Tech Press Media

In March, the Federal Government released a new set of national expectations for developers of data centres and artificial intelligence infrastructure, outlining requirements across energy use, water management, workforce skills and access to computing capacity.

The announcement is expected to shape the next phase of Australia’s digital infrastructure investment as demand for AI technologies continues to accelerate.

The Tech Council of Australia, which represents Australian startups, scale-ups, global technology companies and digital infrastructure providers, said it would work closely with members to assess the implications of the new framework.

According to the council, data centres are becoming a critical component of Australia’s AI capability, digital economy and research sector. It said the right policy settings would help position Australia as an attractive destination for technology companies looking to invest, expand operations and create highly skilled jobs.

The framework also includes a commitment to make computing capacity available to startups and researchers on favourable terms

The Tech Council described the move as an important step that supports innovation and aligns with the goals outlined in the Ambitious Australia report from the Strategic Examination of Research and Development, which identified access to capital and advanced infrastructure as essential to growing Australia’s technology sector.

It said Australia has a significant long-term opportunity in developing AI applications and that broader access to compute infrastructure could help transform the current wave of data centre investment into sustained local innovation, enabling Australian businesses and researchers to develop new technologies domestically.

Australia’s Data Centre Investment Pipeline Surges Past $155 Billion

Australia’s data centre boom is moving from property story to national infrastructure story, with Westpac estimating the investment pipeline will exceed $155 billion, equal to about 5.6% of annual GDP.

The bank expects the rollout to deliver a net domestic GDP boost of around $75 billion and temporarily support about 400,000 jobs as construction, fit-outs and related activity accelerate.

Demand is being driven by cloud computing, AI workloads and sovereign data requirements. Australia’s deployable data centre capacity is projected to more than double from 1,350MW in 2024 to 3,100MW by 2030, with more than $26 billion in additional investment forecast over that period.

The scale of the buildout has forced data centres into the centre of national policy. The Federal Government has now set expectations covering energy, water, skills, national security and access to compute, signalling that future projects will need to prove they can support Australia’s digital economy

While welcoming the direction of the policy, the Tech Council noted that the rapid expansion of AI infrastructure brings important responsibilities. It said the finer details of implementation will be critical and pledged to work with government as the national expectations are rolled out.

Australia’s technology industry has moved well beyond the specialist business pages. It is now one of the forces shaping the national news agenda, influencing debates about energy, jobs, productivity, media trust, online safety and the future of public information.

That shift was clear this week when ABC News examined the political risk surrounding AI data centres in Australia. The report argued that the debate is no longer just about technology.

It is now about power use, water demand, job disruption, public confidence and whether major technology investment is delivering a clear benefit to Australian communities.

That is the point. Technology has become too large, too embedded and too politically sensitive to be treated as a niche industry.

Its influence now reaches well beyond software companies, startups and data centre operators. It is changing how Australians find information, how media companies reach audiences, how governments regulate risk, and how trust is won or lost online.

The scale of the industry helps explain why technology has become a daily news story.

The Tech Council of Australia says the sector contributed an estimated $248.5 billion to the national economy in 2025, equal to 8.9 per cent of GDP. It is now one of Australia’s largest economic engines and a major driver of long-term productivity growth.

That economic weight has turned technology reporting into mainstream business and political reporting. Artificial intelligence, cybersecurity, cloud infrastructure, digital regulation, online safety and platform accountability are no longer specialist topics for IT sections.

They affect banks, hospitals, schools, retailers, government agencies, small businesses and households. For newsrooms, this means technology coverage is no longer just about devices, apps or startup funding. It is about power, risk, privacy, employment, infrastructure and public policy.

The AI data centre debate is a strong example. A few years ago, data centres were mostly discussed as technical infrastructure. Now they are being reported as part of the national conversation about energy demand, foreign investment, productivity, climate targets and the social cost of automation.

Audience behaviour has changed just as sharply.

