David Pocock concerned senior Albanese adviser ‘vetted’ bipartisan AI letter that was sent to PM

Independent senator David Pocock said he was concerned at the intervention of Albanese’s team on the bipartisan letter from a parliamentary committee considering AI policy. Photograph: Sarah Wilson/AAPView image in fullscreenIndependent senator David Pocock said he was concerned at the intervention of Albanese’s team on the bipartisan letter from a parliamentary committee considering AI policy. Photograph: Sarah Wilson/AAPDavid Pocock concerned senior Albanese adviser ‘vetted’ bipartisan AI letter that was sent to PMCommittee chair rejected criticism that letter was ‘pre-determined’ by the government

Follow our Australia politics live blog for latest updates

Get our new political email, free app or daily news podcast

Anthony Albanese’s office signed off on language in a bipartisan letter from a parliamentary committee considering AI policy before it was sent to the prime minister, a move which committee member David Pocock said was concerning.

Notes on the letter to Albanese, seen by Guardian Australia, show a senior advisor made multiple edits and wrote “fine” on some content, appearing to approve lines in the letter before the committee wrote to the prime minister on Monday night.

Some edits were made as late as 8:55pm, 35 minutes before the Labor MP and inquiry chair, Jo Briskey, and Liberal senator and deputy chair, Jonno Duniam, sent the letter to Albanese, on behalf of Labor, Coalition and crossbench MPs.

Read morePocock, an independent senator on the committee, was asked to provide edits to the letter. He provided that feedback at 9:55pm, not knowing the letter had already been sent.

Pocock said he was concerned at the intervention of Albanese’s team.

“I respect the committee process and the need to work in a multipartisan way across the parliament,” he said.

“I’m concerned that markups on the documents show the recommendations were pre-vetted by an adviser in the prime minister’s office and there was no time for changes to be considered by the chair.

“While the letter is broad in nature, after reviewing it in more detail it doesn’t capture the breadth of evidence presented to the committee to date.”

Briskey rejected criticism that the committee’s work was “pre-determined” by the government, and confirmed the committee had consulted both Albanese and the opposition leader’s office prior to sending the letter.

“It’s been a process by which we’re seeking advice and making sure that this is working across the board … There was engagement right across the panel. Senator Duniam also worked with his side, the opposition,” she said.

Briskey said the letter was to show the direction of the committee ahead of handing down its report due 30 November.

Duniam said there was “no guidance, no interference” with the committee’s work.

“I[’ll] tell you who would be the first person out of the blocks to criticise the government if the prime minister wasn’t showing interest in the committee’s work: it would be me,” Duniam said.

“This is an example of the parliament working well. There’s been no guidance, no interference. There has been a lot of discussion, a lot of consultation.”

He said others who wanted to sit on the sidelines and “find points of difference” could do so.

“It also fails to address the urgent need to immediately commence mandatory screening of genetic synthesis imports at all Australian borders,” he said.

“After this, I am increasingly concerned that the work of this committee is being used to serve a political purpose rather than provide genuine parliamentary scrutiny and policy input.

“We’ve seen enough major party stitch-ups. Regaining the community’s trust, especially on the issue of AI requires robust debate and committee work.”

Guardian Australia has chosen not to name the advisers in Albanese’s office.

The prime minister’s office declined to comment.