AI in Australia
40.7% of Australians of working age were using AI tools in 2026-Q2, by Microsoft's estimate, behind 10 of 147 economies. 28 instruments relevant to AI in Australian law and policy are indexed, 11 of them binding. Epoch AI lists 6 notable models with a developer in Australia, and 14 AI datacentre sites are recorded there, 13 of them from developers' statements.
- 40.7% of the working-age population using AI tools, 2026-Q2 AI Diffusion Report: AI User Share Microsoft AI for Good Lab Derived from anonymised Microsoft telemetry, then adjusted for OS/device market share, internet penetration and a modelled mobile-to-desktop ratio. It therefore measures Microsoft-visible AI use, scaled, not observed total AI use. Systematically less reliable where Microsoft platform share is low, and it cannot see AI embedded in products users do not recognise as AI. Cite Microsoft AI for Good Lab, "AI Diffusion Report: AI User Share". https://github.com/microsoft/ai-diffusion-report. Retrieved 28 October 2026 via AI Safety Tracker, https://aisafetytracker.org/australia/.
- 11 of 28 indexed instruments that are binding law AI Law and Policy Index This site Our own reading of primary instruments, with a link to each. Not legal advice, not a compliance checklist and not exhaustive. Instruments that never mention AI are included where they apply to it, which is most of the Australian list. Statuses and commencement dates go stale; every record carries its review date. Cite AI Safety Tracker, "AI Law and Policy Index". https://aisafetytracker.org/policy/. Retrieved 23 October 2026.
- 6 of 10 governance readiness points AI Governance Readiness Index This site Our own editorial coding from primary legal sources, not an objective measurement. Every score cites a specific instrument and article. "Readiness" means the machinery exists to govern AI. It is emphatically not a judgement that the resulting rules are good, proportionate, or well enforced. Cite AI Safety Tracker, "AI Governance Readiness Index". https://aisafetytracker.org/methodology/governance-readiness/. Retrieved 23 October 2026.
- 5.1 GW of IT power stated for AI datacentre sites, 90% of it at proposed sites AI Datacentre Index This site AI datacentre sites that Epoch AI's hub does not hold, recorded from the statements of developers, named tenants and planning authorities. Australia only so far. A site is included only where a primary source says it is built for AI compute or names the AI deployment inside it. Capacity is as the developer states it, IT or facility power as labelled, and is not an estimate; most of it is proposed and not yet approved. Coordinates are this site's placement of each stated address or area. Cite AI Safety Tracker, "AI Datacentre Index". https://aisafetytracker.org/datacentres/#added. Retrieved 18 October 2026.
Law and policy
28 instruments that apply to AI in Australia, grouped by how binding each is. 11 are binding law, and one of those names AI or deepfakes in its title. AI Law and Policy Index This site Our own reading of primary instruments, with a link to each. Not legal advice, not a compliance checklist and not exhaustive. Instruments that never mention AI are included where they apply to it, which is most of the Australian list. Statuses and commencement dates go stale; every record carries its review date. Cite AI Safety Tracker, "AI Law and Policy Index". https://aisafetytracker.org/policy/. Retrieved 23 October 2026.
- Statutes 10
- Rules made under an Act 1
- Binding on government only 4
- Regulator guidance 3
- Voluntary standards 3
- Proposed, not law 2
- Reviews and inquiries 5
| Binding instrument | Kind | Year |
|---|---|---|
| Criminal Code Amendment (Deepfake Sexual Material) Act 2024 | Act | 2024 |
| Digital ID Act 2024 | Act | 2024 |
| Privacy and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2024 | Act | 2024 |
| Prudential Standard CPS 230 Operational Risk Management | Rule under an Act | 2023 |
| Online Safety Act 2021 | Act | 2021 |
| Security of Critical Infrastructure Act 2018 | Act | 2018 |
| Competition and Consumer Act 2010, Schedule 2 (Australian Consumer Law) | Act | 2010 |
| Corporations Act 2001 | Act | 2001 |
| Therapeutic Goods Act 1989 | Act | 1989 |
| Privacy Act 1988 | Act | 1988 |
| Copyright Act 1968 | Act | 1968 |
Data: the AI Law and Policy Index, read from each primary instrument. Not legal advice.
