AJI, Ms Sue, Acting Assistant Secretary, National Capacity and Investment Strategy, Office of AI, Governance and Corporate Group, Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet BANKS, Ms Helene, Acting Assistant Secretary, Coordination and Advice, Office of AI, Governance and Corporate Group, Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet CANNON, Mr Jacob, Assistant Secretary, International and National Security, Office of AI, Governance and Corporate Group, Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet GIFFORD, Mr Cameron, Deputy Secretary, Governance and Corporate Group, Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet GOOD, Mr Peter, Chief AI Officer, Office of AI, Governance and Corporate Group, Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet HANSON, Mr Fergus, Head, Office of AI, Governance and Corporate Group, Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet [09:03] CHAIR: Welcome. I understand that information on parliamentary privilege and the protection of witnesses giving evidence to Senate committees has been provided to you. I now invite you to make a short opening statement. At the conclusion of your remarks, I will invite members of the committee to ask some questions. Mr Gifford : Thank you, Chair. Fergus, I'll throw to you. Mr Hanson : Thank you very much for having me back to the committee today. In July this year, the Prime Minister announced that the government would legislate AI standards for large AI data centres and AI training in Australia. That announcement is the starting point for the work now being led across government by the Office of AI within the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. In August, last month, National Cabinet agreed the Commonwealth's approach to developing the standards, recognising both the generational opportunity that AI presents and the need to manage the material impacts of large-scale AI infrastructure. The standards are intended to provide a clear, nationally consistent framework that enables investment certainty, builds public confidence and ensures the growth of AI capability occurs in a way that supports Australia's long-term national interest. They address two related but distinct issues. The first is minimum expectations for large AI data centres, including energy, water, land use, community engagement and workforce impacts. The second is conditions for AI training in Australia, including how training activity supports national security and safety, future industries, skills, research and innovation, and Australian creators, media organisations and rights holders. This matters because AI has the potential to reshape Australia's economy, security, research base and industrial capability. It can lift productivity, strengthen sovereign capability, support national security, accelerate scientific discovery and create new opportunities for Australian businesses and workers. But those benefits are not automatic. They depend on Australia having the right settings in place—settings that attract investment, manage risks, protect community confidence and give Australia a genuine stake in how this technology develops. Public confidence will be critical to realising the benefits of AI. Communities need to know that large data centres are located appropriately; that energy, water and land use impacts are managed; that costs are not shifted onto households or businesses; and that local skills, jobs and training opportunities are supported. The AI training component of the standards is equally important. If Australia only uses AI systems developed elsewhere, we have less influence over how those systems are designed, governed and aligned with Australian values and interests. Hosting AI training here gives Australia a greater stake in the development of this technology, supports local capability and strengthens our ability to build trusted international partnerships. Sovereignty in this context is not about doing everything ourselves. It's about having enough domestic capability, resilience and choice that Australia can protect its interests. Australia is well placed to attract this investment. We have world-class research, a skilled workforce, strong institutions, trusted international partnerships and a sophisticated economy. The standards are about building on those strengths in a deliberate, practical and coordinated way. The standards will complement, not duplicate, existing Commonwealth, state, territory and local government approval processes and obligations. To wrap up, I'll say that the government is committed to broad and genuine consultations as the standards are developed, including with industry, states and territories, communities, creators, researchers and Australia's trading partners. Public consultation has commenced, with the consultation released on the PM&C website last night. Feedback is sought by Friday 19 October. The government also intends to release exposure draft legislation by the end of this year to support further engagement on the proposed framework. The government will be informed by submissions to this inquiry and to the Senate inquiry into artificial intelligence and data centres. We welcome the work of both committees. Your findings will be important to ensuring the AI standards are practical, trusted, aligned with Australian values and capable of advancing Australia's interests. Thank you for the opportunity today. CHAIR: Thanks, Mr Hanson. Off the back of the comments you were just making there, in your opening statement, around the importance of AI training as it relates to our sovereign capability and national security, can you elaborate on how AI training in Australia, on Australian shores, would improve or affect our leverage over some of the big AI companies and give us an influence over, in particular, discussions that are happening at the moment around AI safety. Mr Hanson : Absolutely. I think at the moment