I have received a letter from the honourable member for Curtin proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:

The need for the Government to act with greater urgency and ambition to address both the promise and peril of artificial intelligence.

I call upon those honourable members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.

More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places

The people building AI earnestly believe that it could kill us all by the end of the decade. This statement was posted on X last week by Jacob Coxon, a researcher who had just resigned from Anthropic and had previously worked at OpenAI. In the weeks since, the statement has been validated by the leading voices of the AI industry—Dario Amodei, Sam Altman, Elon Musk, Demis Hassabis and others. These industry leaders have all publicly come forward to make the same point: AI is moving too fast and its risks are becoming too great. Dario Amodei wrote that he believed AI could take over the entire internet in the next six to 12 months. Elon Musk wrote that AI is potentially more dangerous than nukes.

Now, we've known about the risks of AI for a long time. AI tools can supercharge cyberwarfare. They can help terrorist groups build biological weapons. They can allow foreign regimes to undertake large-scale disinformation campaigns during elections in our country. And they could escape human control, which we've seen a number of times in previous months. But when we have all the CEOs of the leading AI companies reaching a rare consensus—that AI is moving too fast to control—it is time for us to pause and think: What can we do from Australia? How can we prepare ourselves for the risks? And who is protecting the interests of Australia and Australians? Ultimately, most of these sci-fi-sounding risks may not come true, but we should absolutely be preparing for them just in case.

Instead of more doom and gloom, I want to offer solutions. The first one is the simplest and the most significant. The Albanese government must increase its funding of the Australian AI Safety Institute. The AI Safety Institute, or AISI for short, is our frontline defence against frontier AI models developed overseas. Its responsibility is to test new AI models and agents for risks, work with our government to develop appropriate responses and collaborate with international AI safety institutes. But the AISI is drastically underfunded. It receives less than $8 million a year, and with that funding it's expected to identify if the latest AI model produced by Anthropic could be used to hack our banks. It's expected to identify if the latest OpenAI agent can escape human control and start replicating; to identify if the latest Google model could help a disgruntled, angry lone wolf to build a biological weapon to be released in a school or a synagogue or a festival; and to prepare Australia for risks that could do billions of dollars of damage and cause untold suffering to countless Australians.

I'm calling on the government to increase AISI funding to $100 million a year. Now, this is a rounding error against a federal budget of over $700 billion. It's a rounding error against the damages and harm that it could prevent. It's also a rounding error compared to the productivity benefits that we're relying on AI to deliver that depend on safe uptake. There are very few line items in the budget with such a strong business case. Everyone I've talked to across the AI industry—across business, civil society, experts and community—agrees that the AISI needs more funding to keep up with the incredible pace of AI development. The UK's equivalent institute gets 16 times more funding, and as a result it's widely recognised as the international gold standard for AI safety. The UK doesn't have its own frontier model, but it's a leader in AI safety anyway. This simply must be funded properly. None of us believe that the tech billionaires, Donald Trump or Xi Jinping will ensure that these technologies are safe for us.

Beyond more resources, there's so much else that we could be doing. Firstly is access. The AI Safety Institute should be given the power to compel AI developers to provide early access to their models before they're deployed in Australia. Currently, frontier AI developers, like Anthropic and OpenAI, often do provide early access to safety institutes, but this is done on an entirely voluntary basis. What if Anthropic chooses in the future not to provide early access to a revolutionary cyberwarfare tool like Mythos? What if Chinese models start entering Australia en masse without our AI Safety Institute testing them first?

Secondly—disclosure. Frontier AI developers should be required to provide essential information to AISI and the Australian government. This means sharing a safety framework describing how the AI developers identify and test for risks. It means mandatory critical incident reports when a serious safety risk emerges after deployment.

Earlier this year, OpenAI and Anthropic revealed that a number of their AI models had escaped control and escaped their testing environment. Australians only know about that because of media investigations and because the companies chose to tell us. This has to change. Australia needs clarity about the true risks and capabilities of these models.

Thirdly—crisis management. Australia's crisis management framework should be updated to include AI crises both as standalone incidents and as amplifiers of existing hazards like pandemics or natural disasters. Before COVID-19 arrived, Australia had a detailed pandemic plan ready to go, and it meant our early response was among the best in the OECD. We have no equivalent plan for an AI enabled cyberattack on the electricity grid or an AI system deployed in government producing catastrophic outputs. Those risks could unfold within hours, faster than the time it would take to convene a meeting to discuss a response if no plan existed.

Our Security of Critical Infrastructure Act needs the same update. It doesn't currently clearly capture data centres hosting AI models and it does nothing to ensure the operators of our energy, water and health infrastructure are actually preparing for AI enabled cyberattacks.

