Last updated September 2026

This position statement provides direction on identifying and managing Commonwealth records created by, or relating to, artificial intelligence (AI) technologies employed by Australian Government agencies.

Artificial intelligence is a rapidly developing field that presents new information management challenges. We will periodically update this guidance to reflect the continuing evolution of AI technologies and their incorporation into agency business and information management practices.

Key points for agencies – New

AI generated information is subject to the same Commonwealth records obligations and requirements as any other information created or received by Australian Government agencies. Agencies do not need to retain every AI output, prompt, input or chat log. They should apply existing records authorities and a consistent, risk-based approach to identify the records needed for business, legal, evidentiary and accountability purposes.

• For routine use of generative AI assistants, AI outputs should be retained where they are final records in their own right, substantially contribute to a significant record, provide evidence of a high-risk or sensitive activity, or are relied on for their information value or as evidence of a recommendation or decision. Minor drafts, unused research, reference-only outputs and other low-value, facilitative material can generally be destroyed under the agency’s normal administrative practice (NAP) policy when no longer required.
• Prompts, inputs, source data and metadata will need to be retained where they are necessary to provide context to support a retained AI output or demonstrate how a decision was reached. The greater the significance of the record or the reliance placed on AI decision-making, the stronger the need for supporting evidence.
• Prompt and response logs will generally be low value and eligible for disposal, but agencies need to set an appropriate retention period, allow time for required records to be captured elsewhere, and avoid indefinite retention under default system settings.
• AI incorporated into business systems requires greater rigour in records management, particularly where it automates or materially informs decisions. Agencies may need to retain individual outputs, recommendations, inputs, source data, instructions, system and audit logs, and records of system design, testing, configuration and decision-making criteria.
• Records that must be kept should be captured with sufficient metadata in a system where they can be appropriately managed, protected, found and disposed of – not left solely in an AI tool that lacks adequate recordkeeping functionality.

What are the types of AI technologies?

For the purposes of this advice AI technologies have been broadly categorised as generative AI and traditional AI (or non-generative AI).

• Generative AI technologies involve applying advanced deep learning models to vast training datasets in order to create new content – such as text, images, video, code or audio. The models learn underlying patterns and structures of the training data and use them to produce new data based on user inputs (usually natural language text prompts). Generative AI technologies are creative and highly adaptable.

  Examples of generative AI technologies include AI virtual assistants, such as Microsoft 365 Copilot, chatbots like ChatGPT, and text-to-image generators, such as Stable Diffusion. 

• Traditional AI technologies apply machine learning and analyse data, using pre-programmed rules and algorithms to learn from input data and generate recommendations or make decisions based on that data. They are pre-designed to perform specific tasks, such as data classification, pattern recognition, anomaly detection, optimisation and predictive analysis.

  Examples of traditional AI technologies include recommendation engines, fraud detection algorithms, and spam filtering and email categorisation applications. 

Increasingly we are seeing the release of AI systems that combine both generative and traditional AI technologies. For example, Google's Generative AI in Search combines traditional AI search algorithm results with generative AI summaries of search result content.

Agentic AI technologies are another emerging type of AI. They commonly incorporate generative AI technologies but are distinguished by their capacity to independently plan, make decisions and take actions in pursuit of defined goals. Agentic AI involves the use of autonomous or semi-autonomous agents which can interact with their environment and collect and use data to perform tasks on behalf of humans or other systems.

What are the types of AI records?

Record types commonly generated by, or related to, the use of AI technologies include:

• output records and data, such as generative AI created content or traditional AI generated recommendations or data analysis results
• prompts, instructions, parameters and other inputs
• source datasets, including training datasets
• AI system and event logs, including logs of prompts and responses
• administrative records supporting development, implementation and management of AI systems, such as system design documentation and AI policies and procedures.

General principles for managing AI records

Information management requirements and obligations associated with records generated by AI will differ depending on the type of AI technologies employed, the purpose for which they are used and the corresponding value of the records generated.

The following general principles will apply to the management of AI records.

• Al generated content created or received by Australian Government agencies constitutes Commonwealth records for the purposes of the Archives Act 1983 and must be managed as such.

• The Archives Act 1983 is technology and format neutral, with the information management standards and obligations stemming from the Act applying to all Commonwealth records regardless of the type of technology used to create them.

