- Published on
David Pocock concerned senior Albanese adviser ‘vetted’ bipartisan AI letter that was sent to PM
- Authors
- Name
- DeepHorus
A bipartisan parliamentary committee letter to Prime Minister Anthony Albanese on artificial intelligence policy was reviewed and edited by a senior adviser in his office before it was sent, according to notes seen by Guardian Australia. The letter, sent on Monday night on behalf of Labor, Coalition and crossbench MPs, raises concerns about copyright, AI safeguards, sovereign capability and AI literacy. The involvement of the prime minister’s office has drawn concern from independent senator David Pocock, a committee member. The prime minister’s office declined to comment, and Guardian Australia chose not to name the advisers involved.
The committee, chaired by Labor MP Jo Briskey and deputy chaired by Liberal senator Jonno Duniam, is examining AI policy and is due to hand down its report on 30 November. The letter was intended to signal the committee’s direction to Albanese ahead of that report. Notes on the letter show a senior adviser made multiple edits and wrote “fine” on some content, appearing to approve lines before the committee wrote to the prime minister. Some edits were made as late as 8:55pm, 35 minutes before Briskey and Duniam sent the letter.
Pocock was asked to provide edits to the letter and submitted feedback at 9:55pm, not knowing it had already been sent. He said he was concerned that markups showed the recommendations were pre-vetted by an adviser in the prime minister’s office and that there was no time for changes to be considered by the chair. “While the letter is broad in nature, after reviewing it in more detail it doesn’t capture the breadth of evidence presented to the committee to date,” Pocock said. He added that he respected the committee process and the need to work in a multipartisan way.
Briskey rejected criticism that the committee’s work was “pre-determined” by the government. She confirmed the committee had consulted both Albanese and the opposition leader’s office prior to sending the letter. “It’s been a process by which we’re seeking advice and making sure that this is working across the board … There was engagement right across the panel,” she said. Duniam also defended the process, saying there was “no guidance, no interference” with the committee’s work.
Duniam said he would be the first person to criticise the government if the prime minister was not showing interest in the committee’s work. “This is an example of the parliament working well,” he said. He added that there had been a lot of discussion and consultation, and that others who wanted to sit on the sidelines and “find points of difference” could do so. The dispute nevertheless highlights tensions over how AI policy is being developed in Australia.
Pocock said the letter overlooks key concerns articulated by creatives about the global dangers from any changes to Australia’s copyright protections. He also said it fails to consider a datacentre levy to capture long-term benefit and the need to invest in retraining and upskilling workers whose jobs are displaced by AI. “It also fails to address the urgent need to immediately commence mandatory screening of genetic synthesis imports at all Australian borders,” he said. He warned that the committee’s work was increasingly being used for a political purpose rather than genuine parliamentary scrutiny.
The committee’s final report is due on 30 November, and the letter is meant to show its direction before that deadline. With Pocock raising concerns about pre-vetting and missed evidence, the episode may complicate the committee’s effort to present a unified approach to AI policy. Pocock said regaining community trust on AI requires robust debate and committee work. The prime minister’s office has declined to comment, leaving unanswered questions about the adviser’s role.
