The Australian Prime Minister has announced a new
‘Office of AI’ that will develop a single, national
framework for the rollout of the technology.
The
framework will bring together work from different ministries
to address AI’s impact on climate change, energy,
education, jobs, copyright, and defence.
There will be
clear rules for large data centres in Australia: where they
are built, and the power and water they use, the PM
said.
The Science Media Centre asked NZ experts to
comment.
Angus Dowell, PhD candidate in
Economic Geography, University of Auckland,
comments:
“The speech by Australian Prime
Minister Anthony Albanese is highly significant. It moves
beyond narrowly treating AI as a question of innovation or
adoption, instead recognising its reach across labour,
copyright, national security, energy, water and regional
development and acknowledges the need to secure long-term
value over a short term boom from construction in data
centres.
“But most consequentially, the speech
brings the politics of ownership, control, and public value
to the centre of the AI infrastructure debate. He takes aim
at one of the central issues plaguing the AI economy at
large – big-tech, where the risk, he argues, is in
potentially ‘subcontracting our sovereignty and security
to the control of foreign monopolies’. His counterexample
is the National Broadband Network, whose continued public
ownership he presents as a means of retaining national
control over foundational digital infrastructure even as
communications networks become increasingly entangled with
private and overseas interests.
Advertisement – scroll to continue reading
“In this respect,
the speech reads as an implicit rebuke to parts of
Australia’s tech establishment who want otherwise. Where
Tech Council of Australia chair Scott Farquhar earlier
argued for deregulated ‘digital embassies’, faster
approvals, and to loosen copyright law to attract foreign
data-centre investment, Albanese offers a more conditional
bargain in which he argues Australia should use its land,
minerals, abundant solar, and political stability to secure
better terms for local development.
“Of course, it
remains to be seen what the terms of local development will
actually be, and who gets access to shape them. These
questions will determine whether the asymmetries of the AI
economy can be meaningfully evened out on Australian soil,
but for now the speech marks a significant and positive
shift in the debate. New Zealand’s lesson is to avoid
turning its budding AI economy into a race to the bottom for
foreign investment, where cheaper power and faster
consenting become the main selling
points.”
Conflict of interest statement: Angus
has declared that he has no conflicts of
interest.
Dr Andrew Lensen, Senior
Lecturer in Artificial Intelligence, School of Engineering
and Computer Science, Victoria University of Wellington,
comments:
“It is natural that we will see
increased political attempts to control the AI agenda across
the world, as the public’s concern about the impact of AI
continues to grow. While the US, under Trump, has sought to
promote the interests of AI companies, this move by the
Australian PM seems more focused on protecting their
citizens.
“We have seen Australia confront Big Tech
before (e.g. taking action to protect news publishers from
scraping) with some success, so it will be interesting to
see how far they’re willing to stand up against the
powerful AI companies — and how successful they are, as a
reasonably small nation. There is a real resentment by the
general public against the impact of AI, so I think we’ll
see more and more left-wing governments take these sorts of
policy positions.
“In contrast, we see little
political leadership in New Zealand. None of our major
political parties have standalone AI policy released for the
2026 election, despite AI having a major impact on key
policy issues like the cost of living, jobs, the
environment, and Māori sovereignty. We are continuing to
fall behind on the opportunity to manage the risks of AI in
New Zealand, with potential harms increasing by the day. For
example, why are we allowing an AI data centre to be built
in Southland that will drive up power prices, use drinking
water, and export profits overseas for only a few local
jobs? Australia is, at least, considering stricter
requirements on AI data centres and requiring benefits to
the communities that they will be built
in.”
Conflict of interest statement:
“Co-director of LensenMcGavin AI (AI
consultancy).”
Professor Alistair Knott,
Centre for Data Science and AI, Victoria University of
Wellington, comments:
“New Zealand needs a
government AI office – and can readily get one. For
several years, there have been calls for the NZ government
to establish a formal AI office of some kind. Some are calls
for a body to regulate the government’s own uses of AI
(see e.g. my
group’s 2019 recommendation). Some are calls for the
creation of an AI Safety Institute, to develop policy for
the newer more powerful forms of AI (see e.g. this
call). Some are more broader calls encompassing both of
these (see the recent ‘Regulate AI‘
letter to party leaders).
