Last year, Minister for the Arts Tony Burke said, “We have no plans, no intention, no appetite to be weakening those copyright laws.” His colleague, Attorney-General Michelle Rowland, was equally categorical about the protections: “We have ruled out a text and data-mining exception.” Australian journalists, musicians, artists, authors and other creatives took the government at their word.
That’s why it’s so alarming that the government was actively considering a proposal that would sell out the work of Australian storytellers for multinational tech companies to train their AI models.
Saying one thing publicly while considering something entirely different is, sadly, becoming standard operating procedure for the Albanese government. They came to power on a promise of transparency, but the prime minister has proved to be secretive – he has developed an allergy to transparency.
My office recently received a tip-off that two proposals were under consideration. One that was being pushed by a section of government would effectively carve out creatives’ work from our copyright protections. Another, allegedly favoured by the arts and attorney-general’s portfolios, would extend copyright licensing.
The Copyright Act is a beautiful solution to valuing the work of creatives and making sure they keep control over how their work is used in our society. It’s been in place for almost 60 years. It’s served us incredibly well. And it’s part of a global network of protections. The last thing we want is for Australia to become the weakest link in this international chain.
When I put this to Minister for Industry and Innovation Tim Ayres in Question Time, he obfuscated and pivoted to a personal attack against me. Crucially, though, he did not rule out that the government was considering changes. That’s a massive red flag.
What cabinet is considering is the ultimate dirty deal, offering up the work of Australian musicians, writers, authors and other creatives in return for an eye-watering investment in AI data centres. Facilities that, as we know, are currently wildly unregulated in this country.
Since receiving the initial tip-off, I’ve sighted government documents that go into more detail. They outline a proposal for an “opt-out” model for creatives, and as much as $220 billion in additional AI data centre investment. The documents foreshadow a return to cabinet with a “Prime Minister-led submission” this month that provides “options for legal avenues for using copyright material for AI training”.
A data centre build of that magnitude – in the absence of any regulation stronger than voluntary national expectations listed on a website – would be devastating for our power and water supplies. It would also greatly deplete our residential construction workforce, further hampering already lagging efforts to increase housing supply. Large-scale residential developers are already telling me that a lack of construction workers, particularly electricians, is one of the biggest obstacles to the delivery of new housing supply – and also one of their biggest cost pressures.
Australia is facing a shortfall of 640,000 social and affordable homes. Every government is falling behind on its construction targets, while more and more Australians are living in housing stress. We have to put the Australian people first and prioritise building more homes – especially social and affordable homes – over building data centres. Already we are seeing land earmarked for housing overtaken for data centre development. With no nationally coordinated long-term housing plan, we are at great risk of more data centres displacing housing in key infill sites.
There is a shocking lack of transparency around the pipeline of data centre development. It is hard to find centralised, publicly available information about where they are being built, the power and water usage of each centre and how – if at all – they’re contributing energy back into the grid. I believe it is also important that we start differentiating between the big multinational hyperscalers and Australian AI companies.
“Rolling over to multinational AI companies isn’t the only option … The government should be setting up frameworks that require all big tech to negotiate in good faith and pay for the content they want to use…”
There’s the question of data centres’ social licence, which is evaporating faster than the water used to cool them. Much of this comes back to poor planning decisions such as we’ve seen in Sydney’s Lane Cove West, where as many as five data centres are being wedged in around existing residential dwellings. Or at Marsden Park in Western Sydney, where residents will be living next to a data centre that uses 92 diesel generators as back-up power, with serious detrimental effects on noise and air quality.
The United States has seen a growing grassroots backlash against data centres, which is finally taking hold here too. More and more communities are calling for a moratorium on data centre development until stronger regulations are put in place. For a growing number of Australians, it is becoming a vote-altering issue. I believe we do need data centres, but they must be properly regulated, appropriately located and contributing long-term to our economy, not just in the construction phase.
I want to know why our government leaders aren’t asking the question – what benefits are in this for Australians? Where are the mechanisms to ensure access for local companies to the local computing power they will need to compete in the artificial intelligence age?
And what about tax? These big multinational companies are masters of tax minimisation, offshoring their profits and employing few people locally. Countries such as France and the United Kingdom identified the opportunity early and implemented a digital services tax, which now brings in billions to their budget bottom lines. No such moves have been mooted by Australia’s government. Already we see the same tired old arguments we’ve heard from the gas industry for decades around sovereign risk and deterring investment. According to a recent report by independent real estate consultancy Knight Frank, Australia is already the second biggest data centre investment destination in the world.
While big multinationals gatekeep their profits, Australians risk being left to foot the bill. The Reserve Bank has warned that the huge wave of data centre investment could add to inflation and has already put upward pressure on interest rates worldwide. Data centre investment was the single biggest contributor to economic growth at the start of this year, and RBA members “discussed the potential for continued strength in such activity to exacerbate capacity pressures and skills shortages in other parts of the economy”.
Rolling over to multinational AI companies isn’t the only option. We’ve just seen Microsoft cut a pilot deal with Nine Entertainment to reference content from their major mastheads. The government should be setting up frameworks that require all big tech to negotiate in good faith and pay for the content they want to use, and only with permission of the rights holders. These are some of the wealthiest companies on the planet – they can afford to pay our creatives what they are owed.
As a country, we have a strong hand in these negotiations, and we should use it. You’ll be hard-pressed to find another country with the space, renewable energy, stability – institutionally and geographically – and subsea fibre-optic connectivity to the rest of the world that Australia has. I hope this government doesn’t sell us short.
In the meantime, I am calling on the Albanese government to rule out any carve-out, any exemption, any watering down, any opt-out scheme from our copyright protections, now and into the future.
To sell out Australian creatives would be a reckless act, and one from which there is no going back.
Caving to vested interests has become standard operating procedure on too many issues now, and I urge the government to stand up for Australians and our future, and the creatives who tell us where we’re from, where we are now and where we’re going as a country.