If you\u2019re introducing AI and data centres into conversation, expect an argument.<\/p>\n
Enthusiasts will claim \u201cAI will save the world and catapult humanity to a new era of abundance\u201d, while critics argue just as passionately that \u201cwe\u2019re all going to be jobless sucking on lollipops watching AI slop for 14 hours a day within a year\u201d.<\/p>\n
Of course the truth likely lies somewhere in the middle, but as debate rages the question of how Australia positions itself to responsibly benefit from the technology becomes more urgent.<\/p>\n
A nationally representative survey of more than 2000 Australians by News Australia found 56 per cent believe data centres are necessary infrastructure, while 61 per cent are concerned about them being built locally.<\/p>\n
More than four in five Australians (83 per cent) believe greater public education is needed about data centres and their potential impacts.<\/p>\n
The findings come as Australian-owned AI infrastructure company ResetData urges the federal government to take an Australia-first approach to artificial intelligence, warning the country risks missing out on the economic benefits if it relies too heavily on technology controlled by overseas companies.<\/p>\n
\u201cAustralia is at a crossroads when it comes to our AI future,\u201d ResetData joint chief executive Mr Zalloua told news.com.au.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe question we need to ask is: where will the value created by AI ultimately end up?\u201d<\/p>\n
Earlier this month Mr Zalloua appeared before the parliamentary Join Select Committee on Artificial Intelligence, arguing Australia must look beyond simply building data centres and focus on retaining control of the technology, intellectual property and economic value generated by AI.<\/p>\n
He said Australia needed to build its own AI capabilities rather than allowing an increasing share of the economic returns to flow offshore.<\/p>\n
\u201cWe can primarily consume and host AI capability developed elsewhere, or we can use this moment to build meaningful capability of our own,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n
\u201cIf we don\u2019t, it will be a prosperous era, but not for Australians.\u201d<\/p>\n
The survey found 17 per cent of respondents considered data centres very necessary, while 39 per cent said they were somewhat necessary.<\/p>\n
However, 29 per cent viewed them as unnecessary, including 16 per cent who said they were not very necessary and 13 per cent who believed they were not necessary at all.<\/p>\n
Another 15 per cent were undecided or did not know.<\/p>\n
The figures also revealed a divide between metropolitan and regional Australians, with 59 per cent of city residents believing data centres were necessary compared with 49 per cent of regional residents.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Men were more likely than women to consider the infrastructure necessary, at 63 per cent compared with 50 per cent.<\/p>\n
New South Wales recorded the strongest support, with 62 per cent of residents saying data centres were necessary, followed by Victoria at 55 per cent and Western Australia at 50 per cent. Tasmania recorded the lowest support, at 37 per cent.<\/p>\n
Despite the majority recognising their importance, concerns about local construction were widespread.<\/p>\n
More than one in five Australians, or 22 per cent, said they were very concerned about data centres being built in Australia, while 39 per cent were somewhat concerned.<\/p>\n
Just 29 per cent said they were not concerned, while 10 per cent were unsure.<\/p>\n
The results suggest the challenge for governments and the technology industry is not simply convincing Australians that data centres are needed, but explaining how they will be built, who will benefit and what their expansion will mean for surrounding communities.<\/p>\n
It\u2019s a sentiment echoed by independent ACT Senator David Pocock who served as one of the two crossbench members at the parliamentary inquiry.<\/p>\n
\u201cWe need detailed, mandatory, nationally consistent rules governing data centres if they are going to maintain any kind of social licence in Australia,\u201d Senator Pocock told news.com.au.<\/p>\n
\u201cThese rules need to ensure data centres aren\u2019t driving up electricity costs for Australians, impacting scarce water resources, worsening air quality or having other adverse microclimate impacts, or impacting biodiversity and encroaching on the amenity of existing residential suburbs.\u201d<\/p>\n
Senator Pocock pointed to the recent case of the proposed Footscray NextDC data centre expansion in Victoria taking up land earmarked for housing as an example of how poor implementation could have adverse flow on effects. <\/p>\n
However he also emphasised the all important role sovereignty will have.<\/p>\n
