The pushback on data centres is democracy at work

EditorialEditorialNovember 12, 2026 — 8:00pmNovember 12, 2026 — 8:00pmThe AI and data centre boom is not turning out to be the godsend some claim. Environmental problems and the future of work are among the big questions our society is facing, but community groups worried about data centres in their backyard are not waiting for the answer.In September, the industrial property giant Goodman Group backed away from building an $800 million, 24/7 data centre at Lane Cove amid resident protests and concerns by utility providers Sydney Water and Ausgrid that it would strain existing infrastructure and increase electrocution and fire risks. A proposal to build a data centre in North Katoomba was knocked back last June after local opposition, and last week a new data centre beside the Cooks River was scrapped following Kogarah residents’ protests.A NEXTDC Data centre in Artarmon in Sydney.Dominic LorrimerIn western Sydney, the Herald’s Ellie Busby reports a group of mostly young 20-somethings is rallying the community to protest against technology company AirTrunk’s plan for a $9 billion facility, the nation’s largest data centre development, which would be built in Kemps Creek and near three schools. There have been similar outcomes in Victoria.The pushback against artificial intelligence infrastructure construction emerged as hot button issue that contributed to the Democrat landslide in this month’s US midterm elections.Australia is a significant data centre market in the Asia-Pacific region.Earlier this year, Westpac Economics said the boom had helped make Australia the second-largest investment destination for data centres, after the US. Investment is estimated to top $155 billion in the coming decade, most slated for Sydney and Melbourne. Currently, about 165 data centres operate around Australia and 225 are planned.There are arguments in their favour. The NSW government credits data centres and renewable energy for boosting business investment and helping to prevent the state economy from falling into recession. By embracing AI infrastructure, Australia has a better chance of reaping the economic, security and workforce benefits of the technology of the future.However, both governments and AI companies have failed to effectively explain these benefits to voters, so anger over data centres in the suburbs is mounting.The NSW government talks about balance. Its guidelines now require the needs of communities, households and businesses to be protected, and for centres to pay for the energy and water and to manage the environmental impacts of operations. A parliamentary inquiry this week suggested smarter planning controls were needed to encourage companies to build in special precincts and avoid unwanted US-style data centre clusters in densely populated suburbs.The Albanese government has introduced new rules to force data centres to source round-the-clock power from entirely new renewable sources located in the same state to limit their impact on the grid and avoid price spikes. Deputy Prime Minister Richard Marles this week even went so far as to say suburbs were the wrong place to build data centres, and they should be constructed a long way from where people live.In some circles, the term NIMBY is an insult. Yet, given the well-documented problems associated with data centres, it is difficult to be negative about residents motivated by concerns about proliferation in their neighbourhoods. There might be reasons why centres need to be built in suburban areas (transmission speeds, proximity to power), but AI companies have failed to make their case to the affected communities.Regardless of the benefits or costs of data centres, these campaigns are evidence of people power and democracy at work. They’re pleasing proof that, should there be enough of a groundswell, the AI companies and governments will heed local sentiments.Get a weekly wrap of views that will challenge, champion and inform your own. Sign up for our Opinion newsletter.The Herald's View – Since the Herald was first published in 1831, the editorial team has believed it important to express a considered view on the issues of the day for readers, always putting the public interest first.From our partners