artificial intelligence law

Albanese proposes new AI regulator and mandatory standards

by

reviewed by

Malcolm Burrows

Reading Time:

2–3 minutes

On 10 November 2026, the Federal Government published a media statement detailing plans for a new “AI safety regulator” and mandatory obligations for AI developers under proposed Australian AI Standards legislation (Proposed AI Legislation).  The new “AI safety and security protections” would target “frontier AI companies” operating in Australia as part of as part of Albanese’s “AI in Australia’s Interests agenda”.  The AI regulator and new legal obligations remain proposals and will not take effect until legislation is passed.

What would the Proposed AI Legislation cover?

The proposed AI safety regulator would enforce compliance, with “significant penalties” for breaches.  Companies would be required to:

  • maintain security controls throughout the software development and deployment stages;
  • identify and manage serious risks associated with their models;
  • permit independent model evaluations;
  • promptly notify the Federal Government of incidents;
  • maintain and publish safety and security frameworks; and
  • comply with updated standards and rules as technology changes.

What don’t we know about the Proposed AI Legislation?

The announcement does not include any details about the proposed:

  • penalty amounts;
  • timelines for drafts of legislation; or
  • criteria for determining which companies and AI models would be covered.

Why is the Government proposing this legislation?

The Proposed Legislation follows a review into an OpenAI agent’s unauthorised access to governmental online systems, including the Medicare Statistics Reporting Service Portal.  The Federal Government has accepted the review’s eighteen (18) recommendations and commenced implementation work.

The review also recommends considering criminal law reforms, including penalties for serious regulatory non-compliance and a standalone “failure to prevent” offence.  The latter would address circumstances where a company develops or implements an AI model that causes harm and fails to take reasonable steps to prevent it.  This is a recommendation to consider an offence; its elements and any defences have not been settled by the announcement.  It is to be seen whether any draft legislation for these AI safety proposals include this specific recommendation.

Takeaways about the proposed AI Regulator

The announcement is somewhat lacking in detail.  For example it does not say that every business using AI will fall within the new regime.  Any draft legislation will need to be examined carefully to determine its application to developers, software suppliers and businesses deploying third-party AI models.

Links and further references

Prime Minister of Australia, Media Release, New Australian AI safety and security protections.

Australian Federal Government, Rapid Review into Australian Government arrangements for an AI‑driven cyber incident recommendations.

Further information about AI Compliance

If you need advice on AI compliance or you are a software developer responsible for implementing AI systems in organisations and you want to know how to do this safely, contact us for a confidential and obligation free discussion.

Doyles Recommended TMT Lawyer 2024

Related insights into AI

  • Albanese proposes new AI regulator and mandatory standards

    Albanese proposes new AI regulator and mandatory standards

    On 10 November 2026, the Federal Government published a media statement detailing plans for a new “AI safety regulator” and mandatory obligations for AI developers under proposed Australian AI Standards legislation

    Read more …

  • AI compliance programs: one size does not fit all

    AI compliance programs: one size does not fit all

    Australia does not have any standalone legislation addressing how businesses can safely implement Artificial Intelligence (AI).  Use of AI by Australian businesses is, however, regulated, not by a patchwork combination of Federal and State legislation, industry-specific legislation and standards, professional body rules and guidance issued by government departments and other regulators.  This article discusses the…

    Read more …

  • AI evidence misleading Court:  Ba v Sterling Parts Australia

    AI evidence misleading Court: Ba v Sterling Parts Australia

    On 17 June 2026, Symons J delivered judgment in the case of Ba v Sterling Parts Australia Pty Ltd [2026] FedCFamC2G 1245 (Ba v Sterling Parts).  Ba v Sterling Parts was a proceeding brought by Weiman Ba (Applicant) in the second division of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Court).  Symons J dismissed…

    Read more …

  • Office of AI announced by Federal Government

    Office of AI announced by Federal Government

    On 15 July 2026, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese (Prime Minister) announced by media release an expansion of the Federal Government’s (Government) existing artificial intelligence (AI) governance framework, including the establishment of a new Office of AI as well as plans to legislate national standards governing large-scale data centres, AI training and the use of Australian…

    Read more …

  • Federal Court publishes GenAI Practice Note

    Federal Court publishes GenAI Practice Note

    On 16 April 2026, the Federal Court of Australia (Court) published the Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence Practice Note (GPN-AI) (Cth) (GenAI Practice Note). 

    Read more …

  • AI businesses should have duty of care

    AI businesses should have duty of care

    In a recent interview with InnovationAus.com, Victorian Senator Michelle Ananda-Rajah (Senator) emphasised the need to adopt digital duty of care laws for artificial intelligence (AI) companies.[1]  As a representative of the ALP and former AI start-up founder, the Senator calls for the proposed digital duty of care to apply to AI companies.  If implemented, the…

    Read more …

 

Recent Federal Court decisions regarding Albanese proposes new AI regulator and mandatory standards

  • StarTrack Express Pty Ltd v TMA Australia Pty Ltd [2023] FCA 1271

    PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – interlocutory application for urgent injunctive relief – where urgent injunctive relief sought to restrain respondent from operating an ecommerce website – whether there is a prima facie case that favours injunctive relief – alleged breach of contractual restraint – alleged breach of contractual term not to use confidential information – misleading…

Send this to a friend