Australia is not in a great position to be able to shape this technology which is going to be the most consequential technology for our generation. What we do by enabling AI training on Australian shores, if it involves the frontier firms—the firms at the very forefront of building this technology—is buy ourselves a seat at the table and an influence and say over that technology. That includes all aspects of that technology, such as the access to that technology, the engineers, the research talent, the expertise that will come to Australia, the compute capacity—the very best chips in the world that will build that technology—and the ability for our creative industries to have control and a say. It will potentially do all of those things. It allows us to engage in those discussions around safety and security in how these models are developed and built. CHAIR: Excellent. To elaborate a bit further on that, can I hear about the benefits that arise if we can get the settings right and if we enable the training and, in particular, how that correlates with the importance of creatives and rights holders having a say? Can you talk a little bit further on what the benefits would be to Australian creatives and rights holders if we can get this right? Mr Hanson : The policy development of this I'll leave to my AGD colleagues, who I think are appearing shortly. But, just in terms of the broad principles of what we're looking at here, if I look at the status quo for Australian rights holders, their works are being used in AI training that's occurring around the world, not just in the United States. They receive no fee or payment for that at the moment. There is no ability for them to opt out in a practical sense from the use of that material. There's no way for them to practically do that under any law where web training is occurring. As the creative industry has been articulating in the media recently, there is no sign that deals are being struck for the use of their content in AI training at the moment, and there's no way for them to validate how their materials are or aren't being used in the models, except for court discovery processes in one jurisdiction. So I think that's the status quo that we're up against. Is it possible to do better than that? I think it is, on all of those fronts. But I think policy design is something for AGD and something for government. CHAIR: What you're saying is that there is an opportunity to improve the current status quo, if we can get the settings right, attract some of these big frontier models here—which relates to our ability to train onshore—and help shift that for creatives. Then there is also the point you were making earlier around national sovereign capability and national security. I might throw over to my deputy chair for a couple of questions. Senator DUNIAM: Mr Hanson, you talked about getting the settings in place to ensure that we have a seat at the table with those frontier models. We're talking to a range of government agencies today. We just spoke to DEWR, and we've spoken to you and the others. They're all doing a piece of work to get the settings right. I asked you at our briefing last week—it might've been last week—about who's coordinating all of this. I just want to understand the role of the Office of AI in line with all of the other agencies. Are you a clearing house for the work that they do, or do you have oversight and control over what work they are doing and how that fits into what will ultimately be government policy for what settings we put in place in this country? Mr Hanson : Our remit involves, as I outlined earlier, two different component parts. One is the settings for large data centres in Australia. That speaks to a lot of things around the social licence of data centres—that is, making sure that retail prices are not pushed up, as well as electricity prices, that consumers are not being forced to wear the costs of water connections and that they're sited appropriately in line with community expectations and the like. That work involves a lot of collaboration with the relevant departments. You've got DCCEEW with energy and water, and the like. On that piece of work, we're working very collaboratively with the line agencies that work on that particular policy and then trying to shape it up in a way that will come together as a whole. We're looking at, for example, the total regulatory burden that might be imposed on a data centre operator in Australia. The other part of the work is enabling AI training in Australia. The Attorney-General is really front and centre of that in terms of the legislative considerations that will be involved when thinking that through. We work very closely with them in terms of engaging with different aspects of that discussion—for example, engagement with frontier AI firms but also participating in discussions with Australian rights holders as well. Senator DUNIAM: They're all doing their body of work. AGD are doing copyright, and DEWR are doing what they need to with impacts on the workplace. With that second piece of work, what specific role do you have in pulling together the final piece of work that government will present to the Australian people and to industry about why we would have them come here and why they should come here? Mr Hanson : I think this gets a little bit into the decisions that will be before government. I think in broad terms what we're trying to do is stitch together and see if there is a pathway between what the AI firms are telling us they would need to conduct training in Australia and, on the other hand, the clear guidance the Prime Minister has given and that the rights holders are putting forward around payment control and the like, and trying to find a policy solution with AGD that might navigate that pathway. Then there will be other considerations in terms of any package that came forward that would cut across both of those