Jump to content

Australia AI Law

From AI Law Wiki

AI-generated text. This page was generated using artificial intelligence.

Australia AI law combines generally applicable legislation, sector regulation and rules for government and court use of AI. The National AI Plan, released on December 2, 2025, makes existing legal frameworks and regulators the foundation of the Commonwealth's approach, alongside targeted responses to emerging harms.[1] The September 2026 national AI standards consultation concerns proposed requirements for large data centres and frontier-AI training; it is not an enacted general AI statute.[2]

This guide covers selected Commonwealth measures and state examples. Source review: September 18, 2026 (Australian Eastern time); automated-decision guidance checked September 30, 2026. It distinguishes legal obligations from policy, guidance and proposals.

Status at a glance

Measure Legal status and scope
Privacy Act 1988 and Australian Privacy Principles (APPs) Existing privacy obligations apply to covered entities using AI to handle personal information.[3]
Automated-decision privacy disclosures Enacted amendments; additional APP 1 disclosures commence December 10, 2026.[4]
Commonwealth government AI policy Version 2.0 effective December 15, 2025; mandatory requirements for covered Commonwealth entities, with exceptions.[5]
PSPF Direction 002-2026 Binding Commonwealth protective-security direction published September 29, 2026, for non-corporate Commonwealth entities. It requires a legacy-technology stocktake and risk-management plan by March 31, 2027; significant government systems have an additional December 31, 2026 milestone.[6]
National AI Plan and industry adoption guidance Government strategy and practical governance guidance; distinct from legislation and mandatory public-sector policy.[1][7]
Automated Decision-Making (Safeguards and Transparency) Bill 2026 Private member’s bill introduced September 7, 2026; the parliamentary bill record lists it before the House of Representatives. It proposes safeguards for Commonwealth automated administrative action, including AI-based systems.[8][9]
National AI standards Consultation announced September 17, 2026; submissions scheduled September 18–October 9. Proposed legislation and implementation details remain subject to the policy process.[10][2]

Enacted laws

Privacy and personal information

The Privacy Act's application depends on the entity and activity concerned. OAIC guidance explains that personal information in AI inputs and outputs remains subject to privacy obligations. Generating or inferring information about an identifiable person can itself constitute collection. Relevant issues include lawful collection, permitted use and disclosure, accuracy, security and transparency.[3]

For organisations using third-party tools, OAIC recommends examining whether vendors retain prompts or use them for training. Its recommendation to avoid entering personal information, especially sensitive information, into publicly available generative-AI tools is expressly framed as best practice; it is distinct from a statutory prohibition on every such input.[3]

The Privacy and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2024 added automated-decision transparency obligations to APP 1. From December 10, 2026, covered entities must describe specified uses of computer programs in their privacy policies where personal information is used in decisions reasonably expected to significantly affect an individual's rights or interests. Coverage includes programs making decisions and programs performing tasks substantially and directly connected with making them. Required descriptions concern the kinds of personal information and the kinds of decisions involved. These are privacy-policy disclosures, rather than a general prohibition on automated decisions.[4]

OAIC smart-glasses investigation (October 2026)

In an October 7 Australian announcement, the OAIC said it had commenced a commissioner-initiated investigation into Shenzhen Qingcheng Future Technology, maker of the HeyCyan phone app used with several smart-glasses products. The company did not respond to the agency's preliminary inquiries about device recording, access to captured information and storage. Privacy Commissioner Carly Kind said that raised concerns about the company's practices under Australian Privacy Principle 1. The OAIC also contacted retailers of products using the app. The investigation uses the commissioner's powers under section 40(2) of the Privacy Act 1988.[11] See October 6 news coverage.

Automated-decision transparency guidance (September 30, 2026)

On September 30, 2026, the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner (OAIC) published an updated APP 1 guideline, fact sheets and a flowchart for the automated-decision transparency provisions due to commence December 10, 2026. APP 1.7 applies when an APP entity arranges for a computer program to make, or perform a task substantially and directly connected with making, a decision reasonably expected to significantly affect an individual’s rights or interests, using personal information. APP 1.8 then calls for privacy-policy descriptions of the kinds of personal information used and of decisions made or substantially informed by the program. The regulator says its resources incorporate feedback from 90 written consultation submissions. The September publication is guidance for an already enacted obligation.[12] See September 30 news coverage.

