Building public trust is vital to creating effective artificial intelligence (AI) regulation in Australia—not sovereign large-scale datasets. The assertion that AI regulation would be ineffective without the existence of large-scale sovereign datasets​​​​—as recently argued in the Strategist—is flawed.  

Public trust in AI systems is low in Australia. Only 34 percent of Australians are willing to trust AI systems, according to research by the University of Queensland and KPMG. For AI to flourish, Australians need confidence that their data will be safe in the hands of those who will use it to build and improve AI systems, and that these systems will be deployed safely, securely and responsibly. Regulations function to protect users’ rights, and to apply standards and boundaries that encourage responsible innovation. If well crafted, they should be adaptable to the evolving nature of AI. This assurance of trustworthiness is what will pave the way for greater AI development and adoption by businesses and consumers alike. 

The recent Strategist article, ‘Sovereign data: Australia’s AI shield against disinformation’, argues​​ that large sovereign datasets are essential for combating disinformation and ensuring trustworthy AI, and that AI regulation in Australia would be ineffective without first establishing such datasets. ​​There are several problematic assumptions underlying this argument and assertions that deserve greater scrutiny.

An assertion that the success of AI regulations is dependent on the data used in particular AI models overestimates the influence of dataset control on regulatory success. Even the highest quality source data can’t stop an AI being misused—but strong and enforceable regulatory frameworks can. Effective AI governance focuses not just on the source of data but also on how AI systems are deployed and managed.

National sovereignty of data is neither appropriate nor desirable for all AI. Sovereign control of data can be beneficial in specific contexts such as national security and critical infrastructure. But the idea that datasets—whether Australian-generated or otherwise—need always be kept, owned and controlled within Australia overlooks the many cases in which higher-quality data and AI expertise are better sourced from abroad. For example, if developing an AI model for semiconductor chip design, it would be unwise not to collaborate with Taiwan, a global leader in chip manufacturing.

Global datasets are critical in the many cases in which Australia does not have a representative dataset to call upon, cannot generate one that aligns well to the function, or is simply working on projects that require global data analysis—such as climate research. For example, translating foreign languages into English requires datasets from native speakers abroad, as Australia’s multilingual data is limited.

Likewise, there are many cases where the international community has more advanced capabilities than Australia—a fact we can’t ignore. Image datasets such as CIFAR-* and Imagenet for computer vision, object and facial recognition have already undergone intense public scrutiny and bias analysis by researchers and activists online that make it difficult to hide potential manipulation. But there is no such thing as unbiased data. The trick is identifying the degree to which biases have been introduced in datasets and determining whether there are any risks that need to be managed to make it appropriate for Australian uses. This is best done by building trusted international partnerships with shared standards for quality and accountability​​.

It’s also incorrect to assume that bigger datasets are inherently better. In fact, better is better when it comes to data—cleaner, truthful, secure, appropriate and representative for the purpose. Viral mis- and disinformation and uneducated opinion can generate large amounts of data—scale can dilute good data rather than protect it. ​And such disinformation can just as easily be created ​from AI using​ large, sovereign datasets as it can from non-sovereign datasets.

Not all AI systems rely on data that raises privacy concerns. For instance, AI models that use meteorological data to investigate air quality trends or to predict rain, use data that is neither personal nor inherently sensitive. The regulatory focus in such cases should be on ensuring the accuracy and reliability of the data rather than its geographic origin, if regulation is even needed at all.

In an effort to support domestic AI innovation and manage the risk of overregulation, the Australian Government is taking a risk-based approach in its AI regulation. The Department of Industry, Science, and Resources has done commendable work gripping up the issues, laying a solid foundation that addresses key concerns such as safety, rights protection and alignment with international regulations in its proposed mandatory guardrails for high-risk AI settings. However, refining certain aspects will further strengthen this framework.

The current definition of ‘high-risk AI’ is too broad, risking overregulation of low-risk systems, which could stifle innovation. A clear, tiered regulatory approach that distinguishes between different levels of risk will promote AI adoption without burdening businesses unnecessarily.

Regulations must also account for the global nature of AI development. Foreign developers of products used in Australia should be held to the same standards as domestic developers to prevent unfair advantages, while AI systems—whether developed locally or abroad—must meet high standards for safety, transparency and accountability. Failure to comply should result in enforcement, to build public and business trust in the regulatory system.

Overall, Australian regulation must be responsive, evolving alongside the technology itself. Regulating a field as dynamic and wide-ranging as AI will require ongoing adaptation, and iterative updates that learn from past experience.

​​Sovereign datasets may have limited roles in specific sectors, but they are far from the cornerstone of effective AI regulation. In shaping its AI future, Australia must prioritise trust over territorial control of data. The real key to effective AI regulation lies in building public confidence through clear, consistent rules that keep pace with technological change globally. They should protect rights, promote transparency and foster responsible innovation—regardless of geographical location of the data or the developer. ​​​

An unacceptable pattern is emerging in the way the Department of Home Affairs deals with visa applications for vulnerable Afghan women.

