The Australian government has reversed its plan to establish a permanent external AI advisory body, marking a clear shift in how it intends to govern artificial intelligence. Instead of formal, ongoing external oversight, the government will prioritize internal technical capability through a new safety institute. The move has triggered criticism from political opponents and industry figures concerned about the absence of independent expert advice.
A Shift in AI Governance Strategy
The 2024–25 federal budget earmarked $21.6 million to support the National AI Centre and the proposed AI advisory body, which was intended to provide independent advice from industry and academia. The body was meant to build on the work of the temporary AI Expert Group, which has now concluded. Its role was to advise government on both the opportunities and risks associated with artificial intelligence.
However, the Department of Industry, Science and Resources has confirmed that appointments to the advisory body will not proceed. A spokesperson for Industry and Science Minister Tim Ayres said the government had opted for a “more dynamic and responsible approach” to AI governance. Instead, it will rely on targeted consultations and existing channels to access expert input as AI technologies evolve.
The Australian AI Safety Institute Takes Center Stage
In place of the external advisory body, the government is moving ahead with the Australian AI Safety Institute (AISI), backed by $29.9 million in funding. Located within the industry department, the institute is designed to build in-house technical expertise to monitor, test, and assess emerging AI systems and related risks.
The focus of the AISI is on strengthening government capability rather than embedding external experts in a permanent advisory structure. While the institute represents a significant strategic pivot, details around its staffing model, governance, and operational scope remain under development. Further information is expected to be released in early 2026.
Political and Industry Backlash
The decision to abandon the advisory body has drawn sharp criticism. Shadow Minister for Industry Alex Hawke described the move as a “kick in the teeth for the Australian business community,” arguing that the government was reframing AI as an industrial relations issue rather than a driver of economic growth.
Independent Senator David Pocock also raised concerns, warning of the “huge, huge potential downsides to letting AI rip” without strong, independent oversight. He called on the government to more actively engage researchers, civil society, and technical experts. Minister Ayres has defended the approach, stating that existing laws and regulatory frameworks are sufficient to address AI-related harms.
A Broader Regulatory Pivot
The decision aligns with the government’s recently released National AI Plan, which notably omitted any reference to the advisory body. The plan confirms Australia will rely on existing legal frameworks rather than introduce AI-specific legislation, emphasizing flexibility in responding to rapid technological change.
The conclusion of the temporary AI Expert Group and the cancellation of the permanent advisory body signal a deliberate shift in strategy. Australia is moving away from formalized external oversight toward internal technical assessment through the AISI. As a result, AI governance will be shaped primarily through existing laws, targeted consultations, and in-house government expertise.
Ultimately, Australia’s revised AI strategy prioritizes internal government capability over a standing, independent advisory council. This pivot has reignited debate over whether a flexible, state-led approach is sufficient, or whether stronger, structured external oversight is still needed as AI adoption accelerates.