standards. There will be things that will be in our wheelhouse to resolve there. But it probably speaks to the policy that will be coming and will be considered by government. Senator DUNIAM: I'm sure we'll talk about this on the way through. Mr Gifford : If I can help with your original question, I think either way I would characterise the decision to put the Office of AI within the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet as recognising the role of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet in terms of coordination and convening power. I think, as Mr Hanson has articulated, there are things we are directly responsible for in terms of the standards, but otherwise we see a role for ourselves in terms of making sure that government is given the appropriate advice across the full gamut of AI related issues that are currently being contemplated. Mr Good : Just to add, I think some of these conditions and things that we're looking at around safety, security and investment in skills are matters that are put out as part of the consultation paper that was released overnight as well. We're seeking views on those matters. The role of the office will be to pull those together with those departments and consider how they might be implemented, whether that's through laws or other ways to capture these benefits. Senator DUNIAM: Do we have a copy of that consultation paper? CHAIR: I'm sure we can get one. Senator DUNIAM: Would we be able to? CHAIR: It's just been released overnight. Senator DUNIAM: It's online, is it? I'll google at it after this. We'll use AI to assess it! No, I'm not going to do that; that's on Hansard too! Just in terms of existing regulatory frameworks, is there analysis being done by the Office of AI, or is it something that's been delegated out to line agencies to look at in terms of existing laws and how they might relate to AI and its emergence in our economy and society? Mr Hanson : Are you talking about just the whole write large in terms of— Senator DUNIAM: Write large. I mean, that's sort of where we're at in this point in time. Mr Hanson : At least for our office, we're not looking at the entirety of AI on the whole economy and every aspect of every part of AI. There are individual agencies running their own individual component parts, and that's sort of an issue that is cutting across the entirety of government. Senator DUNIAM: Do they feed in information to you, as they go through these exercises, about that sort of thing—current arrangements, shortcomings, gaps in laws et cetera? Mr Hanson : In our wheelhouse—I've sort of outlined the issues we're responsible for—absolutely they do. But I think if you're talking about AI and medtech, for example, that's not something we're focused on as an office. Senator DUNIAM: Okay. CHAIR: I might throw over to Ms Chaney, if you've got some questions. Ms CHANEY: Thank you very much, and thanks for your evidence. If the focus is really on those standards and the AI training, what's your deliverable? Is it doing a deal on copyright and getting the standards out? My second question is about the scope of those standards, given that the focus is really on data centres to be potentially used for AI training. Will those standards go beyond the physical requirements like electricity and water and actually go to things like access to compute or transparency about what data is being used for that training? To what extent are you taking into account the broader AI risks in building those standards? What will you actually deliver at the end of that? Mr Hanson : Maybe I'll divide it into two parts. On the standards, as I articulated around the social licence the data centres will need to operate to make sure they're aligned with community expectations, the approach that we've taken is to build on the data centre expectations that were developed previously and are housed on the DISR website. What the exact components of those standards are going to be is a decision that will have to be considered by government, but that's at least the building blocks of what we're working on. So there will be a package that will address that, and then there will potentially be another package that will look at whether AI training can be enabled in Australia. Again, that's something government would have to consider and decide whether it wants to do or not. Ms CHANEY: What's the package? What do you mean? Is it a report, or is delivering the deal the Office of AI's job, based on where government decides to go? Mr Hanson : The Prime Minister said he would like to have exposure draft legislation out by the end of the year, so that's what we're working towards. Ms CHANEY: Right. I assume there's not a lot of point for us to have a discussion now about the details of what those standards might be in terms of energy additionality. I assume you can't really say anything beyond what the Prime Minister's already said. Has thinking progressed, and is it useful for us to talk about some of those issues? Mr Hanson : You are right that the detail of what will be in the package is not settled and hasn't been considered by government. I would say one thing you could look at, for example—and for you to look up with our DCCEEW colleagues, if you've got them on your list—is there has been a process run through the ECMC, the Energy and Climate Change Ministerial Council, which is a state and territory body working with the Commonwealth. They've released some material as they've progressed their discussions around how you could deal with the issue of data centres and additionality. Ms CHANEY: If the standards are being built on the expectations, is there potential to deal with broader AI risks in those standards that go beyond the physical infrastructural risks, such as putting requirements in there about transparency on critical incidents or on what data is being used or on requiring access to frontier models? Are those things