Senate Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee, , 3:40:00 to 5:24:59
Discussion on long-term APS reforms, the oversight of artificial intelligence usage across agencies, and the implementation of anti-semitism training pilots.
Topics: Public service staffing, Artificial intelligence, Workplace relations
Speakers: Hon Katy Gallagher, Jo Talbot, Dr Gordon de Brouwer PSM, Barbara Pocock, Dave Sharma, Dr Subho Banerjee, Karen Grogan
appointments. Um last estimates the Briggs review and the government's response were released on the morning of the APSC estimate session. Despite Briggs calling for these changes to be legislated, you previously said that you don't agree that putting it in legislation. I'm quoting now. uh would have delivered anything more than this framework does. The resounding public response to the government's approach is that it will do nothing to end the jobs form mates culture that has plagued the public service for a very long time. It's such a critical issue for people's confidence in the public sector really cuts to the question of integrity in government. Minister, do you genuinely believe that these sets of principles will do anything to end government cronyism or the corrosive perception of jobs for ma mates?
>> Um, thank you, Senator PCO. Uh and I believe the Australian government appointments framework uh does deliver on our commitment for integrity and transparency around appointments processes including setting out uh principles and guidance for ministers and departments. It started on the 2nd of February 2026. Um I should say that the Briggs review looked at um a previous uh essentially the previous term like uh her review looked backwards from 2022 about how appointments were made. So her assessment was not an assessment of how this government has approached appointments processes although uh she uh provided areas I think where she felt that there was wasn't uh ministers including in the former government weren't being served uh or weren't we weren't being provided with uh the best support about making appointments. Um and yes, I believe the framework delivers a much better uh approach to providing guidance to ministers around appointments, processes and departments. I do and it's there for everybody to see. It covers more appointments than Briggs intended and recommended. Uh but I also having I guess been in this job and uh you know gone through an appointments processes uh I have a lot that come through my department um or my responsibilities uh I do think um that ministers have the right to make appointments but where they make an appointment that might be questioned by yourself or or others um then they need to explain that appointment and explain how they made that appointment and why they made that appointment. Um, and the framework provides that. I think there does need to be flexibility in government appointments. Uh, and the framework provides that. Uh, it's very clear. It covers more point in many in some areas and I think we went through this at last estimates. It goes further uh than the Briggs uh report, but it tries to strike that balance between ensuring that we get the right people into positions uh and into appointments um with integrity and transparency about how we got there.
>> A wider reach for a weak code is just uh a wider reach without real consequences. And I think where we are here is we've landed back in the land of codes rather than real re real intervention that of legislation of the kind uh that was recommended and a guidance is a a a pretty foul creature uh in the face of a minister's enthusiasm to appoint a mate.
I don't agree with you on this and I've spent a lot of time uh thinking about the appointments uh framework uh or appointments and how to ensure that um you know you get the right mix of you know ministerial responsibility and let's face it ministers are are responsible for their portfolio. Now if a minister chooses a particular person to perform a particular role, what the framework allows is for ministers to explain and justify that appointment. You know if they've chosen a closed process um a direct appointment um then you know the the responsibility is there for them to explain that. uh if they choose an open process where it can be a merit-based uh process then um you know ministers need to justify that as well. I think it's much clearer than it was before about the expectations around appointments. I think if you look at uh the appointments that have been made by this government you know excluding you know there are appointments that aren't covered by this framework but the vast majority are and much more than than um Ms. Briggs report recommended you will find that appointments have gone through uh a merit process.
Minister, wouldn't you agree that you've got ministers in your government that have been very extremely resistant uh to legislative standards and that's why you've landed where you are? there are ministers who have really been very opposed to that what they see as intervention and hence a retreat to u mere guidance.