Use of AI tools
Share of the working-age population using AI tools, by reporting period, and the economies ranked either side of Australia in 2026-Q2. Microsoft's estimate from its own telemetry, scaled to each population. AI Diffusion Report: AI User Share Microsoft AI for Good Lab Derived from anonymised Microsoft telemetry, then adjusted for OS/device market share, internet penetration and a modelled mobile-to-desktop ratio. It therefore measures Microsoft-visible AI use, scaled, not observed total AI use. Systematically less reliable where Microsoft platform share is low, and it cannot see AI embedded in products users do not recognise as AI. Cite Microsoft AI for Good Lab, "AI Diffusion Report: AI User Share". https://github.com/microsoft/ai-diffusion-report. Retrieved 28 October 2026 via AI Safety Tracker, https://aisafetytracker.org/australia/.
- 34.5% 2025-H1
- 36.9% 2025-H2
- 39.5% 2026-Q1
- 40.7% 2026-Q2
| Economy | 2026-Q2 | Rank | Relative magnitude |
|---|---|---|---|
| Spain | 45.1% | 6 | |
| New Zealand | 44.1% | 7 | |
| United Kingdom | 43.7% | 8 | |
| Netherlands | 43.5% | 9 | |
| Qatar | 43.5% | 9 | |
| Australia | 40.7% | 11 | |
| South Korea | 40.6% | 12 | |
| Belgium | 40.3% | 13 | |
| Switzerland | 39.1% | 14 | |
| Israel | 38.7% | 15 | |
| Canada | 38.5% | 16 |
Ranked within 147 economies. Bars are scaled to the highest share, United Arab Emirates at 73.3%. The estimate measures AI use visible to Microsoft and is least reliable where its platform share is low.
Governance readiness
6 of 10 points on a five-dimension rubric recording how much machinery exists to govern AI, not how strict it is. 4 of 31 nationally coded jurisdictions score higher and 4 score the same. AI Governance Readiness Index This site Our own editorial coding from primary legal sources, not an objective measurement. Every score cites a specific instrument and article. "Readiness" means the machinery exists to govern AI. It is emphatically not a judgement that the resulting rules are good, proportionate, or well enforced. Cite AI Safety Tracker, "AI Governance Readiness Index". https://aisafetytracker.org/methodology/governance-readiness/. Retrieved 23 October 2026.
| Dimension | Score | What the score records |
|---|---|---|
| Binding law | 1 of 3 | Sectoral or partial rules only. |
| Oversight body | 1 of 2 | A coordinating or advisory body. |
| Evaluation capacity | 2 of 2 | An operating safety or evaluation institute. |
| Transparency duty | 1 of 2 | A general data-protection route only. |
| Strategy | 1 of 1 | A published national AI strategy. |
No horizontal AI statute and no AI regulator. The mandatory guardrails for high-risk AI proposed in September 2024 were set aside by the December 2025 National AI Plan in favour of existing law; in July 2026 the government announced it would legislate Australian Standards for AI instead, with legislation expected in 2027, and opened an Office of AI in the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. Until then binding duties on AI use exist inside government through the DTA policy, and in privacy, consumer, online safety and financial services law. The Australian AI Safety Institute began operating in 2026 and started testing frontier models in July. Cited for the score: Voluntary AI Safety Standard (2024), Proposals paper: mandatory guardrails for AI in high-risk settings (2024), Policy for the responsible use of AI in government (2024), Australian AI Safety Institute (2025).
Data: the AI Governance Readiness Index. Against AI use in every jurisdiction: exposure against governance readiness
AI datacentres and compute
13 AI datacentre sites recorded from developers', tenants' and planning authorities' statements, by stated power: 2 operating, 2 under construction, 2 approved and 7 proposed. AI Datacentre Index This site AI datacentre sites that Epoch AI's hub does not hold, recorded from the statements of developers, named tenants and planning authorities. Australia only so far. A site is included only where a primary source says it is built for AI compute or names the AI deployment inside it. Capacity is as the developer states it, IT or facility power as labelled, and is not an estimate; most of it is proposed and not yet approved. Coordinates are this site's placement of each stated address or area. Cite AI Safety Tracker, "AI Datacentre Index". https://aisafetytracker.org/datacentres/#added. Retrieved 18 October 2026.
