Data Centres

Hanson-Young argued that the government was rolling out the red carpet for US tech companies without securing returns for Australia. Hanson-Young claimed that weak regulations allowed these entities to mine Australian intellectual property and culture without payment. Hanson-Young stated that Australians were suspicious of the implications for jobs, water, and national security. Hanson-Young urged the government to provide assurances and include Australians in the conversation.

Bell argued that the government was caught flat-footed regarding data centre infrastructure and lacked concrete action. Bell expressed concern that renewable energy rollouts linked to these projects would harm rural communities and landholders. Bell claimed that local councils and residents were being bypassed during land purchase discussions. Bell warned against repeating the blueprint used for industrial wind and solar projects.

Cox argued that the Greens' motion offered a simplistic choice between surrendering to tech billionaires or shutting down progress. Cox stated that the government's approach prioritised national interest, sustainable water use, and local job creation. Cox emphasised that data centres must pay fair network costs and support the energy transition. Cox maintained that setting standards and rejecting non-compliant projects was more effective than a blanket moratorium.

Faruqi argued that AI corporations were extracting billions from Australia while contributing little in taxes. Faruqi claimed that data centres consumed excessive water and energy, driving up carbon emissions and power prices. Faruqi stated that the AI business model deepened inequality and concentrated power among a few oligarchs. Faruqi called for a moratorium on data centres and proper regulation of these entities.

Pocock argued that the government's reliance on statements of expectations was insufficient for shaping the future of AI. Pocock noted that previous initiatives like the AI Safety Act had been scrapped, leaving a lack of safeguards. Pocock called for policies such as a digital services tax and compute reservation to ensure Australian benefit. Pocock welcomed the Greens' motion as a necessary discussion on sovereign ownership and planning.

Allman-Payne argued that the government was enabling far-right extremism by contracting with Palantir. Allman-Payne cited the company's involvement in military surveillance and its founders' controversial political views. Allman-Payne questioned the security of Australian data given Palantir's access to government agencies. Allman-Payne called for the government to terminate contracts with the company.

Steele-John highlighted community resistance to a proposed data centre in Perth as evidence of broader concerns. Steele-John argued that AI was driving an extractive industry that strained electricity and water resources. Steele-John stated that governments lacked proper rules to manage these facilities. Steele-John called for a moratorium on new data centres until safeguards were in place.

McKim argued that supermarket corporations were using Palantir's technology to surveil customers and manipulate prices in real time. McKim described this as an invasion of privacy and exploitation by surveillance capitalist corporations. McKim stated that the government had no plan to protect Australians from such practices. McKim linked this issue to the broader lack of oversight on data centre operations.

Shoebridge argued that the government was failing to protect Australian jobs and the environment from US-controlled tech interests. Shoebridge criticised the awarding of large defence contracts to companies like Anduril and Palantir. Shoebridge called for hard laws and controls rather than mere expectations. Shoebridge urged the parliament to side with Australian interests over foreign corporate demands.