Pocock challenges PM office edits to Australian parliament’s AI-policy letter

A bipartisan Australian parliamentary letter on AI policy has drawn an objection from one of its own committee members. Senator David Pocock questioned the process after Guardian Australia reported that a senior adviser to Prime Minister Anthony Albanese edited the letter before it was sent to him. The committee’s leaders deny government interference.

Feedback after the letter had gone

Notes seen by the Guardian show the adviser made multiple edits and marked some content “fine,” apparently approving parts of the letter. The newspaper did not name the adviser. The prime minister’s office declined to comment.

Some changes were made as late as 8:55 p.m. on Monday, 12 October. That was 35 minutes before committee chair Jo Briskey, a Labor MP, and deputy chair Jonno Duniam, a Liberal senator, sent the letter to Albanese. They sent it on behalf of Labor, Coalition and crossbench parliamentarians.

Pocock, an independent senator on the committee, had been asked to suggest edits. He submitted his feedback at 9:55 p.m., unaware that the letter had already been sent. His objection concerned both the adviser’s involvement and the lack of time for the chair to consider changes.

I’m concerned that markups on the documents show the recommendations were pre-vetted by an adviser in the prime minister’s office and there was no time for changes to be considered by the chair.

David Pocock, speaking to Guardian Australia

Committee leaders defend consultation

Briskey rejected the suggestion that the government had predetermined the committee’s work. She confirmed that the committee had consulted both Albanese’s office and the opposition leader’s office before sending the letter. She described that engagement as seeking advice and making sure the work functioned across the political groups involved.

Duniam also defended the process, saying there had been “no guidance, no interference,” but considerable discussion and consultation. He said he would have been the first to criticise the government if the prime minister had not shown interest in the committee’s work. Briskey said Duniam had also worked with the opposition.

The letter was intended to indicate the committee’s direction ahead of its report, due on 30 November, Briskey said. It was not that final report. Pocock said he respected the committee process and the need to work across parties, but feared the committee was being used for a political purpose rather than genuine scrutiny and policy input.

The policy gaps Pocock identified

The letter raises concerns about copyright, AI safeguards, sovereign capability and AI literacy. Pocock’s criticism went beyond its preparation: after reviewing the document more closely, he said it did not capture the breadth of evidence presented to the committee. He identified several issues he believed it overlooked or failed to address:

• Creatives’ concerns about the global dangers of changing Australia’s copyright protections, rather than only a broad reference to copyright.
• Considering a data-centre levy to capture long-term benefits, and investing in retraining and upskilling workers whose jobs are displaced by AI.
• Immediately starting mandatory screening of genetic-synthesis imports at all Australian borders, which Pocock described as an urgent need.