Um no I don't agree with that characterization. I mean I don't support legislative um enshrining of these because I think they do need to be flexible. I also don't think that you know um you know I don't think even if you look at approaching legislation there would be agreement across the chamber about how you would legislate this like I think your views would probably differ to my views which might differ to other representatives in the chambers's views and so on one level I think in legislation would be incredibly hard to land and you know um and that's not the determinative factor but it is one that you need to consider. Plus, I also think governments have a right to make appointments and they should justify those appointments. If you don't think that appointment is right, criticize the appointment, but also the responsibility falls to the government to explain that appointment. And I do believe that having spent hours and hours thinking about appointments, how to make them, how to make the process better, work for departments, work for ministers, um you know, provide some integrity and transparency in around the process. I I have thought about this deeply. I don't support legislation. I don't think it would allow for the flexibility that we need when making appointments.
>> Minister, we do tricky legislation regularly. That's not a reason not to have a determinative but I think it
let's have an honest assess assessment of that. I don't know that I mean I haven't really spoken to to Senator will have views. One nation will have views. independents will have views. Like I I think genuinely it would be I I think it would be very hard to legislate but even if you did it would be very difficult to implement and potentially would work against having the right people um in appointments. I don't know because that's hypothetically we haven't gone down that path but I I think this is a much better the the um framework provides much clearer outline of how appointments are made and the process that needs to be undertaken and I think that does strengthen it regardless of whether it's one that
>> here you
>> on that note
>> can I just tidy this up just to one last follow through
>> if you could be quick. Yeah. Yeah. Be
quick. Uh when we la we did a question on notice on this where you indicated that there was guidance being developed. >> has it been finalized and where is that up to when commission?
>> But it hasn't been finalized. I haven't seen it uh yet. But the intention is once it is uh is to publish that.
>> You can't give us any timeline on that.
>> Um I look let me let me try and see if I can come back and give you that answer.
>> Okay. And can final question to the commissioner. Have you been consulted on recent appointments? >> public sector board appointments?
>> Uh not that I can recall. Uh Senator.
>> Okay. So that's not happening.
>> Thank you. On we will um suspend for lunch and we will resume at 1 >> Welcome back to um Dr. Dborah the Commissioner uh and uh Mr. Exell from the from the department uh of premier and uh prime minister and cabinet and minister Katty Gallagher. Um we'll go directly to questions and we'll go to Senator Paterson.
Senator Sh if that's all right.
>> Oh, sorry.
>> Thanks. Good afternoon. Um,
there were media reports yesterday that an independent review is being commissioned into the Australian Office of Financial Management to be led by Guy Debel was in the Australian Financial Review yesterday. Can I ask um Dr. Draau, was the APSC involved in that consideration and that
>> Thank you, Senator. I might ask my colleague M. Talbert to respond.
>> Senator Joyce Talbert, acting deputy commissioner. Um I did actually talk to someone at the um the Treasury who did indicate that they were looking to do a review, but that was really um the extent of it and they were particularly interested in uh the work that's done um as part of the capability reviews.
So is true to say the APSC was consulted on this decision that
>> I wouldn't say it was consulted uh senator it was more we were asked about um the process that we undertake when doing sort of capability reviews and uh I did suggest that they might like to talk to a couple of my colleagues who uh have particular expertise in doing capability reviews across the public service.
>> Okay. So were you involved in the decision to appoint doc is it Dr. Dell?
>> no
>> it's a matter for treasury.
>> Well I'm asking about the extent of APSC's involvement. Um there was um some uh issues that were raised at the last set of estimates about the um internal staff survey at the Australian Office of Financial Management and they reported again in the Australian Financial Review today where I think the figure that was cited was that 18% of staff said they'd witnessed corrupt behavior over the past year. Is the APSC aware of that staff survey and those
results? Yes, Senator, we're aware of uh all all the APS survey or census results across the service.
>> Okay. That that from my reading that figure was significantly higher than elsewhere across the APS. Has the APS-C taken any steps or offered any advice or provided any support or assistance to to examine those issues further and see what might be the basis for those concerns?
>> Yeah. Uh so in general senator uh the requirement for census results to be published is one of the transparency initiatives from the 2024 reforms. So that that's been ensuring that people have visibility or the public have visibility of the performance of organizations and those organizations are also required to prepare an action plan or or a response to those census results and so that's what that's what people have have to do and that so that's that's a that's a an important element we in terms of particular conversations with AFOM that's really primarily a matter for AFOM and the Treasury >> uh that agencies are responsible for for those results and explaining them.