potentially in scope, or are you just focused on the physical infrastructure? Mr Hanson : It's hard to say what will be considered by government. But, if you look at the DISR website and the statement of expectations on data centres, things like research and skills and safety and security are articulated there. So I think that's broadly in the issues that are in consideration. But it will be a decision for government as to whether that's included or not. Mr Gifford : Going to your original question in terms of what we see as our key deliverable, it's not a simple job of just delivering the standards via legislation, and then job done. The point we're trying to make is that they are a tool to set the expectations in terms of how this will attract investment into Australia by which we want to achieve access and influence. Some of those broader issues that you're talking about will be enabled by trying to actually harness the benefits of that investment but also have influence with the companies that would come into Australia on the terms and the values that will be reflected in those standards. Ms CHANEY: But it may be that it's more 'get the investment here first, and that will bring influence that we can then use to deal with some of the safety issues'. Or is it 'make some of those safety issues a condition of that investment'? Is the influence something soft that happens later, or are those conditions built in up front to deal with the broader issues? Mr Gifford : Unfortunately, that is a question that's going to what is going to be in the standards, and we can't yet get to that point, because they're still decisions for government. But we don't see them as being disconnected. In actual fact, we see them as running concurrently now. It's not an exercise whereby the standards are to be developed and then we talk about safety issues. It's very much that they are an interconnected piece. Ms CHANEY: Would you see DISR as being the area that has broad oversight of AI rollout in Australia and your role as being specifically around these standards and AI training? Or do you see Office of AI as having overall supervision and DISR as doing a part of that? I'm trying to understand how that relationship works. Mr Gifford : Excellent question. DISR's responsibilities haven't significantly changed since the advent of the office of artificial intelligence. They are still responsible for the National AI Plan, within which, for instance, is the responsibility to ensure that we're mitigating harms and ensuring safety in terms of AI rollout—I believe you've got the AI Safety Institute appearing later on this morning. That hasn't changed post the advent of the office of artificial intelligence. Ms CHANEY: Thanks for that. CHAIR: Senator Sheldon. Senator SHELDON: Just on that broader question, just so I can understand a little bit more clearly, on the security matters, obviously the office of AI safety, as well as other agencies, is important when you're setting benchmarks or expectations of things to be considered, both in those agencies and more generally, including that, in DEWR workplaces where licensed programs and licensed software are put out, it meets all the requirements and it's deemed to be safe. But, in actual fact, how the process actually applies could be less safe or it could be less productive than otherwise was intended because of the way it's being implemented. Does the role of the oversight of what's happening in various departments go beyond the actual licensing, the technical, and go also to the human aspect of how it is being creatively used or how human intelligence is involved with the development and deployment of that and the processes that are put place? When you're setting a set of standards, ultimately, is that one of the things to be considered as a standard because it's actually a virtuous loop? I'll stop there. Mr Gifford : I'm understanding your question to go more towards the use within departments and within the workforce. If that's the case, what I'd describe to you is that the framework and the architecture is set by the Digital Transformation Agency, in terms of appropriate use of artificial intelligence within government departments. If I can talk about how, then, the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet brings that to life, so to speak— Senator SHELDON: That would be helpful. Mr Gifford : Every single department, then, has a chief AI officer and an AI accountable authority, which then is responsible for making sure that we adhere to that guidance and policies that say, effectively, that we've got to be really transparent about our use. We've got to be really careful in making sure that it's appropriate usage as well, and we have to have things, including an AI usage statement, on our own website. The AI officers from each of the departments effectively also have a network to make sure that we're able to support one another in terms of that usage, but ultimately the responsibility for that guidance is through the DTA. Senator SHELDON: Going back to earlier witnesses, you may have seen this question about best practice—it can always be better practice sometimes too. Whilst performing that expectation on how it's rolled out, how do you capture that in the standards, and how is that captured in the standards not only for government but potentially for expectations across the Australian economy? Mr Gifford : I think they'll be separate from the standards. The standards are very much about the data centres and AI training. That best practice you're talking about is more through, again, the Department of Finance, through their GovAI. There's a platform there that shares use cases and developments across government. We are actually trying to lift everybody up as quickly as we possibly can in terms of that understanding of what best practice looks like. So those questions are potentially best directed to the Department