artificial intelligence law

Office of AI announced by Federal Government

by

reviewed by

Malcolm Burrows

Reading Time:

4–6 minutes

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 copyright material.

The Government expects to introduce the proposed laws into Parliament in early 2027.

Establishment of the Office of AI

The Office of AI commenced operation within the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet on 15 July 2026.  The Prime Minister said in his media release that the Office of AI will coordinate the Government’s AI policy across departments and oversee the development of the proposed Australian Standards for AI.  Those standards will build on an existing body of voluntary guidance under the Government’s National AI Plan, including the National AI Centre’s Guidance for AI Adoption and its earlier Voluntary AI Safety Standard, as well as international standards adopted by Standards Australia.  These standards remain voluntary unless incorporated into legislation, regulation or contractual obligations.

Mandatory standards for large data centres

The proposed standards will establish nationally consistent rules concerning where large data centres may be built and how they use electricity and water.

The Government intends to create a legal obligation for the next generation of large-scale data centres to fund new electricity generation, pay their full grid-connection costs and contribute at least as much electricity to the grid as they consume.

The Prime Minister described the intended approach as requiring data centres to become “net-generators, not net-users.”

Data centres will also be required to minimise their water consumption, maximise energy efficiency and pay for additional water infrastructure required for their operations.  The Prime Minister said in his speech that these measures are intended to ensure that the rapid expansion of data centres does not increase household and business electricity costs.

 AI training and use of copyright material

In his speech, the Prime Minister made the following statements:

“Australian writers, musicians, artists and journalists must retain ownership and control of their work.
Our laws will spell that out, plain as day.
An artist’s creative endeavour is their work and their property.
No company should use Australian books, music, art or news to build or train AI without the artist’s control.
That includes the artist’s control of the price and value of their work.
Anything less, is theft”.

The Government’s proposed standards are therefore expected to address whether copyright material may be used for AI training and the conditions or compensation for rightsholders applying to that use, though no legal model has been released.

What the announcement means for businesses

The proposed changes have not yet been legislated so this announcement does not alter existing legal obligations of data centre operators, AI developers or businesses adopting and using AI. 

More useless red tape or necessary guardrails?

Here’s hoping that the Office of AI doesn’t stifle the very innovation they state they intend to foster by adding to the significant administrative and compliance burden on businesses adopting AI by requiring them to:

  • register with the Office of AI;
  • conduct a risk assessment of the AI System adopted;
  • develop an AI Compliance System;
  • appoint an AI Compliance Officer;
  • assign a “risk rating” to the AI System implemented;
  • consider the impacts of the AI System adopted on disadvantaged or vulnerable consumers;
  • conduct risk assessments into whether or not consumers and employees could be affected by the adoption of AI and keep records about the risk assessment process undertaken; and
  • complete technical risk assessments into the security of any personal information collected and stored in an AI system;

That said, it seems inevitable that one of the consequences of this “innovation” at least in part will be consequential amendments to the Privacy Act 1988 (Cth) and the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth) to introduce offences that relate to irresponsible implementation of AI Systems by businesses. 

What happens next?

National Cabinet is expected to consider the proposed framework in August 2026.  The Government will then consult with industry, state and territory governments, trading partners, copyright owners and other stakeholders before introducing legislation, which is presently expected in early 2027.

Further details are also expected concerning the Government’s broader AI consumer-safety priorities and the relationship between the Office of AI and Australia’s $30 million AI Safety Institute which became operational in June 2026.

Links and further references

Federal Government publications

Media release, ‘AI in Australia’s Interests’, 15 July 2026.
Speech, ‘AI in Australia’s Interests’, 15 July 2026.

Existing voluntary Australian AI guidance

National Artificial Intelligence Centre, Voluntary AI Safety Standard: Guiding Safe and Responsible Use of Artificial Intelligence in Australia.
Australian Government, Guidance for AI Adoption: Implementation Guidance.

Standards Australia Information Technology standards

Standards Australia, Artificial Intelligence — Management System standard, AS ISO/IEC 42001:2023 (2023).
Standards Australia, Artificial Intelligence — Guidance on Risk Management standard, AS ISO/IEC 23894:2023 (2023).
Standards Australia, Governance of IT — Governance Implications of the Use of Artificial Intelligence by Organizations standard, AS ISO/IEC 38507:2022 (2022).