Fourthly—cooperation. Australia should be working with countries like Canada, Japan, South Korea, the UK and our partners across the European Union, nations that share our interest in AI being developed safely but individually lack the leverage to set the terms on their own. Together, these middle powers represent a substantial share of the world's AI-using population and a large market for the companies that build these models. A coordinated position among us—on minimum safety expectations, on transparency requirements, on incident reporting, on what a frontier developer must disclose before releasing a new model—carries far more weight than any one of us could achieve alone.

The International Network of AI Safety Institutes gives us the start of this architecture. We should be using it and using it quickly. This is not a naive call for a single global treaty that will never happen. It's a practical case for coalition building among the countries that have the most to lose from a race to the bottom and the most to gain from getting this right. Only by working with fellow middle powers to develop consistent rules can we ensure that our AI future is one in which we're excited to live.

Lastly—data centres. In the meantime, unlocking the ability for data centres to be built in a manner that's sustainable and beneficial for Australians will also build leverage and sovereignty over this industry. The longer-term economic benefits of data centres may remain ambiguous but the strategic and geopolitical advantages are significant. The government must quickly develop appropriate copyright protections so that creatives have meaningful control over their work and AI developers are able to train and build data centres in Australia if they appropriately compensate those creators.

The government must also develop its binding AI standards to ensure that data centres: are powered by 100 per cent additional renewable energy; are highly water efficient; clearly benefit the Australian community; and are transparent with the data being used. Once these guardrails are in place, data centre development can become a significant asset to Australia and Australians.

There are many people I talk to who ask why we're building this new technology at all. The truth is that the promise of AI is enormous—supercharged medical research, rising living standards, improved accessibility. But the promise and the peril of AI are not separate stories. They're the same story, told from two different vantage points. A model capable enough to accelerate a cancer diagnosis is a model capable enough to help someone build a weapon. A system trusted enough to run our aged-care packages is a system dangerous enough to repeat the mistakes of robodebt at a far greater scale. We cannot choose to embrace one side of this technology while wishing away the other. They arrive together or not at all.

That's why this cannot be treated as a distant hypothetical debate for some future parliament to resolve. The decisions being made in the boardrooms of San Francisco and Beijing this year will shape the world Australian kids will inherit. Waiting for certainty before we act is not caution; it's abdication. We do not have the luxury of waiting for the risks to fully materialise before we respond to them, because by then it will be too late to respond at all. But the only way we can realise the promise of AI is if the government acts urgently to deal with its peril.

I thank the member for Curtin for raising this issue as an MPI, because artificial intelligence is a matter of significant public importance. I also appreciate the member for Curtin framing this MPI in the way that she has, recognising both the promise and the risks of this new technology, because the promise of AI is so great and because the risks are so critical. That is why the Albanese government has been acting with urgency, with a cross-government approach led by the Prime Minister and the Minister for Industry and Innovation, to get Australia's settings right.

That began last year when our National AI Plan was released. That plan had three parts. The first part was to make sure that Australia captures the economic opportunity of AI—that we build the compute, data centres and the connections, that we make sure we get foreign investment and have sovereign AI, and that we build an economy in the AI world that will deliver prosperity for our people. That was the first objective: capture the economic opportunity. The second objective that we laid out in that plan was to spread the benefits—to make sure that all Australians are participants in the AI revolution, and that we provide skills for our workers, tools for our small businesses and a fair go for our regions. The third element of the government's AI plan was to make sure that we keep Australians safe—that we are testing models, backing our regulators and protecting our workers, our creators and our consumers. Those are the three goals in the Albanese government's National AI Plan. We have to achieve each of those goals at the same time. There is no point capturing the economic opportunity if we lose control of the risks, as we just won't have the social licence to grab that opportunity.

Since the release of that plan, the government has been working at pace on delivery. We announced the Australian AI Safety Institute in November 2025. We launched the AI plan for the Public Service that same month. In December 2025, we started to attract some significant compute investment, consistent with that plan. In that month, we had a $7 billion announcement from NEXTDC for a new data centre in Eastern Creek—critically, a new data centre that runs on renewables and uses no drinking water. In that year, as we rounded out 2025, figures were released showing that Australia was the second-highest destination for compute in the world.

Early in 2026, we released our expectations on data centres, because it's one thing to attract this compute and to recognise that that compute is the industrial capacity of the 21st century, but we also want to make sure that that compute doesn't bring harm to our local communities. In those expectations, we laid out very clearly that we want these data centres not to be pushing up power prices for Australians. We don't want these data centres to be restricting Australians' access to water. We said clearly in those expectations: if you build here, you build on our terms, and you deliver benefits, not harms, to Australians.

