Independent MP for Curtin Kate Chaney has emerged as a prominent parliamentary voice on artificial intelligence (AI), calling for stronger safety measures, increased government investment and ongoing scrutiny as the technology develops rapidly. In an interview with Finn McHugh, Chaney outlined concerns ranging from bioweapons and autonomous AI agents to employment disruption, copyright and Australia’s role in international AI governance.
Chaney welcomed the broad safety commitments contained in a letter to the Prime Minister developed by a parliamentary committee examining AI, despite concerns about the process. She said cooperation with the government was necessary to achieve meaningful outcomes, highlighting critical incident reporting, early access to emerging technologies, independent evaluations and increased funding for the Australian AI Safety Institute.
Chaney is particularly concerned about the Institute’s limited resources. Receiving approximately one-sixteenth of the funding allocated to its UK counterpart, it must oversee a broad range of responsibilities with a team of just 25 people and annual funding of $8 million. She argues that additional investment would strengthen Australia’s capacity to test AI systems, advise regulators and influence international safety standards. “For a relatively small investment, we can actually have a significant seat at the table globally.”
She also advocates for flexible, principle-based legislation that can adapt to technological change. Chaney wants the parliamentary AI committee to become a standing committee, enabling continuing inquiries into the technology’s implications across government. She believes scrutiny could continue for a decade as new risks emerge.
Biological security is another priority. Chaney warned that increasingly capable AI models could accelerate scientific research while also making biological threats more accessible. She proposes requiring synthetic DNA imports to come from laboratories that conduct appropriate safety testing, arguing that Australia could act through existing frameworks rather than waiting for new legislation. On AI safety more broadly, she said: “This is much more dangerous than a dodgy bike helmet.”
Chaney also raised concerns about liability when autonomous AI agents act beyond their users’ intentions. She argues that businesses, regulators and lawmakers must clarify responsibility for unintended consequences before such systems are widely deployed. The challenge, she said, requires a fundamental rethink of legal frameworks designed for human decision-making.
On employment, Chaney cautioned against relying solely on historical trends to predict AI’s effects. She supports scenario planning to prepare for different outcomes, including the possibility that “40% of the work in 30% of our jobs becomes redundant in the next 10 years”. Such disruption could affect taxation, welfare, social cohesion and people’s sense of purpose.
Copyright reform presents another challenge. Chaney believes existing laws are poorly suited to AI training and that a new framework may be needed to balance creators’ interests with the potential economic benefits of domestic AI infrastructure. She also sees Australian data centres as strategically important for national defence, cybersecurity and continued access to advanced models.
Ultimately, Chaney argues that Australia must strengthen its institutions now rather than wait for certainty about AI’s future. Effective oversight, international cooperation and forward planning will be essential to managing the technology’s risks while capturing its benefits.