Australians more concerned about privacy as trust in AI languishes, OAIC survey finds

Privacy is a growing concern for Australians, according to a new survey released by the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner (OAIC), with 87% of respondents indicating they are more concerned about privacy than they were five years ago.

The Australian Community Attitudes to Privacy Survey (ACAPS), conducted by the OAIC every three years, aims to provide a view of Australians’ privacy attitudes and experiences, including how recent events have impacted them.

Around two-thirds of Australians (68%) said they would be more likely to use digital services requiring personal information if they knew their data was handled fairly and responsibly.

An overwhelming majority (92%) did admit, however, that data collection can be acceptable under certain conditions, particularly where the purpose is clear (69%), consent or opt-in is available (68%), collection is limited to what is necessary (66%) and the ability to opt out of non-essential collection is available (61%).

Elsewhere, Australians remain cautious about the use of AI in decision-making that may affect them, with nearly all (96%) saying some conditions should be in place before it is used, consistent with 2023 (96%).

Respondents also expect organisations to be open about how AI is used and how decisions are made, including being informed when AI is being used (79%); being informed if personal information will be shared with a third-party AI provider (74%); and clear explanations of how AI decisions are made (63%).

The survey revealed that want people to be able to question and challenge AI-driven decisions, including the right to have a human review decisions (81%, up from 73% in 2023); validation of AI accuracy (70%, up from 56%); testing for bias and discrimination (68%, up from 57%); and the ability to challenge decisions made by AI (72%, up from 64%).

Australians also expect stronger protections for personal information used by AI, including limits that personal information is not retained by third-party AI providers beyond what is necessary; (80%); strict privacy rules for organisations and third-party AI providers (76%); personal information not used to train external AI systems without consent (76%); and the right to request information about how AI decisions are made (70%).

The OAIC said that for industry, the findings point to a sustained ‘trust gap’ for sectors that rely heavily on data-driven business models, particularly where collection feels excessive, benefits appear one-sided, or there is no realistic alternative to participation.

The OAIC also said that results suggest that building trust is likely to depend on clearly limiting collection and retention to what is reasonably necessary and proportionate, plus constraining secondary uses (especially high-impact uses and uses involving sensitive information).

It also said that trust depends on giving people practical choices that do not require trading away access to essential services in exchange for the secondary use or disclosures of their personal information, as well as providing complaint, access and correction pathways that are easy to find, easy to access, predictable and effective.

Where AI and biometrics are used, the survey showed that community acceptance appears strongly conditional on transparency, contestability (including human review), and clear boundaries around training, sharing, retention and secondary use.