Melbourne, Australia, 06/08/2025 – Electronic Frontiers Australia (EFA), a leading not-for-profit organisation advocating for digital rights, expresses deep concern over the interim report issued by the Productivity Commission into Harnessing Data Digital Technology. The Productivity Commission has taken a page out of the USA’s President Donald Trump’s authoritarian, techno-colonial AI playbook by warning the federal government against making new laws that would stifle the development of Artificial Intelligence.
John Pane, EFA Chair made the following comments: “This decision, influenced by USA driven policy trends of AI deregulation, poses significant risks to the safety, privacy, and rights of all Australians. Productivity, prosperity and profit for big corporations and BigTech should not be the sole considerations of success when implementing this sort of technological change at both scale and high velocity.”
EFA views the interim report from the Productivity Commission as a ‘free kick’ to Big Tech, Big Media and Silicon Valley, but it is seriously flawed on several levels:
1. Existing privacy laws need strengthening, not weakening.
It is unarguable that Australia’s privacy law regime is not fit for purpose, and never was. The scales have always been tipped in favour of technology and business interests with the model for consumer protection laid squarely in the lap of individuals to make their own assessment of privacy risks. Australia must adopt the principle of mandatory Privacy by Default where organisations are legally required to embed privacy protections into the design and operation of their online services, applications, and products from the outset. Data governance principles of data minimization, proportionality and necessity must be the new normal. Organizations must not be permitted to keep personal data indefinitely. An alternative, less protective, Australian privacy framework is not warranted and only continues to serve technology and business interests, not the Australian people it is meant to protect.
2. Technological exceptionalism is bad.
The law frequently treats new digital technologies as exceptional and shields them from scrutiny, transparency and accountability. Existing technology and data privacy regulation in Australia has been an abject failure when considering how technology and commercial interests have built a leviathan surveillance-based data extractive business model; controlling of both government policy and citizens lives. AI can cause asymmetrical harms and sociological change at both unprecedented speed and scale. This risk must be managed.
3. Technological neutrality is imaginary.
Technology is not neutral, nor is it detached from human ideology or free from the taint of human bias. This risk must be managed.
4. Regulation does not kill innovation.
Regulation is often a friend of innovation, steering organizations away from innovating in the wrong direction and creating unsafe products and services. Regulation slows down organizations that want to “move fast and break things.” That is good because a solid regulatory framework allows for careful analysis and calibration of risks coupled with ensuring organizational accountability. The “power and velocity of technology” must be throttled by appropriate laws to ensure our society is protected from the unintended consequences stemming from unchecked AI development and deployment.
5. AI productivity gains are rubbery, at best.
AI adoption in complex economies generates wealth by enhancing export capabilities and driving global competitiveness. In Australia, where economic output is dominated by low value exports and consumption-dependent services, AI merely reduces labour costs without creating equivalent demand for increased productivity. Any gains from AI adoption are likely to remain capped, leading primarily to layoffs rather than economic growth. The lack of a diversified export base means less industries to absorb the displaced workforce. Meanwhile, the absence of adjacent high-value sectors limits opportunities to reinvest AI-driven efficiencies into national wealth creation.
EFA underscores the necessity of a legal framework that ensures transparency, accountability, and fairness in AI systems. Such a legal framework must include:
- An Australian AI institute as per Australia signing on to the Seoul AI Summit Declaration in 2024.
- Mandatory risk assessments for AI applications in high-stakes domains like healthcare, law enforcement, social services, and finance.
- Prohibited AI use cases for exploiting vulnerabilities, inferring emotions, biometric categorisation, subliminal manipulation, and pretending to be real people without their permission.
- Appropriate copyright protections to ensure that indigenous designs and local artists are not instantly replicated by overseas AI models.
- Clear accountability mechanisms for developers and deployers of AI technologies that consider safety, fairness, transparency, and explainability. Developers and deployers should disclose their data sources, training methodologies, and bias mitigation strategies, and show evidence of algorithmic auditing.
- Stronger privacy protections to safeguard individuals from intrusive data practices.
John Pane, EFA Chair commented: “The absence of a citizen and society-centric legal framework for AI development and deployment not only jeopardises individual rights but also further undermines the existing very low levels of public trust in AI technologies. EFA calls on the Australian Government to build a human rights based framework for AI regulation modelled on the European Union AI Act and prioritise the privacy, safety and rights of its citizens over rubbery short-term economic gains, most of which will flow out of our country.”
“Artificial Intelligence is a transformative technology with significant potential, but without robust safeguards, it can also amplify and accelerate risks and harms —ranging from algorithmic bias to significant privacy violations and even threats to democratic processes,” said John Pane, EFA Chair.
“Australia cannot afford to delay enshrining AI safety and risk guardrails into law. The stakes are too high. Human rights and AI development is not a zero sum game.”
The future of artificial intelligence in Australia shouldn’t be written by Silicon Valley.
Support Electronic Frontiers in demanding our country be people-first and privacy-first.