Stand-Up Australia

And right now, a Federal Senate inquiry is examining AI and data centres — including regulation, government deals with global AI companies, and impacts on Australia’s water, energy, communities and industries. That federal inquiry reports on 16 November. South Australia’s Royal Commission starts on 1 October and isn’t due to report until July 2027. None of this proves the Royal Commission is unnecessary. But surely it means the Government should be able to demonstrate exactly why it is necessary. Before taxpayers spend another $3 million, publish the status of the previous recommendations. Identify the unanswered questions. Explain what decisions remain open. Show why existing inquiries aren’t enough. Don’t just tell South Australians this inquiry is important. Show them the gap. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-08-11/why-is-south-australia-holding-royal-commission-into-ai/107018396

South Australia is about to spend around $3 million on a Royal Commission into artificial intelligence. Premier Peter Malinauskas says that’s “chicken feed” compared with the potential cost of getting AI wrong. AI is unquestionably a major policy challenge. But that makes the obvious question more important, not less: What exactly are taxpayers buying for another $3 million? South Australia’s Parliament has already conducted an inquiry into AI and produced 15 recommendations. The State Government already has an Office for Artificial Intelligence and a Data Centre Strategy. The Premier has just returned from the United States after meeting OpenAI, Anthropic and Apple, including signing an MoU with OpenAI aimed at developing skills, research, innovation and attracting investment.

Wondering why the government suddenly can’t build enough data centres? A year ago hardly anyone was talking about them. Now we’re told Australia urgently needs hundreds. What happened? ChatGPT launched in late 2022 and triggered a global AI arms race. The world’s biggest technology companies weren’t just competing to build AI… They were competing to secure the electricity, land, water and infrastructure needed to power it. And Australia is right in the middle. The Albanese Government has released a National AI Plan and is actively encouraging AI investment. But here’s the question… Is Australia building data centres because Australians need them OR because the world needs somewhere to build the infrastructure for the AI race? If that’s the strategy, Australians deserve an honest conversation. Every new data centre commits Australian land, electricity and resources for decades. Are we building Australia’s digital future… Or becoming the engine room for somebody else’s?

The question isn’t whether facial recognition can make queues move faster. The question is whether Australians are comfortable turning their own face into another form of digital ID for everyday life. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-07-28/facial-recognition-tickets-expanding-in-afl/106868858

No ticket. No QR code. Just your face. Facial recognition technology is already being used for entry at the Australian Open and is now expanding into AFL venues, with plans to move into concerts and other live events across Australia. Supporters say it makes getting through the gates faster. But this isn’t just about convenience. Your face is biometric data — one of the most sensitive forms of personal information you have. Unlike a password, you can’t change it if it’s compromised. Under Australia’s Privacy Act, biometric information receives a higher level of legal protection because of how sensitive it is. Even the ABC article raises concerns that once this technology becomes normalised, it could lead to what’s known as “scope creep” — where systems introduced for one purpose gradually expand into others over time. One technology provider says it doesn’t own the biometric data. Instead, the venue or organisation using the system decides how long to keep it and what it’s ultimately used for.

Imagine if, instead of waiting three years and hoping for change, Australians had a constitutional mechanism to challenge laws that attracted significant public opposition. Of course, it wouldn't be easy. Any system like this would need strong safeguards, constitutional reform, and broad public support. It would also require an enormous level of organisation—potentially hundreds of thousands of verified signatures if a similar model were ever considered here. Some argue the only realistic path would be through a Parliament where no major party holds a majority, with crossbench MPs making democratic reform a condition of forming government. It's a big idea. But perhaps the bigger question is this: Who should have the final say when it comes to the laws Australians live under—the Parliament, or ultimately the people? 👇 We'd love to hear where you stand.