ACMA data shows 99% of Australian adults had internet access at home in 2025, while 99.7 per cent used at least one device to go online. Mobile phones remain central, with 97 per cent of adults using one to access the internet.

This has pushed tech news into a faster and more fragmented environment. Headlines, alerts, short videos, search snippets, social posts and AI-generated summaries can reach audiences before a full article is ever opened.

The impact on news distribution is clear. ACMA found 92% of Australian adults accessed news in 2025. Free-to-air television remained the leading platform at 51 per cent, but social media reached 43 per cent and overtook news websites, which fell to 39 per cent.

That gives technology platforms enormous influence over what Australians see, share and believe.

It has also created a trust problem. The University of Canberra’s Digital News Report Australia 2026 found audiences trust “my news” at 54%, compared with 21% for news on social media and 19% for AI chatbots. At the same time, 43% of Australian news consumers now get news from creators and influencers.

For Australian media, the technology industry is now both a major source of stories and the system through which those stories travel.The next challenge is not simply keeping up with digital change.

It is making sure credible journalism remains visible, trusted and financially sustainable inside platforms increasingly shaped by algorithms, influencers, AI tools and global technology companies

Young people are increasingly turning to AI chatbots for mental health support, a shift that is raising difficult questions about privacy, safety and the growing gap between demand for care and the ability of health systems to provide it.

New research published in June 2026 found 19.2% of Americans aged 12 to 21 had used AI chatbots for mental health advice when they felt sad, angry, nervous or stressed.

That figure has risen sharply from 13.1% a year earlier and now sits close to the 19.8% who said they had received counselling from a mental health professional.

The comparison is significant because it suggests AI tools are no longer being used only as casual search engines or novelty apps. For some young people, they have become part of the way emotional distress is managed, particularly when professional care feels too expensive, too slow or too difficult to access.

The private nature of that use is what makes the trend more concerning. Among young people who used AI chatbots for mental health advice, 63.3% had not told anyone.

Another 42.8% said they used the tools at least once a month, while 91.7% rated the advice they received as somewhat or very helpful.

For a teenager or young adult struggling late at night, the appeal is easy to understand. A chatbot is available immediately, does not require an appointment and does not ask someone to explain their distress face-to-face.

It can feel less confronting than speaking to a parent, doctor, teacher or counsellor, especially for those worried about judgement, cost or confidentiality.

But convenience does not remove the risk. Mental health support often depends on context, clinical judgement and the ability to recognise when someone may be unsafe.

A digital tool may provide reassurance or basic guidance, but it may also miss warning signs, offer poor advice or encourage someone to rely on a private conversation with software instead of reaching out to a real person.

In Australia, the issue lands against an already strained mental health backdrop. National health data shows 39% of Australians aged 16 to 24 experienced a mental disorder in the previous 12 months.

The rate was higher among young women at 46%, compared with 32% among young men. High or very high psychological distress affected 26% of people in the same age group.

Those figures help explain why digital mental health products are gaining traction. Apps, mood trackers, wellbeing platforms, meditation services and AI-powered chat tools are now being used to manage stress, track symptoms and seek advice before, after or instead of formal care.

Fresh consultation feedback from Australia’s Therapeutic Goods Administration shows the public wants stronger oversight. In its survey, 51% of consumer respondents said their healthcare professional was not involved in their use of digital mental health tools.

At the same time, 78% said these tools should be checked or approved before being made publicly available.

Health professionals also raised clear safety concerns, including privacy breaches, incorrect advice, overdiagnosis and the possibility that poor guidance could worsen someone’s mental health.

Among professional users, 22% said they had observed or experienced an adverse event involving a digital mental health tool, while 97% wanted to know whether a tool had been independently assessed for safety and performance.

There is still a useful role for technology. Digital tools can help people record symptoms, prepare for appointments, access information and stay connected between sessions. They may also give people a first step when they are not ready to speak openly.

The problem begins when that first step becomes the only step.

As more people turn to AI for support, regulators and health providers face a simple but urgent question: how do you make digital mental health tools safer without pretending they can replace human care?