The Taliban celebrated the three-year anniversary of its takeover of Afghanistan in August with a military parade and a new set of vice and virtue laws making it illegal for women to speak outside the family home. The extremist group has been progressively cracking down on defenders of women’s human rights.

But Home Affairs has been requesting Afghan families remove their vulnerable female relatives from humanitarian visa applications. It also recently denied the application of a women’s human rights defender whose application was proposed by an Australian citizen more than two years ago.

When the Australian Federal Police was moved out of the Home Affairs portfolio, the department seems to have considered its responsibilities under Australia’s National Action Plan on Women, Peace and Security were transferred as well. They were not. The National Action Plan (NAP) prioritises the rights of women and girls in situations of armed conflict, including through humanitarian protection.

On their Afghanistan Update webpage, Home Affairs says that ‘members of identified minority groups (such as women and girls, ethnic minorities and LGBTQI+) who are referred by the UNHCR or proposed by a close family member in Australia’ will be given priority processing.

A locally engaged employee (LEE) of the Australia government, who spent 14 years working on the multinational base in Tarin Kowt and at the Australian Embassy in Kabul, shared correspondence with me showing Home Affairs asking his family to remove his mother from their humanitarian visa application in July.

The 68-year-old woman has depended financially and psychologically on her son for years. Rental agreements from Afghanistan and Pakistan—where she is living in limbo, having fled her home in Afghanistan—have been provided to the department, as have receipts for medical care.

The woman also depends on her son for her physical security. Her only son still residing in Afghanistan was imprisoned by the Taliban because of his brother’s links to Australia. If she were forced to return to Afghanistan, she would have no mahram (male relative or guardian) to accompany her and no one able to rent a house and pay her expenses.

Still, according to communication between Home Affairs and the LEE’s local member of parliament, the department determined that his mother did not meet the dependency criteria for the visa application. These criteria have not changed in the past three years.

Similarly, the department asked a Hazara family to remove their 23-year-old unmarried daughter from their family reunion application that was proposed by a family member residing in regional Australia.

Under the current gender apartheid regime of the Taliban, an unmarried 23-year-old faces many specific challenges in addition to the threats posed against her family. She also faces different threats than those faced by older women. Without the presence, protection and support of her family, this woman faces the increasing and serious threat of forced marriage and sexual abuse if imprisoned for breaking the laws restricting the movement and rights of women. She will not be allowed to work, rent a house or even use her voice in any public space.

Australia’s National Action Plan on Women, Peace and Security is designed to ensure that all relevant government departments implement the suite of UN Security Council resolutions on Women, Peace and Security, as well as General Recommendation 30 of the Committee on the Elimination of All forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) and other international legal obligations relating to conflict and insecurity.

In General Recommendation 30, CEDAW reinforced and complemented the international legal protection regime for refugees, articulating the obligation to ensure responses to conflict and instability are gender sensitive. UN Security Council resolution 2122 recognises the need to better respond to analysis of the ‘impact of armed conflict on women and girls’. But it is CEDAW that specifically call for states parties, including Australia, to provide durable solutions for women and girls who are displaced.

General Recommendation 30 has an entire section dedicated to the unique vulnerabilities women and girls face when they are forcibly displaced, obliging states parties to ‘address the specific risks and particular needs of different groups of internally displaced and refugee women, subjected to multiple and intersecting forms of discrimination, including women with disabilities, older women, girls, widows, women who head households … women belonging to ethnic, national, sexual or religious minorities, and women human rights defenders.’

Despite Australia’s current representation at CEDAW, Home Affairs last month denied a humanitarian visa application to a woman who was the co-founder and program director of an Afghan woman’s rights organisation. She and her organisation received threats from the Taliban because of the work they did advancing women’s rights, and women in similar circumstances have been disappeared.

The woman ran a range of women’s rights programs including a tertiary education scholarship for young Afghan women that was supported by the Ford and Carnegie Foundations. She has been in exile in Pakistan for three years facing increasingly dire living circumstances and is no longer able to renew her Pakistani visa.

Yet, Home Affairs denied her on the basis that she was not facing sufficient persecution in her country of origin, or she had somewhere else to go, among other things. This is simply not true.

Home Affairs has faced multiple crises since the Taliban retook control of Afghanistan, and it is important it provides visas to address humanitarian issues in the Middle East, too. However, there is no excuse for such flagrant denial of Australia’s obligations to protect vulnerable Afghan women and girls through our humanitarian migration program.

The women of Afghanistan are now profoundly vulnerable—financially, psychologically and physically. This issue must be at the forefront as the department processes visa applications.