  Commonwealth records created using AI technologies will be subject to the same requirements and obligations as other Commonwealth records created for similar business purposes with similar content and value.

  For example, a routine financial report created using generative AI will be subject to the same retention and disposal requirements as an equivalent routine financial report created by a project officer without AI assistance.

• The principles outlined in the Information Management Standard for Australian Government will apply to AI generated and related records created or received by agencies. These principles set out requirements and obligations for the management of all Commonwealth records, including AI records, and address: creating, capturing and describing records; information governance; storage and preservation; security and integrity; appraisal and sentencing; and disposal of information.
• AI generated records must be actively managed to retain their authenticity, reliability, integrity and usability, and ensure they can be found, accessed and understood. This is necessary to support business activities, preserve evidence of decision-making, and ensure transparency and accountability.
• Agencies should take a risk-based approach when determining which AI outputs and associated prompts, inputs and sources need to be retained to meet their ongoing business needs and legal requirements, and ensure they satisfy the retention requirements identified in any applicable records authorities issued by National Archives before authorising the destruction of these records. 
• AI systems that create records are typically not designed as recordkeeping systems and lack adequate records management functionality. Where AI generated records are required to be kept they should be captured and retained in systems where they can be appropriately managed, such as an agency's approved records management system.
• Where AI generated records are required to be retained agencies should ensure that adequate metadata is identified, exported and captured with these outputs in the appropriate system, so that the records are complete, accurate and have appropriate context. 
• Agencies should ensure that the management of AI related records is adequately addressed in their information governance framework, including clearly establishing responsibilities for identifying, capturing and managing AI generated records. Agency staff who create or receive AI generated records must ensure that where necessary these records and associated metadata are captured into the appropriate system, such as an agency's approved records management system, where they can be accountably managed and eventually disposed of.
• Agencies should ensure that all staff who create or receive records generated by AI technologies in connection with the performance of their duties receive adequate training to inform them of their records management responsibilities and enable them to adequately identify, capture and manage these records.
• AI generated and related records must be protected and maintained securely to preserve their integrity and evidential value, and ensure that they cannot be tampered with or inappropriately altered or destroyed, or accessed by unauthorised individuals.
• Where AI technologies access input or source data that contains sensitive or privileged information, or generate outputs from such content, the original sensitivity requirements will continue to apply unless the sensitivity is downgraded. These records should be treated in accordance with the requirements of the Protective Security Policy Framework.
• The technologies and processes involved in the creation of AI content must be documented wherever possible to ensure accountability and transparency. This is particularly important where the outputs of AI technologies are directly relied upon to inform agency decision-making.
   

Determining how long to keep AI records

As with any business record, your agency must determine the value of AI generated records by assessing their overall significance based on their purpose and content, and any ongoing business needs or legal requirements to retain the records – including identifying retention requirements for these records in applicable agency-specific records authorities or general records authorities issued by National Archives.

AI generated records that are considered to have ongoing business value or that need to be retained to meet legal requirements must be properly managed along with all relevant associated metadata. Records that provide evidence of agency business activity involving the use of AI, such as records of decisions and the reasoning behind those decisions, need to be retained in accordance with National Archives' records authorities to ensure transparency and accountability.

Your agency should adopt a consistent, risk-based approach when determining which AI related records need to be kept to meet agency business needs and legal requirements, and these should be reflected in your agency's business rules and practices. Where AI generated records are deemed to be of high value, it may be necessary to also retain supporting AI related records (such as related prompts and source data) and additional record metadata around the AI process, to provide greater context, transparency and accountability.

Where AI generated content does not have ongoing business or legal value and is not covered by a relevant records authority, it will likely be eligible for destruction as a normal administrative practice (NAP) when no longer required for business purposes.

For example, preliminary draft transcripts generated by Microsoft 365 Copilot for routine low-level meetings may be disposed of as a NAP after the formal minutes are accepted and captured into the agency's approved records management system.

For more information on identifying the value of records, see our advice on appraisal and sentencing.

For assistance in determining appropriate retention periods for AI generated records, contact the Agency Service Centre.

Managing records of generative AI assistants (including Microsoft 365 Copilot) – New

Generative AI virtual assistants, such as Microsoft 365 Copilot, are the most common form of generative AI technologies currently used by Australian Government agencies. These tools assist agency staff in the creation of record content and are often integrated into common office applications.

