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

  • Assigning intellectual property and the right to sue

    Assigning intellectual property and the right to sue

    This case examines Re Taypar Pty Ltd v Benko Santic [1989] FCA 543, which determined that an assignee of intellectual property rights cannot sue for pre-assignment infringements, unless the assignment explicitly assigns a right to do so.

    Read more …

  • Evidence from the Wayback Machine accepted

    Evidence from the Wayback Machine accepted

    Australian Courts are increasingly considering the use of evidence from the Wayback Machine, but questions remain as to whether they will accept such reports in practice and what will be allowed?

    Read more …

  • $750k awarded for fake online reviews

    $750k awarded for fake online reviews

    The Supreme Court of South Australia awarded $A750,000 in damages to a lawyer in the case of Cheng v Lok [2020] SASC 14, demonstrating the serious consequences of posting fake reviews online. Find out more about the implications of this case and alternative legal actions for companies that receive negative reviews.

    Read more …

  • Adaptations and computer code – copyright issues

    Adaptations and computer code – copyright issues

    An adaption in copyright is the exclusive right of the owner of the work in question.  Section 10 of the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) (Act) defines adaption as it relates to literary works in dramatic and non-dramatic forms, in a computer program and in relation to a musical work.   The rights that apply to adaptions…

    Read more …

  • Computer code libraries and copyright ownership

    Computer code libraries and copyright ownership

    The Australian case of Redrock Holdings Pty Ltd and Hotline Communications Ltd v Hinkley [2001] VSC 91 has shed light on how the ownership of copyright in code libraries is determined. Learn more about the dispute and its implications for copyright ownership in this blog post.

    Read more …

  • e-Signatures – legally binding on companies?

    e-Signatures – legally binding on companies?

    E-signatures are becoming increasingly popular, but are they legally binding? Find out in this article, which examines the Adelaide Bank case and reveals the limitations of e-signatures when it comes to executing a deed. Click through to learn more.

    Read more …

  • New safety standards proposed for online platforms

    New safety standards proposed for online platforms

    The Australian Government has proposed an Online Safety Act that could significantly change the way businesses manage user-generated content online. Find out how this proposed Act could affect your business and how you can prepare for it.

    Read more …

  • Has my software been copied? – legal test explained

    Has my software been copied? – legal test explained

    This article examines the legal test for a “substantial reproduction” of computer code, as established by the High Court in Data Access Corporation v Powerflex Services Pty Ltd [1999] HCA 49 and further discussed in subsequent cases. The Court will consider the essential features of the work to determine if there has been a substantial…

    Read more …

  • Technology startups – top 5 legal considerations

    Technology startups – top 5 legal considerations

    Start your tech startup on the right footing by considering the top five (5) legal considerations: entity structure and asset protection, intellectual property (IP), confidentiality, contracts, privacy and compliance.

    Read more …

Related cases

  • eSafety Commissioner v Rotondo (No 4) [2025] FCA 1191

    COMMUNICATIONS LAW – Where the applicant seeks declarations that the respondent contravened the Online Safety Act 2021 – where the respondent admits to contravening the Online Safety Act 2021 – declaration made. COMMUNICATIONS LAW – Where the applicant seeks pecuniary penalty – where the respondent admits to contravening the Online Safety Act 2021 – where…

  • ACCC v Webjet Marketing PL [2025] FCA 867

    Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Webjet Marketing Pty Ltd [2025] FCA 867

  • Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Wallet Ventures Pty Ltd [2025] FCAFC 93

    CORPORATIONS – meaning of debenture in s 9 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) – where respondent operated a digital currency exchange through which customers could buy and sell certain cryptocurrencies – where respondent also offered a Finder application (Finder App) on mobile device platforms through which its customers could, amongst other things, access the…

Send this to a friend