In May and June, we were working with technical bodies and with the states on the implementation of those expectations. I give great credit to the Minister for Climate Change and Energy and the Minister for the Environment and Water, who've been working through the delivery of those expectations to make sure that the introduction of data centres to Australia is done in a way that benefits Australians, not the tech companies.

In the budget in May 2026, we backed Australian builders of AI with up to $70 million in AI Accelerator grants and other benefits. This was on top of the investments that the NRF had made to build Australian capability and on top of the excellent work of the National AI Centre. And then, in July 2026, the Prime Minister brought it all together. He announced a world first. Australia was going to be the first country in the world to introduce nationally consistent frameworks that cover large AI data centres.

The Prime Minister's AI standards cover energy, water, skills, local communities and safety elements. He also said, in that same speech, that Australia is going to support our creatives. We are going to ensure that, when creatives' work is trained upon, it is only done so with the artist's control, including over the price. These principles that the Prime Minister laid out are again another world first for Australia in AI.

That same month, the government released our AI safety priorities. This is a set of priorities that span right across government: the digital duty of care led by the Minister for Communications, updates to our privacy law led by the Attorney-General, safe AI at work led by the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, a framework for automated decision-making led by the Attorney-General and a framework on agentic commerce led by the Assistant Minister for Productivity, Competition, Charities and Treasury. Right across government, we are placing AI safety in every element of our government, making sure that these priorities are at the forefront in the government's agenda.

In August 2026, National Cabinet backed the plan—nine governments in Australia, one rule book. Large data centres will have to put as much power into the grid as they take out. They'll have to be efficient in their use of water and fund additional water infrastructure they require. What this means is that we can look Australians in the eye and tell them that, as data centres come into Australia, they will not push up the power prices of Australians and they will not restrict access to drinking water for Australians.

Then, this very month, the parliament established the Joint Select Committee on Artificial Intelligence with a report to be delivered in November. I acknowledge the member for Maribyrnong for her leadership of that committee, and I acknowledge the contribution as well of the member for Curtin as a member of that committee. In the same month, we launched our Buy Australian AI program. This is a critically important program to make sure that we support the more than 1,500 AI startups that we have in Australia to get them that first customer by encouraging Australian corporates and Australian procurement officers to look at Australian AI as a solution to their AI needs.

That's what we've been doing month in, month out—building out our program as we forecast in the government's national AI plan. What's the result of this? After all that work, what has the government been delivering? On safety, Australia is leading the world. Labor has always been willing. We've always shown our willingness to lead the world on online risks. We were the first country in the world to do a social media ban for young people. Similarly, in AI we are leading the world as the first country to introduce AI standards, we are the first country to introduce a digital duty of care, and we are doing world-leading research into safety through the AI Safety Institute.

Safety is only part of it. Of course, we also need our own domestic capability, and again here Australia is leading the world in many areas. We have the National AI Centre promoting adoption across the country, making sure that AI can be used by all Australians. Let me tell you how that is going. Australia ranks No. 1 on the Anthropic index for adoption. We are the highest country in the world for AI use per capita on that index. Australians are using Claude at 6½ times the rate predicted by our country's population. We've also attracted globally significant compute, the industrial capacity of the 21st century. Despite being a relatively small country amongst the G20, we are the No. 2 destination for compute in the world, and we have a thriving ecosystem of researchers and more than 1,500 AI startups. That is the result of getting the settings right in Australia: leading the world on safety and leading the world in many areas of capability.

Of course we have more to do. This is a rapidly evolving area. Things are changing not just year by year but month by month. We'll continue to flesh out and lay out our plans as we described in the National AI Plan. It's important that we do this because AI is becoming a critical input into all of our economies. It will determine the competitiveness of nations in the 21st century. We must have our own AI and, to have our own AI, we need to build it safely and maintain the trust of the Australian community.

This year Australians got a bit of a shock when the Strait of Hormuz closed and we recognised our significant dependence on foreign oil. It was a difficult thing for this government to manage, albeit we managed it very well. I ask the House to cast forward, to think about a future where every Australian business and organisation has AI embedded in it. If all of that AI and all of those tokens come from abroad, we are introducing a new and dangerous vulnerability into our domestic economy. That's why we have to have domestic AI Australian sovereign capability supported by a framework that delivers trust and social licence.

Thank you very much to the member for Curtin for bringing this very important MPI to this House for debate. This week, experts sounded the alarm: AI poses existential risks to our society, and governments must slow it down. Tech leaders themselves are calling for urgent action, asking governments to regulate artificial intelligence because of its potentially catastrophic risks to humanity. It sounds dramatic, but these are the stakes of a powerful new technology running rampant with no safeguards.