They can perform tasks such as:

• creating draft content for office documents in response to user prompts
• summarising meetings or documents into concise text
• creating new image, video, code and audio content
• auto generating responses to emails
• transcribing recordings of meetings.

While generative AI assistants can create or recommend content as an output in response to user prompts, it is the responsibility of the user to review the content created and ensure that it is accurate, appropriate and fit for purpose – amending and rewriting the AI generated content as needed, and in accordance with business requirements, to create the final business record.

The retention requirements for the final versions of business records created and for the related generative AI outputs and associated prompts and inputs will depend on the value and purpose of the final records created using generative AI outputs, the associated risk profile, and the overall contribution of the AI outputs to the development of the final records.

Final versions of business records created using generative AI outputs

Where generative AI assistants are used as a content creation tool to support the development of final versions of business records, the generative AI outputs that provide this content will often be considered transitory and facilitative in nature.

Generative AI outputs such as draft document text in response to prompts, or transcripts for meetings, may be the equivalent of rough drafts, initial notes or working papers from which more substantive records can be constructed by human users. In such cases, it is the final record created by the human user that has the greatest value and that will generally need to be captured into your agency's approved records management system and retained in accordance with the relevant records authorities.

Not all content created by generative AI assistants will contribute to the creation of final business records that need to be captured in your agency's approved records management system. There may be circumstances where low-value facilitative or transitory final records may be created using generative AI outputs. In such cases, your agency's normal administrative practice (NAP) policy may allow for the destruction of the final record when it is no longer required for business purposes.

Generative AI assistant outputs that must be retained

In some situations, generative AI outputs will be required to be captured into your agency's approved records management system and retained in accordance with the relevant National Archives approved records authorities. This will apply to:

• outputs which support the creation of final versions of business records that are high value or significant in nature, or otherwise relate to high-risk or sensitive matters, or are relied upon to support decision-making. In such cases the AI outputs may be treated as major drafts or supporting research and should be retained if they contribute significantly to the formation of the final record and/or provide evidence of the decisions taken in the final record; and
• outputs which are relied upon as the primary evidence of business activities, particularly those that make recommendations or contribute to decision-making or provide the best available evidence of the performance of a business activity. This includes generative AI outputs that are retained as final versions of business records in their own right, particularly where there is little or no human user intervention in their creation or acceptance as a final record.

Generative AI assistant outputs that may be destroyed

Where generative AI assistant outputs do not have ongoing business or legal value for your agency and are not required to be retained under a records authority issued by National Archives, they will likely be eligible for destruction as a normal administrative practice when no longer required. This will apply to:

• generative AI assistant outputs that are essentially minor drafts and working papers supporting the creation of low-value or routine business records, or otherwise relating to low-risk matters where no decision-making is involved – such as where AI output content is created but either not included in the final record or edited and altered before inclusion
• generative AI outputs that are created for reference purposes only and do not contribute to the creation of a final record.

Note: In some instances, generative AI outputs that support the creation of final versions of low-value or routine business records may be considered major drafts or supporting research and retained if they provide a substantial basis for the development of the final record (for example: substantial AI generated draft content is created that is of good quality and requires little work to finalise; a generative AI summary is relied upon to develop a final document). Agencies should take a risk-based approach when determining whether to capture and retain AI outputs in these situations.

Disposal of generative AI assistant prompts and inputs

Prompts and inputs used to create AI assistant outputs will often have little or no ongoing business or evidential value and will be eligible for destruction in accordance with your agency’s NAP policy when they are no longer required for business purposes. This is particularly the case where they are used to create low-value AI outputs that are not required to be retained. 

It is only where generative AI assistant outputs are captured and retained as business records that it may also be necessary to keep the prompts and other inputs to ensure there is credible evidence to demonstrate how the AI outputs were created and thereby support transparency and accountability.

Agencies will need to make risk-based decisions on which AI prompts and inputs are required to be retained as supporting evidence. These decisions will be determined by the value of the final record that results from the AI outputs, legal requirements and agency-specific business needs, and the degree to which the prompts and inputs can support understanding and provide context and relevant evidence to demonstrate how the AI outputs were created. The more significant the value of the business records generated from an AI output, or the greater the role an AI output plays in decision-making, the more likely it will be necessary to retain the related prompts and inputs. 