of Finance. CHAIR: I'm going to go to you, Senator Cadell. Senator CADELL: I have two areas. It has been put to me that Australia has a significant compute deficit at the moment. We're an importer of compute. Do you have a goal to get to a percentage, or do you have a timeline of when we might be there? Do we have an understanding of our compute deficit, import or export, at the moment? Mr Hanson : This is all digital services that are coming from lots of different parts of the world at any particular time. Senator CADELL: So we're an importer of compute, really. Mr Hanson : I think the issue is that it's very hard to work out, in the totality of the entirety of the Australian digital economy, which parts are coming from the US and which parts are from New Zealand et cetera—and then averaging that out to work out whether we're net positive or minus when it comes to that. I don't have a good answer for you on that. Senator CADELL: Are we looking at that and trying to establish that? Mr Hanson : Yes, we've looked into some of it, and it comes with different use cases as well. If you've got compute here that's available, some compute can be leased by overseas people and other compute can be leased locally. So getting to a fixed sign-up would be a very, very tricky question to get to. But, if your question is around what the demand is like for compute, I'd say it's enormous globally. Currently, there's not sufficient supply in the global system to meet the demand that we're seeing from a whole range of different things but particularly from AI training and inference. Senator CADELL: Other than training, we've seen the announcement on inference and Anthropic in western Queensland yesterday. You mentioned the ECMC. You mentioned social licence and these things. I've got concerns from a national regional perspective about the power delivery. On my stats, a peak 2.16 gigawatts—the one they're talking about up there—is 18.9 terawatt hours per year. The current NEM-connected data centres are only 3.9 currently. So it's a five-times increase just for one data centre. That is equivalent to 1,640 wind turbines—four-megawatt wind turbines for peak—or 13.3 million solar panels taking up 24,000 hectares. That's for one data centre. What's the social licence? Where are we looking at this? When you're talking about these standards, that is monstrous on top of what we're already doing with the transition. How many data centres are we talking? How many times are we going to have to put up with that? Mr Hanson : I think this is exactly what the AI standards are trying to get at—giving people assurance that energy prices won't be put up, that it'll be a managed process and that they'll only be able to connect and build data centres to the extent that there is additionality in the grid and it's not driving consumer and wholesale prices for everybody else. Senator CADELL: It's not just prices; my regions are being white-anted by these things. Mr Hanson : Which speaks, I think, to the location part of this as well and making sure that the siting of these facilities is considered and in line with what community expectations are around that. I think the other piece that is very prominent is around the water usage and making sure that that's dealt with in such a way that people feel confident that there's not a drain on water supplies and— Senator CADELL: I think it's only about five gigalitres. I don't think that this one's overly large— Mr Hanson : Yes, it's very much dependent on the design. But I think it's about providing assurance that there are appropriate standards there that people can feel confident in and that they're being built in a way that aligns with what they expect. Senator CADELL: When we're talking about standards and data centres, are we also looking, when you look at learning models, at the standards we expect there where foreign deals have been involved? Could independent evaluators work inside these? Are they the sorts of standards you're looking at in the learning models if we have those sorts of data centres—those sorts of models—hosted in Australia? Mr Hanson : This will speak to what'll be before government, but I think that the AI companies themselves have come out and proposed these as unilateral initiatives; they're going to put these independent evaluators inside their institutions to do that. So, if they come to Australia, you would expect that the same conditions would apply here, and that's of their own volition. But whether there are other initiatives you could take goes to issues that'll be before government shortly. Senator CADELL: This is my last question on this size issue. The numbers I gave—13.3 million solar panels and so on—are for one data centre. It's a big one for Anthropic. I get that. How many of those are we really looking at in your plan as a realistic expectation for what we want in Australia? Mr Hanson : It's all going to be contingent on the additive generation. The design of the system is around bringing additive renewable generation to the system. So the extent that you can build renewable generation that aligns with community expectations will depend on that equation. You can't just connect a data centre to the grid, just build and plug it in— Senator CADELL: Twenty-five per cent of Queensland electricity— Mr Hanson : Yes, I'd say with that example there, it's not like Anthropic has permission to move straight to 2.5 or whatever gigawatts of power draw. There'll be a very— Senator CADELL: Its hustle, its average compute, uses 1.5 or 1.6, yes. That's its peak power. Mr Hanson : And there'll be a staging process to build up to that over time and things like that, so I don't think people should anticipate lots of data centres plugging in and sucking on the grid. Senator CADELL: I get that, but are we talking less than 10, 10 to 50, or 50 to 100? What are we ballparking? Mr Hanson : I think it's an impossible thing to speculate