Australians demand fairer data use as AI trust sinks

The Office of the Australian Information Commissioner has published the 2026 Australian Community Attitudes to Privacy Survey, which shows rising public concern about privacy and low confidence in current data practices.

The survey found that 93% of Australians consider protecting personal information important, and 87% are more concerned about privacy than they were five years ago. Yet many said they struggle to exercise meaningful control over how organisations collect and use their data.

According to the results, 78% reported having very little or no real control over the collection and use of their personal information. Another 65% said sharing information rarely or never feels like a genuine choice, and 68% said the same about consent.

That sense of imbalance extended to access to services. More than half of respondents, 52%, said they accept sharing personal information because they might otherwise miss out on essential services or opportunities.

Fairness concerns

The research pointed to strong concern about whether organisations handle personal information fairly. Only 10% said organisations' real-world data practices are usually fair, while 35% said they are mostly or always unfair.

Respondents were especially sceptical of extensive data collection, limited opt-out options, and uses of information that mainly benefit organisations rather than individuals. The survey also found strong opposition to practices linked to data brokerage and advertising technology, along with support for tighter limits on collection, retention, and secondary use.

Purpose limitation emerged as a clear dividing line. When an entity collects personal information for one reason, many respondents said it is not fair or reasonable to use it for another.

That view was particularly strong in relation to artificial intelligence. The survey found that 93% said it is not fair and reasonable for an entity to use personal information collected to provide a product or service to train AI models. It also found that 71% consider it unacceptable to use personal information to train AI systems after a service has ended.

AI mistrust

Concern about AI featured heavily throughout the results. Some 69% identified AI as a privacy risk, while trust in AI companies stood at 4%.

Acceptance of AI uses involving personal information depended largely on safeguards. The protections most often prioritised were a right to human review, backed by 81% of respondents; limits on how long third-party providers retain personal information, backed by 80%; and being told when AI is being used, backed by 79%.

The report linked those findings to growing expectations that decisions informed by automated systems should be transparent and open to challenge. It also noted broader demand for stronger disclosure around the use of AI and automated decision-making in both private and public sector settings.

Digital confidence

The findings suggest trust in data handling could affect the use of digital services. Around 68% said they would be more likely to use digital services or programs that require personal information if they believed their data was handled fairly and responsibly.

Even so, many respondents said they do not understand what information organisations hold about them. Two in five, or 40%, said they do not really know what data organisations hold or how to access it, while only 11% said they can easily access their data and request corrections or deletion.

Complaints and redress remain another weak point. Although 64% had privacy concerns in the past year, 52% did not raise them.

Among those who stayed silent, 56% said they felt it would not make a difference, 51% said it would be too hard or time-consuming, and 40% said they did not know how to act. The results point to a gap between formal privacy rights and people's ability or willingness to use them.

Government scrutiny

The survey also touched on attitudes to government use of technology, drawing on broader concerns about transparency when AI or automated decision-making is used in public administration and in decisions connected to access to information.

That position aligns with earlier research cited in the foreword, which found that 86% of Australians agree government should publicly report on any technology used to inform freedom of information decision-making, including AI and automated systems. The foreword said the spread of technology in service delivery and decision-making has increased the importance of preserving information access rights.

In the commissioners' foreword, Carly Kind, Privacy Commissioner, Elizabeth Tydd, Information Commissioner, and Alice Linacre, FOI Commissioner, said: "Australians' expectations about privacy continue to sharpen as the information ecosystem becomes more complex, data-intensive and difficult to navigate."

Kind added: "Greater confidence in how personal information is handled would increase Australians' willingness to use digital services or programs that require sharing personal information."