Agency decisions on which AI assistant prompts and inputs to retain should be reflected in agency business rules, with agency staff provided guidance and training on how to identify and capture those AI assistant prompts and inputs that must be retained to support agency business. 

The ease with which prompts and inputs can be captured will vary between generative AI assistants. Some AI assistants provide functionality to export prompts and other inputs that relate to AI outputs, but where this is not possible the user will need to manually capture this information from the AI assistant chat session that generated the output. 

For example, where generative AI assistant output is retained as a major draft of an important report, the associated prompts and inputs may also be required to be retained and captured into your agency's approved records management system. This will be determined based on the risk profile and importance of the matter to which they relate. In such cases the generative AI output should be clearly linked to the relevant prompts and inputs – particularly if the output is to be retained as a final document or decision-making document where there has been little or no human input.

Disposal of generative AI prompt and response logs

The interactions between users and generative AI assistants, including prompts, inputs and outputs, are recorded automatically by these systems in prompt and response logs (also known as chat logs or conversation logs). While the mechanisms used vary between AI assistants, prompt and response logs are normally attached to the profile of the user and can retain the prompts and corresponding responses for all AI sessions undertaken by the user. The logs enable AI assistants to recall the user's previous sessions and are usually displayed as a list of previously used prompts in the AI user interface.

Due to their transitory, facilitative and low-value nature, AI prompt and response logs will generally be eligible for destruction as a normal administrative practice (NAP) when no longer required for business purposes.

Agencies should take a risk-based approach to determining appropriate retention periods for AI prompt and response logs to meet their business and evidentiary needs – considering risks such as information security and sensitivity, storage costs associated with over-retention and the risk of harm if logs are compromised, against the productivity benefits of staff being able to recall and reuse previous AI sessions. AI prompt and response log retention periods should also allow sufficient time for users to capture any required records of AI outputs, prompts and inputs into the agency's approved records management system. The resulting retention period should be documented in the agency's NAP policy.

The default retention period assigned to AI prompt and response logs varies between the different generative AI assistants, with some common AI assistants retaining logs permanently unless configured otherwise. Agencies will need to take steps to actively identify and manage AI prompt and response logs in accordance with their NAP policy, including ensuring systems are configured to routinely purge logs and educating staff on when it is appropriate for them to manually delete their old prompts via their AI user interface.

Avoiding over-retention of generative AI records

Generative AI assistants can rapidly create and store large volumes of prompts, inputs and outputs. Records generated by generative AI assistants will often be facilitative, transitory or of low value and will not be needed to document agency business. These records will generally be eligible for disposal as a normal administrative practice (NAP) when they are no longer required for business purposes.

Your agency should take a consistent, risk-based approach to retaining only the generative AI records required to meet business needs or legislative requirements. Only these generative AI records will need to be captured into your agency's approved records management system and retained in accordance with the relevant National Archives approved records authorities.

Over-retention occurs when generative AI records are retained unnecessarily beyond the point when they cease to be required for business purposes. This may occur when:

• generative AI records that are facilitative, transitory or very low value are captured into the agency’s approved records management system (for example: minor drafts and edits; reference-only outputs; duplicate source material; unused research content);
• an entire AI chat session is retained in full, when only particular prompts, inputs or outputs are required to support agency business; or
• generative AI chat histories and logs are retained indefinitely under default system settings.

Over-retention of generative AI records may result in increased storage and management costs, make authoritative records harder to locate, unnecessarily prolong the exposure of sensitive or security classified information, and complicate and slow FOI processes significantly.

To reduce the risk of over-retention of generative AI records, your agency should:

• establish and promote clear business rules identifying which generative AI records need to be captured and retained in an agency's approved records management system, and who is responsible for capturing them;
• train staff to identify and capture required AI outputs, prompts and inputs as records where necessary, and to know when and how to dispose of transitory, facilitative and low-value AI related records under the agency's NAP policy when they are no longer required;
• embed generative AI recordkeeping requirements into AI governance, procurement and system design;
• configure AI systems with appropriate default retention and automated disposal settings;
• ensure automated disposal can be suspended when records are subject to a disposal freeze, legal proceeding, inquiry or information access request, or are otherwise needed to be retained for longer;
• specify clear ownership, retention and disposal obligations for AI generated data in contracts with service providers; and
• monitor compliance through periodic audits and reporting to ensure retention settings and practices remain aligned with business needs and information management requirements.