on because it's all going to be contingent on the onboarding of generation. If no electricity is onboarded— Senator CADELL: Everything is dependent upon power. Mr Hanson : Yes. Senator CADELL: Okay. CHAIR: Senator Pocock. Senator DAVID POCOCK: Thank you very much for your time here today. What's the headcount and FTE in the Office of AI? Mr Hanson : We've got a lot of secondees. Some of them come in for very short periods. But I'd say roughly we're in the order of 34 or 35. Senator DAVID POCOCK: In a previous Senate inquiry, we were looking at sovereign capability. It seems to me, looking at AusTender, the best estimates are that 70 to 80 per cent of government procurement in the AI space goes to foreign companies and we're spending 20 to 30 per cent on Australian owned companies. One of the things that got raised in that inquiry was how local innovative companies are often overlooked through government procurement. Looking at your submission, you look at a variety of mandatory requirements, but I don't see anything around retained economic benefit, and it certainly doesn't mention tax. We know these tech companies have a history of minimising taxable income and offshoring profits. What plans are you working on to ensure that tax is paid here and data centres give us a return? Mr Hanson : I think this would speak, again, to considerations that will be before government. I wouldn't want to speculate on what we're going to do, but, if your question is around using local AI companies, we're engaged with lots of Australian local AI firms, and the solutions we're exploring are trying to factor in the considerations that they've been raising, as well as the frontier firms, so we're trying to consider the very excellent Australian startups that are working in this space as well. But the tax issues will be an issue for the tax department and the firms to work out. Senator DAVID POCOCK: As Office of AI, what are you working on in terms of the long-term return? What is the likely way that data centres pay us in an ongoing way? Mr Hanson : I think there are the jobs and—well, there's the build— Senator DAVID POCOCK: Other than jobs and payroll tax, which is what the gas industry tells us, what is the mechanism to get a return? Mr Hanson : There are the businesses themselves, which is a question for our tax regime and how that structures in terms of how they sell their products and who pays for those products and who consumes their compute, for example. Senator DAVID POCOCK: The Office of AI isn't looking at that? Mr Hanson : We're not looking at who their customers are or how they charge for their services or what the tax regime is around those services. Senator DAVID POCOCK: Why not? Mr Gifford : If I can go back, I think it goes to the deputy chair's question earlier in terms of the role of the Office of AI. We are not displacing the policy responsibility to various departments, so the tax settings then are very much within the purview of the Department of the Treasury. But the more positive answer that I'd like to give to you is that, in terms of the way we're thinking about the standards, it is to then attract the investment within a set of expectations and values that are core to what we want to achieve in terms of the benefits from that investment. That will obviously include long-term productivity gains. But the questions in terms of productivity taxation and the like still need to go to the respective departments, either the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations or Treasury. Our role is to coordinate that type of advice and ensure the government is fully informed, but effectively expertise still sits within those respective departments. Senator DAVID POCOCK: Okay, so that's for the ATO. We can hopefully talk to the ATO through this inquiry. How many data centres are currently operating in Australia? Mr Hanson : The stats vary. Ms Aji : It's between 160 to 200. Senator DAVID POCOCK: How many of them are Australian owned, sovereign Australian companies? Ms Aji : We don't know that. Senator DAVID POCOCK: Should you? Mr Hanson : We can take it on notice to see what we've got on our records. Senator DAVID POCOCK: Take it on notice. Would it be correct to say that companies are trying to accelerate approvals now, given that there's currently no mandatory standards and next year we'll see legislation? Mr Hanson : We hear different things from the market, that it's waiting for this advice or—I think there are different stories that I've heard. I think the application of the standards and the date that these are going to apply from are still to be settled by government. Senator DAVID POCOCK: We're hearing different things, but is it your view that we are seeing a rush to get approval? Mr Gifford : That's calling for a bit of an opinion from us, unfortunately. I think we'd be a little bit reticent to share that opinion to the extent that there are many different things that could be at play in terms of a current increase, because there's a desire from companies right across the world to get access to more and more data centres. Timing is a piece that I'd be a little bit reticent to talk to the causation of. Senator DAVID POCOCK: Was the Office of AI consulted on the proposed extended licensing and statutory data training authorisation options by the AGD? Mr Gifford : We've been working really closely with the Attorney-General's Department in terms of the consultations that the Attorney-General is currently undertaking with rightsholders and with technical companies in terms of potential changes to the copyright regime. CHAIR: Off the back of that, Senator Pocock, in terms of conversations around expectations on benefits and delivery, my understanding is that one of the standards that has been released—I think it's the fifth standard—was about the expectation around broader community benefits, in terms of expertise and access to compute, in order