A separate statutory tort for serious invasions of privacy commenced on June 10, 2025. It provides a court-based avenue concerning intrusion upon seclusion or misuse of information where the statutory conditions are met. Its reach can extend beyond APP entities, but it includes public-interest considerations, defences and exemptions. OAIC does not administer the tort; available court remedies can include damages and injunctions.[13]

Consumer protection and competition

Treasury's October 3, 2025 review concluded that the Australian Consumer Law, together with other laws, can generally address challenges from AI products and services. The existing framework includes prohibitions on misleading or deceptive conduct and false representations, and consumer guarantees for qualifying goods and services.[14][15] ACCC guidance explains that consumer guarantees apply to goods and services and that overseas businesses selling directly to Australian consumers must comply with the Australian Consumer Law.[16]

In its December 2025 AI snapshot, the ACCC identified risks involving false representations, fake reviews, scams and use of consumer data. It also highlighted possible competition problems from integration with established platforms, barriers to switching and AI-sector investment and partnerships. These are regulatory concerns and monitoring priorities, not findings that every AI integration or partnership breaches competition law.[17]

Employment, discrimination and workplace safety

AI-assisted hiring, dismissal and performance management engage the Fair Work framework. Anti-discrimination rules remain relevant where AI outputs disadvantage people on protected grounds, while workplace surveillance can also engage state and territory laws. The National AI Centre identifies physical and psychosocial risks from AI as matters for work health and safety duties, including worker consultation and safe-use training.[14]

The DTA's fairness guidance identifies the Age Discrimination Act 2004, Disability Discrimination Act 1992, Racial Discrimination Act 1975 and Sex Discrimination Act 1984 as relevant federal laws. It stresses that an organisation's chosen technical definition of fairness must comply with anti-discrimination law.[18]

Deepfakes and online safety

The Criminal Code Amendment (Deepfake Sexual Material) Act 2024 strengthened Commonwealth offences addressing non-consensual transmission of sexually explicit material, including technologically created or altered material. The legislation's specific offence elements matter; it is not a blanket prohibition on all synthetic images.[19]

Separately, eSafety's image-based-abuse scheme covers sharing, or threatening to share, intimate images without consent, including digitally altered deepfakes. Its reporting and removal functions provide a different route from criminal prosecution.[20]

Intellectual property

IP Australia's patent examination manual states that a named inventor must be a natural person. It explains this rule through the Australian proceedings involving DABUS, distinguishing the inventor from a corporation or other entity that may be entitled to apply for a patent. The issue is inventorship under patent legislation, separate from copyright in AI-generated expression.[21]

Copyright policy work addresses training inputs, licensing, transparency, AI outputs and enforcement. The Attorney-General's Department's Copyright and Artificial Intelligence Reference Group records October 2025 priorities on licensing, certainty for AI-generated material and less costly enforcement, and the government's then-announced position against a text-and-data-mining exception. That dated position should be read alongside the later consultation debate below.[22]

Regulations and executive actions

Financial services and medical devices

ASIC has emphasized that financial-services and governance obligations continue when regulated firms adopt AI. Its April 2025 review update warned that AI-specific risk management and governance arrangements could lag adoption, referring firms to Report 798. This is supervision under existing obligations, not a stand-alone AI authorisation regime.[23] See ASIC’s October 2026 AI oversight priorities.

The Therapeutic Goods Administration's February 5, 2026 guidance explains how medical-device regulation applies to AI software. Intended purpose and functionality matter: adding a feature that suggests diagnoses or treatment can turn a transcription tool into a medical device. Manufacturers must assess changes, secure appropriate approvals and maintain evidence supporting safety and performance. A general-purpose AI label does not resolve the regulatory analysis.[24]

Commonwealth government use

See also Ministerial AI-preparedness recommendations (October 2026). The DTA's version 2.0 policy requires covered agencies to address accountable officials, transparency statements, an AI adoption strategy, internal use-case registers, staff training and impact assessment. It operates as public-sector governance policy rather than a generally applicable private-sector statute.[5] It applies to non-corporate Commonwealth entities, while excluding AI use in the defence portfolio and the national intelligence community; those bodies may voluntarily adopt elements where compatible with national security.[25]

Development of a consistent legislative framework for government automated decision-making is a separate reform stream. The Attorney-General's November 2024–January 2025 consultation connects it to the Robodebt Royal Commission's call for fair and transparent automation in government services. A consultation does not itself confer legal authority to automate a statutory decision.[26]

On September 29, 2026, the Department of Home Affairs published PSPF Direction 002-2026, Strengthening Commonwealth Cyber Posture Against AI-Enabled Risks. It applies to non-corporate Commonwealth entities under the Protective Security Policy Framework, whose accountable authorities must comply with such directions. By March 31, 2027, covered entities must inventory legacy technology and develop a risk-management plan, including a reduction target, prioritization, mitigations and rationalization procedures. Entities operating Systems of Government Significance have an additional December 31, 2026 milestone for risk-reduction measures and stocktake reporting. The direction cites frontier-AI-enabled cyber risks and calls for stronger vulnerability management and rapid patching of critical flaws.[6] See October 2 coverage.