Individual officers also play a critical role in preventing over-retention. Staff should:

• only retain generative AI outputs, prompts and inputs where they are required as evidence or information to support agency business needs and legal requirements, in accordance with the agency's business rules and information management practices;
• capture only the relevant outputs, prompts and inputs for AI chat sessions when required to do so;
• dispose of all other generative AI records that are not required to be captured and retained, when they are no longer needed for business purposes (in accordance with the agency's NAP policy);
• delete prompts from the AI chat history via the user interface, when the prompt is no longer required for business purposes and does not need to be captured into the agency’s approved records management system; and
• seek guidance from their records or information management area where uncertainty exists in whether to retain generative AI records.

Your agency should have adequate controls in place to ensure that generative AI records destroyed are no longer required for business or accountability purposes and are not affected by a records disposal freeze, pending legal proceeding or inquiry, or subject to a request for access.

Considerations for managing generative AI records

As generative AI technologies continue to advance and the quality of outputs generated by AI assistants improves, it is likely that these AI outputs will increasingly be used as the final record, with little or no review or alteration by human users. Agencies should monitor the use of generative AI by their staff and where AI outputs are relied upon as final versions or for decision-making, the implementation of increased controls should be considered. Such decisions should also be informed by the relevant Australian Government policies and frameworks (see: More information on the use of AI in Australian Government).

The following considerations apply to the management of records created by generative AI technologies:

• Agencies that use generative AI technologies, such as Microsoft 365 Copilot, to assist in content creation should ensure that their NAP policies adequately provide for the disposal of low-value, facilitative AI generated draft content and associated prompts and inputs.
• Prompts given to AI assistants to inform creation of outputs will generally not be required to be retained, unless your agency has specific business requirements to do so – such as to provide supporting evidence to demonstrate the origin of AI outputs that contribute to high-value records.
• Agencies should identify and manage all system logs of prompts and responses (i.e. corresponding outputs) that may be created by AI assistants. Agencies should ensure that the disposal of these system logs is included in the agency's NAP policy and that generative AI systems are appropriately configured to apply the necessary disposal actions to these logs.
• Agency AI policies and procedures should clearly inform staff of their responsibilities and require that all generative AI outputs are reviewed and amended as necessary by a human user, as part of normal business practice to ensure accuracy and reliability of information.
• Agencies rolling out generative AI assistants should ensure that agency staff are trained in their obligations regarding managing AI outputs and that they are made aware when it is, and is not, appropriate to destroy these records.
• Where content created by AI technologies is accepted as a final record, without further human review or input to verify accuracy, the AI generated status of the content should be added to the record metadata. For example, where an AI generated transcript is captured directly into the agency's approved records management system without review or amendment, there should be an indication in the record title and/or 'notes' field that the record is AI generated and the content is unconfirmed.
• When using generative AI assistants to record meetings and generate transcripts, care should be taken to ensure that consent to record has been obtained from participants. Where meetings are of a particularly sensitive nature, it may be necessary to ensure that participant consent is obtained and recorded prior to the meeting commencing.

Managing AI technologies incorporated into business systems

Traditional and generative AI technologies may be incorporated into agency business systems to enable the automation or semi-automation of tasks such as data analysis and decision-making activities.

Where agency business systems incorporating AI technologies are making business decisions or generating final content with minimal oversight from which agency staff are making business decisions, a higher level of rigour in information management will be required.

To ensure accountability and transparency steps should be taken to document as far as possible the decision-making process undertaken by the AI system, both generally in terms of understanding the AI system and algorithm design, and with regard to specific individual decisions made.

Where specific individual decisions or recommendations are made by the AI system, it will be necessary to capture these AI generated outputs and associated metadata into systems where they can be appropriately managed, such as your agency's approved records management system. It may also be necessary to capture the prompts and record the source content, inputs and other factors contributing to these AI outputs, to preserve adequate evidence to demonstrate how business decisions were made. Depending on the technology used, there may be limitations on the degree to which such evidence can be identified and retained. In such cases, a thorough risk analysis should be undertaken to evaluate the suitability of AI technology.

Agencies should undertake a Business System Assessment Framework (BSAF) process for their business systems that incorporate AI technologies, as a first step to identifying and managing the AI generated records these systems create. A BSAF assessment can ensure that adequate records management functionality is in place to manage these records in a manner that will preserve the authenticity, integrity, reliability and usability to protect their evidential and business value.

