What would Australian control of AI actually mean?

I want Australia to have an AI option it can rely on for essential work, even when an overseas supplier or government changes the terms of access.

Inference, using a trained model to produce an output, is part of that question. So are the infrastructure, rights and expertise needed to sustain it. Training models here can bring benefits, but local training, local data storage and open weights do not, by themselves, establish control.

One test is whether an Australian operator could legally and practically keep running an agreed model if an overseas partner withdrew access. I do not yet regard Australia as having demonstrated that capability for frontier models, let alone a reliable path to successive generations.

Why continuity matters

Cybersecurity makes the stakes clear. AI-enabled attacks can operate at a speed and scale beyond unaided human teams. Where defenders rely on AI to keep pace, losing access becomes a security risk.

On 12/06/2026, Anthropic suspended Fable 5 and Mythos 5 for all customers following a US directive restricting foreign-national access. Other models remained available. The company subsequently announced restored access, with an update on 01/07/2026.

The interruption was temporary, but it showed how overseas decisions can affect access to capabilities we depend on.

Capability has to keep pace

Keeping a model running is valuable while it can still do the job. A model suited to drafting business emails may be inadequate for cyber defence, where the test changes as attackers improve.

Australian control therefore needs a credible path to maintaining and improving the capabilities we rely on. That requires examining licences, dependencies, updates and practical capability. Training and implementation support belong alongside infrastructure.

Continued access to an agreed model does not secure access to future improvements. The possibility of compounding research advantages makes that distinction consequential.

A practical Australian option

Different arrangements may meet these needs. I support partnerships with overseas developers, including US and Chinese providers, subject to the security and control each arrangement requires.

Businesses should remain free to choose services suited to their work. Some may pay a premium for Australian control and continuity; others may choose differently.

I support substantial public investment alongside private investment to secure capabilities Australia deliberately wants to control. I do not support general subsidies for AI consumption. Users should remain responsible for the services they use.