Should AI data centres be legally forced to fund clean energy, water and community infrastructure — or are the government's voluntary rules enough?

MPs debated how Australia should handle the boom in AI data centres — the large industrial sites full of computers that power artificial intelligence, and that draw heavily on electricity, water and land. Independent Zali Steggall, who raised the topic, argued the government's current "expectations" for developers have no legal force and should be made mandatory, enforceable and transparent. Other crossbenchers and the Greens agreed, warning Australia risks repeating the gas boom by giving away resources for little return. The Labor government defended its National AI Plan and five expectations — including an energy "triple lock" requiring centres to bring their own renewable power, pay their own grid costs and adjust demand — and said it is working with states to make these binding. As a Matter of Public Importance, there was no vote.

🗳 A public mood-check, not a scientific poll. Vote to see where the room stands.

🗳 1 voted🏛 1h 1m debated

📄 House Hansard, 24 Jun 2026 — Data Centres

drill in ▸close ▾

The strongest case each way

For binding rules · Zali Steggall (Ind)Argued the government's data centre "expectations" are just a document with no bite and no real protections for communities. Says global tech giants wanting access to Australian energy, water and land should be legally required to fund the clean energy and infrastructure their projects rely on, so households don't subsidise them.

For binding rules · Kate Chaney (Ind)Called the expectations a wish list rather than a national interest framework — a company can get fast-tracked approval, consume gigawatts of power and draw down water while facing no consequences for meeting none of them. Wants them converted into binding requirements on renewable energy, water efficiency, local jobs and community consultation before approval.

For binding rules · Elizabeth Watson-Brown (Greens)Said big tech is imposing thirsty, power-hungry data centres on communities with only non-binding expectations to hold them back, repeating the resources-boom mistake of letting profits sail offshore. Called for a possible moratorium on new centres until proper regulation is written into law.

For binding rules · Nicolette Boele (Ind) & Andrew Wilkie (Ind)Warned that for every $100 invested, most flows overseas to buy equipment Australia doesn't make, and that non-binding expectations "just aren't going to cut it." Argued Australia should demand a fair return — additional renewable generation, local infrastructure upgrades and skills investment — before rolling out the red carpet.

Defends current approach · Government (Labor)Argued the AI boom is arriving whether Australia is ready or not, and it is better to set the terms early than fix problems later. Points to its National AI Plan and five expectations — including an energy "triple lock" (bring your own renewables, pay your own grid costs, be demand-flexible) — and says these are framed as expectations because planning is a state and local matter, with energy and water ministers now working to make them binding across all jurisdictions.