We've seen this all before. Big multinational company comes to town, brings thousands of jobs to boost the economy, then takes the resources, sends the profit offshore, and pays next to no tax. All the while, the temporary construction jobs dry up. We've seen it with gas, and we're seeing it again with data centres.

Big tech companies like Amazon and Microsoft are desperate to build data centres here in Australia. We have it all: tons of renewable energy potential, wide open spaces, and a relatively stable democracy. Microsoft wants to invest $25 billion. Amazon $20 billion. It's the mining boom all over again. But where does this money go? Who benefits?

Tech companies claim these benefits are good for the punter, but that's by no means guaranteed. For every $100 invested here by a company like Amazon or Google, $70 to $80 flows overseas straight away to purchase equipment that we don't manufacture here, like semiconductors or servers. The profits fly offshore, too, particularly into the pockets of Jeff Bezos and Mark Zuckerberg. But these tech companies are experts at tax minimization, being rivalled only perhaps by gas companies.

Data centres are being built on the Northshore. We already have several data centres in Artarmon and St Leonards, and there are more cropping up around my electorate. We heard from the member for Bennelong in places like Lane Cove West and Macquarie Park.

So I've surveyed my electorate about these issues. 750 people responded and their views were unambiguous. Over half felt negatively about the growth of data centres. Over 80% were not confident the government will effectively regulate data centres. And three-fifths were worried about a repeat of the gas industry experience of being ripped off.

People were most concerned by the impacts on water supply and the energy transition, and rightfully so, because the numbers are astounding.

We're a dry country, but data centres can use up to 40 million litres a day, and the UN predicts that data centres will use more water by 2030 than every single person on Earth uses in their drinking water.

Australia's largest proposed data centre in Western Sydney would use as much energy as 2 million Australian homes and generate the emissions of 560,000 petrol cars every single year. This is a massive addition to energy demand at a time when we're asking Australians to help fund the buildout of our updated energy system, one that's reliable, cheap, clean, and sovereign.

The only way data centres can support the energy transition is if they build more renewables than they use. Otherwise, they're just sucking up new power faster than we can build it.

Now, I want to be clear. AI offers significant economic opportunities. But we have to ensure that the buildout of AI data centres avoids these problems.

So, what is the government doing about it? They've issued some voluntary expectations for companies to demonstrate national interest, support the energy transition, use water responsibly, create local jobs, and meaningfully engage with communities.

And the Assistant Minister, Andrew Charlton, who's leading the government's data centre policy, said earlier this month that:

"My view is not that Australia should blindly accept or reject investment. Rather, Australia should actively set the terms on which that investment occurs."

I couldn't agree more. But non-binding expectations just aren't going to cut it. The government needs to make those standards binding. And that's a first step.

More broadly, we need to critically engage with the data centre boom and the rise of AI. The narrative we're being fed is it's all about urgency. We're told that we don't have time to lose, otherwise the data centres will go elsewhere.

Well, it's the same playbook as the gas lobby. Yes, some data centres will get built elsewhere if we slow down. But there's a reason that Amazon and Google are so keen to build here, because they'll struggle to find anywhere half as good.

If data centres really represent such an enormous economic opportunity, the opportunity is not going to go away. And we can afford to take time to get this policy right.

So, we're faced with some important questions. Are we going to use our finite potable water to keep people and our environment healthy, or to power AI slop? Are we going to let big tech bleed our communities dry, or secure a fair return for the punter? Or are we going to let data centres make climate change worse, or ensure they boost clean energy supply?

I think the answers are pretty clear, and my community agrees. It's up to government to slow tech companies down and ensure they deliver for us.