Prime Minister of Australia, The Hon Anthony Albanese MP, today gave an address at the University of Sydney on ‘AI in Australia’s Interests’, announcing an Office of AI to be created within his department to address both the opportunities and the security, environmental and social challenges that Artificial Intelligence presents for Australia and the responsibility this creates for government. 

University of Sydney experts in AI safety, sustainability and computer science respond: 

Professor Anna Funder, author and Professor of Practice (Creative Writing) said: 
 
"Prime Minister Anthony Albanese’s speech was a masterclass in explaining to US Big Tech why Australians trust governments to keep them safe. He outlined Australia’s proud tradition of innovations in fairness – from universal healthcare in Medicare, universal secret voting, universal superannuation, the eight hour [working] day, minimum wage, and the Under-16s social media ban.  This has made our country one of the most stable and wealthy democracies in the world.

The AI companies have committed the biggest act of copyright theft in history. The PM firmly told them that not everything here is "up for grabs". He said that writers, journalists, and artists "must retain ownership" of our work, which is our property. Books, music and art he said, have been taken by Big Tech AI companies without artists’ consent and that the artists need control over the price and value of our work. "Anything less", the Prime Minister concluded, "is theft".

This is a clear message to Big Tech that if they want to operate in Australia, they need to obey our laws, including copyright law. They need to come to the table now to negotiate with writers and other copyright holders. Anything less, is theft.

The PM left open the possibility of a reparations fund for the past theft by the AI companies of our work." 

Professor Deanna D’alessandro, director of Net Zero Institute said: 

"The establishment of the Office of AI recognises that the federal government has an essential orchestration role to play, moving us beyond what has until now been a fragmented landscape across different levels of government, regulators and sectors. As Australia develops a national AI framework, it will be crucial that policy is underpinned by a strong, independent evidence base, bringing together government, industry, universities and civil society. 

"This was a commitment that I was encouraged to see reflected in the PM’s announcement today. 

"Building that evidence capability is going to be just as important as the governance structures themselves. The university sector has a crucial role to play in providing independent research, impact assessment and trusted expertise to help ensure AI delivers long-term economic and societal benefits for Australia.

Professor Eduardo Velloso, Deputy Head of School of Computer Science, and expert in human-computer interaction said: 

"Overall, I am pleased to see the government committing to a national AI strategy. I think there are excellent points, such as the environmental regulation of data centres that are critical to prevent what has been happening in countries like Chile for example. 

"My concern is in the details of how the strategy will be executed. At the address the PM himself said that the social media ban was about sending a signal. 

"Now we are seeing that the problems with that policy were in how it was actually implemented. We have a similar situation here, where the devil is in the details.  

"Protecting artists' copyright is important, but it is technically very difficult to enforce or even remove that data from the model. He mentioned building sovereign capability, but Australia has historically underinvested in AI relative to other rich nations. 

"He mentioned developing national standards, but we've been here before. 

"Around 2018/2019, several organisations produced close to 100 sets of AI ethics principles, but these principles didn't have any teeth and were often in tension with each other. For example, we all want AI to be transparent, but also private, but explaining an AI decision can reveal the data behind it. 

"Human oversight of AI decisions sounds great, but does not scale. The challenge for the government is in creating a set of standards that are flexible enough to accommodate the evolution of this technology, while being specific enough to be enforceable.  

Professor Albert Zomaya, Peter Nicol Russell Chair Professor of Computer Science said: 

"The creation of an Office of AI is a welcome and overdue step. AI is no longer a narrow technology issue. It affects the economy, government services, national security, education, jobs and the creative sector. Placing the Office within the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet should give it the reach needed to coordinate policy across government.

"Of course, creating an office is only the beginning. Its value will depend on whether it has genuine technical expertise, clear authority and the ability to hold agencies and companies accountable. Australia needs rules that provide certainty and protection without becoming outdated as the technology develops.

"The Prime Minister is also right to reject the idea that innovation requires weakening copyright. Australian writers, artists, journalists and other creators should know when and how their work is being used. AI companies should pursue fair licensing arrangements rather than assume that everything available online is free to exploit. 

"We should take the same measured approach to data centres. They can bring investment and strengthen Australia’s digital capability, but they also consume significant electricity and water. Faster approvals must not come at the expense of proper environmental and community scrutiny.

"Ultimately, Australia should aim to build its own AI capability, not simply become a customer for technologies developed elsewhere.

Dr Rebecca Johnson, expert in AI ethics, evaluation and governance, Faculty of Science said: 

"The speech was strong. What I most liked was that it kept Australian values, sovereignty and safety at the centre.

"Establishing an Office of AI within the PM’s Department is the right move. AI governance is currently scattered across regulators, institutes, plans and voluntary frameworks. Someone needs to bring those pieces together and take responsibility for the whole picture.

"The new Office will need four things: speed, genuine expertise, teeth, and adaptability. Australia is already behind, and the technology is moving faster than government. We do not have time for months of political point-scoring. Australia now has a new wave of PhD graduates whose research has focused directly on generative AI. They are genuine experts in its risks, capabilities, evaluation and governance, and they need to be inside the strategy process from the beginning. We also need enforceable requirements, clear responsibility and consequences when systems fail.