This is a lesson we should have learned already from our experience with social media. The government was asleep at the wheel when it became widespread and is playing catch up right now trying to regulate it. We have the opportunity to avoid making the same mistake with AI, and we cannot miss it again. The government has been painfully slow to act on this. Could it be intentional? Cosying up to the tech bros saying Australia is 'open for business'. This is clearly out of touch with ordinary people who are rightly sceptical of these big American tech companies.

People know AI is a threat to their jobs, especially for young people looking for entry-level positions. People know AI is imposing data centres on their communities, pushing up power prices and polluting the environment. People know AI is using their data to build sophisticated models on all of us with no transparency and no accountability. People understand the risks of AI, so why is the government so slow out of the blocks and so out of touch? Please wake up, PM, and regulate AI before it's too late.

What are the risks of AI? Firstly, there is valid concern about data centres—something that I've discussed in this place before. Data centres—big, ugly warehouses—are pushing up power prices and polluting your community, coming to a neighbourhood near you whether you like it or not. AI data centres are springing up across Australia. They use vast amounts of land and water and emit sound and light that disrupts people and wildlife. And speaking as a former architect, they're pretty monstrous things to impose on our landscapes and neighbourhoods.

Maybe not in Dalby, you reckon? Why is this happening? Tech billionaires are expanding their AI experiment and need new data centres to hold all the valuable, sensitive information they collect on us. Why Australia? Well, our government has rolled out the red carpet and welcomed the tech bros in at the small cost of our energy prices spiking, our waterways being polluted and our wildlife being uprooted. You have to ask: why does the government want so badly to welcome AI? It won't boost our economy. It'll take away jobs, and no-one wants these data centres in the first place. Is it just FOMO?

The government has a non-binding set of expectations for data centres, but they might as well be written in pencil on tissue paper. They say they'll produce national standards but not until 2027. It's very unfortunate they've dragged their feet for so long, allowing Australia to become a dumping ground for these data centres. Big tech has seen our lack of regulation as an opportunity to profit, and the government has let them do it. Until proper standards are written into law, the government should place a pause on approving any new data centres. That's what the Australian community rightly expects.

The second, more fundamental, concern about AI's rapid development is the existential threat that it poses and the lack of consultation, transparency or accountability. Artificial intelligence has transformed every aspect of our society and our lives. But who is this for and when were Australians consulted? AI's impact on jobs could be disastrous, especially for young people seeking entry level roles or in sectors such as the arts. When Australians are working longer and longer hours for less and less pay, while computers are creating art, our society is making a big mistake.

AI could also deeply hurt education. I speak to many young people, including those at the University of Queensland in my electorate. Even students are concerned about AI's role in education. They don't want to spend thousands in HECS fees, and rack up those debts, only for AI to take over the thinking and the learning—not to mention the risks posed by deepfakes to our society, our politics, our national security and to truth itself—

The member for Maribyrnong has the call.

I remind the member for Ryan that Australia was the first country in the world to tell the biggest tech companies on the planet that our kids and their safety come first. This government is about to lead the world again on artificial intelligence. AI is in our homes. It is on our phones. It's in our workplaces. It's becoming more and more accessible every day, and, every day that we are in this place, this government is working on this vital issue. We are working on it because Australians are asking us the big questions: What does this mean for my job? Is my child safe? Who is making sure it works for us?

The member for Curtin rightly mentions the promises and the perils of AI and the need to get both aspects right. I'm confident that not only is our government well placed to do this but also this parliament and our nation are. As the assistant minister said, our National AI Plan, which was released last year, is built on three key pillars: capturing the opportunity, sharing the benefits and keeping Australians safe. The AI Safety Institute that is up and running is already testing the most advanced AI systems out there and working on exactly the risks that the tech bosses have been warning us about this week. It sits within an international network alongside our allies in the UK and Canada.

In July this year several government ministers set out our AI safety priorities, including the digital duty of care, which puts the onus back on the tech companies to build safety into their product from the very start. And AI safety at work is now on the table as the government talks across unions and employers because workers deserve a say in how this lands in their workplaces.

Like most technological advances in human history, you don't get the promise of AI without dealing with the peril. I don't say this to downplay the peril; rather, we must confront them if we are to get this right. If Australians don't trust AI, we won't share in the benefits. We, on this side of the House, understand that. Although Australians have always been excited, early adopters of technology, we understand people are also rightly nervous about their jobs and about their communities. Parents are worried about their kids, what they're being exposed to and who and what they might be talking to online. We get that. Before I came into this place, I spent years working alongside parents at the Parenthood and with early childhood educators at the United Workers Union. The lesson from both of those was pretty simple: change only works if the people it affects get to have a say in it.

