Having explicitly rejected any possible text and data mining exemption to copyright law, is the Australian government about to give away our most valuable cultural and natural assets?
Fri 3 Jul 2026 01.00 AEST
Photo: AAP Image/George Chan
Last week, a whistleblower claimed that high-level plans are afoot to give AI developers some sort of copyright “carve-out”, allowing them to use Australian music, journalism, literature and art to train their commercial products without consent or compensation. The whistleblower also claimed that “billions of dollars of data centre investment” was on the table, with “hundreds of millions of dollars annually for a creative fund” as a sweetener.
If true, this abrupt U-turn on safeguarding against text and data mining would end careers, diminish Australian culture, and exacerbate some of the most perilous crises facing this continent.
After last year’s welcome certainty, it was just two Fridays ago that the rumours began circulating. By Tuesday, Science Minister Tim Ayres was grilled at Question Time: Ayres later called the speculation “reckless”, and yet the rumours weren’t going away. By last Friday, a powerful alliance had formed to make the case clear, ensuring all Australians could understand what’s at stake.
It was only last October that text and data mining exemptions had explicitly been rejected. Announcing the government’s position, Attorney-General Michelle Rowland said: “Australian creatives are not only world-class, but they are also the lifeblood of Australian culture, and we must ensure the right legal protections are in place.”
Michael Miller, Executive Chairman of News Corp Australasia, immediately agreed. Having strongly advocated against text and data mining exemptions, last October Miller said: “The government has made the correct decision… By upholding the creator’s right to control access, terms of use and payment, it reinforces that our copyright law works to ensure effective market outcomes. The announcement secures a sustainable and thriving future for Australia’s culture, news media and creative sectors, guaranteeing that Australian stories will continue to resonate powerfully at home and across the world, which is vital for a robust democracy.”
And yet, just five months later, the global head of Miller’s company had a very different message for his staff. Announcing a licensing deal with Meta at a US tech summit in March, News Corp CEO Robert Thomson described the multinational media business as “essentially an input company” for AI development, suggesting his own global news workforce is an input “in the way that semiconductors are an input, in the way that data centres are an input, in the way that energy is an input”. More an indictment than a description of journalism, this is an extraordinary way to represent the professionals who help keep Australian democracy robust.
The global AI arms race has intensified so strongly that neither poor-quality product nor a nation’s laws are seen as obstacles. Tech Council of Australia chair Scott Farquhar has repeatedly claimed that it’s not possible for AI models to be developed within Australia’s current copyright laws, to which licensing bodies such as APRA AMCOS readily respond with facts. Multiple workplace studies have found that AI makes work less efficient and ultimately costs employers more, with no return on investment for 95% of companies: Stanford researchers call this workslop. Cory Doctorow, well known for characterising the enshittification of online platforms, has just diagnosed the reverse centaur phenomenon: machines enlisting humans to do the machine’s work – in harmful ways.
Meanwhile, the relentless roll-outs continue, and even Australia’s most trusted news source has succumbed. The ABC have announced a comprehensive roll-out of Anthropic’s Claude across all operations – and at the same time, they’ve also stepped back their obligation to notify readers, explain their use of AI, and help prevent unintended harm.
Alongside this, let’s not underestimate the harmful impact that data centres can have if they’re not planned well. In the middle of a housing crisis, we’re seeing AI developers displacing land for homes in the same way that property developers once displaced arable land. Now the focus of a Senate inquiry, these thirsty, hungry data centres are taking more and more of the space needed to house people, the community amenity needed for thriving neighbourhoods, and the water needed to sustain life.
Housing and water are two of the biggest crises facing Australia. These cannot be the tipping points on which Australia risks its future. Cultural policy is the answer: we need to see a more comprehensive approach to this vital area of statecraft, and there’s a review of Australia’s national cultural policy happening right now.
This month the landmark “Europe for Culture, Culture for Europe” declaration was signed by the European Union, the European Parliament and the European Commission. This unprecedented agreement commits to “protecting and promoting artistic freedom, cultural diversity, inclusion and fair conditions for artists”, and it explicitly articulates the “social and environmental benefits of culture”.
From common phone charger rules to minimum performance standards for datacentres to championing “digital autonomy and resilience”, the EU is setting clear hardware and software standards that understand the link between technological and data sovereignty, the environment and the future of culture. And just last month, CISAC, the global body of authors’ societies who represent more than five million creators, signed the Paris Commitment to protect human creativity in the age of AI. With all the uncertainty coming from the US, this is a responsible policy convergence that strengthens culture and democracy.
Such global culture leaders aren’t wowsers: artists, journalists and indeed all copyright holders lead in innovation, creativity and experimentation. Of course, creators are using AI – but on their own terms.
The rumoured sweetener revealed by the whistleblower – a grants fund – risks tying artists’ hands and robbing them of their future earnings, especially if it’s part of a full-and-final-payment scenario for access to copyrighted work. But Australia already has a copyright licensing regime. We already have ways to pay for copyrighted material while securing consent. Why sell out the finest work Australians have ever created while blackmailing them to accept a tiny fraction of what they would otherwise have earned? Especially if that tiny fraction is in fact zero? That’s no win: that’s hush money to cover up theft.
They’ll only take that risk to get their hands on the very best. When a brazen group broke into the Louvre during business hours, meme-makers lost no time comparing the heist to the actions of AI developers. The venerable institution hadn’t risk-managed a broad daylight scenario – but the Australian government must. Because we’re right in the middle of it.
“I see little of more importance to the future of our country and our civilization than full recognition of the place of the artist”, said Anthony Albanese a decade ago while talking up artists in his electorate. In launching the current Australian national cultural policy, the prime minister was even more emphatic, expecting “to see our extraordinary and diverse Australian stories continue to be told with originality, wit, creativity and flair.”
Let’s stop giving away our most valuable assets. Protecting Australian culture in all its rich diversity means protecting our climate, our environment and our creators. Each one is a fragile ecology. Now is the time to protect all three.
Esther Anatolitis is a writer, creative strategist and national arts leader with more than two decades’ experience shaping Australia’s cultural and public policy landscape.
Advertisement
The Albanese Government wants to make huge changes to the NDIS in the name of fixing fraud, however, only a small fraction of savings are expected to come from targeting fraud. So, while everyone has read stories about shonky NDIS providers, is NDIS fraud really more widespread than other types of fraud in the federal budget?
Today, the ABS has released its latest survey on barriers to work, and more than a quarter of women aged 18-64 who were not retired but would like to work, or would like to work more hours, cited child care as the main reason for not doing so.
