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

  • Who holds ownership of the code?

    Who holds ownership of the code?

    Understand who owns the computer code used in software development projects. Consider employee or contractor engagement, joint ownership, and assignment of copyright to ensure your project is protected.

    Read more …

  • ASIC issues statement on Initial Coin Offering

    ASIC issues statement on Initial Coin Offering

    The Australian Securities and Investments Commission releases an Information Sheet to help companies with Initial Coin Offerings (ICOs), but Commissioner John Price warns of the speculative and unregulated nature of investing in them.

    Read more …

  • Do you need to disclose a database?

    Do you need to disclose a database?

    This article looks at the disclosure requirements for civil litigation in Queensland, and whether computer databases are considered ‘documents’ in this context. Get an overview of the relevant legal precedent and definitions, and discover the key points to consider.

    Read more …

  • What exactly is an Initial Coin Offering?

    What exactly is an Initial Coin Offering?

    With the rise of cryptocurrencies (think Bitcoin and Ethereum), start-up businesses have engaged in a new method of sourcing funding from would-be investors – Initial Coin Offerings (ICOs).  ICOs are becoming an increasingly popular method for new businesses to raise money in a short period of time with minimal effort.  As ICOs are a new…

    Read more …

  • Software as a service (SaaS) contracts

    Software as a service (SaaS) contracts

    Drafting a SaaS (Software-as-a-Service) contract requires careful legal consideration. This article covers the business model, Australian Consumer Law (ACL), jurisdiction and choice of law, third party access, data, user-generated content, intellectual property (IP) ownership and major clauses. Learn how to ensure an effective SaaS contract is in place.

    Read more …

  • Software licences classified as “goods” under the ACL

    Software licences classified as “goods” under the ACL

    This Federal Court case highlights the risks of supplying goods and services to Australian consumers. Companies should be aware of their legal obligations and seek advice to ensure their contractual terms comply with Australian Consumer Law. Find out more about the case and its implications.

    Read more …

  • Are software developers responsible for defects in their software?

    Are software developers responsible for defects in their software?

    Software developers in Australia may face legal liability in negligence and under the Australian Consumer Law. This article examines what is required for negligence in the context of relevant case law.

    Read more …

  • Legal challenges arising from data loss

    Legal challenges arising from data loss

    Organisations must protect confidential data from external and internal threats. Learn steps to secure data, potential data breach implications, and how a data breach notification bill may require affected entities to notify consumers.

    Read more …

  • Data Breach Bill 2016 – key data security considerations

    Data Breach Bill 2016 – key data security considerations

    The Privacy Amendment (Notifiable Data Breaches) Bill 2016 has been passed, making notification of data breaches mandatory from 23 February 2018. Find out how this could affect you and what measures you can take to protect your data.

    Read more …

Related cases

  • Australian Securities and Investments Commission v FIIG Securities Limited [2026] FCA 92

    CORPORATIONS – Financial services licence – ASIC sought declaration under s 1317E(1) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Corporations Act) in respect of admitted contraventions of s 912A of the Corporations Act – ASIC sought orders imposing a pecuniary penalty in an agreed sum – where defendant was subject to a cyber attack as a…

  • Universal City Studios LLC v Telstra Limited (No 2) [2025] FCA 1485

    COPYRIGHT – application for orders disabling access to new means of access to certain target online locations (Additional Urgent Access Means) – where site blocking and ancillary orders previously made with respect to target online locations under s 115A of the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) – where target online locations subsequently made available through different…

  • Anthony v Apple Inc [2025] FCA 902

    COMPETITION LAW — representative proceeding against Apple by developers and users — representative proceeding against Google by developers and users — group members’ claims for overcharge — digital technology — Apple mobile devices — Android mobile devices — operating system software — smart phones — tablets — personal computers — native apps — web apps…

Send this to a friend