“The government has
responded with a ‘light touch’ approach to AI oversight,
articulated in Judith Collins’ guidance
document of June 2024 and the ‘AI
Strategy‘ of June 2025. But their actions are moving
in the direction of structured institutions. These are
inevitable moves, given the rapid advance of AI technology,
and its increasing pervasiveness in all aspects of
commercial, public and private life.
“The
government’s decision to centralise
government digital delivery in a single agency in the
Public Services Commission is particularly significant. A
recent ‘reset
plan‘ for this agency highlights the need for the need
for a focus on AI in priority projects. (This plan
explicitly looks to Australia’s Digital Transformation
Agency as a model.) A national centre of AI expertise is
also part of the Institute
for Advanced Technology currently being set up by
MBIE.
“Between them, these institutions provide much
of the structure and expertise needed to create a national
AI Office for New Zealand. The government should build on
these existing institutional initiatives, to set one
up.”
Conflict of interest statement: “I’m in
one of the groups applying for MBIE’s AI Platform
fund.”
Our colleagues at the AusSMC
have
also gathered comments. A small
selection follows.
Professor Lisa
Given, Director of the Centre for Human-AI Information
Environments and Professor of Information Sciences at RMIT
University, comments:
“The Australian
government’s announcement of a new, central Office of AI,
to sit in the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet, is a
welcome move that will provide clarity and guidance for
businesses and communities. The Office will coordinate work
across government departments and create new Australian
standards for AI adoption.
“As technology companies
increasingly look to build data centres in Australia,
communities have expressed significant concerns about energy
and water use, and placement near residential
neighbourhoods. Australians are also worried about
disruption from AI technologies, raising concerns about
potential job losses, copyright infringements of material
used to train AI models, and data
privacy.
“Addressing such varied challenges,
particularly when AI technologies are evolving at such a
fast pace, warrants the coordinated approach this office
will take. Given the known risks posed by generative AI
technologies, for example, from deepfake images that mislead
customers, to hallucinated content that misinforms chatbot
users, Australians need government intervention to protect
them from harm and ensure AI use is in their best
interests.
“The creation of this office marks a
significant shift in the government’s overall approach to
governing AI, towards being more hands-on and proactive. In
2024, the government planned to regulate high-risk AI
implementation but later abandoned that plan. The government
also proposed – and then paused – digital duty of care
legislation, to hold technology companies to account for
harmful content and tool designs. By creating this office
(and by saying digital duty of care legislation will be
reintroduced this year) the government has recognised the
need for coordination and intervention to address the varied
risks posed by AI, while also supporting its potential
benefits.”
Conflicts of interest: None
declared.
Dr Eden Li, Senior Lecturer in
the School of Business & Law at Edith Cowan University,
comments:
“The establishment of an
Australian Office of AI and a national AI framework
represent a significant step towards Australia’s approach
to AI future.
“Two things would be
critical:
“1. It will be important to adopt a
balanced view that recognises both the opportunities and the
potential risks/cautions associated with AI. Its success
should not be assessed through economic outcomes alone.
Equal attention must be given to how AI affects people’s
experience of work, communities, inclusion, and
wellbeing.
“2. A collaborative and transparent
approach will be critical. The national framework should be
developed through meaningful engagement with industry,
unions, community representatives, academics, and regional
stakeholders. This will help ensure that Australia’s
approach to AI is practical, inclusive, and equitable, to
the ways in which AI may affect people, organisations, and
communities.”
Conflicts of interest: None
declared.
Dr David Tuffley, Adjunct Senior
Lecturer in the School of Information and Communication
Technology at Griffith University,
comments:
“Establishing an Office of AI
within Prime Minister and Cabinet is the right thing to do,
but making it work will be easier said than done. Until now
we have approached AI governance in a piecemeal fashion with
departmental initiatives and voluntary guidelines. Having a
unified national framework would give business and
researchers the regulatory basis that they can proceed with.
This would allow Australia to proactively shape the
technology rather than simply using it as
supplied.