\u201cMost of all we need to ensure there is both a sovereign data centre capability and a long-term benefit to hosting foreign-owned data centres here from the kind of levy I have had the Parliamentary Budget Office cost and local access to compute,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n
On Wednesday Senator Pocock proposed a 5 per cent levy on large, next-generation data centre revenues. A move that would deliver more than $500 million a year to taxpayers by the end of 2030, however critics argue could send investment overseas.<\/p>\n
Mr Zalloua said the debate about sovereign AI was often too narrowly focused on where information was stored.<\/p>\n
\u201cAustralian data sitting in an Australian data centre does not necessarily make it sovereign,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n
\u201cWe need to look across the AI stack: who owns and operates the infrastructure, who controls the compute, where models are trained and run, who has access, where the intellectual property sits and ultimately which jurisdiction applies.\u201d<\/p>\n
ResetData describes its model as Australia-first, with infrastructure intended to serve Australian government, defence and enterprise customers in the first instance.<\/p>\n
Mr Zalloua said an AI factory differed from a conventional data centre because it brought together the infrastructure, computing power and platforms needed to turn data into intelligence, applications and commercial value.<\/p>\n
He said the federal government could help Australian businesses compete by directing procurement towards local providers, improving access to sovereign AI services and ensuring regulation allowed domestic companies to grow.<\/p>\n
\u201cThis isn\u2019t about asking for another pot of government money,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe Commonwealth is already spending on AI, technology and infrastructure. It\u2019s about ensuring that the expenditure goes to Australian providers across the tech stack.\u201d<\/p>\n
AI platform company SAS\u2019 Head of AI innovation Jonathan Butow told news.com.au Australia had to ensure local businesses could access the computing power needed to develop their own AI products and intellectual property.<\/p>\n
\u201cData centres are essential infrastructure, but simply building more of them isn\u2019t enough,\u201d Mr Butow said.<\/p>\n
\u201cWe need to ensure Australian businesses can access the technology and computing power to develop their own AI solutions, create new products and build valuable intellectual property here at home.\u201d<\/p>\n
Mr Butow said the public\u2019s concerns about data centres, particularly their energy use, needed to be taken seriously, with the industry required to demonstrate tangible benefits for local communities.<\/p>\n
He also warned that adopting AI without sufficient scrutiny could undermine trust and productivity.<\/p>\n
Research commissioned by SAS and conducted by IDC found organisations using trustworthy AI practices were around 15 times more likely to report strong returns on their AI investments than those lagging on governance and oversight.<\/p>\n
The report found 29.9 per cent of organisations that overrode AI recommendations cited insufficient explanations, while 22.7 per cent pointed to factual errors and the same proportion raised concerns about bias or fairness.<\/p>\n
Mr Butow said businesses needed to ensure AI systems were accurate, transparent and accountable, with human judgement remaining central to decision-making.<\/p>\n
\u201cJust because AI sounds human doesn\u2019t mean it\u2019s always right,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n
He said Australia had an opportunity to develop the skills, infrastructure and expertise needed to create AI technology rather than remain a consumer of products developed overseas.<\/p>\n
The survey\u2019s findings point to a delicate balancing act for policymakers: expanding infrastructure needed to support AI while addressing community concerns about local development, energy demands and the distribution of economic benefits.<\/p>\n
With 83 per cent of Australians calling for more education about data centres, the results suggest there is also an opportunity to explain the technology\u2019s role in the economy and the choices facing the country.<\/p>\n
For Mr Zalloua, the stakes extend beyond where servers are housed.<\/p>\n
Australian data, he said, was valuable, but the greater opportunity lay in developing the models, applications, intellectual property and businesses built around it.<\/p>\n
\u201cIf we get it right, we believe it will be the start of a new era of prosperity,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n
The Back Australia series is supported by Harvey Norman, Ampol, Bunnings, Qantas, AAMI, Journey Beyond, Gippsland Critical Minerals, and News24.<\/p>\n