What Happened
Senator David Pocock, writing in The Saturday Paper, has revealed that his office received a tip-off indicating the Albanese government was quietly weighing two competing proposals that would affect how Australian copyright law applies to AI training data.
One proposal, reportedly pushed by a section of government, would effectively carve out the work of Australian creatives from existing copyright protections, allowing multinational AI companies to train their models on that material. The other, allegedly favoured by the arts and attorney-general's portfolios, would extend copyright licensing frameworks instead.
Documents Pocock's office obtained outlined "options for legal avenues for using copyright material for AI training" and included a proposal for as much as A$220 billion in additional AI data centre investment, along with an opt-out model for creatives.
When Pocock raised the matter with Minister for Industry and Innovation Tim Ayres during Question Time, Ayres did not rule out that the government was considering changes, instead pivoting to a personal attack, according to Pocock's account.
Why It Matters
Australian journalists, musicians, artists, authors and other creatives had taken the government at its word. Minister for the Arts Tony Burke stated publicly: "We have no plans, no intention, no appetite to be weakening those copyright laws." Attorney-General Michelle Rowland was equally direct: "We have ruled out a text and data-mining exception."
The gap between those statements and what Pocock's office uncovered is the core of the concern. As Pocock wrote, saying one thing publicly while considering something entirely different "is, sadly, becoming standard operating procedure for the Albanese government."
The Copyright Act has been in place for almost 60 years. Weakening it, Pocock argues, risks making Australia "the weakest link" in the international chain of creative protections.
Key Details
The documents obtained by Pocock's office also noted that officials had "discussed the potential for continued strength in such activity to exacerbate capacity pressures and skills shortages in other parts of the economy," a reference to the AI data centre investment scenario.
Pocock's position is clear. He argues the government should be building frameworks that require big tech to negotiate and pay, not simply hand over access. As he put it: "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."
The ABC reported that creatives have been urging the government to reject AI industry lobbying on this question, with industry groups and individual artists pushing back against any opt-out model that places the burden on creators to protect their own work.
Background and Context
Australia's Copyright Act has governed how creative work is used and compensated for nearly six decades. It forms part of a broader international framework of protections. Any domestic exception, such as a text and data-mining carve-out of the kind adopted in some other jurisdictions, would have implications beyond Australia's borders.
The AI industry has lobbied heavily in multiple countries for broad access to copyrighted material for training purposes, often framing it as necessary for competitiveness. In Australia, that lobbying has been accompanied by the prospect of significant data centre investment, with the A$220 billion figure appearing in the proposals Pocock's office reviewed.
What Comes Next
Pocock has called on the government to be transparent about what it is considering and to commit publicly to frameworks that protect creatives rather than expose them. The government has not, as of publication, confirmed or denied the specifics of the proposals described.
The creative sector will be watching closely. Any move toward an opt-out model or a weakening of existing protections would face significant opposition from arts organisations, unions and individual practitioners across the country.