“Declining to give AI firms a blanket
waiver to use Australian data is a good move that will
protect creators of digital assets. But the government will
need to define what lawful access looks like and that’s
not so easy. If our licensing pathways are difficult to use
because they are unclear or convoluted then the developers
will go offshore and Australia will be left to import the
finished product but without any of the economic
benefit.
“The test for the new Office of AI will be
whether it can find the ‘sweet spot’ between the risks
and the real cost of moving too slowly. Regulation that
arrives late or lands heavily will not protect Australians.
All it will do is make sure the technology that shapes our
lives will be built elsewhere, under someone else’s
rules.”
Conflicts of interest: None
declared.
Dr Raffaele Fabio Ciriello,
Senior Lecturer in the Discipline of Business Information
Systems (BIS) at the University of Sydney Business School,
comments:
“This announcement is too little,
too late. The Australian government is finally waking up to
the AI reality, but it continues to approach the challenge
primarily as one of attracting investment with minimal risk
mitigation.
“We have seen this model before in the
gas industry. Foreign corporations use Australian resources,
infrastructure, and labour, export much of the value, and
leave Australians carrying substantial environmental and
social costs. AI risks repeating and amplifying that
mistake. Its data centres consume Australian land, water,
and electricity, while its models draw on our research,
creative work, data, and intellectual labour. Yet ownership,
control, and profits remain concentrated in a handful of
foreign corporations and their executives.
“The gas
analogy, however, only goes so far. AI is not merely another
extractive industry. It increasingly shapes how Australians
work, learn, communicate, relate, and access or produce
vital information. Dependence on privately controlled AI
infrastructure is therefore a question of democratic and
national sovereignty, not only taxation or
regulation.
“Rejecting a copyright free-for-all is
necessary, but far from sufficient. Australia needs
collective sovereignty over AI infrastructure through
meaningful public and community ownership, genuine citizen
control, and a fair distribution of benefits according to
social need. Otherwise, we will once again socialise the
costs while privatising the gains.”
Conflicts of
interest: None declared.
Professor Joel
Pearson, Deputy Director of the AI Institute and researcher
in human readiness and neuroscience, The University of New
South Wales, comments:
“The Office of AI is
the right instrument. Putting it in Prime Minister and
Cabinet is the right call, because AI is not an industry
portfolio, it is a whole-of-society one. The question now is
what sits inside it. Standards design covers the technology.
Nothing yet covers the people. An Office of AI without a
human transition function is an office for managing machines
in a country made of humans. Australia now has a body
responsible for coordinating how AI is built here. We still
don’t have one responsible for how Australians get through
it.
“The Prime Minister is right that the world
should have acted on social media a decade earlier. But look
closely at what we actually got wrong. We didn’t get the
infrastructure wrong. We got the psychology wrong. The harms
were developmental, cognitive and social, and they arrived
years before we had the evidence or the institutions to
answer them. If we take that lesson seriously, we don’t
just build better rules for data centres. We build the
capability to see human harm coming before it shows up in a
statistic. The social media reckoning was not a failure of
engineering standards. It was a failure to understand minds.
We are about to make the same category error at a much
larger scale.
“Today we learned where data centres
can be built, what power they must generate, how much water
they may use, and who owns a song. Every one of those is a
rule about the technology. Not one is a plan for the people
the technology is about to move through. We are regulating
the footprint and ignoring the population standing in
it.
“The Prime Minister noted that extremists and
state actors already use AI to target young people with
propaganda. Every dollar of that threat lands in a human
mind. You cannot firewall a population. The defence against
synthetic persuasion is a citizenry equipped to recognise
it, and that is a psychological capability, not a technical
one. It is currently nobody’s job to build it.
“We
want AI to support and create good jobs, not replace
them.’ Everyone wants that. Wanting is not a mechanism.
Data centres now have a legal obligation to put more power
into the grid than they take out. That’s a mechanism.
There is no equivalent obligation, anywhere in this
framework, to give a single Australian worker warning,
retraining, or support before their role is
automated.”
Conflicts of interest: None
declared.
Our aim is to promote accurate, evidence-based reporting on science and technology by helping the media work more closely with the scientific community.
The Science Media Centre is New Zealand’s only trusted, independent source of information for the media on all issues related to science. Thousands of news stories providing context from and quoting New Zealand researchers have been published as a direct result of our work.
