Uni professor used AI in op-ed—trust cracks widen

AI disclosure – A Western Sydney University pro vice-chancellor admitted after publication that AI was used to help draft an opinion piece for a major Australian masthead—without prior disclosure. The fallout landed just as new data shows most Australians now use AI while tru

By the time the opinion piece was already online, the decision had already been made: AI had been used to help write it, and it hadn’t been disclosed before publication.

This week. Western Sydney University’s pro vice-chancellor. Cath Ellis. acknowledged she had used AI in writing an opinion piece for a major Australian masthead. The university later admitted that Microsoft’s Copilot had been used in developing the piece—an admission that landed after the story was published.

Those details mattered as much for what they revealed about disclosure as for what they showed about technology. The argument of the opinion piece. written on the theme of students cutting corners. leaned on a reality that’s already sinking into universities and workplaces: large language models are available to anyone and can be used for essays and other university work.

Once the disclosure was questioned, the masthead took the piece down after inquiries. The newspaper then ran a mea culpa story later the same day.

The sequence played out against a broader backdrop—one measured in usage numbers and, more sharply, in public distrust.

Data from Roy Morgan this week showed 13.6m people, or 58% of the population older than 14, use AI each month. ChatGPT was listed as the most popular, followed by Google’s Gemini and Microsoft Copilot. The profile of users skewed toward working age: Australians aged 25–34 were most likely to use AI (74%). followed by 35–49 (72%). pointing to a workforce already using these tools.

But at the same time, Australians appear to distrust AI—especially when the human connection to authorship is unclear. A survey from the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner last month found that just 4% of Australians trust AI. putting the sector on par with data brokers. and 1% above social media platforms.

The same survey found 79% of people want to know when AI is being used, up from 73% in 2023. For many readers, the question isn’t whether AI can help produce text—it’s when that assistance is happening, and whether people are being told.

That is where the Western Sydney University case struck a nerve. The irony wasn’t lost on anyone watching the story unfold: the piece argued against cutting corners, while the university acknowledged that Copilot was part of the drafting process.

The admission raised the most immediate contradiction in the public conversation—people are adopting AI faster than institutions are learning to disclose it.

When AI is embedded into products people already use “whether we want it or not,” the tools keep spreading. The question becomes whether the social contract around writing, judgment, and responsibility keeps pace. In academia. workplaces and media. the availability of these models means the issue of whether writing is truly the author’s own is unlikely to disappear soon.

Fair Work Australia this week said it would ask for new powers to reject applications made with AI, citing an unsustainable rise in applications that were clearly done with little effort or prospect of success.

Academic journals have also instituted policies against generative AI being used in papers. Still, reports say AI use is growing rapidly. Even in programming—where AI is often described as bringing the biggest efficiencies—there are signs of pushback, including in open-source programming like Zig.

And as distrust hardens, the social cost becomes more visible. Growing distrust in AI means people can be pulled into witch-hunt-style accusations of using it. even if they may not be. Others may respond by switching off entirely—because if something is treated as suspicious by default. why would anyone want to engage?.

There’s another layer, too: the fear of being called out. The Western Sydney University case suggests that even when AI use could be explained as useful and transparent, the absence of disclosure can turn a normal workflow into a credibility crisis.

That dynamic has already surfaced beyond academia. The director of RuPaul’s latest film, Stop! That! Train!, had to issue a statement this week declaring the film was not made using AI after audiences who had seen early screenings believed some scenes were made with the technology.

For readers trying to judge authenticity, transparency is the difference between clarity and doubt—between benefits becoming normalised and suspicion taking over.

Without it, the advantages that advocates point to don’t land in a way that rebuilds trust. And when institutions omit how AI is being used out of fear—whether the accusation is correct or incorrect—it can undermine confidence across industries that rely on authorship. accountability. and the value of effort.

The article was amended on 5 June 2026. An earlier version incorrectly said Cath Ellis was vice-chancellor at Western Sydney University; Ellis is a pro vice-chancellor.

Cath Ellis Western Sydney University Copilot AI disclosure opinion piece trust in AI Office of the Australian Information Commissioner Roy Morgan ChatGPT Gemini Fair Work Australia Stop! That! Train!