to train and build up our own AI ecosystems when it comes to being able to access their expertise. Can you elaborate on that further for the committee? Mr Hanson : There are benefits in a variety of ways here. One would be what data centres themselves bring to the table in terms of training workers and tradespeople that are helping to build these data centres and what they might be contributing to community benefit around access to compute, for example, or other amenities that they'd be providing to local communities. The other piece is around AI training. If large frontier firms migrate to Australia, what that will be doing in practice is creating a second location in the world where these engineers that are building AI training models, many of whom are Australians, will have the legal right to return and do that work as well. It would invite over the top global talent on this issue and have an attractive force in terms of bringing expertise here, and you would imagine that partnerships with universities and the like would be very likely to spring out of that arrangement. CHAIR: That goes to your point, Senator Pocock, around the Australian AI firms. Senator DAVID POCOCK: In the intro, you talked about how having data centres here gives us influence and access. What does that mean? How do we get that influence and access? How will the government influence and access? Mr Hanson : If you've got an AI training firm physically located here, it enables a different type of collaboration—for example, law enforcement co-operations. If there is a threat to Australians lives through misuse of those platforms, it becomes a much easier discussion in the facilitating arrangement to work really closely with those companies to have those kinds of discussions and information exchanges. Senator DAVID POCOCK: Wouldn't Five Eyes—don't we already have those sorts of arrangements with the US? Mr Hanson : We do. Of course, we have very good collaboration with the US. I think this invites a different level of collaboration that you can have that is not possible if you don't have the companies located in your jurisdiction. Senator DAVID POCOCK: We're being told that we need to upend copyright as we know it so we can have influence and access. The No. 1 example is law enforcement. What— Mr Hanson : In terms of principles around the copyright, as I outlined, I think the deal that people get at the moment under the act is that their material is used, they get no payment for its use, they have no control over its use, and there are no deals being struck. That's, I think, the status quo. Is there a better circumstance than that? I think we could get to a better situation than that. Senator DAVID POCOCK: What is being proposed through consultations would be an upending of copyright as we know it, and it clearly doesn't have the support of creatives. Have you tried to facilitate negotiations or conversations between creatives and collecting bodies and these AI companies? Mr Gifford : I think that question is best put to the Attorney-General's Department in terms of the conduct of those consultations. But I can certainly say that, yes, there have been many discussions that the Attorney-General and the Attorney-General's Department have been party to to try and work those issues through with rights holders and the technical companies in terms of the options that are being discussed. CHAIR: Deputy Chair. Senator CADELL: It was really interesting to me, looking at the learning levels—what they're scraping. It's been put to me that the music stuff, and the creative, was about 0.1 per cent of the learning models, but 30 per cent of what they're scraping is code and mathematics and things that are not the sexiest things in the IP world. How do we determine that? Mr Hanson : This is what companies would regard as their secret source in terms of the detail of what they do, and different models have different capabilities, so they're trained in different formulations. Some might be heavy on code. Some might be heavy on— Senator CADELL: But learning models don't seem to be big on these creative industries. Mr Hanson : I think it depends on what type of model you're looking at. There's a model, for example, in the US that was pulled because it was reproducing Disney-like characters. Senator CADELL: They're not frontier models. They're the commercial, 'let me look like an 80s rock star' models, aren't they? Senator DUNIAM: Do you have some of those! Mr Hanson : Sometimes versions of these models are fine-tuned on different corpuses, so I think it very much depends on what model you're talking about, and there will be lots of nuances. You get into different lanes of this. CHAIR: I'm conscious of time. I wouldn't mind throwing it open for any final comments before we wrap up. Mr Gifford : Other than thanks for the invitation, we've provided a submission. We've made reference, I think, again to the consultation paper that's been released overnight. Also, we're looking forward very much to the report of the committee. It is going to be a very valuable contribution to assisting us to make sure, effectively, that what we are trying to achieve in terms of attracting that investment does so within social licence and does so in a way that accords with the expectations and the values of the Australian community. Thank you, Chair. Senator DUNIAM: I have a feeling we will speak to you again. CHAIR: Yes, I suspect so. Senator DUNIAM: Just FYI—if you think you're off the hook! CHAIR: Thank you very much. We really appreciate you making yourselves available to come and speak with us and provide your evidence to this committee. I agree with the deputy chair; I suspect we will be taking the opportunity to see you again. I understand there have been a couple of questions taken on notice. The committee has agreed that responses to questions on notice should be provided to us by Friday 25 September. Thank you..