More than half of Australia's 92 mandated federal agencies missed a February 2025 deadline to disclose how they use artificial intelligence, according to Senate documents. This failure highlights the friction of the government's self-regulation model, raising questions about public sector accountability before stricter industry rules take effect.
The self-regulation model
Last year, the federal government chose a softer approach to artificial intelligence regulation, avoiding binding European-style rules. Instead, it tasked individual agencies with policing their own technology use and regulating their respective industries. The Digital Transformation Agency (DTA) required these bodies to publish transparency statements detailing whether they use AI, where it is applied, what safeguards exist, and if citizens are affected by automated systems.
Missed deadlines and mixed compliance
DTA records presented in parliament showed that only 40 of the 92 mandated agencies met the February 28, 2025 disclosure deadline. Additionally, 30 agencies missed an earlier November 2024 deadline to nominate an accountable official for AI use. Compliance issues ranged from agencies being unaware of deadlines to administrative errors, such as the Organ and Tissue Authority having its compliance email caught in a DTA spam filter. The Commonwealth Grants Commission initially claimed it met both deadlines before correcting the record.
Enforcement and accountability concerns
Independent senator Fatima Payman criticized the lack of consequences for late disclosures. "If the government can't even regulate its own AI use, how can Australians expect it to regulate AI in the private sector, which is reshaping the workplace for millions of Australians?" Payman said. She noted that numerous agencies missed basic requirements months after the due date, adding, "There's no penalty for agencies who don't comply, so why would they?"
University of Sydney law professor Kim Weatherall pointed out a structural flaw in this approach. "They're trying to do the right thing - producing standards and guidance - but they're not a regulator," Weatherall said. "They don't have enforcement powers."
New requirements and central tracking
The DTA now reports that all 94 agencies have met their transparency and accountability obligations. To improve visibility, the agency launched a central register of AI transparency statements, replacing the need for the public to search individual websites. Agencies now face expanded duties, including developing a strategic AI position, maintaining internal use-case registers, training staff, and assessing potential effects. By 2026, every agency must appoint a chief AI officer to drive adoption, a role distinct from the compliance-focused accountable official. Public servants tasked with these new mandates can benefit from structured guidance, such as an AI Learning Path for Policy Makers, to manage these compliance and adoption requirements effectively.
Why this matters for government professionals
The initial rollout of AI transparency statements demonstrates that self-regulation requires rigorous internal tracking. Government workers must now maintain accurate internal registers, ensure staff training, and prepare for the 2026 chief AI officer mandate. Failure to meet these baseline administrative deadlines invites external scrutiny and undermines public trust in automated decision-making systems.
Your membership also unlocks:
