The article by Kate Chaney MP argues that a relatively modest increase in federal funding for Australia’s Artificial Intelligence Safety Institute (AISI) could deliver significant national benefits by helping manage AI-related risks while positioning Australia to capture economic opportunities in a rapidly developing global industry.
The central case is that strengthening the AISI represents a rare budget opportunity: a small, targeted investment that could influence the direction of an emerging industry. The author notes that $100 million a year would be minor compared with a $735 billion federal budget, yet could help Australia become a world leader in AI safety, governance and standards. The article frames this as a strong business case, not simply a risk-management measure.
Artificial intelligence is described as a transformative force already reshaping economies, labour markets and the information environment. While its long-term direction remains uncertain, the article stresses that governance decisions made now will affect where AI-related value is created and who benefits from it. It also warns that recent developments, including Anthropic’s Mythos, show the scale of the risks. These include threats to cyber security, scams, misinformation, and potential impacts on children’s mental health and development.
The AISI, announced in November 2025, is presented as a key institution in Australia’s response to AI. It is expected to bring together AI experts, work with the National AI Centre and international partners, monitor risks, advise policymakers and regulators, and help government keep pace with fast-moving technological change. However, the article argues that its current funding — $30 million over four years — is far too low for the scale of the task.
The UK’s AI Security Institute is used as a comparison. It receives 16 times more funding than Australia’s AISI and, as a result, has gained early access to major AI models for safety testing, including Anthropic’s Mythos. The article suggests Australia’s underfunded institute may be unable to make a meaningful contribution to similar global testing efforts. Kate Chaney highlights the international respect held for the UK body, writing: “In conversations with frontier AI developers, I have seen how much respect they have for the UK AI Security Institute. It plays a valuable role in the AI ecosystem and it gives the UK enormous credibility and business opportunities in AI.”
Chaney argues that a well-funded AISI would not only help manage risk, but also support Australia’s ability to capture AI’s productivity benefits, with some estimates suggesting AI could contribute up to $115 billion a year to the economy by 2030. She warns that without strong technical expertise, governments may default to heavy-handed regulation that restricts innovation and economic growth.
The article concludes that investing $100 million a year would allow Australia to build expertise, attract leading researchers, work directly with global AI developers, and help shape international AI standards. Chaney argues the window to establish credibility is limited, and that Australia should act now to influence global standards rather than merely adapt to them later.