Loading search...
Over 357 experts, public figures, and concerned citizens endorsed these policies in their open letter before the 2025 election.
A well-resourced, independent technical body to assess AI risks and advise on safety standards.
Dan Repacholi unclear position (from party policy)
Party Notes: Labor claims that the Department of Industry, working with the National AI Centre (NAIC), is Australia's AI Safety Institute. This contrasts with international AISIs, which are typically new, independent, technically-focused bodies. The NAIC’s mandate is AI adoption, not frontier safety. Key indicators of a functional AISI such as dedicated technical staff, specific funding, evaluation capabilities (e.g., model testing, compute resources) appear absent and unplanned. This makes Labor's position ambiguous regarding genuine support for a well-resourced safety institute.
A dedicated AI Act with mandatory guardrails for high-risk AI systems will both protect Australians and create the certainty businesses need to innovate.
Dan Repacholi partially supports (from party policy)
Party Notes: Labor says it's focused on legislative options around mandatory guardrails for high-risk AI, harmonised with international best practices. Labor said on 15 April, “We will have more to say about next steps soon.” While this suggests an Australian AI Act is a possibility, it leaves the door open to letting existing regulators handle AI on a piecemeal basis.
Search to see where parties and candidates stand on key AI policy issues