National need or resource grab?
Australia needs data centres.
They support our banks, hospitals, governments, businesses, defence systems and increasingly our use of artificial intelligence.
But Australia is now being positioned for something much larger: becoming a major regional hub for AI and cloud computing.
More than $100 billion in Australian data centre investment has been announced, while the Australian Government says Australia has the potential to become an AI hub for the Indo-Pacific.
That expansion will require enormous and long-term commitments of Australian electricity, water, land, infrastructure, skills and capital.
So before we build it, there is a question we need to answer:
How much does Australia actually need — and who are we building the rest for?
Data centres can strengthen our digital capability, support AI and essential services, and create new investment and jobs. But they also require long-term commitments of Australian electricity, water, land, infrastructure, skills and capital.
Our new book asks a simple question:
Are we building the digital infrastructure Australia needs — or using Australian resources to build a regional computing industry for the rest of the world?
It examines who benefits, what Australia is committing, and whether the long-term return justifies the cost.
This isn’t an argument against data centres. It’s an argument for ensuring Australia’s resources deliver enduring benefits for Australians.
Domestic need or regional hub?
Not every data centre serves the same purpose.
A facility providing secure computing for Australian governments, hospitals, businesses, banks, researchers and communities is not necessarily equivalent to a hyperscale facility primarily processing international AI and cloud workloads.
Both can create value.
But they can place similar demands on Australian resources while delivering very different benefits to Australians.
Australia's National AI Plan openly seeks both outcomes: sufficient domestic capability and a position for Australia as a major regional destination for AI infrastructure and investment.
We believe the distinction should be transparent.
Before nationally significant Australian resources are committed, Australians should know who the infrastructure is being built to serve.
Don’t leave the debate to Industry and Government
Australians have a stake in how our electricity, water, land and infrastructure are used. Make sure your perspective is part of the record.
We have made a formal submission calling for greater scrutiny of Australia’s rapidly expanding data centre sector, including a clearer national interest test and greater transparency around the resources being committed and the benefits Australians receive in return.
But submissions from individuals matter too.
You don’t need to be an expert, write pages of technical analysis or agree with every part of our position. A short submission explaining what concerns you, what questions you want answered and what you believe governments should consider before approving major developments can make a valuable contribution.
You might want to raise issues such as electricity and water use, land, infrastructure costs, local jobs, foreign ownership, community impacts, or whether Australia’s own digital needs are being prioritised.
Use your own words. Make it personal. Keep it simple.
FAQs
Are you against data centres?
No.
Australia needs data centres and will need more computing capacity as cloud services, AI and digital technologies become increasingly important.
The issue is not whether Australia should build data centres. It is how much infrastructure Australia needs, what resources we commit to it and whether the long-term benefits justify those commitments.
Doesn't Australia need these facilities for AI?
Yes — Australia needs sufficient computing infrastructure to support Australian AI, research, government, business and essential services.
The question is how much.
Australia is also being promoted as a regional AI and data centre destination. The unresolved issue is what proportion of future capacity is required for domestic Australian demand and what proportion will principally support international markets.
That is exactly why greater transparency is needed.
Aren't companies paying for the electricity and water they use?
Paying for a resource and determining whether committing that resource is in the national interest are different questions.
Large data centres can require new electricity generation, network connections, transmission, water infrastructure, roads and other enabling infrastructure.
They can also affect the availability of finite resources for other users.
Our argument is that these broader costs and opportunity costs should be visible before nationally significant commitments are made.
Why are data centres becoming an issue now?
Their scale is changing.
The Australian Government says companies announced Australian data centre investments between 2023 and 2025 that could scale beyond $100 billion. It also reports that data centres consumed around 4 TWh of electricity in the National Electricity Market in 2024, with demand expected to triple by 2030.
AI is accelerating that demand.
Projects that once looked like ordinary industrial developments can now represent nationally significant commitments of electricity, land, water and infrastructure.
Won't data centres create jobs?
Yes.
They generate substantial employment during construction and create specialist operational jobs.
But the national interest question goes further than the headline number of jobs.
We should also measure how many are permanent, how many are filled by Australians, what apprenticeships and training are created, and whether competition for engineers, electricians, ICT specialists and other skilled workers affects sectors such as housing, energy and defence.
What’s the better way to keep kids safe online?
Support families instead of sidelining them. Invest in digital literacy programs, provide parents with tools to guide their kids, and strengthen community awareness. Real safety comes from resilience and responsibility, not surveillance and coercion.