MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE
Ms CHANEY (Curtin) (16:11): I thank the member for Warringah for bringing this matter forward. Data centres being built across this country right now are reshaping our energy grid, our water resources and potentially our communities. At the moment Australians have almost no say in whether they deliver us any benefit at all.
Australia is one of the most attractive destinations in the world for this investment. We have a stable democracy, available land and the potential for abundant, cheap renewable energy. When the big AI and cloud companies talk about investing in Australia, this is largely what they mean.
Amazon has committed $20 billion to data centres here, and Microsoft has committed $25 billion. That investment is coming whether we set the terms or not, so we'd better set them. In March, the government released its data centre expectations.
They ask operators to support our energy transition, use water responsibly, create local jobs and engage with affected communities. They're sensible asks, but that is in fact all they are—asks. Developers are not required to comply.
A company can secure fast-tracked approval, consume gigawatts of our electricity, draw down our water, employ a few dozen workers and face no consequences for failure to meet a single one of those expectations. This is a wish list rather than a national interest framework, and the costs are real. Reporting suggests that between 70 and 80 per cent of the money committed to Australian data centres flows straight back overseas, while Australians provide the land, the energy and the water, and carry the risk.
The issue raised by the member for Warringah is the right one. We welcome the investment, but these companies must build on terms that leave Australians better, not worse, off. That means converting the government's expectations into a binding framework through cooperation with the states, a credible plan to run on 100 per cent additional renewable energy, binding water efficiency standards, real commitment on local jobs and training, and genuine community consultation before approval, not after the concrete's poured.
The member for Warringah's MPI also refers to the need to ensure that the benefits of AI are shared across society, and this includes ensuring that, when these models are trained on the work of Australian writers, musicians, journalists and artists, those creators are actually paid for their work not stripped for free while the value flows offshore. The matter of data centres, important as it is, is one piece of a much larger picture.
I've just released an AI discussion paper setting out 18 practical policies the government should act on now. This MPI concerns one of them—data centres—and this cannot be the only priority that we pursue. We need an honest conversation about tax.
AI companies will generate enormous value from Australian users' data, energy and land, and right now we have no mechanism to ensure any of it stays here. We already know this playbook. In 2025 alone, Google and Meta moved almost $11 billion to offshore entities and paid just $140 million in tax.
We cannot let AI replicate that. We need to prepare for the harder questions. My paper calls for scenario analysis of AI's impact on jobs and the economy so government is ready, whatever happens.
It calls for a digital duty of care to protect Australians and especially children from real harms happening now. It calls for national AI literacy programs so every Australian can use this technology and protect themselves from its risks. It calls for properly funding the institutions, like the AI Safety Institute, which are meant to keep pace with all of this.
These are not competing priorities. They're the same project: making sure AI delivers for Australians rather than at their expense. Uncertainty about AI is no excuse to wait to act.
We don't know exactly how fast or far this technology will go, but we know that data centres are being approved today, models are being trained today and value is being banked offshore today. We made this mistake with gas. We let companies invest under a generous regime and then were told it was unfair to change the rules.
The result? A prolonged fight, delayed reform and billions forgone. We cannot repeat this with AI.
So I support this matter wholeheartedly and I urge the government to treat it not as a standalone fix but as part of the urgent need to consider the impact of AI on the Australian economy and society and to regulate appropriately now. I commend the matter to the House. The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Claydon ): This discussion has concluded.