Skip to content

AI Governance Framework for Government

Ready to Use

Quick Reference
  • What: Structures, policies, and processes for responsible AI governance
  • Who: Executive sponsors, governance boards, project owners, ethics leads
  • Key elements: Three lines model, risk tiering, ethics review, AI register
  • Compliance: Aligned with Australian AI Ethics Principles

Purpose

This framework establishes the structures, policies, and processes for responsible AI governance in government agencies, ensuring accountability, transparency, and ethical AI use.


Executive Summary

AI governance ensures that AI systems are developed and deployed responsibly, ethically, and in compliance with relevant laws and policies. This framework provides a comprehensive approach to AI governance aligned with Australian Government requirements.


Governance Principles

Core Principles

Principle Description Application
Accountability Clear ownership and responsibility Every AI system has a designated owner
Transparency Openness about AI use and decisions Publish AI use register, explain decisions
Fairness Equitable treatment, no discrimination Bias testing, fairness monitoring
Privacy Protection of personal information Privacy by design, minimal data use
Safety Prevent harm, ensure reliability Testing, monitoring, human oversight
Human Agency Appropriate human control Human-in-the-loop for high-stakes
Contestability Ability to challenge AI decisions Appeals processes, explanations

Alignment with Australian AI Ethics Principles

Government Principle Framework Implementation
Human, societal and environmental wellbeing Impact assessments, monitoring
Human-centred values User research, co-design
Fairness Bias testing, fairness metrics
Privacy protection and security PIA, security assessment
Reliability and safety Testing, monitoring, fallbacks
Transparency and explainability Model cards, explanations
Contestability Appeals process
Accountability Governance structure

Governance Structure

Three Lines Model

flowchart LR
    subgraph L1["<strong>FIRST LINE</strong><br/>(Operational)"]
        direction TB
        L1A[Project Teams]
        L1B[Business Units]
        L1C[IT Operations]
    end

    subgraph L2["<strong>SECOND LINE</strong><br/>(Oversight)"]
        direction TB
        L2A[AI Governance Office]
        L2B[Risk Management]
        L2C[Legal/Privacy]
    end

    subgraph L3["<strong>THIRD LINE</strong><br/>(Assurance)"]
        direction TB
        L3A[Internal Audit]
        L3B[External Audit]
    end

    L1 --> L2 --> L3

    style L1 fill:#e3f2fd,stroke:#1976d2,stroke-width:2px
    style L2 fill:#fff3e0,stroke:#f57c00,stroke-width:2px
    style L3 fill:#e8f5e9,stroke:#388e3c,stroke-width:2px
  • First Line: Owns and manages AI systems
  • Second Line: Provides oversight and guidance
  • Third Line: Independent assurance

Roles and Responsibilities

Role Responsibilities
Executive Sponsor Strategic direction, resource allocation, escalation
AI Governance Board Policy approval, high-risk decisions, standards
Chief Data Officer Data governance, data quality, data ethics
AI Ethics Lead Ethics review, bias assessment, fairness
Privacy Officer PIAs, privacy compliance, data protection
Security Officer Security assessments, AI-specific security
Legal Counsel Legal review, contracts, liability
Project Owner Day-to-day accountability for AI system
Technical Lead Model development, monitoring, maintenance

AI Governance Board

Composition: - Chair: Deputy Secretary or equivalent - Chief Data Officer - Chief Information Officer - Chief Risk Officer - Privacy Officer - Legal Counsel - Business Unit Representatives - External Expert (optional)

Responsibilities: - Approve AI strategy and policies - Review high-risk AI proposals - Oversee AI portfolio - Address escalations - Report to executive

Meeting Frequency: Monthly or as needed


AI Classification System

Risk-Based Tiering

Tier Risk Level Characteristics Governance Requirements
Tier 1 Low Internal tools, no citizen impact, reversible Standard review, annual audit
Tier 2 Medium Citizen-facing, recommendations only, human review Ethics review, quarterly monitoring
Tier 3 High Affects rights/benefits, automated decisions Full assessment, ongoing monitoring
Tier 4 Critical Safety-critical, law enforcement, essential services Board approval, external audit

Classification Criteria

Factor Low Medium High Critical
Impact on individuals Minimal Moderate Significant Severe
Automation level Assistive Advisory Delegated Autonomous
Reversibility Easily reversed Reversible Difficult Irreversible
Scale Small group Department Agency Public
Sensitivity Public data Internal Personal Sensitive

