of deplorables' or mocking them on social media, we invariably devote too much energy to belittling his supporters. This has convinced us of our own moral rectitude. In turn, this has made us complacent, and complacency only deepens our inaction. The resisters that I learned about pulled no punches when it came to judging Adolf Hitler and his inner circle. But they spent more time judging themselves than his supporters. Consider the German émigré Sebastian Haffner. In the late 1930s, he wrote an extraordinary autobiographical book about his life as a so-called 'Aryan' in Hitler's Germany. It was only published in 2000, posthumously, after his son discovered it hidden in a desk drawer. For Haffner, publication didn't really matter. The book was, first and foremost, an imaginative space in which he subjected his own behavior and thinking and privilege to relentless scrutiny. Through this process of self-scrutiny, he grew into one of the Nazis' most effective critics in exile. The judgmental streak has also given some of our attempts to resist Trump a holier-than-thou quality that diminishes our capacity for empathy. We're too quick to believe that 77 million Americans voted for Trump out of stupidity, not desperation or disenfranchisement. By contrast, I was always struck by the sense of shared humanity among the resisters that I discovered – like the lower-level British intelligence officials who persuaded members of the German public to help them smoke out Nazi war criminals after 1945; or Leon Bass, the Black American soldier who drew on his own experiences of segregation to deepen his understanding of the suffering of the Jewish people he liberated from Buchenwald. Sign up to Fighting Back Big thinkers on what we can do to protect civil liberties and fundamental freedoms in a Trump presidency. From our opinion desk. after newsletter promotion Like every far-right leader in history, Donald Trump has intoxicated his supporters with nostalgia for a past that never existed in order to push a corrupt and hateful agenda of his own. Eventually, many will realize that he's lied to them. Perhaps they'll lose their jobs because of his economic policies, or see law-abiding friends and family deported because of his immigration policies. Perhaps their children will suffer from measles because of his health policies. Whatever the case, when their moment of realization comes, we must be ready to embrace them, and to weep with them for what they've lost. If there's one thing that I learned while writing my book, it's that effective resistance to the far right is never just about defeating the enemy. It's about creating a better future for everyone. Teachers and librarians are championing the written word as a tool of resistance. Colleagues in the field of Holocaust education are collaborating on free and innovative events to inform the public about the collapse of democracy in early 20th-century Europe – and to establish what we can learn from it today. And, as I argue in my book, the arts can connect us to our own humanity, and to the humanity in others. Supporting your local art museum, attending a concert or joining a book club should all be cause for hope – because in a divided, partisan society, such acts constitute resistance. Luke Berryman, PhD, is an educator and author of the forthcoming book Resisting Nazism, to be published by Bloomsbury in 2026
The Guardian
3 hours ago
- The Guardian
Dining across the divide: ‘He didn't believe women still face discrimination in the workplace'
Occupation Financial services Voting record Mixed over the years, moving right and recently Conservative. 'The more worldly-wise you get, and the more tax you pay, the more it pushes you along that axis' Amuse bouche Julian has twice been on a plane struck by lightning. The first time was scary: all the lights went out. The second time he was relaxed, and told the pilot on the way out, who, looking a bit pale, replied: 'That's the first for me' Occupation Geneticist Voting record Labour until Starmer, now Green. Describes herself as 'an old-fashioned socialist' Amuse bouche Livvy was going to study medicine, but discovered she had a phobia of blood when she passed out during a blood test. 'I would have been the worst doctor in the world' Livvy It was my first evening out after having my baby. Julian was genial and kind. I thought he might be from a posher background than me, but we later found out we had both grown up on council estates. It just shows you shouldn't judge before you know. Julian Livvy was really easy to talk to, obviously intelligent. We were both the first in our families to go to university, and both see education as key to social mobility. Livvy I had gnocchi with butternut squash. And a lemonade and lime – very outlandish! Julian I had sea bass, which was nicely done, and a couple of beers. We both had chocolate brownie for pudding. Livvy Julian didn't believe women still face discrimination in the workplace. Julian There are very senior women in the company I work at. They've attained high roles in the company on merit, and that's how it should be. It's not the same as it was in the 70s. Livvy Studies have shown that if you have a CV with a female name on it, and a CV with a male name on it, the male will get more interviews. Julian Maybe there is unconscious bias – that would be wrong and I wouldn't try to defend that in any way. The bit we honed in on was if women take some time to have family, then their careers are effectively stagnating. For me, positive discrimination is a red line, because it is still discrimination, and you might have discriminated against somebody who is better for the job. I just can't settle with that feeling fair. Livvy I know I'm less likely to get a job because I'm a woman, and of child-bearing age. I think I opened his mind about maternity leave a little: he didn't realise that when I go back they don't have to give me the same job. They can give me a different job that has the same level of importance and salary. Sign up to Inside Saturday The only way to get a look behind the scenes of the Saturday magazine. Sign up to get the inside story from our top writers as well as all the must-read articles and columns, delivered to your inbox every weekend. after newsletter promotion