>> Um and I should say Senator that I was not aware that it related to that entity. It was more around um the work that we do in terms of capability reviews and the sort of process that was there and whether that was a good way of um being able to undertake a review into an entity.
>> Okay. All right. Thank you. I'll I'll pursue those further with Treasury at estimates later this week. Um just turning to now to another topic. We had the Australian National Audit Office here last night and they um in their annual report they noted that they'd found 21 findings related to legislative non-compliance across the public service in the past year which was significant increase from the year before. 15 including um a number of section 80 or breaches of section 83 of the constitution. So that's spending public money without proper authorization and they site in their report a number of agencies um the Australian center for international agricultural research health uh treasury. Has that been of concern to the uh APSC? Just bearing in mind that we spent some time at estimates talking about the breach that was disclosed in their annual report of I think spending $2.2 billion without authorization at the
>> Yeah. Uh thank you Senator. It is something that we we look at and I might ask my colleagues to go through it a bit more detail. I I think in the first instance um public public service act is very clear in the values of uh the public servants need to obey the law and including finance law uh and we look to emphasize that um there are different ways in which we engage with entities around that. Um in one instance in one sorry from one side we look very much at how to build up capability and knowledge and I might ask my colleague Dr. Banagi to talk about some of the work in the academy which is getting an understanding making sure the public servants have that basic understanding that of of the law both for the PGPA act and public service act but also their own specific legislation. Um, so an awareness of the law really does matter and what your obligations are under that throughout our professional development and training programs. And then we we would uh as part of our general integrity functions talk with agencies that um were experiencing or had difficulties or issues around meeting law and how to engage with staff on those matters. And that's primarily a responsibility for those agencies. But that really goes to how to ensure that performance management systems uh deal with that and um if there are any cultural issues in in an agency how to deal with that and then also what's the role of breaches of the code of conduct and those examinations but I might ask Dr. B if that's okay senator to talk about the professional development side of that >> and then the cultural and and frankly behavioral side.
>> Okay. >> Just briefly if you don't mind.
>> Um, thanks Senator. So, it's been a particular focus of the APS Academy work program to be looking at strengthening what we would call core public administration. These are fundamental aspects of the responsibilities of every public servant. And so we are working through uh making sure that uh people understand the legislative basis for action as a as a primary determinant of course for what they need to do that they understand the finance law that they understand their responsibilities under the PGPA act and also that we can talk about areas in which uh that requires specialist knowledge or particular detailed domain knowledge and how people can draw on that. So, so we're looking both at the fundamentals of core public admin but also making sure that people are equipped in agencies working with agencies about what they need to discharge their responsibilities.
>> Thanks Dr. Benji Mr. Talbert.
So as uh the senator sorry as commissioner has said senator we do look at um sort of broad accountability frameworks when we're considering um agencies and particularly around integrity culture and one of those things that we often will look at is you know where there's been external mechanisms such as audits um you know they are important practices uh and you know an AO report for example might reveal deficiencies in culture practices or systems and they do give us opportunities to learn from those mistakes uh and to think about how we might you know make improvements or or implement um changes. So we do have regard for um other reports and things um as well as the
I just I guess I'm keen to understand is is this area of work or body of work um getting a higher priority in the APSC's engagement with the APS just given the ANO's findings and given a number of high-profile instances of spending of public money without constitutional authorization.
>> Yeah. Yes, Senator and I think it's been going on for quite a few months. I think we we've got a sense that uh of of of the need to address this in a proactive way through through cultural and behavioral support and professional development.
>> Okay.
>> So, it is it is a high priority.
>> All right. Thank you. Um and then just um the response to that you tabled um commissioner to my colleague Senator Paterson's questions on notice about questions on notice 19930. This is the spending of treasury money without constitutional authorization. Um thank you for providing those. I just note in the um communications uh from the Treasury Secretary to you, she advises that she will provide a further update to you at the conclusion of the audit reviews. Has that update been provided?