Classification Process

flowchart TB
    START([Start Classification]) --> Q1{Does the AI make or materially<br/>influence decisions about people?}

    Q1 -->|No| T1[<strong>Tier 1</strong><br/>Low Risk]
    Q1 -->|Yes| Q2{Are decisions automated<br/>without human review?}

    Q2 -->|No| T2[<strong>Tier 2</strong><br/>Medium Risk]
    Q2 -->|Yes| Q3{Do decisions affect legal<br/>rights, benefits, or safety?}

    Q3 -->|No| T3[<strong>Tier 3</strong><br/>High Risk]
    Q3 -->|Yes| T4[<strong>Tier 4</strong><br/>Critical Risk]

    style T1 fill:#c8e6c9,stroke:#388e3c,stroke-width:2px
    style T2 fill:#fff9c4,stroke:#f9a825,stroke-width:2px
    style T3 fill:#ffcc80,stroke:#ef6c00,stroke-width:2px
    style T4 fill:#ef9a9a,stroke:#c62828,stroke-width:2px
    style START fill:#e3f2fd,stroke:#1976d2,stroke-width:2px

Governance Processes

AI Project Lifecycle Governance

flowchart LR
    subgraph I["<strong>IDEATE</strong>"]
        I1[Use case proposal]
        I2[Business case]
    end

    subgraph A["<strong>ASSESS</strong>"]
        A1[Risk assessment]
        A2[Privacy impact]
    end

    subgraph DEV["<strong>DEVELOP</strong>"]
        D1[Ethics review]
        D2[Security assessment]
    end

    subgraph DEP["<strong>DEPLOY</strong>"]
        DP1[Go-live approval]
        DP2[Readiness check]
    end

    subgraph O["<strong>OPERATE</strong>"]
        O1[Monitoring review]
        O2[Incident response]
    end

    subgraph R["<strong>RETIRE</strong>"]
        R1[Retirement review]
        R2[Data disposal]
    end

    I --> A --> DEV --> DEP --> O --> R

    style I fill:#e3f2fd,stroke:#1976d2,stroke-width:2px
    style A fill:#e8f5e9,stroke:#388e3c,stroke-width:2px
    style DEV fill:#fff3e0,stroke:#f57c00,stroke-width:2px
    style DEP fill:#f3e5f5,stroke:#7b1fa2,stroke-width:2px
    style O fill:#e0f2f1,stroke:#00796b,stroke-width:2px
    style R fill:#fce4ec,stroke:#c2185b,stroke-width:2px

Stage Gate Requirements by Tier

Stage Gate Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4
Ideation Manager approval Director approval SES approval Board approval
Assessment Self-assessment Privacy screening Full PIA Full PIA + legal
Development Standard review Ethics checklist Ethics review Ethics board
Deployment Tech lead sign-off Business sign-off Sponsor sign-off Board sign-off
Operations Annual review Quarterly review Monthly review Continuous

Ethics Review Process

flowchart TB
    subgraph S1["<strong>1. SUBMISSION</strong>"]
        S1A[Project team completes<br/>Ethics Assessment Form]
        S1B[Use case, data, model,<br/>impact analysis]
    end

    subgraph S2["<strong>2. INITIAL SCREENING</strong><br/><em>3 days</em>"]
        S2A[Ethics Lead reviews<br/>for completeness]
        S2B[Determines review<br/>level required]
    end

    subgraph S3["<strong>3. REVIEW</strong>"]
        S3A[Tier 1-2: Ethics Lead<br/><em>5 days</em>]
        S3B[Tier 3: Ethics Panel<br/><em>10 days</em>]
        S3C[Tier 4: Full Board<br/><em>15 days</em>]
    end

    subgraph S4["<strong>4. DECISION</strong>"]
        S4A[Approved]
        S4B[Approved with conditions]
        S4C[Rejected]
    end

    subgraph S5["<strong>5. FOLLOW-UP</strong>"]
        S5A[Conditions verified<br/>before deployment]
        S5B[Post-deployment<br/>ethics check]
    end