State and territory example: New South Wales

NSW requires government use of AI to apply its AI Ethics Policy and AI Assessment Framework under Circular DCS-2024-04. The framework covers the system lifecycle, including procurement and operational use, and requires high- or critical-risk uses to be referred for AI Review Committee review. These are NSW public-sector requirements, not rules automatically applicable to every Australian private business.[27]

Guidance and frameworks

The National AI Plan describes a coordinated approach in which existing regulators retain responsibility for harms within their respective domains. It assigns the AI Safety Institute a supporting role in evaluating capabilities and risks and advising government and regulators. The July 20, 2026 government safety announcement reported that the institute had begun testing frontier systems.[1][28]

For industry, the National AI Centre's Guidance for AI Adoption develops six essential practices covering governance, stakeholder impacts, risk management, information sharing, testing and monitoring, and human oversight. It supplies practical implementation advice; following guidance does not displace applicable legal obligations.[7] The department identifies the October 21, 2025 guidance as an evolution of the September 2024 Voluntary AI Safety Standard, which used ten guardrails.[29]

Court and tribunal rules

The NSW Supreme Court's Practice Note SC Gen 23, issued January 28, 2025 and commencing February 3, 2025, governs generative-AI use in proceedings before that court. It prohibits generating or rewriting a witness's substantive evidence with AI, requires specified disclosures in evidentiary documents, and permits exceptional applications concerning AI-generated annexures or exhibits. It also restricts entering protected litigation material into AI systems unless specified confidentiality and use conditions are met.[30]

For AI-assisted submissions, authors must verify authorities and evidentiary references; verification cannot rely solely on another generative-AI tool. AI use for expert reports is subject to the note's leave requirements and exceptions. These are court-specific procedural controls, not a nationwide ban on lawyers using AI.[30] The court's resource page also links separate guidance from other Australian courts.[31]

Fair Work Commission: AI-assisted documents

The Commission announced its final GenAI guidance on August 24, 2026, with application from October 20, 2026. People using GenAI to prepare documents must disclose when and how they used it and check correctness and relevance. Witness statements and declarations must reflect the witness’s own knowledge and words and be true to their best knowledge.[32]

In a September 21 interview, ForHealth’s Jason Bowers described increasingly formal, AI-assisted workplace grievances without an increase in complaints at his organization. He said his team verifies cited legislation and factual claims and applies additional review to responses. These observations describe employer practice alongside the Commission’s procedural guidance.[33]

Proposed legislation and reform

Digital Duty of Care bill: House passage (October 28, 2026)

The House of Representatives agreed to the second and third readings of the Online Safety Amendment (Digital Duty of Care) Bill 2026 on October 28, 2026. Parliament’s progress table records 15 government and eight crossbench amendments agreed to during consideration in detail. The government bill was introduced on October 15. The bill record also lists referral to the Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee, with a report due November 20. Its progress table records House passage although the summary status still says “Before Reps”; it does not record passage by both houses or assent.[34]

Josh Butler’s October 28 Guardian report says the House accepted Kate Chaney’s amendment addressing material or conduct that simulates emotional intimacy and encourages a child’s dependence in place of human relationships. It also reports acceptance of requirements for algorithm opt-out features to be accessible, easy to use and prominently available. Senate negotiations on further changes, including an external complaints pathway, remained pending. These are reported House-approved proposals. The amended bill text requires further primary-document review; the parliamentary-stage verification above does not certify every provision.[35]

See Australia in the international directory and October 28 news coverage.

Automated Decision-Making (Safeguards and Transparency) Bill 2026

Kate Chaney introduced this private member’s bill in the House of Representatives on September 7, 2026. Parliament’s bill record shows first reading and a second-reading motion that day and lists the measure before the House. Its proposed framework concerns administrative action under Commonwealth law taken by a computer program or with a program’s substantial, direct involvement; it extends beyond systems described as AI.[8][9]

The bill would require pre-use risk assessments, human responsibility and explanations to affected people where notification is required. High-risk uses would face additional safeguards, including human substitution of action and review pathways. It would establish a public Commonwealth Automated Tools Register and Ombudsman oversight. These provisions are proposals, rather than current statutory duties.[9][36]