The greater the reliance placed on the decision-making capabilities of the AI system, the greater the need to retain comprehensive supporting records – potentially including:

• prompts, inputs and sources employed;
• records of system design, development and testing; and
• decision-making criteria and other supporting records required to provide evidence to demonstrate how AI system outputs have been achieved.

Records supporting development and implementation of AI systems

In addition to the records generated by AI technologies, Australian Government agencies will create a wide range of AI related records documenting the various administrative activities associated with acquiring, implementing, managing, using and decommissioning AI systems.

These supporting activities include:

• acquisition of AI systems, including tender and evaluation processes;
• application development, including designing and building in-house AI systems and customising purchased systems;
• deploying, configuring and maintaining AI systems;
• establishing governance frameworks and business rules, including AI policies and procedures; and
• developing and providing staff training in the use of AI technologies.

Commonwealth records created and received by agencies in undertaking these supporting administrative activities will need to be identified, retained, managed and disposed of in an accountable manner in accordance with the provisions of the Archives Act 1983.

Minimum retention periods for these supporting administrative records can generally be found in AFDA Express Version 2, though in some cases disposal coverage for highly specialised AI systems may be included in agency-specific records authorities.

Managing records relating to agentic AI technologies – New

The general principles described above for managing AI records will also apply to records created by, or relating to, agentic AI systems. However, this advice does not currently provide specific guidance on managing agentic AI records.

Agentic AI systems create specialised types of records, such as:

• specialised prompts to program the agent (for example, system prompts, base prompts, agent instructions); and
• records that provide evidence of how an AI agent achieves its goals (for example, activity logs and audit trails).

As AI agents can act autonomously, there is a greater need to retain evidence of the actions they undertake and the instructions and prompts that direct their activities – in addition to retaining the outputs. Agencies should give careful consideration to identifying, capturing and retaining these records where necessary to support agency business, accountability and transparency.

National Archives is monitoring the development of agentic AI technologies and the records they create and will provide further advice as practices evolve. Australian Government agencies requiring assistance in the meantime should contact the Agency Service Centre.

More information on the use of AI in Australian Government

This advice by National Archives should be used in conjunction with the following Australian Government policies and frameworks:

• A National framework for the assurance of artificial intelligence in government was agreed by the Data and Digital Ministers Meeting on 21 June 2024, setting the AI governance framework and ethics principles that federal, state and territory government agencies are expected to implement.
• The Digital Transformation Agency publishes the Policy for the responsible use of AI in government to provide a coordinated approach to the Australian Government’s use of AI. This is part of a larger suite of advice for agencies on artificial intelligence including technical standards.
• The Department of Industry, Science and Resources' Voluntary AI Safety Standard offers practical guidance on how to safely and responsibly use AI, including guardrails emphasising data governance and maintaining records to help assess compliance. This guidance will be iterative.
• The Department of Finance GovAI initiative provides a whole-of-government service designed to uplift AI capability across the Australian Public Service and support the responsible, ethical and secure use of AI.
• The Commonwealth Ombudsman's Automated decision-making: better practice guide is a practical tool to help your agency design and implement automated systems. Note that the guide does not specifically mention recordkeeping and disposal in relation to the Archives Act 1983.
• The Australian Cyber Security Centre provides guidance on artificial intelligence, addresses securely developing and deploying AI systems and identifies strategies for mitigating risks associated with engaging with AI.
• National Archives' Business Systems Assessment Framework provides a streamlined, risk-based approach to the assessment of information management functionality in business systems – including business systems that incorporate AI technologies.
• Information Management Standard for Australian Government applies to AI generated and related records created or received by agencies. These principles set out requirements and obligations for the management of all Commonwealth records, including AI records.

Further advice

The adoption and use of AI technologies by the Australian Government and wider society is expected to continue to increase in coming years. As AI technologies mature and become increasingly prevalent, the use of these capabilities is expected to be more commonplace as they become imbedded in agency work practices.

National Archives will continue to monitor the uptake of AI technologies in Australian Government agencies and to advise on approaches to resolve AI related information management challenges as they arise. Consequently, the above advice is expected to evolve over-time as AI technologies mature and will be reviewed periodically to ensure it remains relevant to developments in the field.

Australian Government agencies seeking advice and guidance for AI related information management issues, are advised to contact the Agency Service Centre.