"Just as importantly, policy cannot be built only for today’s AI. Most current generative AI still descends from the transformer architecture introduced in 2017. Agentic AI is already a step change. These systems can plan, remember, use tools and act over time. If we are only now preparing to govern standard generative AI, we are nowhere near ready for agentic systems.

"Australia may never build the world’s biggest model. But we can lead on the harder problem: how powerful and agentic AI is evaluated, governed and made answerable to the public in ways that reflect Australian values.

Dr Armin Chitizadeh, from the School of Computer Science said: 

"Today, the Prime Minister of Australia spoke  about the future of AI in Australia. The point that stood out to me most was the commitment to protecting the intellectual property of artists, journalists, writers, musicians, and other content creators. The Prime Minister stated that Australian creators must retain ownership and control of their work, and that no company should be able to use their content to train AI without their permission. This includes giving creators control over the price and value of their work.

"In my view, this is a revolutionary step in the right direction and could represent one of the strongest commitments to copyright protection in the AI era made by any government so far. Protecting creative work is essential to preserving innovation, encouraging artistic expression, and ensuring that creators are fairly recognised and compensated for their contributions. This will encourage greater public confidence in AI, which is essential for its long-term growth and continued innovation.

"It is reassuring to see these concerns acknowledged at the highest level. I hope these commitments are translated into effective legislation in Australia and, ultimately, inspire similar protections in other countries as AI continues to evolve."

Professor Jun Huang from the School of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering said: 

"It is a great opportunity to develop renewable energy and update the classic fossil fuel energy system in Australia, as well as the development of Australia's abundant resources. Data centres for AI need a very stable electricity supply. Renewable electricity is preferred, but it must be backed up with the stable electricity grid from current fossil fuel power plants.

Australia is not only rich in renewable energy, it's also among the world's richest in fossil fuels like coal and natural gas. Coupling with carbon capture technology, the huge financial investment from data centres will update our current power plants to carbon zero energy generators.

Australia's grid is outdated and limited by the current manufacture development. It can be updated by the investment from AI. In addition, the new data centres release huge heat during the process, so new heat transfer materials based on Australian mining resources are required. It will help the mining industry and manufacturing in Australia."

Professor Kimberlee Weatherall, Co-Director of the Centre for AI, Trust and Governance, Sydney Law School said: 

"It’s good to hear the Federal Government taking a more active stance on questions of AI policy. For some time now, the government has been  rather passive: almost a ‘wait and see’ approach where they have waited for strong evidence of problems before addressing them. Responsibility for AI has been fragmented across multiple parts of government, and there has been little evidence of national coordination with the States. Elevating the issue to the PM’s office is a good step forward. What we have not yet seen is much detail about what it means to establish Australian “AI standards”; we’ll need to see any details as they emerge. 

"The copyright question is a deeply complex one, and the debate is very polarised. The speech does not progress us very far: the PM reiterated the government’s commitment to protect Australian creators: which, by the way, is not necessarily the same as “protecting copyright” - many creators do not have copyright, because they’ve assigned it away or they never had it. But the PM also strongly signalled he wants investment from Frontier Labs here in Australia; there’s also questions about research use of data that often get forgotten. Pursuing both (or more accurately, all of) these goals will require solutions: it’s clear the discussions are not yet settled. It can only be characterised, still, as a “watch this space”. 

Dr Mike Seymour, Director of the Motus Lab, University of Sydney School of Business said: 

"Clearly, the government wants to unify its response and the laws surrounding AI. It is encouraging to hear that the focus is not on stopping or pausing AI, but on working out how it can best serve Australians.

"The strongest aspect for me was the statement that Australian creatives and journalists should not have their work used without permission as training data, and that they should retain direct control over how their work is used. This is in stark contrast to the United States and appears to lean towards an even stronger position than that of the European Union.

"Australia is well placed to move forward, with many positive attributes, from being one of the sunniest nations on Earth to having a stable democracy. However, what was not addressed was increased funding for R&D, basic research, or universities.

"The intent and messaging suggested that Australia should not simply be a user of AI or a landlord for overseas data centres, but an active participant in its development. For this to happen, we need greater investment in science and for industry to rebalance its funding towards long-term innovation.

Professor Terry Flew, co-director, Centre for AI, Trust and Governance said: 
 
“Prime Minister Albanese’s announcement of an integrated AI strategy is to be welcomed, and the establishment of an Office of AI in his Department indicated that getting AI right is a top priority for the Federal Government. The commitment that  Australian writers, musicians, artists, and journalists must retain ownership and control of their work will be welcomed by the creative industries, although we wait to see what the detail of measures to enshrine this in copyright law will entail. 

A statement of this nature seeks to get the balance right between maximising opportunities from AI for Australian jobs, investment and productivity, while mitigating risks and being alert to the low levels of trust that Australians have in AI companies at this time.  

A mandatory regulatory framework for data centres is ambitious, and we certainly await more detail on this. The statement rightly recognises the issues around energy and water use, and proposes community consultations on addressing these risks, although there will be a lot of challenges in aligning the interests and concerns of all relevant stakeholders on this vital aspect of critical AI infrastructure.”

Dr. Raffaele Fabio Ciriello from the University of Sydney Business School said: 

“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.”