Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has delivered his first major address on artificial intelligence, using a speech at the University of Sydney's grand sandstone Great Hall to stake out Labor's position on one of the defining policy questions of our time — and, in doing so, drawing an unlikely parallel with the moral authority of a newly installed Pope.
A cathedral setting for a political sermon on AI
The venue itself carried an almost spiritual weight. The Great Hall, with its soaring stained-glass windows and pipe organ, resembles a cathedral more than a lecture theatre — a fitting backdrop for a speech that briefly invoked Pope Leo XIV's first papal encyclical, Magnifica Humanitas. Released in May, the Pope's sweeping 42,000-word treatise identified artificial intelligence as a defining moral challenge of the age, warning that the technology must be regulated to serve rather than undermine humanity.
Albanese, who grew up in the Catholic Church and has spoken of reconnecting with his faith in later life, referenced the encyclical in passing. But any comparison to the Pope's philosophical ambitions quickly gave way to the decidedly more earthly business of Australian politics. The speech came just one week before Labor's national conference, where unions and party activists are pushing hard to embed stronger AI regulation into the platform.
Opportunity, not alarm: Albanese's measured pitch
Rather than lean into the fears that artificial intelligence routinely stirs — mass unemployment, autonomous weapons, the erosion of independent thought — the Prime Minister arrived with a message of deliberate calm. His task, in essence, was to reassure both the Labor faithful and a broader public that the government has a handle on things, without alarming the private sector in the process.
The language was carefully calibrated. Albanese used the word "opportunity" or "opportunities" nine times during his roughly 20-minute address, framing AI as a "generational opportunity" that Australia must seize or risk being left behind. The word "threat" appeared just once — and only in an optimistic construction: "We should not treat AI as a threat to good jobs — we must use it as an instrument to help create them." He mentioned "risk" six times, but consistently steered away from catastrophising. "It is not our goal to try and legislate for every possible eventuality or risk," he said. "That only creates the risk of Australia missing out on investment altogether."
His central argument was that the greater danger lay in inaction. "If we hang back, or stand still, this will run right over the top of us," he warned.
What the government is actually proposing
Beyond the tone-setting, Albanese outlined several concrete steps. The government intends to introduce legislation to parliament early next year establishing a regulatory framework for large AI data centres. A key element would be a legal requirement that such centres become net generators of electricity rather than net consumers — intended to prevent them from pushing up power prices for households and businesses.
A new AI policy office will also be established within the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet to coordinate the government's approach to the technology.
Albanese was particularly pointed on the question of creative rights, vowing to put in place "the strongest possible protection" to prevent machine-learning models from harvesting and profiting from the work of Australian artists and journalists without permission or payment. The Prime Minister, a well-known champion of Australian music, made clear this was a personal as well as political priority.
Pleasing everyone — for now
Drawing on Labor's record on Medicare and compulsory superannuation, Albanese argued Australia has form in setting global standards on difficult questions, and could do so again with AI. Critics may note, however, that Wednesday's address was deliberately light on specifics — a quality that appeared entirely intentional.
The speech managed the rare political feat of drawing praise from both trade unions, who want robust regulation, and major business groups, who favour a lighter touch. As a piece of short-term stakeholder management, it was widely regarded as deftly handled — if hardly the stuff of papal encyclicals.
