PM's Adviser Vetted Bipartisan AI Letter Before It Went to Albanese
A senior adviser in Anthony Albanese's office signed off on wording in a bipartisan parliamentary letter on AI policy before it was sent to the prime minister. Guardian Australia reported the clearance on 13 October, citing notes on the draft.
Those notes show several edits by the adviser, including the word "fine" written against some content. Some edits were made at 8:55pm, 35 minutes before the letter was sent on Monday night.
The letter was sent by Labor MP and inquiry chair Jo Briskey and Liberal senator and deputy chair Jonno Duniam, on behalf of Labor, Coalition and crossbench MPs. It raises concerns about copyright, AI safeguards — the basic safety rules for AI systems — sovereign capability and AI literacy.
Briskey confirmed the committee had consulted both Albanese's office and the opposition leader's office before sending the letter. She said the letter was intended to show the direction of the committee ahead of its report due on 30 November. The committee traces to a 19 August notice in the House of Representatives by Mr Burke to appoint a Joint Select Committee on Artificial Intelligence.
Independent senator David Pocock, a committee member, said he was concerned the mark-ups indicated the recommendations had been vetted in advance by an adviser in the prime minister's office. Pocock provided feedback on the letter at 9:55pm, after it had already been sent. His complaint was also covered in the Australian Financial Review under the headline "Pocock slams AI inquiry as political 'stitch-up'". Australian Financial Review The Australian also reported that Pocock had accused Albanese's office of editing a letter from the leaders of the parliamentary committee.
Duniam rejected any suggestion of improper influence. He said there was "no guidance, no interference" with the committee's work. The prime minister's office declined to comment on the vetting claim.
The broader context here is the difference between a courtesy check and line-by-line approval. Chairs often sound out leaders' offices before an interim statement. It keeps surprises to a minimum. Having an adviser edit text and mark it approved, half an hour before transmission as the view of Labor, Coalition and crossbench members, is different.
In my view, that process question now sits alongside the policy questions. The letter was meant to foreshadow thinking on copyright and safeguards. Instead the process behind it is under scrutiny. Select committees rely on being seen to scrutinise the executive at arm's length, and pre-send sign-off sits uneasily with a bipartisan badge, even if members reached their own conclusions.