>> Uh not not yet, Senator. And we're we're speaking with the Treasury about the timing around that.
>> Do you expect those audit reviews to
>> I I don't have a specific time frame in mind, Senator. It really depends on those processes. on on their own processes and demands.
>> Okay. Would we expect it before the budget before budget?
>> I I don't know. You probably should ask uh the treasur.
>> Okay. All right. Well, thank you. Um and look, just finally um Pmanc informed us yesterday that the Australian Public Service Commission was uh developing a pilot training program on anti-semitism in implementation of the recommendation from the SEO report. the special envoys report uh on um the importance of public servants having access to training to recognize and address anti-semitism. Could you advise where that's up to?
>> Uh I might ask yes if we can.
Yes, as uh mentioned yesterday, we have been doing some ongoing um work in relation to responding to um working together to ensure the APS is free from anti-semitism. There are a range of learning products that are being worked on. Um at the moment the key uh message um that we have just released out is a in an APS wide circular uh is providing all staff with guidance on expectations with regards to anti-semitism. Um the APS and the APSC we are working uh with uh Aka at the moment as well and that includes >> sorry with whom? Uh sorry the Australia the Australian special envoy combating anti-semitism.
Yeah. Thank you.
we're developing some specific learning products. The first of those will be uh available starting in late February and then we will be providing more in the months um coming. In particular we are looking at um products via uh APS learn. We'll be looking at updating the diversity and inclusion induction model for APS called APS foundations to address anti-semitism in the workplace. Um we are soon to launch um many cultures one APS which is uh some ongoing work from the cultural and linguistically diverse strategy that we started um quite some time ago. Senator, one of the key aspects of that is to actually have um a series of stories of APS employees that have actually talked a range of stories around their personal experiences working in the APS. One of those stories will feature a Jewish uh APS employees story as well. that learning is built on around um our leadership sort of expectations of senior leaders to create um a culturally safe sort of workplace. So we very carefully um have built a product in around that to enable our leaders to actually talk about um and guide I guess APS employees to understand um quite clearly um our expectations. There is other um training being developed around a master craft webinar as well um to all APS staff to also uh address anti-semitism and support um social cohesion and these will be available uh across the broader APS. We'll also be looking at our leadership programs as well um and looking to um particularly put content in um that would help um people understand about anti anti-semitism. And in particular, one of the things that is really important um in around this is providing safe workplace and mechanisms where people feel that they are supported but they can also raise any issues that they may feel might be happening within the workplace at the
>> Who's um who's supporting you in developing these training modules? Have you got you're obviously working with the special envoys office? Are there outside contractors or consultants involved? You consulting directly with Jewish community groups?
>> So, at the moment, Senator, our engagement um has has been in particular with the Office of the Special um envoy, but we've also been um engaging with Home Affairs, Attorney General's Department uh and Prime Minister and Cabinet. We're in the sort of early stages in terms of development but the um when I mentioned before about the video that we'll be launching which has as one of the examples is a Jewish APS employees story that has been developed over um quite a period of of time and that is that engagement on those products has been with uh a whole range of representatives and community groups to actually design these these learning materials.
So, community groups out outside the APS.
>> So, when the called um strategy was um developed, there was extensive consultation and that was open for um other public groups. I don't have a list of who was specifically engaged but it's my understanding it was um quite extensive and we had a lot of people from a lot of different um groups including APS employees from different backgrounds um had provided feedback which was taken into account in developing that that strategy.
>> Okay. Um the race discrimination commissioner or human rights commission they've been consulted.
>> Yes. Uh sorry, Senator I should have mentioned that we've also engaged uh with them and we talk quite regularly to the Australian Human Rights Commission and with the Race Discrimination Commissioner as well.