Livvy We agreed that women's rights are a good thing. I just believe they need to go further and carry on. We saw the same problems, but we just had very different ways of trying to tackle those problems. Julian It probably helped that we both have scientific backgrounds – I studied engineering – so we both applied a lot of logic rather than emotion. Livvy We disagreed on the European convention on human rights. I think it's a good thing. It provides guidance on the freedom to have your own views; it makes sure you can't torture someone; you have free elections and fair trials. And the right to have a family life. Julian We should leave. When people have been told all the way up the British courts that they can't have what they want and they're in the wrong, it's a kind of 'get out of jail free' card used as a means to avoid deportation or whatever. Livvy There's so much that brings people together, but we tend to put a magnifying glass on what we disagree on. Some of it is fundamental – if I'd sat down with someone who'd said, 'This race of people is terrible', I would have called a taxi. But there are some differences where you need to be able to see the other person's side of the story. They're not evil, or wrong – this is just what they've taken from their life experience. Julian More people need to do this. It was a really pleasurable evening – it's good to have someone rattle your ideas a little bit, about things you thought you were convinced of, to hear a well-argued alternative point of view that is just as valid as your own but different. Additional reporting: Kitty Drake Julian and Livvy ate at The Waterfront, Ipswich. Want to meet someone from across the divide? Go to
The Independent
3 hours ago
- The Independent
Every time Starmer wants us to think the best of Trump, the US president proves him wrong
Just five days ago Sir Keir Starmer sat down with the travelling pack of UK journalists at the G7 in Canada and assured them and their readers that Donald Trump would not attack Iran. He said:"There is nothing the president said that suggests he's about to get involved in this conflict, on the contrary, the G7 statement was about de-escalation. "I think what he said was he wanted to go beyond a ceasefire effectively and end the conflict. And I think he's right about that. I mean, a ceasefire is always a means to an end. "That is consistent with what we agreed around the table yesterday. And throughout the dinner yesterday I was sitting right next to President Trump, so I've no doubt, in my mind, the level of agreement there was in relation to the words that were then issued immediately after that, pretty soon after the dinner.' He made a point of being at the table sitting next to Trump to underline that his reading of what the US president would do was correct. At that point Trump had left the resort in Alberta early and was back in the White House. Just hours later he was posting threats to Iran on Truth Social. Then last night, five days after Starmer addressed journalists, he authorised the bombing of Iran having given them two weeks on Friday to get back to the negotiating table. The question though is: Why does the prime minister just keep getting it so wrong about what the US president will say and do? This is not the first time that Sir Keir has suggested Trump will do one thing and then the US president has done the opposite. We can go back to Starmer's cosy chat in the Oval Office when the two had their first formal meeting as prime minister and president in March. At the time and just before handing Trump the invitation from the King for a state visit, Sir Keir said he wanted 'to thank you for changing the conversation on the war in Ukraine.' It seemed an odd phrase even then given that Trump seemed to be dead set on forcing Ukraine to accept a peace on Russia's terms. But it looked far worse 24 hours later after vice president J.D. Vance and president Trump berated and humiliated Ukraine's president Volodymyr Zelensky in the same Oval Office forcing him to leave their meeting. Then in May Sir Keir and President Trump were on the opposite ends of a public zoom call congratulating each other for the trade deal they had just struck over the White House's global tariff regime. 'Donald, thank you for your leadership,' the prime minister said, emphasising the first name terms. All seemed well until later in the month when Trump announced steel tariffs would be 50 per cent, not 25 per cent, and it turned out the UK/ US trade deal had not actually been implemented. It took til last week to get most of the deal implemented apart from steel which is still subject to discussions with the UK tariff remaining at 25 per cent with a hope of zero per cent still on the table. At every turn it appears that the prime minister wants us to think the best of Trump only for the US president to be apparently determined to prove him quickly wrong. It may be wishful thinking on Sir Keir's part. After all, he is constantly hoping Trump will do the right thing. There is a case to point out that what else could he say in these circumstances especially as his primary diplomatic policy appears to be to assuage Trump's ego and butter the US president up as much as possible. To be fair, Starmer has had more success than most on the international stage and he rightly speaks of his 'warm relationship' with the US president who in turn has gone out of his way to praise the prime minister's leadership. There is a sense from a popular American phrase of 'speaking things into existence', in that if you want something to happen it is better to say it will happen and hope that is enough to ensure it does. But perhaps it is because of the quixotic nature of the US president. He thinks one thing at one moment and then changes his mind when he leaves the room. It could be all of the above. But even those who wanted to believe Starmer last week thought he was being extremely naive in suggesting the president was pursuing de-escalation. It all reflects a complex international situation for the prime minister in his first year and one which is only going to heat up further. The problem is that our prime minister seems incapable of guessing what the biggest international player and UK's most important ally will do next.