The promise of AI is huge. Just this week, a team at the RMIT showed off a tiny chip that can see and remember what it's looking at. They reckon it could sit inside a bionic eye. That is Australian research done in Melbourne; that is exactly what our government is backing.

I think about the world first on social media—when this government put a minimum age on it. I was proud to help champion those laws. Parents told us they were exhausted at holding that line on their own, and we listened. We're doing it again. In July, the Prime Minister announced Australian standards for AI. They are the first of its kind by any government in the world. Big data centres will need to bring their own energy and pay their full share of the network, so it doesn't land in our power bills. This is about acting with urgency, so we can seize this opportunity. This is a moment, a window that is open to us now, and we can and we will walk through it together to shape our own AI future, not let it shape us, because this is exactly how we drive safety. This is how we mitigate the risks.

Over the coming weeks, I'll be glad to chair the Joint Select Committee on Artificial Intelligence, and I acknowledge the work of the member for Curtin on it. We'll be working together to make sure that we get this right. We all, in this place, have a responsibility to ensure that we are able to capture the benefits whilst also ensuring we keep Australians safe. We have an important role in that, and I'm very glad to be able to contribute to it.

I thank the member for Curtin for bringing this matter of public importance to the House. Let me start by saying that I don't see AI as either inherently good or inherently bad. However, I do believe that with the right governance, frameworks, and regulation in place we can ensure that AI enhances our lives. The problem is, though, that for too long we've buried our heads in the sand and allowed the technology to be driven by those seeking power and profit—although it's now precisely these same people warning us that there is a 'greater than 10 per cent chance' that AI will kill all humans and that a 'swarm' could be capable of taking over the entire internet with a persistent botnet.

No wonder many people feel that this technology and the infrastructure that supports it are moving too fast and that too many decisions are being made without community consent. Indeed, I hear constituent concerns about privacy, data security, the environmental footprint of data centres and what these facilities mean for the communities that host them. There are reports of AI systems producing unexpected outcomes and concerns about the use of artists' work, writers' content and personal images to train AI models without consent—and this is before we even confront the darker side of the technology, like frauds and scams, mis- and disinformation and AI-facilitated abuse and violence.

Frankly, it's also not lost on some people that the internet has its origin in research by the US military to create a communications network that could survive a nuclear war. To shut it down you'd need to turn off every power source globally and cut every wire, microwave, fibre optic, satellite and radio link, also globally. In other words, the internet is virtually indestructible, even though it's how AI communicates and spreads and is something we might need to be able to control much more effectively if we are to prevent that rogue AI communication and spread.

All of this is quite alarming, and we would be foolish to ignore it, despite Donald Trump's unhinged comment that all the warnings are a 'hoax'. However, calls to stop development or shut everything down would seem to be the epitome of shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted. In any case, we need to remember that AI can also enhance our lives. For instance, United Nations reports show that AI is contributing to medical breakthroughs, including speeding up drug discovery and vaccine development. AI has also facilitated early detection of breast cancer, is improving lives by making technology more accessible for people with disability and is broadening opportunities for education and mental health support.

Moreover, the boundaries of AI are complex, and it's no longer simply a tool, increasingly working its way into every aspect of our existence. In 2023 an AI-generated picture won the open creative category at the Sony World Photography Awards, and last month an individual won a landmark Fair Work Commission ruling by using an AI agent in lieu of a legal team. Mind you, it's also the case that a survey found that one in five young people had ended a relationship in favour of an AI chatbot!

Another aspect of all this is that AI transcends international borders, and the reality is that there are powerful commercial and geopolitical incentives driving this AI arms race. While America and China hold the lion's share of AI computing power, the impacts are global and should be addressed as such. If leading AI scientists are warning that advanced AI could pose risks on the scale of pandemics and nuclear war, surely the answer is to take a precautionary approach, not to race ahead without limits. When the world confronted the threat of nuclear war, nations developed international rules and safeguards to reduce the risk of catastrophe, and that's what's needed now.

AI presents a similarly complex transnational challenge, making it clear that robust regulatory frameworks, both nationally and internationally, are needed and that they should be grounded in precautionary principles. The world cannot afford to remain on the sidelines while China and the US compete to develop increasingly powerful AI systems. We need international guardrails governing where and for what purpose AI is deployed, before the technology outpaces our ability to manage its risks.

We must demand and invest in safety by design, not simply regulation at deployment. And we must look to global collaboration to safeguard the pace of development. AI's potential is undeniable. Ensuring that it enhances society rather than undermines or destroys it is one of the great political challenges of our time.

It is predicted that artificial intelligence will transform the economy more than the Industrial Revolution did. This is where I'll agree with those opposite, that there is promise and there is peril as well. But I will point out that the Albanese Labor government is indeed acting. We have already established the new Office for AI inside of PM&C. We have published the expectations of data centres and AI infrastructure developers, and we've also announced mandatory standards for AI.