What if Australians had the power to stop laws they didn't support? In Australia, once Parliament passes a law, that's generally the end of the story. But in Switzerland, citizens have something we don't. For more than 130 years, they've had constitutional mechanisms that allow the public to have a direct say on major decisions. That includes: • Constitutional changes requiring public approval. • Citizens forcing a nationwide vote on laws they've rejected. • Citizens proposing constitutional changes themselves. Whether you agree with that model or not, it raises an important question: Should Australians have more power between elections?

Because data centres have a role in Australia’s future. The question is how much we build, who it is for, what we give up to build it — and what Australians get in return. Check it out now ➡️ www.standupnowaustralia.com.au/the-data-grab

Australia is racing to build the infrastructure of the AI age. More than $100 billion in data centre investment has been proposed, bringing enormous demand for electricity, water, land, infrastructure and skilled workers. The Australian Government itself says Australia can become an AI hub for the region — while also saying this infrastructure should serve Australian communities and businesses first. So we’re asking a simple question: Are we building the digital infrastructure Australia needs — or committing Australian resources to build a regional computing industry for the rest of the world? Today we’re launching Australia’s Data Centre Boom: National Need or Resource Grab? Explore the projects being proposed across the country. Read the evidence. Download the book. And have your say on what a genuine national interest test should look like.

Australians don’t expect every government IT project to be perfect. They do expect accountability. A $96 million website launch fails. Then taxpayers fund another review. Before governments ask Australians to pay more tax, perhaps they should demonstrate they can spend existing tax dollars responsibly. Transparency. Accountability. Value for money. They shouldn’t be optional in public administration. https://www.news.com.au/technology/environment/bureau-of-meteorology-to-face-independent-review-months-after-96m-website-launch-disaster/news-story/5cc05193ca9ff759cb9cd5770d5b828b

The Census is today. Every five years, Australians are required to complete the Census because governments say the information helps shape planning and public policy. Fair enough. But if the Census is designed to help governments understand Australia… Why doesn’t it ask whether Australians are actually doing okay? It measures where we live. It measures how we travel. It measures our housing. But it doesn’t ask whether families are coping with the cost of living. Whether people feel hopeful about the future. Whether life is getting better or worse. Understanding Australia means more than counting Australians. That’s why we’re launching The National Pulse. An independent, anonymous survey that asks the questions many Australians feel matter most — not just who we are, but how we’re doing. Because understanding a nation isn’t just about counting its people. It’s about listening to them. What question do you think every Australian should be asked?

Most Australians probably assume that once they submit their Census, their personal details are immediately deleted. According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, that’s not how it works. The ABS states that: • Names may be retained for up to 18 months. • Addresses may be retained for up to 36 months. The Bureau says this identifying information is stored separately from Census responses during processing before it’s eventually destroyed. Australians are asked to provide detailed personal information because the government says it’s used to help plan hospitals, schools, roads, transport and other essential services. But here’s the question… Where’s the accountability? If Australians are expected to provide this information every five years, shouldn’t governments also show how it’s improving the lives of Australians? The Census asks a lot of us. It’s reasonable to ask what we’re getting in return. https://www.abs.gov.au/about/legislation-and-policy/privacy/privacy-abs/2026-census-privacy-statement

https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/what-is-melbourne-s-secret-sauce-former-new-york-mayor-s-challenge-to-our-growing-city-20260803-p60kwg.html

Why is Melbourne inviting the architect of the 15-minute city to shape its future? Because this isn't a new idea. It is part of a global planning philosophy promoted through the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals and the New Urban Agenda. Victoria has already embraced its own version through "20-minute neighbourhoods." But Australians were never asked whether we wanted our cities redesigned around these international planning principles. Instead of concentrating more people into ever-denser capital cities, why aren't we having a national conversation about decentralisation? Australia isn't running out of land. We're running out of political imagination. Regional Australia could support more families, more businesses, more manufacturing and stronger local communities—if governments chose to invest there. Should Australians decide the future of our cities? Or should global planning frameworks continue to shape them without meaningful public debate? Link below