>> Okay. Um and so this training will be I mean it's sort of up and running now to a degree because I see you you've issued this circular a few days ago. The training modules will be available rolled out over the course of this year
or six months. We will have the um our stories will be launched uh in February. I think it's about the 26th of February if my memory serves me correctly. And then we're looking at having some of the other materials will start to get rolled out from from March. Obviously, we're very mindful to ensure that um we do the right engagement around the development of of these materials and that they are uh
I've heard it suggested that APS staff might be able to or might wish to conscientiously object to this training. feasible, permissible? Would that be
Senator, we have very fundamental premise of the role of the APS-C and of the APS itself is around the value of respect and what we have been um clear about in the in the circular that there should be an awareness um of all of APS employees around anti-semitism. Uh in fact we do a lot of work which is indicating how we have zero tolerance for anti-semitism, racism and any and any form um of discrimination in in the workplace. Um part of the circular is really reinforcing those expectations uh what we expect of public servants and what we expect of of leaders. um as well we're very mindful of the role that we have in um delivering services and policy to the Australian community and it is really important that we have uh a really good you know understanding of the community in which we are actually
>> So you might be able to conscientiously
>> the APS values uh are required for all public servants. They're they're not they're not an opt-in.
>> Yeah. Good. Okay. I'm reassured to hear that. Um I think that was all I had. I just wanted to put on my record um put on the record my appreciation for your many decades of public service, Dr. De Brer, including in this role, but also in many others, and um wish you the best for whatever the future may hold, professionally and otherwise.
>> Thank you very much, Senator,
>> Senator PCO. >> Thank you, Chair. Uh and thanks for coming back after lunch and taking more. Um I've got three quick lines of question. They may be quick. Um first is around the APS Academy uh and the uh announcement for campuses to be established in a range of different places Newcastle, Townsville, Darwin and Lawncest to enable digital apprenticeships. Um what led you minister to having made that announcement then cease the proposed Darwin and Lcestn APS Academy campuses?
>> Uh thank you and I think um >> shoot yeah uh Dr. Banji can take you through but essentially it was um take
really. So Senator as you say the initial announcement was to explore four possible campuses. Uh the APSC worked then with the four universities involved to explore the feasibility in in those four campuses. We did extensive scoping and feasibility uh with all four universities. uh all four were uh terrific partners in working through the issues that we needed to explore. Uh one of the things that we were very mindful of in all four examples was how what sort of take up we were likely to get uh on two sides of the equation. So one is the likely student pool that might be interested in signing up. And so we did due diligence around a likely student pool in in all four of the uh areas. But we were also looking then at uh the sign up. So the the the model that's applied is that students are supported to be on campus but they have a particular placement with an agency. So it requires a student interest and it requires an agency interest to to close a placement in that sense. Uh and so with that in mind then we we had to look at agencies that were prepared to take on uh students in those different campuses. So we went uh down the road with all four campuses. We worked very constructively with the respective universities. We came to a mutual view uh for both Darwin and lawns that they were not likely to be viable in terms of those placement numbers uh through a combination of looking at the potential student pool and the likely placements. So it was really a combination of both sides of that equation for those two campuses.
>> Thank you. And was that advice uh that you made was that advice you gave to the minister and the minister made the decision? Is that how that unfolded?
It's a decision for government. Uh
>> yes, it was
>> Senator.
>> And did you talk beyond universities to local community representatives about this?
>> Well, at the time, Senator, uh there was certainly interest in the model. I I think it would be reasonable to say that our primary contact was through universities who also then connected to their broader communities. uh because as I say uh from our side in terms of the university partnership we were particularly looking at students and what the likely student demand was going to be from our side from the APS-C side we took responsibility for talking to APS agencies who might look to [clears throat] place people so while uh there was a broader connection around the campuses it wasn't uh it wasn't one of the programs where we would have as a matter of course done widespread community consultation because we were trying to assess the feasibility of the two sides of what I just explained to you to get the viability to work.
>> And was the budgeted funding for those two that didn't go ahead reallocated within the APS Academy program?
