What Happened
Writing in The Saturday Paper on 17 July 2026, economist Richard Denniss drew a direct line between Australia's treatment of its gas resources and the Albanese government's emerging posture on AI copyright. The piece argues that Albanese has been "flirting with the idea of giving away the copyright of Australian creatives in exchange for tech companies building giant data centres that no one but the tech companies want built."
Denniss noted that Albanese has publicly defended his government's right to give away more than half the gas Australia exports, and questioned whether the same instinct would shape negotiations with AI companies over the intellectual property of Australian writers and musicians.
Albanese has said publicly: "The idea that copyright law should be watered down or chiselled away at to provide a freebie or a handout to gigantic multinational, multibillion-dollar companies to train their AI models makes absolutely no sense to me. I simply don't get it." Denniss's argument is not that the prime minister is lying, but that Australia's negotiating history gives little reason for confidence.
The Guardian reported on 16 July 2026 that Albanese's AI plan involves engaging tech giants on both AI regulation and social media, with the government weighing how far to go in accommodating industry demands.
Why It Matters
The gas comparison is not decorative. Gas exporters paid $12 billion in 2022/23 on the sale of $92 billion worth of Australian gas. That revenue came to 1.8 per cent of Commonwealth revenue and 0.5 per cent of gross domestic product. Norway, a smaller country, taxed the same companies heavily and built a $3 trillion sovereign wealth fund. Australia, by contrast, is cutting the National Disability Insurance Scheme and charging young people $50,000 for an arts degree.
The pattern Denniss identifies is structural. Australian politicians, he writes, "will frequently see foreign business interests as the answer to Australian problems. They will make huge concessions and come back with very little to show for what they have given away." That habit, if it extends to AI copyright, would hand multinational tech companies the right to train models on Australian creative work without meaningful compensation or conditions.
Key Details
Denniss frames the issue as a colonial mindset problem, not a partisan one. The argument is that Australian governments across the spectrum have consistently assumed foreign companies are smarter, that Australia must rush to avoid missing out, and that concessions are the price of participation. The gas industry is the clearest example: exporters paid $12 billion on $92 billion in sales, a return that Denniss describes as a giveaway by any reasonable standard.
On AI, the specific concern is that weakening copyright law would allow large AI companies to use the work of Australian writers, musicians, and other creators to train commercial models, in exchange for data centre construction that primarily serves the companies themselves. Polling cited by Denniss shows that Australians across the political spectrum, including both One Nation and Greens voters, overwhelmingly support a 25 per cent gas export tax. He suggests the same public appetite exists for protecting Australian communities and culture from big tech.
Background and Context
Australia has a long history of exporting raw materials at low returns. Denniss traces this to the colonial era, when governors saw their role as supplying England with resources. The mindset, he argues, has continued and worsened. The gas industry's tax arrangements are the contemporary version: a resource extracted from Australian territory, sold for $92 billion, with the public receiving $12 billion in return.
The AI copyright question follows the same logic. Australian creative work, built over generations, would become training data for offshore AI systems. The "data centre" offer in return is, on Denniss's reading, the equivalent of being told a pipeline will bring jobs, before the jobs mostly go elsewhere.
What Comes Next
The Albanese government has not announced a final position on AI copyright. The prime minister's public statements suggest resistance to weakening protections, but Denniss's piece is a warning that public statements and negotiated outcomes are different things. The Guardian's reporting indicates the government is still in active discussions with tech companies on the broader AI regulatory framework.
Australian creators, publishers, and rights holders are watching closely. Whether the government's stated position survives contact with industry lobbying is the question Denniss leaves open.