Governments feel the need to ‘prioritise’ AI too.

When a new premier reshuffles his cabinet, the portfolio list is a kind of policy mood board. Ben Carroll's first Victorian ministry, announced Tuesday, is revealing in two directions at once: a new Minister for Artificial Intelligence and Digital Economy, and no Minister for Transport Infrastructure. AI is in. Trains, and roads, apparently, out.

Regulating things is something governments know how to do — freeing things up is considerably harder

Anthony Carbines, handed the new portfolio after vacating the police ministry, will focus on what Premier Carroll described as ensuring AI developments are "ethical and responsible" while promoting innovative digital investment. Those two mandates are not always in conflict, but they pull in different directions, and when a government has to choose between them, it tends to choose the one that is easier to implement. Regulating things is something governments know how to do. Freeing things up is considerably harder.

This is not a Victorian problem specifically. It is a structural problem with how governments engage with new technologies. The institutional incentives all run in one direction. A minister who fails to prevent harm from AI gets hauled before an inquiry. A minister who fails to unlock AI's productive potential for small businesses and public services generates no headlines at all. The asymmetry shapes behaviour before the minister has even moved into the office.

The asymmetry shapes behaviour before the minister has even moved into the office.

Carroll's framing was candid about this. "Artificial intelligence is a great opportunity," he said, "but it also needs guard rails and regulatory reform." The sequencing is telling. Guard rails come first. The opportunity is acknowledged but left unspecified. Regulatory reform, in Australian political usage, rarely means fewer rules — it typically means new rules, structured more thoughtfully than the old ones. That is sometimes an improvement, but it is not the same as removing friction.

We've tracked a similar dynamic at the federal level, where the government's new Office of AI was housed in the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet, a structure designed for coordination and oversight rather than enabling and deployment. The signals from both levels of government are consistent: AI policy in Australia is shaping up to be predominantly a governance exercise.

None of that makes it wrong, exactly. AI does raise genuine questions about workplace displacement, privacy, algorithmic bias, and the concentration of economic power. Some regulatory architecture is warranted. The honest case for a dedicated AI minister is that without one, those questions get answered badly by a fragmented bureaucracy, or not answered at all. Carroll's instinct to have "a voice at the cabinet table" is defensible.

The transport infrastructure trade-off is not a trivial one

But the specific cabinet arithmetic is worth pausing on. The ministry that disappeared to make room for AI was transport infrastructure. That is not a trivial trade. Victoria has the Metro Tunnel, the Level Crossing Removal Program, and the Suburban Rail Loop all in various states of progress. These are projects where ministerial attention and coordination have direct, measurable effects on delivery timelines and cost control. As a recent audit of federal housing programs found, governments tend to struggle most not at announcing ambitions but at executing complex infrastructure — the stage where sustained ministerial focus matters most.

The symbolism is probably intentional. Carroll is signalling a break from the Allan government's infrastructure-heavy identity, pivoting toward the future economy. That is a legitimate political choice. But signalling and delivery are different activities, and a new AI ministry is much better positioned to deliver the former than the latter.

Australian businesses are already adopting AI without waiting for Spring Street

Australian businesses are already adopting AI at a rapidly accelerating rate, largely without government guidance. The firms doing it well are treating it as a productivity tool embedded in existing workflows, not waiting for a framework document from Spring Street. The risk is not that businesses lack direction from government. The risk is that regulatory requirements, compliance obligations, and data governance rules accumulate faster than the underlying technology can deliver returns, particularly for smaller operators who lack the legal resources to navigate them.

Carroll has the opportunity to build an AI ministry that is primarily concerned with identifying and removing the friction that slows adoption, rather than adding well-intentioned layers of oversight to a technology that is still settling into its own shape. That would be genuinely useful. It would also be, for a government ministry, historically unusual.

The more likely outcome is a competent regulatory framework that takes a year or two to develop, earns some positive coverage, and leaves the actual determinants of AI productivity — bandwidth, data access, software costs, skills — largely unchanged. That would not be a failure by the standards of what governments typically do. It just would not be the opportunity Carroll described.

Frequently Asked Questions

What does Victoria's new AI minister actually do?
Anthony Carbines will oversee what Premier Carroll has framed as ensuring AI is 'ethical and responsible' while promoting digital investment. In practice that means the portfolio is oriented toward regulatory oversight rather than enabling adoption — which reflects how government AI ministries tend to operate, not just how this one has been described.

Why did Victoria get rid of its transport infrastructure ministry?
The Carroll government abolished the dedicated transport infrastructure portfolio as part of its first cabinet reshuffle, replacing it with an AI and digital economy ministry. Victoria still has the Metro Tunnel, Level Crossing Removal Program, and Suburban Rail Loop underway — projects where sustained ministerial focus has historically affected delivery timelines and cost control.

Do Australian businesses need government guidance to adopt AI?
Australian businesses are already adopting AI at a rapidly accelerating rate, largely without waiting for government frameworks. The firms doing it well are embedding AI in existing workflows as a productivity tool — the more pressing risk is that compliance obligations and regulatory requirements accumulate faster than the technology can deliver returns, particularly for smaller operators without legal resources.

Why do governments tend to regulate new technologies rather than enable them?
The institutional incentives are asymmetric: a minister who fails to prevent harm from a new technology faces inquiries and headlines, while a minister who fails to unlock its productive potential faces no such accountability. That asymmetry shapes how portfolios are designed and how ministers behave before any policy has been written.

What would a genuinely useful AI ministry look like?
One focused on identifying and removing the friction that slows adoption — barriers like data access, software costs, bandwidth, and skills — rather than layering new compliance obligations onto a technology still finding its shape. That approach would be historically unusual for a government ministry, which is part of why the more likely outcome is a well-constructed regulatory framework that leaves the actual determinants of AI productivity largely untouched.