Inaugural AI Review Committee sets out expert advice on public sector AI use

The AI Review Committee agreed to its terms of reference which set out how it will provide expert, non-binding advice on selected AI use cases and review agencies' responses to serious AI incidents.

At its initial meeting, the Committee also provided advice to 2 agencies – the Attorney-General's Department and Services Australia – on their upcoming AI initiatives.

Speaking about the 26 June meeting, Chief Executive Officer of the DTA, Chris Fechner, said the Committee's terms of reference reflected the government's commitment to ensuring AI adoption is accompanied by strong governance arrangements.

“Members bring cross‑disciplinary expertise to provide a strong foundation for rigorous, practical advice. This ensures the Committee’s advice is grounded in how AI is actually deployed in government, and carries the authority needed to inform senior decision‑making.”

Strengthening governance and transparency 

The terms of reference emphasise transparency, continuous improvement and practical oversight of AI adoption across government.

They outline the Committee will review projects before they are deployed. This is to help agencies assess whether the proposed AI solution is appropriate, whether risks have been identified, and whether safeguards are adequate.

It will also consider whether projects align with Australia’s AI Ethics Principles and broader government AI policies and frameworks.

Additionally, the Committee will review serious AI incidents after agencies have completed necessary response activities.

“When reviewing incidents, the Committee will focus on ways to strengthen future AI governance across government,” stressed Mr Fechner.

The terms also explain that the Committee may seek advice from external experts when additional knowledge or input is needed – provided conflicts of interest are managed and security requirements are met. External advisers may contribute information and perspectives, but will not participate in developing the Committee’s final advice.

Importantly, the Committee's effectiveness and operating arrangements will be reviewed at least annually, recognising that AI technologies, risks and governance practices will continue to evolve alongside the government's growing use of AI.

"Public trust will be critical to the successful adoption of AI across government," Mr Fechner said.

"That's why we are committed to being transparent about how the Committee operates and to continually reviewing and refining its approach as we learn from experience."

To read the complete terms of reference visit digital.gov.au

First agency AI use cases considered

Two agency AI use cases were referred for consideration by the Committee.

The Attorney-General’s Department discussed the potential to use AI to support staff productivity and wellbeing by assisting with document analysis, matter triage and workflow optimisation. Services Australia presented a proof of concept using AI to help staff locate internal operational documentation. 

Committee members welcomed the focus on improving staff productivity and wellbeing, while highlighting the importance of maintaining strong human oversight, quality assurance and monitoring arrangements.

Members recognised the work both agencies had already undertaken to establish effective governance and implementation foundations and encouraged a continued focus on quality assurance, privacy, workforce capability and planning for future scale.

Members acknowledged the potential benefits of both use cases for staff and service delivery and highlighted that effective AI adoption depends not only on getting the technology right, but also on the organisational settings that support it.

For more information read through the Committee communique on digital.gov.au.

About the Committee

The Committee was established under the AI Plan for the Australian Public Service to provide expert, non-binding advice on selected AI use cases before deployment, including those assessed as high-risk, highly sensitive, novel or complex. 

It provides additional scrutiny of potential risks, safeguards and implementation approaches, and will also review agencies’ responses to serious AI incidents to identify lessons and strengthen AI governance across government.

“The committee represents insights from: digital transformation, AI safety and assurance, privacy and data ethics, cyber security, as well as workforce and integrity policy,” emphasised Mr Fechner. “This breadth of knowledge ensures we identify and respond to the full range of AI risks and opportunities across government.”

Agencies remain accountable for implementation, decision-making, and risk management.

The Committee will meet as required to consider AI use cases and serious incidents referred by agencies. For more information about the Committee, including its membership, terms of reference and meeting communiques, visit the AI Review Committee page.