Adjournment Debate on AI and the Future of the Arts

Right now, we are at a critical crossroad for Australia's creative arts industry, one that may deeply harm this invaluable sector. At the recent AI summit in Sydney, the chair of the Tech Council of Australia, Scott Farquhar, called for copyright reform to encourage AI investment. He claimed it is impossible to train an AI model in Australia while doing deals with rights holders. However, in response, the Australian Recording Industry Association rightly described that claim as nonsense. Around the world, AI companies are already striking licensing agreements with record labels, publishers and creators. The message from Australia's creative sector is absolutely clear: tech companies do not need a special carve-out from the Copyright Act. They need a licence. Music, film publishing and broadcasting already operate on licensed use of content at scale.

The Copyright Act provides a clear and workable framework. Copyright is not the enemy of innovation; it is what allows creators to earn a living from their talent and their work. Yet we now hear reports that the federal government is considering a cabinet proposal to introduce a text and data mining exception into Australian copyright law. Such an exception would allow AI companies to train on copyrighted works without asking permission from the artist, writer, musician, filmmaker, journalist, performer, broadcaster, publisher or rights holder. The Australian creative and media industries do not support any weakening of copyright law. Weakening copyright would risk cutting Australian creators out of the global AI market altogether.

This proposal is also reportedly linked to discussions with major AI tech firms about data centre investment in Australia. Investment must never come at the cost of Australian rights. The Albanese government must not sell out Australians to big tech. In October 2025, the government ruled out a text and data mining exception, and it must stick to its word. Backtracking now would amount to legalising the wholesale scraping of creative content—not just Australian content but global content. Many would rightly call that theft.

We're also hearing about a proposed creator fund. It's absolutely clear the Australian creative sector will not support a fund in exchange for their rights. Such a fund would strip creators of the ability to decide how their work is used and remove their capacity to negotiate its value. It would extinguish the worth of Australian content, including our media, our broadcast rights and First Nations cultural expression, with the stroke of a pen. This is not a fair compromise. It is a concept designed by big tech to make the mass use of content legal without consent.

The stakes are extremely high. Australia's creative industries contribute more than $60 billion to our economy and employ hundreds of thousands of people. But, even more vitally, the creative industries generate a genuine expression of our culture and what it means to be Australian. At the same time, our AI sector is growing strongly under existing copyright settings. We do not need to choose between innovation and integrity; we can have both. So I call on the government to guarantee three principles: first, consent—creators must have the right to decide if their work is used; second, credit—their contribution must be acknowledged; and, third, compensation—if AI companies profit, creators must be paid. We also need transparency, enforceable safeguards and strong protections for First Nations cultural and intellectual property. Australian creators are not asking for special treatment; they are asking for fairness. AI must be built on respect for the people whose creativity makes it possible.

25 June 2026

Protecting our Artists Against Artificial Intelligence

My beautiful electorate of Mackellar on Sydney's Northern Beaches is not only a nature lover's paradise; it is also an absolute hub of arts and culture. So many of Australia's accomplished artists, from musicians and painters to writers and actors, call Mackellar home. The fine arts have a long and treasured history on the Northern Beaches, and they enrich all our lives daily.

But we are at a time where the creative community is often doing it tough on many fronts. Recently, I was visited by a local group of voice actors and a representative from the Australian Association of Voice Actors. Voice actors are people who lend their voices to TV and radio programs and commercials, podcasts, movies, audiobooks, video games and more. They came to see me because of the rapid and alarming trend they are seeing in their industry: the use of artificial intelligence to clone and usurp actors and famous people's voices.

For example, as reported in the Sydney Morning Herald in December 2022, Cooper Mortlock landed a steady gig as one of five voice artists working on an animated online series. He signed a contract for 52 episodes, to be recorded over 12 months, but, when it reached episode 30, his contract was cancelled. Then, about a year later, the producer released another episode, using an AI clone of his voice and the voices of the other actors. Even Scarlett Johansson recently alleged that OpenAI used an AI generated version of her voice for its personalised digital assistant. This happened after she had declined permission for her actual voice to be used in the app.

As it now stands, 90 per cent of voice actors in Australia are moderately to extremely concerned by the potential of the theft of their intellectual and creative work. Sadly, this is already happening, and voice actors' art and livelihoods are under real threat. The Australian Association of Voice Actors recently gave evidence to a Senate committee on artificial intelligence, stating that the jobs of around 500 Australian voice actors are already in danger from AI.

Australia is lagging far behind other regions of the world when it comes to the protection of personally identifiable information. We need to follow the lead of the EU and their world-leading General Data Protection Regulation, whereby voice is regarded as a special type of biometric personal data for which consent of use should be through an explicit opt in, should be renewed regularly and must be 100 per cent independent of work contracts. This is an issue that needs urgent, decisive action and legislation. (Time expired)

17 August 2024

Arts and Culture

There must be something in the water in my electorate of Mackellar on the Northern Beaches of Sydney, because in this year's triple J Hottest 100 we were vastly overrepresented by incredible homegrown talent. This year, Lime Cordiale had an amazing four songs voted in, including my favourite song, 'Colin'. Ocean Alley had three. The Rions came in at 64, with their fabulous song 'Anakin'. And, of course, Flume topped the list for the second time, in addition to having two other songs in the top 50. All these artists hail from the northern beaches. And let's add to that list the world-renowned musicians Angus and Julia Stone, who attended the local high school, Barrenjoey High, and whose father was the music teacher there for years. It is this same seaside high school that members of the band the Rions graduated from in 2021 after winning triple J's Unearthed accolade. Is this a coincidence? Actually, I don't think so. Sydney's Northern Beaches has long been fertile ground for musicians, artists, authors and creatives of all varieties. With authors, we have people like Thomas Keneally, Liane Moriarty and Michael Robotham, who also hail from that area. This concentration of talent and success is what happens when creativity is encouraged, cultivated, supported and cherished.

So the launch of the Government's National Cultural Policy is very welcome news indeed for my community of Mackellar. The title of the policy, Revive, is a fitting acknowledgement of the incredibly difficult time the arts industry has had, not only throughout the pandemic but as a result of 10 years of neglect by the coalition government, disinterested in fostering artistic talent. I welcome, first of all, the establishment of Creative Australia as the government's principal arts investment and advisory body. I welcome also the underlying principle that decisions about art belong not with politicians but with the arts community. And I welcome the centrality of First Nations arts and culture, with its placement as the first pillar of the entire policy.

I was most excited to read about the establishment of the Music Australia body, which will grow the market for contemporary music in Australia, deliver songwriting and recording initiatives in schools, and improve access to live music venues for bands and solo artists, among so many other things. As humans, we all benefit from the creative endeavours of our artists and our musicians. Through art and music we are enriched and we are enlightened. So it puts a smile on my face to think of an entire generation of young people starting their bands in their parents' garages up on the northern beaches, blissfully unaware of the release of a government initiative that, hopefully, one day will help be the making of them.