Australia’s AI debate has become a fight over ownership. Liberal senator Andrew McLachlan is urging the Labor government to protect artists’ copyright and the environment as it weighs policies covering artificial intelligence, datacentres, online safety, energy resources and economic benefits.
McLachlan says investment cannot justify weakening property rights or placing new datacentres above environmental concerns. “The works [artists] create must not be sacrificed on the altar of global corporate profiteering,” he said. “Artists’ property rights must be respected and protected.”
His intervention adds political weight to constitutional challenges being considered around any copyright changes. The central question is whether allowing AI companies to use copyrighted material without proper protection or compensation could amount to an acquisition of property by the government — an act that must occur “on just terms”.
Copyright is now an investment condition
Labor and the Coalition both support attracting more AI investment and datacentres to Australia, but the policy bargain is becoming harder to disguise. AI companies say they need legal certainty on copyright before investing in Australia, while some have rejected agreements under existing copyright laws because they consider them too difficult.
Anthropic has proposed an “opt out” model that would allow it to scrape music, books and journalism unless a rights holder signals an objection. That approach has alarmed leading voices in the recording industry, while the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry has warned that weakening Australian copyright protections to help AI companies would be “ridiculous and dangerous”.
The opposition has warned the government against “selling out” Australian rights holders in a rush to secure investment. Coalition members Ross Cadell and Michaelia Cash have backed concerns raised by Aria that granting AI companies permission to scrape copyrighted material from the internet could amount to an acquisition of property by the government.
McLachlan argues that any compensation arrangements must be considered for each artist. He says an industry-wide scheme would be difficult to make fair — a pointed objection to the tidy national framework policymakers tend to prefer when the underlying rights are anything but tidy.
“As a Liberal, I believe property rights are foundational to a healthy democracy and a strong economy,” McLachlan said. “The state should never seek to compulsorily acquire or trade away an individual’s property rights except in very limited circumstances and not without just compensation.”
The cost reaches beyond copyright
McLachlan also wants the government to account for the environmental cost of the AI buildout. The growth of datacentres in Australia is expected to increase emissions and power costs for households, creating a second set of trade-offs alongside the fight over creative work.
“The principle of fair pay for a fair day’s work must not be forgotten in the age of social media platforms, datacentres and artificial intelligence,” he said. “AI provides amazing opportunities for our nation. If there are trade-offs then the costs must be clearly articulated and understood.”
He said artists’ work “nourishes the soul of our nation” and demanded that art be prioritised over the demands of big tech. “It is unimaginable that as a nation we might value the machine over beauty created by the artist”. The machine, naturally, has investors.
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has previously declared it would be “theft” if creatives were not paid for their work. The prime minister is now trying to untangle the copyright knot while also pursuing AI guardrails and the results of a rapid review into the technology.
Labor and the Coalition have agreed on many AI-related issues, but Senator David Pocock has complained about a major party “stitch-up” on AI regulation. The shadow home affairs minister, Jonno Duniam, and shadow cybersecurity minister, Aaron Violi, said AI was “too important to become an unnecessarily partisan political contest”.
Duniam and Violi said they would “engage constructively” to secure an “enduring and multipartisan approach” to the technology. That cooperation may help pass policy, but it does not resolve the question McLachlan has raised: whether Australia wants AI investment badly enough to make artists absorb the cost.
Albanese’s schedule underlines the government’s wider strategy. Richard Marles will be Acting Prime Minister on Wednesday, Remembrance Day (Nov. 11), while Albanese travels first to COP31 in Turkey, then ASEAN, then China for APEC and a meeting with Premier Li Qiang.
At ASEAN, Albanese plans to “continue to drive action that will deliver stable and secure regional trade, whilst harnessing the benefits of emerging technologies including artificial intelligence.” The ambition is clear. The unresolved part is whether that future treats copyright as a foundation for innovation — or as a bill artists are expected to pay.
Based on
- Art ‘must not be sacrificed on the altar of corporate profit’ Liberal senator says as AI policy debate rages — theguardian.com
- Albanese’s love affair with music is on the rocks over AI. Can he write a different tune? | Peter Lewis | The Guardian — theguardian.com
- Weakening AI copyright law will spell ‘disaster for creativity’, global music body warns Albanese | AI (artificial intelligence) | The Guardian — theguardian.com
- Australian politics | The Guardian — theguardian.com
- Albanese’s AI guardrails: Promises now, details later – POLITICO — politico.com
