Tim Ayres is resisting mounting calls for comprehensive new laws to address the risks of potentially “game-changing” AI technology.
In an interview with The Saturday Paper, the minister for industry and innovation pushed back on the case for unified new AI legal architecture that artists and unions in particular have sought to make, citing grave concerns for their intellectual property and jobs. Ayres’ stance is a marked shift from that of his predecessor, Ed Husic.
“We’ve just got to be pragmatic about all of this,” says Ayres, leaning into a deregulation theme that’s gained traction in Canberra and promises to heavily inform this month’s Economic Reform Roundtable, which starts on August 19.
He says he wants Australia in the “box seat” for AI investment, and while it also needs to “work for everyone”, there are administrative tools already available to deal with the downsides.
“There are very strong powers in our financial regulation authorities, in our criminal law, and a sensible management of this approach, of course, goes to being diligent in making sure that our laws are fit for purpose,” the minister tells The Saturday Paper.
“And working through that in a steady, careful way, but also building the capability of our law enforcement agencies, our regulators and the capability of firms and Australians themselves to deal with these challenges.”
Artists and other creative groups – many of whom have already seen their work scraped and stolen by the technology – are concerned their livelihoods will disappear, while unions fear large-scale job replacement as Australia increasingly embraces AI.
The push for new regulations to tackle AI adds to the challenges the Australian government already faces to contain the power of the United States tech giants that now dominate the media landscape. Its attempts so far – which have drawn criticisms of being either too restrictive or ineffective – include a news media bargaining code and a ban on social media for children.
“The parallel that’s often drawn is social media. Completely unregulated,” a science and industry insider tells The Saturday Paper. “The genie is out of the bottle. Too late to get the social media companies who are benefiting from everyone’s misery to do anything to protect. We don’t want to make that mistake again. They can’t leave it … in the hope that later we come in and backfill. It’ll never happen.”
There are different views in caucus on the way forward.
As the minister for industry and science in Labor’s first term, Husic proposed to tackle AI comprehensively, as he regarded it as “probably one of the most complex policy challenges facing the government”.
“The parallel that’s often drawn is social media. Completely unregulated … We don’t want to make that mistake again.”
Insisting the days without government intervention were “well and truly over”, he proposed last September a legislative approach that “could include updating current legislation, bringing framework legislation or bringing in an Australian AI act”.
Now a backbencher and chair of the House economics committee, Husic still wants the government to follow this route to enshrine controls.
“Governments are notoriously bad at shaping laws to account for the impact of technology. Yes, we have some laws that can deal with AI’s impact, but overall, we have a Swiss cheese-type landscape, legal holes everywhere,” Husic tells The Saturday Paper.
“And just like tech developers can’t predict everything their tech will do, neither can governments say their laws are futureproof.
“The whole argument for getting a stable, unified regulatory framework up-front, captured for example through an AI act, is designed to try and help us keep better pace. This is what was largely called for through nearly two years of consultation.
“The tech sector – as much as I’m a big booster of theirs and a supporter – are sometimes their own worst enemy. They bridle at the idea of an economy-wide AI regulatory framework – for technology that will touch the economy broadly. But they then also complain about the fatigue that comes from countless rounds of consultations triggered by whack-a-mole regulatory responses biffing every new problem with a new law.”
Husic says the tech giants want to transport Australia back 15 years or so, to the days of self-regulation, which he says were a failure.
“If self-regulation worked, we wouldn’t need a social media ban, we wouldn’t need media bargaining laws and we wouldn’t need all the other interventions that we’ve had,” he says. “The reality is, we would never accept a pharmaceutical firm developing a new drug and asking us to trust them that patients will be safe because of all the in-house testing that firm did. Tech firms need to accept the same should apply to their models. Better to get all this done once, done right.”
Ahead of the economic reform round table, the Productivity Commission has estimated economic gains would add $116 billion to Australian growth over the next decade, through a loosening of rules and regulation.
Treasurer Jim Chalmers has talked up a government mission to find a “responsible middle path” between restraining AI and “letting it rip”.
Leaked Treasury advice, seen and reported by the ABC, has listed a national AI plan to speed up environmental approvals on its list of expected outcomes.
“When it comes to regulation, it’s really all about doing as much regulation as we need to to protect people and as little as we can to encourage innovation,” Chalmers told the ABC’s 7.30 program last week.
As for the need to legislate or not, “The government is working through those issues.”
Among the most serious concerns surrounding the misuse of AI is the notable increase over recent years of scams powered by the technology, and its contribution to deepfakes and child abuse material.
Adding to this is the finding, published in a recent Australian study, of discrimination by AI recruiters – which are already used by almost a third of Australian organisations – against candidates who speak with an accent or live with a disability.
Human Rights Commissioner Lorraine Finlay this week redoubled her agency’s calls for an AI act and monitoring for potential bias in AI functions.
While Ayres says he wants to “wrestle the risks of the technology to the ground”, he’s inclined to treat AI in the same way that the government has approached the innovation of the internet.
“Each of these waves of technology presents its own challenges. Our streaming technology presents challenges for Australian creatives. The internet presents challenges and artificial intelligence will too,” the minister says.
“We need to attack these with confidence. There are opportunities here too, and I’m not sanguine about the risks, but I’m determined to make sure that we seize the opportunity.