Also, the parliament itself is stepping up to the plate. We have a new bipartisan Joint Select Committee on Artificial Intelligence, which will be chaired by the member for Maribyrnong, and the deputy chair is Senator Duniam. I think that they'll be, actually, a dream team, and I'm looking forward to also being on this committee with the member for Curtin to do a real deep dive into these issues, to make sure that we get the legislation right. This committee is looking at everything, from the opportunities AI presents for our economy and our regions to the risk that it poses to workers, children and our national security. The government and members right across this parliament are actively engaging with policy questions that are generation-defining and making sure that we get investment right.

AI is fast becoming a part of the infrastructure of our everyday lives the way that electricity or the internet changed our societies. But the promise of AI being everywhere does not mean that we accept that it's inevitable or on someone else's terms. Industry wants us to move, and the commentary swings between responses and actions of being too slow and being too fast. The Albanese Labor government is moving fast enough to lead and carefully get this right. We have seen what happens when countries rush to win the race without actually doing the work first. In the United States, recent polling found some interesting facts. People are now less willing to have a data centre built in their neighbourhood than a nuclear power plant. That's how quickly public trust can be lost when communities feel left behind by the change. We're going to make sure that that will not be Australia's story.

Coming from WA, I know what social licence means in practice. It's something that companies must earn and maintain, and, if you're not careful, it can be lost. Mining companies have learnt this, and—I'm not going to say that they get it right all of the time—this is something they're actively working on. You know what? Building trust in the community is fundamentally about whether you can maintain your social licence. AI companies and governments are entering into the same era. As the Prime Minister put it, this is a world-leading framework, and it's about Australia choosing to shape the future, rather than letting the future of AI shape us. A single national framework means that every part of government is working to the same standard and the same outcome.

Rather than trying to fix a rule for every possible scenario, the aim is to build a framework that can evolve as technology evolves and to respond to new problems as they emerge rather than rectify these years later. That adaptability itself is a part of earning trust. It shows people that their governments can stay on top of this technology, not just chase it.

AI has moved into our social media faster than almost anywhere else from parts of our economy, and this is where it came with a new disturbing harm—AI generated 'nudify' apps creating sexually explicit deepfake images of real people, including children, in seconds. This is exactly the kind of fast-emerging risk that AI poses. Australia was world leading in its response. This year, the eSafety Commissioner issued formal directions under our age restricted material codes and forced major nudify services out of the Australian market entirely, protecting young Australians, who are the people who need it most.

We can also look to examples of best practice that already exist within our communities. For example, in my own electorate of Swan, we have the Pawsey Supercomputing Research Centre. It has solar panels on top and solar panels on the side, it uses underground aquifers, and it's beautiful.

So what I'd say is that we're wanting to make sure that we lead and we want to make sure that we do this in a smart way. And that's exactly what this government's doing.

AI represents creative destruction at an unprecedented scale and speed. To quote the late Richard Pratt:

You don't know what you don't know 'til you know it.

Quantifying AI turns a debate that is currently running on speculation, antidote and vibes into one the government can act on. A few reasons this matters specifically draws on what's already surfaced in the AI governance conversation. You can't regulate proportionally without measuring risk and autonomy. The emerging governance consensus is that oversight should scale with an AI systems autonomy and the stakes of its actions and not be applied uniformly. That principle is unworkable without a quantified way to classify systems by risk level, which is exactly what the EU AI Act attempts—unacceptable-, high-, limited-risk tiers, each triggering different obligations. No tiering system, no proportional regulation. You're left with either overregulating everything or underregulating the system that matters the most.

The caveat worth naming honestly—quantification has limits. AI's own opacity makes it worse. Emergent behaviour and black-box reasonings mean some of these risks generally resist being reduced to a number in the advance. The goal isn't to pretend AI can be fully measured before it's regulated, but to close the gap between 'we're speculating' and 'we're measuring what we can and building institutions capable of updating that measurement as the technology changes'. That is really the difference between the reactive regulation and the informed, ready-to-act posture the 'urgent and ambitious' argument depends on.

AI is not an artificial creator. It's an amplifier of human creativity. AI is creative destruction on steroids. It creates new industries, new opportunities and new productivity gains whilst simultaneously disrupting existing job skills and business models. The promise of AI is in the hands and the security of science and industry. The peril of the nation is in the hands of the naive, the arrogant, the villains and the government.

This morning I was pleased to be a speaker at the AI showcase in the Great Hall of this very building. It was an opportunity to see firsthand some of the incredible Australian businesses, researchers and innovators already working with artificial intelligence. What stood out to me was not simply the technology itself but the potential behind it—the potential to build new Australian industries, improve productivity, strengthen existing businesses and create opportunities that only a few years ago would have been difficult to imagine.

