A letter from a bipartisan parliamentary committee on artificial intelligence (AI) recommending an examination of current copyright settings was drafted and vetted by staff in Prime Minister Anthony Albanese’s office before being sent to him, sparking concerns about the committee’s independence and the integrity of its process. The letter, sent on Monday, was signed by Labor MP Jo Briskey and Coalition Senator Jonno Duniam, who chair the joint select committee on AI, but metadata reveals the initial document was created by a senior adviser in the Prime Minister’s office and underwent detailed review and approval by government staff prior to distribution.

The letter urges the government to reconsider copyright laws in relation to AI developments, particularly as major technology companies such as OpenAI and Anthropic have lobbied to ease restrictions to allow copyrighted material to be used for training AI models. This move has generated backlash from creators and rights holders concerned about protecting their intellectual property. The committee’s recommendation appears to signal government support for reform, and on Tuesday Albanese indicated openness to change, emphasizing the need to protect creative industries.

Independent Senator David Pocock, a committee member, expressed unease about the government’s involvement in the letter’s language. He noted that senior advisers reviewed and approved sections of the letter shortly before it was sent and that he was asked for input after the letter had already been dispatched, preventing him from influencing the final text. Pocock argued the letter did not fully reflect the diversity of evidence heard by the committee, particularly regarding the risks of loosening copyright protections, the potential for a datacentre levy, and the need for investment in worker retraining amid AI-driven job changes. He also cited concerns about genetic synthesis imports requiring screening to safeguard national security. Pocock warned that such government oversight could reduce the committee’s role to serving political interests rather than providing robust parliamentary scrutiny.

Conversely, Briskey defended the committee’s process, stating that consultation with both the Prime Minister’s office and the Opposition Leader’s office was part of normal bipartisan cooperation. She described the engagement as inclusive and emphasized the committee’s intention to obtain broad advice. Senator Duniam echoed these remarks, remarking that parliamentary collaboration requires consultation and dismissing suggestions of government interference. He characterized the letter’s preparation as an example of effective cross-party cooperation rather than control.

The situation has heightened tensions around proposed copyright changes, which remain contentious among creative communities concerned about how reforms might affect their rights. Meanwhile, the government continues to face pressure from technology companies advocating for more flexible AI training rules.

Separately, the Labor government intends to introduce legislation for a domestic gas reservation scheme while maintaining gas and coal exports to Asia, measures that also draw scrutiny from industry stakeholders.

The Prime Minister’s office declined to comment on the specifics of the letter’s drafting and vetting process.