“Australian law applies now. It’ll be treated no differently to internet… all of those technological platforms engage very similar issues, actually, and we’re going to deal with it the same way.”
In an interim report released this month, the Productivity Commission considers a new “fair dealing exemption” that favours AI firms, covering the text and data mining that goes into training their models with copyrighted materials. The recommendation was echoed by Scott Farquhar, chair of the Tech Council of Australia, in a National Press Club speech this month.
The proposed exemption would supposedly open the door to billions of dollars of foreign investment but has raised alarm among creative industries.
The Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance regards AI as an existential threat and it wants Labor to stick to plans for an economy-wide AI act.
“The existing copyright obviously is important. It has been working, but we need more to enhance its effectiveness,” the union’s chief executive, Erin Madeley, tells The Saturday Paper.
“The existing copyright just simply doesn’t deal with the complexity of tech, tools, training, the data to be used,” she says. “There’s also the complication around our existing copyright doesn’t go offshore for protections either.”
Tim Ayres has repeatedly ruled out changes to the Copyright Act. “There are no plans for legislative change in any direction on copyright law. That’s just not something we’re contemplating.”
Arts Minister Tony Burke is also clear.
“We have no plans, no intention, no appetite to be weakening those copyright laws based on this draft report that’s floating around,” he told the publishing industry conference BookUp last week.
“There are issues to be worked through. I don’t fear technology, I just know we need to be able to respond to technology.”
It is a cross-portfolio mission. Attorney-General Michelle Rowland has been advised by a reference group established by her predecessor Mark Dreyfus to consider some changes designed to favour Australian content providers, including a move to force tech giants to reveal what they use to train AI models as well as a new compensation effort for small copyright holders.
The Coalition has leapt on this, saying the government is confused about how to handle AI’s challenges and opportunities.
“Australian families and industry are crying out for certainty on AI regulation, but after more than three years and two different ministers – with very different approaches on how to regulate AI – Labor have nothing to show for it,” the opposition’s industry spokesman Alex Hawke tells The Saturday Paper.
“A case in point is over protecting Aussie creatives. Attorney-General Michelle Rowland is considering changes to copyright law, but Industry Minister Tim Ayres has already ruled out any changes.
“But one thing is clear: Labor is more than happy to let the unions interfere in the rollout of AI. Minister Ayres has already said that he wants to ‘strengthen’ the role of unions as AI continues to spread.”
Independent ACT Senator David Pocock wants an overarching AI act, warning of the seemingly inevitable moment of achieving artificial general intelligence (AGI), the so-called human-level AI.
“Clearly this has become an arms race between companies and countries, and it’s one of those things that even if you regulate for the use of AI, countries are not going to do that when it comes to their militaries,” Pocock tells The Saturday Paper.
“It’s a huge challenge and I was really disappointed the last parliament had little focus there on it. All of a sudden, there’s a renewed focus. Too often politicians are behind the curve.
“Once we hit AGI, there’s going to be a huge number of roles [where] people will just become redundant. And I don’t think we should kid ourselves when it comes to that.”
Asked to confirm that the government is not going down the path of legislation at this stage, Ayres tells The Saturday Paper, “I’m leaning into the opportunities and the strategy for Australia first and we’ll deal carefully in a considered and pragmatic way with the regulatory implications for Australia.
“I won’t be making pronouncements ahead of time, but we’ll work through these things carefully. But I think what you can hear from me is, I’m determined to seize the opportunity,” Ayres says.
At least one top science industry advocate says AI reform should be the minister’s No.1 priority.
“I can live without an AI act, but they need to be really comprehensive about their regulations and really clear about them,” the industry insider tells The Saturday Paper.
Ayres says he has a sense of urgency, but that there are big priorities for Australia’s future, right across the science and industry portfolio.
“We’ll work through it in a careful, orderly way. I’ve been out there, not just listening to the tech sector, but more broadly across the community and, trying to communicate the approach, the possibilities, as well as the risks,” Ayres says.
“We’ll keep doing that over the coming weeks and months.”
This article was amended on August 16, 2025, to correct an error in a quote from the shadow spokesman for industry.
This article was first published in the print edition of The Saturday Paper on
August 16, 2025 as “AI rules”.
For almost a decade, The Saturday Paper has published Australia’s leading writers and thinkers.
We have pursued stories that are ignored elsewhere, covering them with sensitivity and depth.
We have done this on refugee policy, on government integrity, on robo-debt, on aged care,
on climate change, on the pandemic.
All our journalism is fiercely independent. It relies on the support of readers.
By subscribing to The Saturday Paper, you are ensuring that we can continue to produce essential,
issue-defining coverage, to dig out stories that take time, to doggedly hold to account
politicians and the political class.
There are very few titles that have the freedom and the space to produce journalism like this.
In a country with a concentration of media ownership unlike anything else in the world,
it is vitally important. Your subscription helps make it possible.
Send this article to a friend for free.
Share this subscriber exclusive article with a friend or family member using share credits.
Used 1 of … credits
use share credits to share this article with friend or family.
You’ve shared all of your credits for this month. They will refresh on September 1. If you would like to share more, you can buy a gift subscription for a friend.
SHARE WITH A FRIEND
? CREDITS REMAIN
SHARE WITH A SUBSCRIBER
UNLIMITED
Loading…