A Secret Government Plan? Senator and Minister Clash Over AI and Copyright

A senator and a government minister got into a heated argument in Australia's Parliament this week. Senator David Pocock said a whistleblower told him the government is secretly thinking about letting AI companies use Australian books, songs, and other creative works without asking permission. Industry Minister Tim Ayres fired back, calling Pocock's claims 'reckless speculation.' The fight has put a big spotlight on how Australia handles copyright law and artificial intelligence.

Pocock said his office received detailed information from a 'credible source' about two different plans being considered at the highest level of government. The first plan would create a copyright 'carve-out,' meaning AI companies could use creative works without paying, in exchange for investing billions of dollars in data centres and contributing hundreds of millions of dollars a year to a fund for creative workers. The second plan would expand a licensing system, where AI companies would still need some kind of permission or payment to use Australian material. Both plans remain unconfirmed by the government.

During Question Time in Parliament, Pocock asked Ayres to clearly say the government would not allow AI companies to use Australian creators' work in any form. He also asked whether Prime Minister Anthony Albanese planned to announce something around July 15. Ayres said the government would not undermine copyright protections, but he did not directly say 'no' to every part of Pocock's question. Pocock later pointed this out in the Senate, saying Ayres had accused him of speculation but never simply denied the claims.

Spokespersons for Minister Ayres and Assistant Minister Andrew Charlton both said the whistleblower's claims were 'inaccurate.' They said the government had ruled out a 'text and data mining exception,' which is a rule that would let companies copy and study material without getting individual licences. They said this position had not changed. The offices of several other senior ministers were also contacted but gave similar responses.

Musicians, authors, and other creative workers are worried about what a change could mean for them. Annabelle Herd, the head of music industry group ARIA, said the creative industries would be 'gravely concerned' if the government was thinking about reversing its earlier decision. She said creative industries had not been consulted and would strongly oppose what she called a 'radical intervention.' Her comments show how much is at stake for people who earn a living from their creative work.

Law experts had mixed views on the situation. University of Sydney professor Kimberlee Weatherall said Australia's copyright law is out of date, but any fund set up to pay creators would raise big questions about who actually gets the money. She also noted that some creators — especially Indigenous artists — might want to stop their work from being used at all. UNSW professor Kathy Bowrey said the current system is not working well, but she was sceptical about tying copyright changes to data centre investment, calling that argument 'rubbish.'

This debate has been building for months. In October last year, Attorney-General Michelle Rowland said clearly that the government would not grant a copyright exemption for AI training. Tech industry leaders have kept pushing for change, arguing that Australia's strict copyright rules are scaring away investment. Rowland repeated her original stance in May, saying the government had 'no plans to weaken copyright protections when it comes to AI.'