National AI standards consultation

On September 17, 2026, the government announced consultation on national standards for large data centres and frontier-AI training. The paper separates infrastructure requirements concerning energy, water, community costs, engagement and workforce impacts from conditions for frontier training concerning safety, security, local capability and creators. It envisages Commonwealth legislation complementing state and territory approval processes.[10][2]

The consultation explores capacity thresholds, which entities would bear obligations and when projects in development would become subject to them. These remain design questions, not settled compliance thresholds. Submissions opened at 6 am AEST on September 18 and close at 5 pm AEDT on October 9, 2026.[2][10] See September 17 digest coverage, which also includes independent reporting.[37]

The live submission form accepts responses and permits anonymous submissions. The consultation page expressly excludes copyright policy, which remains a separate Attorney-General-led process.[38][39] See September 18 opening coverage.

Frontier-AI regulatory approach (October 8, 2026)

In an October 8 speech, Assistant Minister Andrew Charlton said the government was developing AI standards legislation. He outlined a systems-based approach in which companies would identify, test, report and manage risks, while government would set standards and assess the adequacy of their processes. He connected the approach to frontier-AI risks and described the AI Safety Institute's role in advising government and regulators. These remarks set out the government's developing regulatory approach; proposed statutory duties await published legislation.[40]

In remarks published September 20, 2026 from Apple Park, Albanese emphasized creators’ control and remuneration within planned AI standards, alongside international cooperation. See September 20 digest coverage.[41]

On September 15, 2026, ABC reported consultation options involving rights-holder opt-outs and a minimum quota of licensing deals before use of other online material for AI training. These were reported policy options, not enacted copyright exceptions.[42] In a same-day official interview, Deputy Prime Minister Richard Marles acknowledged continuing copyright discussions while emphasizing protection for creators.[43] See September 15 digest coverage.

The government's July 2026 safety priorities also identified work on a Digital Duty of Care, further privacy reform, workplace AI safety, consumer risks from surveillance pricing and agentic commerce, and government automated decision-making. The announcement describes workstreams; it should not be read as establishing that every proposed reform has been enacted.[28]

Historical measures

In September 2024, the government consulted on mandatory guardrails for AI in high-risk settings, with submissions closing October 4, 2024. That proposals paper and the contemporaneous voluntary standard were distinct instruments. The consultation is historical evidence of reform options, not evidence that its proposed guardrails became enforceable requirements.[44]

Parliamentary AI inquiry letter (October 12, 2026)

The Guardian reported on October 12 (New York time) that Prime Minister Anthony Albanese’s office edited a bipartisan Australian parliamentary AI inquiry letter before it was sent on Monday night. The letter concerns copyright, AI safeguards, sovereign capability and AI literacy. Committee member David Pocock questioned the adviser’s involvement and said his requested feedback arrived after the letter had already been sent. He argued that the letter omitted important evidence on creators’ rights, a data-centre levy, worker retraining and genetic-synthesis screening. Chair Jo Briskey said consultation with government and opposition offices helped establish the committee’s direction; deputy chair Jonno Duniam denied interference. The committee’s report is due November 30, according to the reporting.[45]

Further listening


Queensland intimate-image and audio creation proposal (October 2026)

See Queensland’s introduced intimate-image and audio creation bill for the proposed offence, safeguards and legislative status, and October 27 news coverage.