Legislation

Privacy Act 1988 (Cth).
Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth) sch 1.

Further information

If you need advice on the legal obligations when implementing AI into your business, please contact us for a confidential and obligation‑free discussion.

Doyles Recommended TMT Lawyer 2024


Related insights

  • Swiss company hands over user data

    Swiss company hands over user data

    A Court order in Switzerland raises questions about Australian law enforcement’s ability to access encrypted data. This article explores the legislative perspective on accessing private or business communications, and the steps taken to protect transmitted information.

    Read more …

  • Director identification numbers now a reality

    Director identification numbers now a reality

    The Federal Government has passed a law requiring all directors to obtain a Director Identification Number (DIN). Learn more about the implications of this law, including the potential penalties for non-compliance.

    Read more …

  • Online business promotion and liability for third-party comments

    Online business promotion and liability for third-party comments

    Businesses hosting online discussion forums must be aware of the potential for hefty damages claims if they fail to remove defamatory comments made by third parties. Find out more about the implications of the High Court case of Australian New Channel Pty Ltd v Voller [2021] HCA 27.

    Read more …

  • Parliament passes Government surveillance bill

    Parliament passes Government surveillance bill

    The Surveillance Legislation Amendment (Identify and Disrupt) Bill 2021 added three (3) warrants, allowing law enforcement to access data and take control of online accounts to obtain evidence of serious online crime.

    Read more …

  • Data breach compliance and response plans

    Data breach compliance and response plans

    Dundas Lawyers create tailored data breach response plans to ensure compliance with the Privacy Act 1988 (Cth). Plans include actions, registers, records, tests and tasks. Get an obligation-free and confidential discussion to learn more.

    Read more …

  • Are email trackers admissible as evidence?

    Are email trackers admissible as evidence?

    The Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) is silent, but the Court considers email trackers and read receipts as evidence in civil and intellectual property litigation. As seen in Jaffari v Grabowski [2013] NSWCA 114, sender’s receipt of confirmation of email relay is a matter for the recipient.

    Read more …

  • Is AI recognized as an inventor under the Patents Act 1990?

    Is AI recognized as an inventor under the Patents Act 1990?

    The ruling of Thaler v Commissioner of Patents [2021] FCA 879 has opened the door for artificial intelligence-created inventions to be eligible for patent protection. Learn more about the implications of this groundbreaking decision.

    Read more …

  • The Australian Cyber Law Map – overview

    The Australian Cyber Law Map – overview

    The Australian Cyber Law Map provides clarity on ever-changing legal landscape, covering commercial enterprises, cyber offences, infrastructure, international law, national security and personal rights. A source for understanding laws and providing safety/security in the digital age.

    Read more …

  • Explaining Australia’s Media Bargaining Code

    Explaining Australia’s Media Bargaining Code

    The News Media Bargaining Code (NMBC) is quickly moving through Parliament and looks likely to become law. It requires digital platforms, such as Facebook and Google, to negotiate remuneration with News Companies for providing their media services. Non-compliance could result in hefty civil penalties.

    Read more …

Related cases

  • Universal City Studios LLC v Telstra Limited [2025] FCA 1390

    COPYRIGHT – whether site blocking and ancillary orders with respect to 52 target online locations ought to be made under s 115A of the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) (Act) – where the applicants rely on presumptions in s 126, s 131 and s 115A(5A) of the Act and on deemed admissions as to ownership of…

  • Australian Information Commissioner v Australian Clinical Labs Limited (No 2) [2025] FCA 1224

    PRIVACY ACT – Where an APP entity breached Australian Privacy Principle (APP) 11.1 of the Privacy Act 1988 (Cth) (Act) by failing to take reasonable steps to protect personal information from unauthorised access or disclosure – what constitutes “reasonable steps” – where an APP entity interfered with the privacy of 223,000 individuals under s 13(1)…

  • Australian Information Commissioner v Australian Clinical Labs Ltd (No 2) [2025] FCA 1224

    PRIVACY ACT – Where an APP entity breached Australian Privacy Principle (APP) 11.1 of the Privacy Act 1988 (Cth) (Act) by failing to take reasonable steps to protect personal information from unauthorised access or disclosure – what constitutes “reasonable steps” – where an APP entity interfered with the privacy of 223,000 individuals under s 13(1)…

Send this to a friend