| Site | Stated power | Relative magnitude | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Western Downs Digital Park | 1.4 GW | ||||||||||
| Firmus Stirling North | 1.3 GW | ||||||||||
| Firmus Tailem Bend | 1 GW | ||||||||||
| IREN Bundey | 800 MW | ||||||||||
| NEXTDC S7 Sydney | 550 MW | ||||||||||
| Firmus Bell Bay | 288 MW | ||||||||||
| Project Meridien | 240 MW | ||||||||||
| NEXTDC M3 Melbourne | 225 MW | ||||||||||
| NEXTDC M4 Melbourne | 150 MW | ||||||||||
| Firmus Launceston | 84 MW | ||||||||||
Show the remaining 3
|
|||||||||||
- 41 MW IT power operating at 1 site in Epoch AI's hub: Southgate Melbourne, Firmus AI Data Centers Epoch AI The largest AI sites Epoch has found, mostly in the United States. Epoch estimated in September 2026 that they hold 44% of the world's deployed AI compute, with a 90% interval of 23% to 81%. Power, compute and cost are Epoch's estimates from satellite imagery, permits and company statements; four in five IT power estimates fall within a factor of 1.4 of the true value. The owner is the owner of the chips, not necessarily of the building. Capacity after the date of retrieval is Epoch's projection. Coordinates are read from the hub's map page, which publishes them; the downloads do not. Cite Epoch AI, "AI Data Centers". https://epoch.ai/data/ai-data-centers. Retrieved 28 October 2026 via AI Safety Tracker, https://aisafetytracker.org/australia/.
- 46,000 H100 equivalents of compute at that site AI Data Centers Epoch AI The largest AI sites Epoch has found, mostly in the United States. Epoch estimated in September 2026 that they hold 44% of the world's deployed AI compute, with a 90% interval of 23% to 81%. Power, compute and cost are Epoch's estimates from satellite imagery, permits and company statements; four in five IT power estimates fall within a factor of 1.4 of the true value. The owner is the owner of the chips, not necessarily of the building. Capacity after the date of retrieval is Epoch's projection. Coordinates are read from the hub's map page, which publishes them; the downloads do not. Cite Epoch AI, "AI Data Centers". https://epoch.ai/data/ai-data-centers. Retrieved 28 October 2026 via AI Safety Tracker, https://aisafetytracker.org/australia/.
- 3 GPU clusters in Epoch AI's cluster records, 1.9 MW of known power GPU Clusters Epoch AI Compiled from public reporting; each row carries a certainty flag ranging from confirmed to speculative. Chinese clusters are systematically less well documented than US ones, so country totals understate opacity as much as they measure capacity. Cite Epoch AI, "GPU Clusters". https://epoch.ai/data/gpu-clusters. Retrieved 28 October 2026 via AI Safety Tracker, https://aisafetytracker.org/australia/.
Stated power is each developer's own figure. Sites in Epoch AI's hub are excluded from the list above, so the two never hold the same site. Hub power and compute are Epoch's estimates, and planned power is its projection from permits and announcements. Epoch's cluster records are a separate compilation, not reconciled with the hub, and count power only where it is known.
Data: the AI Datacentre Index, and Epoch AI
Notable models
6 models in Epoch AI's notable models list with an organisation in Australia among their developers, 4 of them from academic groups. The largest training compute recorded for any of them is 8.5e22 FLOP, for StarCoder. Notable AI Models Epoch AI Inclusion is editorial ("notability criteria"), not exhaustive. Compute figures are frequently estimates; check the per-row confidence and notes columns before treating any value as measured. Cite Epoch AI, "Notable AI Models". https://epoch.ai/data/ai-models. Retrieved 28 October 2026 via AI Safety Tracker, https://aisafetytracker.org/australia/.
| Model | Published | Domain | Organisations in Australia |
|---|---|---|---|
| Harrison.rad.1 | 2024 | Vision | Harrison.ai |
| StarCoder | 2023 | Language | Monash University, CSIRO and Data61 |
| Vega v2 | 2022 | Language | Wuhan University, JD Explore Academy, Shanghai AI Lab, Nanyang Technological University, Washington University in St Louis, Chongqing University of Posts and Telecommunications and University of Sydney (all listed developers) |
| EN^2AS with performance reward | 2019 | Language | University of Technology Sydney and Monash University |
| SDE | 2019 | Language | Monash University |
| SPIDER2 | 2016 | Biology | Griffith University |
Notability is Epoch AI's editorial judgement, not a census. Where Epoch's lists of organisations and countries do not line up, every listed developer is shown.
Data: Epoch AI, Notable AI Models
Not covered
- Enterprise use of AI. The enterprise survey on AI adoption is Eurostat's and covers Europe.
- Frontier safety frameworks. No developer in the Frontier Safety Framework Index has a notable model credited to an organisation in Australia.
- Official publications. The news feed reads no Australian government feed.
- Electricity, emissions and water at Australian datacentres. No indexed source publishes them per site or per Australian grid region.