- Published on
‘We can’t ignore AI or prevent it,’ Anthony Albanese tells UN general assembly – video
- Authors
- Name
- DeepHorus
Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese told the United Nations General Assembly in New York that governments must take an active role in shaping artificial intelligence. During the address, he linked the message to an AI-related hack of Medicare, arguing that the incident shows why emerging technology cannot be left without public scrutiny or strong safeguards. He also used the appearance to advance Australia’s campaign to join the United Nations Security Council. The prime minister’s remarks combined a warning about AI risks with a diplomatic push for greater influence over international technology policy.
Albanese said: ‘We can’t ignore AI or prevent it. And it’s why we joined with other nations this week to call for action to shape artificial intelligence development, rather than be passively shaped by it.’ His framing presents AI governance as an active choice rather than a rejection of innovation. It also connects domestic demands for regulation with Australia’s wider diplomatic strategy at the United Nations. By speaking in New York, the prime minister placed AI among the international issues requiring coordinated political action.
Medicare is Australia’s publicly funded health-care program, making the reported compromise especially sensitive for patients, medical providers and the government. Albanese’s reference put a cybersecurity incident at the center of his broader argument about AI accountability. The reported excerpts do not identify the hackers, explain precisely how AI was involved, or quantify the number of affected records. Nor do they constitute a technical finding establishing responsibility for the breach. The episode nevertheless provided a concrete example for his call for stronger oversight of powerful technologies.
The call for international action is significant because AI systems can spread across borders quickly, while privacy, safety and security rules remain uneven. Shared approaches could help governments address those differences without each country handling the same technology entirely in isolation. Albanese’s message supports greater regulation, but the reported remarks did not announce a new Australian law or a specific enforcement mechanism. His emphasis was on collective action and setting policy goals before AI’s effects become deeply embedded in society.
For Australian policymakers, the incident raises questions about protecting sensitive public data while preserving access to capable AI tools. Depending on the rules adopted, regulation could require stronger testing, clearer accountability and faster reporting of serious incidents. International coordination may also make requirements more consistent for companies operating across multiple markets. At the same time, tighter controls could increase compliance costs, so their practical effect will depend on how future standards are designed and enforced.
Albanese’s speech frames regulation as a necessary response to visible harm, a position likely to resonate with governments concerned about hospitals and critical infrastructure. It may also invite debate over whether national security threats justify tighter rules, or whether regulation could slow useful innovation. The available excerpt contains no reaction from other governments, technology companies or independent experts. What is clear is that Albanese sought to position Australia as a participant in the global debate rather than a passive recipient of technologies developed elsewhere.
Australia’s Security Council campaign gives the government another reason to demonstrate influence on emerging technology issues. If its bid succeeds, Canberra could argue that it is better placed to help shape international priorities on AI, cybersecurity and digital infrastructure. The immediate test will be whether the government turns the speech into concrete safeguards, adequate funding and transparent explanations of major incidents. Albanese’s central message is that AI’s future is not inevitable: the choices made now will determine whether people meaningfully govern it or it shapes society without sufficient control.
