Artificial intelligence (AI) is increasingly recognized as a determinant of population health, but Australia’s policy is not keeping up, according to experts in the field. Dr Raffaele F. Ciriello, a Senior Lecturer in Business Information Systems at the University of Sydney Business School, and Professor Kathryn Backholer, Professor of Public Health Policy at Deakin University, argue that public health expertise and institutions should be centered in policy responses to the AI juggernaut.
The Australian government’s National AI Plan focuses on making the economy more competitive, productive, and resilient, with an emphasis on infrastructure, capability, investment, and safety. However, this agenda largely treats health as a sector in which AI can be applied, rather than an outcome shaped by AI across everyday life.
Public health perspective
Public health brings a distinct perspective to the AI debate, looking upstream to the conditions in which people are born, grow, live, work, and age. Research backed by the World Health Organization has identified digitalization as reshaping social, commercial, political, and economic determinants of health. General-purpose AI is becoming part of the everyday environment through which established determinants operate.
For example, conversational AI is moving advertising from search results into private exchanges where people discuss diet, stress, debt, relationships, parenting, and health. This combination of intimacy, contextual knowledge, and commercial incentives can make targeted persuasion especially consequential during moments of vulnerability.
Changing information environment
The public health challenge extends beyond whether a chatbot gives an accurate answer to a clinical or other health-related question. It also concerns how AI changes the information environment in which everyday health decisions are made, and whether its benefits and harms are distributed unequally. A 2026 systematic review found that generative AI can increase the speed and scale at which convincing health misinformation is produced.
Related Post: Rural Health Plan Lacks Transparency Critics Claim
However, open-ended commercial systems are not bounded therapeutic interventions. A 2026 study in Nature Human Behaviour found that intensive and highly disclosive AI-companion use was associated with lower wellbeing, particularly among people with smaller offline social networks.
Calls to action
Australia needs to bring a population health lens to AI governance, involving public health and health equity expertise in developing national standards.
Researchers need meaningful access to data so health effects can be independently monitored rather than defined by company metrics. Governments should regulate harmful commercial practices across platforms rather than leaving companies to police themselves. Australia needs enough independent expertise and infrastructure to avoid becoming wholly dependent on the same companies it is trying to regulate.
AI increasingly shapes the information people see, the choices they make, the support they receive, and the commercial pressures they face. Consequently, AI systems should be governed as public interest infrastructure. This does not mean the government must build every model or nationalize the entire AI stack, but rather that public institutions need enough capacity, transparency, and leverage to protect population wellbeing when commercial interests point in another direction.
Dr Raffaele F. Ciriello and Professor Kathryn Backholer emphasize that public health expertise is essential in developing AI policies. They argue that the current approach to AI governance is insufficient and that a more full approach is needed to protect population health.
Related Post: NIH Translates 70 Years of Health Data Into a Common Language
The Australian government’s National AI Plan is a step in the right direction, but it needs to be expanded to include a stronger focus on public health. The plan should prioritize the development of national standards for AI governance and ensure that public health expertise is integrated into the development of these standards.
Researchers play a key role in monitoring the health effects of AI systems. They need access to data to conduct independent research and ensure that the health effects of AI are properly understood. Governments should regulate harmful commercial practices and ensure that companies are held accountable for the impact of their AI systems on public health.
Australia needs to develop its own expertise and infrastructure to regulate AI systems. The country should not rely solely on companies to police themselves, but rather develop its own capacity to monitor and regulate AI systems. This will ensure that Australia can protect its population health and maintain its sovereignty in the face of rapidly evolving AI technologies.
The development of AI systems as public interest infrastructure is essential to protecting population health. This means that public institutions need to have the capacity, transparency, and leverage to ensure that AI systems are developed and used in ways that prioritize public health. The government does not need to build every model or nationalize the entire AI stack, but rather ensure that public institutions have the necessary resources and expertise to regulate AI systems effectively.