References

  1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 Department of Industry, Science and Resources, National AI Plan, “Keep Australians safe,” December 2025; plan overview and launch date.
  2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, “Getting it right: Building AI infrastructure that works for Australia,” September 2026, “Purpose and scope” and application thresholds.
  3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 OAIC, “Guidance on privacy and the use of commercially available AI products,” accessed September 18, 2026.
  4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 OAIC, APP Guidelines, Chapter 1, “New obligations about automated decisions from December 2026”.
  5. ↑ 5.0 5.1 Digital Transformation Agency, Policy for the responsible use of AI in government, version 2.0.
  6. ↑ 6.0 6.1 Department of Home Affairs, “Protective Security Directions under the PSPF,” publication date September 29, 2026; PSPF Direction 002-2026, pp. 1–2. Both full bodies reviewed October 2, 2026.
  7. ↑ 7.0 7.1 National AI Centre, “Guidance for AI adoption: implementation guidance,” accessed September 18, 2026.
  8. ↑ 8.0 8.1 Parliament of Australia, Automated Decision-Making (Safeguards and Transparency) Bill 2026, bill progress and status.
  9. ↑ 9.0 9.1 9.2 Kate Chaney MP, Automated Decision-Making (Safeguards and Transparency) Bill 2026, introduced text, especially ss 7–8 and 18–38.
  10. ↑ 10.0 10.1 10.2 Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, “Have your say on the future of AI training and infrastructure in Australia,” September 17, 2026.
  11. ↑ OAIC, “OAIC opens investigation into maker of HeyCyan smart glasses phone app,” updated October 7, 2026 Australian time; full announcement reviewed October 6, 2026 New York time.
  12. ↑ OAIC, “New resources on transparency for use of AI and automated decision-making,” September 30, 2026; full body reviewed.
  13. ↑ OAIC, “Statutory tort for serious invasions of privacy,” June 19, 2025.
  14. ↑ 14.0 14.1 National AI Centre, “AI and Australian law,” accessed September 18, 2026.
  15. ↑ Treasury, Final report – Review of AI and the Australian Consumer Law, October 3, 2025.
  16. ↑ ACCC, “Consumer rights and guarantees,” accessed September 18, 2026.
  17. ↑ ACCC, “ACCC snapshot on AI developments highlights the need for continued monitoring of emerging technologies,” December 17, 2025.
  18. ↑ DTA, “Guidance for the artificial intelligence impact assessment tool: Fairness,” accessed September 18, 2026.
  19. ↑ Attorney-General's Department, “Fact sheet for police: Non-consensual sharing of sexual material,” September 12, 2024.
  20. ↑ eSafety Commissioner, “Deepfakes,” updated August 4, 2026, “How eSafety can help”.
  21. ↑ IP Australia, Patent Manual, “5.4.3 Artificial Intelligence – Inventorship and Entitlement,” updated January 8, 2025.
  22. ↑ Attorney-General's Department, “Copyright and Artificial Intelligence Reference Group,” October 2025 meeting account.
  23. ↑ ASIC, Market Integrity Update, issue 166, April 2025, “Review your artificial intelligence governance and risk management arrangements”.
  24. ↑ TGA, “Artificial intelligence (AI) and medical device software regulation,” February 5, 2026.
  25. ↑ DTA, Policy for the responsible use of AI in government, “Implementation,” version 2.0.
  26. ↑ Attorney-General's Department, “Automated Decision-Making Reform,” consultation overview.
  27. ↑ Digital NSW, “NSW AI Assessment Framework,” accessed September 18, 2026.
  28. ↑ 28.0 28.1 Australian Government, “AI consumer safety priorities,” July 20, 2026.
  29. ↑ Department of Industry, Science and Resources, “The 10 guardrails,” update on Guidance for AI Adoption.
  30. ↑ 30.0 30.1 Supreme Court of NSW, Practice Note SC Gen 23, January 28, 2025, paragraphs 1, 9A–18 and 19–23.
  31. ↑ Supreme Court of NSW, “Generative Artificial Intelligence,” updated March 23, 2026.
  32. ↑ Fair Work Commission, “Use of AI in Commission cases,” August 24, 2026.
  33. ↑ Jack Campbell, Human Resources Director, “AI is turning grievances into legal-grade filings,” September 21, 2026.
  34. ↑ Parliament of Australia, Online Safety Amendment (Digital Duty of Care) Bill 2026, progress table, documents, committee note and divisions; complete bill-record body reviewed October 29, 2026.
  35. ↑ Josh Butler, The Guardian, “‘Emotional intimacy’ from AI chatbots would be banned under Australia’s digital duty of care laws,” October 28, 2026; complete accessible report reviewed October 28.
  36. ↑ Kate Chaney MP, explanatory memorandum to the Automated Decision-Making (Safeguards and Transparency) Bill 2026, outline and notes on clauses.
  37. ↑ Clare Armstrong, ABC News, “Labor considers smart glasses restrictions, new national AI standards,” September 17, 2026.
  38. ↑ Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, “Getting it right: Building AI infrastructure that works for Australia,” consultation page, reviewed September 18, 2026.
  39. ↑ Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, consultation submission form and terms, reviewed September 18, 2026.
  40. ↑ Andrew Charlton, “Speech: The Sydney Trust and Safety Festival,” October 8, 2026; full official speech reviewed.
  41. ↑ Prime Minister of Australia, “Press conference — Apple Park, California,” published September 20, 2026.
  42. ↑ Richard Marles, News24 interview, September 15, 2026.
  43. ↑ Department of Industry, Science and Resources, “Mandatory guardrails for safe and responsible AI: have your say,” September 2024.
  44. ↑ Krishani Dhanji and Josh Butler, The Guardian, October 12, 2026 (New York publication date; URL dated October 13). Complete accessible original article body reviewed.
Retrieved from "https://ailawwiki.com/index.php?title=Australia_AI_Law&oldid=7653"