AI could be the single biggest change to our economy since Australia heavily industrialised in the post-World-War-II era. With this comes great opportunity, but we must also approach the future with caution. If we get this right, then we can improve the complexity of our economy, deliver higher levels of productivity and build a more prosperous nation. But I am cautious that, without the right settings, we could leave parts of Australia's workforce behind, particularly workers in lower skilled occupations, like in my electorate of Spence, who may have fewer opportunities to adapt as technology changes their industries. That has to be central to this conversation. Technological progress cannot simply be measured by how sophisticated our AI systems become. It must also be measured by whether Australians are better off because of them.

There is no doubt that artificial intelligence presents enormous opportunities, particularly in the realm of sovereign capability. We should not simply be consumers of technologies developed overseas. We should be developing technology here, building businesses here and ensuring Australian ideas can contribute to the next generation of global innovation. That is why the Albanese government's national AI plan is built around three pillars: capturing opportunity, spreading the benefits and keeping Australians safe. Capturing the opportunity means encouraging investment, innovation and Australian capability, spreading the benefits means ensuring productivity gains translate into better opportunities and higher living standards across our community. Keeping Australians safe means establishing the protections and standards necessary for people to have confidence in the technology they are using.

Trust must be must be fundamental. Without trust from workers, businesses and the broader community, this transformation will struggle to deliver its full potential. That is why this government has been building the framework Australia needs as AI continues to develop. Over recent months we have released the national AI plan, established national expectations for data centres and AI infrastructure, established the AI Safety Institute and created the Office of AI within the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. We have also announced our intentions to legislate Australian standards for AI. These standards are providing clear and consistent rules while allowing Australia to continue innovating.

Perhaps the biggest question remains what this transformation means for Australian workers. We should be upfront about that. Some jobs will change significantly. Some tasks will disappear. New occupations will emerge, while skills that are valuable today may look very different in 10 or 20 years. Government, industry, unions, and the education and training sector all have a role to play in preparing Australians for that transition. We cannot allow a divide to emerge between workers who benefit from AI and those whose jobs are displaced by it. The measure of our success will not simply be whether Australia adopts AI quickly. The real measure of success will be what this technology delivers for Australians. Greater productivity should translate into higher living standards and a stronger economy. More sophisticated industries can create new opportunities, build Australian capability and help our businesses compete on the world stage. Most importantly, the benefits of that growth must be shared with the workers and communities who help make it possible. Embracing AI is not simply about adopting new technology; it's about using that technology to build a stronger, more productive and more prosperous Australia and whether the prosperity created by this technology reaches communities right across our country.

AI will continue to change. The opportunities will grow and new risks will undoubtedly emerge. Our job is not to fear that change, nor is it to embrace every development without question. It is to shape it, to give Australia agency and capability over our own future, to capture the opportunity, spread the benefits and keep Australians safe. If we can do that then I believe artificial intelligence can become something much more important, helping to deliver a more productive, prosperous and capable Australia.

Make no mistake: artificial intelligence poses a direct threat to the future of humanity. That is why I introduced a groundbreaking bill into parliament recently—the AI Kill Switch and Data Centre Control Bill 2026. I introduced this bill into this place because we must not rush headlong into a technology that we don't even know we can control.

This issue is as serious as nuclear proliferation, and it needs to be treated as such. Sadly, yesterday, when I tried to bring this bill on to debate and also a vote, it was really only the crossbench that stood up, and three coalition MPs, including the Nationals member for Wide Bay, who has always been an independent thinker. But there were no government MPs backing it in, no One Nation MPs and only three coalition MPs. It's very disappointing. It's all very well to talk about it; it's another thing to actually vote and get something done.

Currently, humanity is standing in the middle of an uncontrolled technological race, and the very people building these systems are begging us to put the brakes on. In just the past week, the public facade of the AI industry has cracked. One Anthropic employee recently publicly stated:

… we really do earnestly believe AI could kill all humans! I personally think it is >10% within the next decade.

This is someone working on advanced AI. Basically, it's an admission that the industry does not have any plan to control superintelligent AI.

Another Anthropic researcher warned that corporate labs 'are racing straight to self-improving superintelligence and gambling with our lives'. Another Anthropic employee recently quit, stating, 'The world is in peril.' Added to that, now Jack Clark, one of the very founders of Anthropic, has publicly stated that we need a mandatory kill switch. That's what my bill brings in—a mandatory kill switch and a shutdown mechanism.