    S1 --> S2 --> S3 --> S4 --> S5

    style S1 fill:#e3f2fd,stroke:#1976d2,stroke-width:2px
    style S2 fill:#e8f5e9,stroke:#388e3c,stroke-width:2px
    style S3 fill:#fff3e0,stroke:#f57c00,stroke-width:2px
    style S4 fill:#f3e5f5,stroke:#7b1fa2,stroke-width:2px
    style S5 fill:#e0f2f1,stroke:#00796b,stroke-width:2px

Policies and Standards

Required Policies

Policy Purpose Owner
AI Strategy Strategic direction for AI CDO
AI Ethics Policy Ethical principles and requirements Ethics Lead
AI Risk Policy Risk classification and management Risk Manager
Data Governance Policy Data quality, access, privacy CDO
Model Management Policy Model lifecycle, versioning Tech Lead
AI Security Policy Security requirements for AI CISO
AI Procurement Policy Vendor assessment, contracts Procurement

Technical Standards

Standard Requirement
Model Documentation All models require model cards
Testing Bias testing mandatory for Tier 2+
Explainability Explanations required for decisions
Monitoring Production monitoring for all deployed models
Audit Trails Logging of all predictions and decisions
Version Control Models versioned with full lineage

AI Register

Required Information

Every AI system must be registered with:

Field Description
System Name Unique identifier
Owner Accountable person
Purpose What the AI does
Classification Risk tier
Data Sources What data is used
Users Who uses the system
Review Date Next scheduled review
Status Active/Pilot/Retired

Public Transparency

Consider publishing: - List of AI systems in use - Purpose of each system - How decisions can be contested - Contact for enquiries


Monitoring and Assurance

Continuous Monitoring Requirements

Tier Performance Fairness Drift Compliance
1 Annual Annual Annual Annual
2 Quarterly Quarterly Quarterly Quarterly
3 Monthly Monthly Monthly Monthly
4 Weekly Weekly Weekly Weekly

Internal Audit Program

Audit Type Frequency Scope
AI Portfolio Audit Annual All systems
High-Risk System Audit 6 months Tier 3-4 systems
Ethics Audit Annual Sample of systems
Security Audit Annual All systems
Compliance Audit As required Specific systems

Key Performance Indicators

KPI Target Measurement
AI systems registered 100% Register completeness
Ethics reviews completed 100% Tier 2+ Review records
Fairness testing passed 100% Test results
Incidents resolved <5 days average Incident log
Model cards current 100% Documentation audit

Incident Management

AI Incident Classification

Severity Description Response Time Escalation
P1 Critical Safety impact, major harm 1 hour Executive
P2 High Significant fairness breach, data breach 4 hours Governance Board
P3 Medium Performance degradation, minor bias 24 hours AI Governance Office
P4 Low Minor issues, documentation gaps 5 days Project Owner

Incident Response Phases

  1. Detection: Alert or report received
  2. Triage: Classify severity, assign owner
  3. Containment: Stop ongoing harm
  4. Investigation: Root cause analysis
  5. Resolution: Fix issue
  6. Review: Post-incident review, lessons learned

Training and Capability

Training Requirements by Role

Role Required Training Frequency
All staff AI awareness One-time
AI users Responsible AI use Annual
Project teams AI governance process Per project
Technical staff Ethics and bias Annual
Leadership AI strategy and risk Annual

Capability Building

  • AI ethics certification program
  • Technical AI training
  • Governance process workshops
  • Lessons learned sharing

Implementation Roadmap

Phase 1: Foundation (0-3 months)

  • Establish AI Governance Board
  • Appoint key roles
  • Develop core policies
  • Create AI register

Phase 2: Operationalize (3-6 months)

  • Implement classification system
  • Deploy stage gate process
  • Launch ethics review process
  • Begin training program

Phase 3: Mature (6-12 months)

  • Full monitoring implementation
  • Internal audit program
  • Public transparency measures
  • Continuous improvement

Templates and Tools

Resource Purpose Link
AI Use Case Proposal Initial proposal submission Template
Ethics Assessment Form Ethics review submission Guide
Model Card Template Model documentation Template
Risk Assessment AI risk evaluation Template
Incident Report Incident documentation Template

Review and Updates

Activity Frequency Owner
Framework review Annual AI Governance Board
Policy updates As needed Policy owners
Process improvement Quarterly AI Governance Office
Metrics review Quarterly AI Governance Office