Australia’s outdated technology is vulnerable to AI hacking attacks, signals chief says
Australia's top intelligence agency has warned that the country's ageing technology infrastructure leaves it vulnerable to attacks exploiting artificial intelligence, as the government works on new AI regulations. Abigail Bradshaw, director general of the Australian Signals Directorate, told the Sydney Dialogue summit in Canberra that governments and businesses would need to spend "enormous" sums updating outdated systems, including taking offline services people now expect to run continuously, and admitted her agency has no way of knowing how many AI agents are currently active online.
The warning comes amid broader debate over AI safety, with Anthropic chief executive Dario Amodei having called for independent assessors to scrutinise AI models and for US permission for leading firms to coordinate without breaching anti-competition rules. Bradshaw said national security agencies should be involved in any such interrogation. Labor's assistant technology minister, Andrew Charlton, said he took the warnings seriously but resisted letting AI companies or the US alone dictate the rules, with Australia's own guidelines expected early next year; a Greens push for mandatory safety testing laws was rejected by Labor senators the same day. Separately, industry minister Tim Ayres said the government wants more AI training done locally but will not weaken copyright protections, while OpenAI's Ann O'Leary said the company remains keen to deepen ties with Australia.
In short
- Australia's signals chief warns old tech is exposed to AI-driven cyber-attacks
- Government drafting AI guardrails, due early next year, resisting company-led rules
- Greens' push for mandatory AI safety testing laws rejected by Labor senators
Steelman: both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Ageing systems may be easier for AI-assisted attackers to exploit, so governments and businesses have a strong reason to invest in modernisation and test powerful models before their risks grow. Independent scrutiny that includes national security expertise could help identify dangers early, while locally made rules can ensure safeguards reflect Australia’s circumstances.
The case against
Large-scale upgrades can be costly and disruptive, especially if they require taking essential services offline, so governments may reasonably favour targeted changes and careful evaluation over sweeping action. Rules should also be set through accountable public processes rather than shaped chiefly by security agencies or industry, with room to avoid duplicating requirements or restricting useful innovation before the risks are clear.
Explained simply
Artificial intelligence can help software carry out tasks, but it can also be used to find weaknesses in computer systems or make attacks faster. Many essential services in Australia rely on older technology, and replacing it can be costly and may require taking services offline temporarily.
The Australian Signals Directorate is the government agency responsible for signals intelligence and cyber security. Its director general, Abigail Bradshaw, has warned that outdated systems could make government and business networks easier to attack, while the government considers how to set rules for AI.
The debate also involves technology companies, ministers and parliamentarians, who differ on how AI systems should be assessed and regulated. The choices matter because they affect the security of public services, the responsibilities of AI developers and the protections that apply to Australians.
AI Art Culture Cybersecurity Government Politics Software Technology