These are the people who created this technology. The profits of these tech billionaires and tech corporations must not be put ahead of our communities, our country and the future of humanity itself. The CEO of Anthropic, other leaders at OpenAI and Google DeepMind, and Elon Musk are all urging a slowdown. Why are they scared? Because they know that this technology, as it develops, is moving faster than humans can build guardrails.

The claim made by the President of the United States that the threats posed by AI are a hoax is grossly irresponsible. Words and attitudes like that are not leadership; they amount to negligence. The President of the United States should be condemned for those comments. If the United States will not lead on this issue, then Australia and other countries must. We must show the world that this technology can be controlled. This is where my bill comes into play. When AI goes rogue—and it already has—humans must retain the ability and the authority to pull the plug, to hit the kill switch, because the day will come when this technology can hack into critical defence assets.

We also need to control the data centres. We need a moratorium on new data centres that builds safeguards and controls them, to protect productive agricultural land and our water resources, to protect households and businesses from higher power and water bills, to protect the environment and public health and to empower local communities by letting them have a say as to whether they want these data centres and their energy sources in their areas.

Out in country Australia, we're already struggling with debilitating drought and cycles of it. We need AI oversight, and that's what my bill delivers—and this process must be properly funded. We need to make sure that the oversight protects our privacy, our civil rights and the very future of humanity itself. We need kill switches on the technology and commonsense guardrails around data centres on the ground. I urge all members to back my bill.

I thank the member for Curtin for bringing this matter of public importance here today. AI is essential policy conversation across the world that demands our full attention. When it comes to AI, we as a government are driven by progress and principles. We agree that this emerging technology represents a generational opportunity for Australia if properly harnessed. It presents immense opportunities just as it carries significant risks, and our focus on progress and principles means that our approach as a government is to engage with both simultaneously with seriousness and urgency. It is relevant to our economy, workforce, national security and online safety as well as research, science, innovation and the productivity of our economy.

When it comes to action, this government is taking world-leading action guided by a clear set of principles. The Albanese government's National AI Plan sets out three key pillars which are focused on capturing the opportunity before us, sharing in its benefits and keeping Australians safe. As announced by the Prime Minister, the government will introduce AI laws in Australia's interests—a nationally consistent regulatory framework that will work with the states and territories to set minimum requirements for large data centres. This world-leading framework will ensure Australia can capture the opportunity, share the benefits and keep Australians safe.

Over the past nine months alone, the government has released the National AI Plan; released national expectations for data centres and AI infrastructure; established the AI Safety Institute; announced that Australia will legislate AI safety and a world-leading artificial intelligence framework to ensure that the development of AI in Australia is aligned with our interests; established the Office of AI in the Prime Minister's department to deliver the development of the standards; and established a 'buy Australian' initiative for Australian-made AI. The Prime Minister will be at the UN General Assembly next week, where a key focus of his will be technology regulation. The Deputy Prime Minister and Assistant Minister Charlton also recently travelled to the United States to engage on Australia's national AI standards and issues to do with AI safety. It's an all-hands-on-deck effort, engaging every part of the government.

I have previously spoken about a proposed large-scale data centre in Campbellfield, on the site of the old Ford plant, in my electorate. I have stressed the need for communities like mine to understand what impact this development may have on our local area, including the potential impact on local energy and water resources and ongoing noise, as well as whether this is the best use of what was a key manufacturing hub for our community. I was devastated when the Liberals drove Ford and local jobs on that site out of our area, and that site means a lot to me and to our community. We all remember the workers who were there, who made things in Australia and who, in doing so, helped make Australia. When it comes to AI, it should be done the Australian way—without undercutting conditions or dividing communities or damaging our environment. Major industrial developments need to contribute to local jobs and local opportunities and must take into account our local environment and the future of our region.

As AI demand and reliance on cloud computing grow, data centre investment in our area must happen in ways that deliver positive outcomes for our community. While planning decisions and approvals are not a matter for federal government, I have made it clear that the Albanese Labor government has set out clear expectations for data centres and AI infrastructure to ensure that investments provide tangible benefits, both locally and across Australia. Operators must prioritise Australia's national interests not only by strengthening our security and resilience but also by delivering benefits for our local communities. Any proposal will be required to bring additional renewable energy to power their site, and we're acting to make sure they don't put upward pressure on energy prices with our world-leading rules.

They will also be expected to manage water responsibly, create well paid local jobs and skills, and back startups and research innovation and supply chains. Data centre developments must meet these expectations. Our community deserves clear answers, genuine consultation and transparent planning processes aligned with the federal government's clear expectations for data centres and AI infrastructure. I will continue to advocate strongly for our area and for the long-term liveability, sustainability and wellbeing of our growing community, just as the Albanese government is fully engaged on the opportunities and risks presented by AI.

The time for this discussion has now concluded.