>> Uh, Senator, I'd need to check, but I I think what was what was done at the time was that the program was rescoped uh so that the funding was applied to two campuses instead of the four. uh at that stage uh well the money wasn't spent it was rescoped. So could you
>> So Senator Pot can I just add there um we inherited this commitment. So it was announced by the former government in March 22. So just before the election um and when I came into the role discussed it with the APS-C about giving it a shot, seeing whether we could make it stack up because um you know I I don't you know it was a it it was essentially a a pre-election announcement by the former government. uh and it worked out that there were certainly two of those areas it was it did look very positive and in the other two not so positive.
>> Thank you. I wonder if you could clarify on notice exactly whether the money in that rescoping was contained within the program.
Uh I'm happy to uh Senator I guess the short form answer is the the money wasn't applied in that program per se and I'll I'll look at what other
information >> you could clarify how that panned out. Yes. >> Um what impact did that decision have on the commitment to the 300 digital apprenticeships and cadet ships? Uh was there an alternative place to meet those regional skills and training needs in the absence of these campuses? Senator,
there are a range of different measures to to try and encourage entry level pathways in data and digital. Uh we've been running a range of different programs along along those lines. We have quite a variety of entry pathways. We're really cognizant of uh shortages in data and digital in digital in particular which has been well canvased through workforce planning and other other places. So we've certainly been looking at trying to encourage uh more people to come through those different pathways. I can again on notice give you uh the aggregate numbers for uh data and digital entry pathways.
>> Thank you. Thank you for that. If I can move on then to APS reforms. Uh in October last time around I asked about the next stage of APS reforms. Um Dr. Drow you advised then that those matters were under consideration by the government. Have you got any update about where those reforms are up to?
>> Um, which reforms in particular?
>> A next wave of APS reforms. There was a discussion about a further wave that we talked about in October. Um, and I'm just wondering if you can >> fill us in. You said they were under consideration by the government.
>> Um, I I don't they're I'm pretty sure because the estimates really were at the end of last year and this is at the beginning of this year. Um there isn't anything to update you on just now. Senator PCO, it's um currently sits with um the assistant minister and myself.
Um the government's own APS-C estimates briefing pack prepared for budget estimates last year 2024 states the previous term's reforms were quote the first legislative step that can continue to be built on in the long term. Can we expect to see any APS reforms in this term of parliament or have you given up on essential significant reforms to the public sector in this term?
>> Uh no, you'll see more reform and I mean uh late last year I announced the AI and government agenda which is u pretty significant reform that will um happen across the APS over the next well immediately and into this term. Uh and then there's matters other matters that we're considering. Of course, we'll go into our bargaining arrangements uh for collective bargaining uh soon that gives opportunity for further discussion with employee representatives about um you know APS and working in the APS. Uh and then there's the matters that are under consideration by being led by the assistant minister uh and myself.
Can I add um is it on on a number of these reforms that they were always designed to be a sequence of steps not just one so I'll just give you couple of examples in thinking about performance management of public servants um number of years ago standardized that approach for the senior executive service to say you'd get a rating for your delivery and you get a rating for um your your behavior and your aggregate rating would be the lowest of those two. So it was a standardization of performance management for the SCES that was meant to be also how do you use that for promotion and for rotation and movement across the service. We always knew that that would take a couple of years to mature that system and that's been worked methodically through secretary's board to make sure that we have confidence of that system that performance assessment leadership management is actually accurate and well done. So we've had that that's that's gone on for a number of years. What secretary's board has then decided to extend that model to the executive level to middle management which is about 70,000 people. So that's saying again we're looking at your excellence in delivery and we're looking at your excellence in behavior and that's how we will go about performance management. So that that that senator we're now just at the phase of having agreed to do that and then we've got to have a year or two of rolling that out. It's the same with secretar's performance. There's the secretar's performance framework in place and that that system is also being rolled out. So reforms. So the the the announcement is we're going to strengthen our performance management. But actually that's that's a that's a sequence of multiple steps and that takes quite a few years which is why often we've talked about some elements of these reform package to be decadal. So it's not like uh reform stops. Reform is actually an ongoing element. And we can find the same with many other elements of the the 59 initiatives that were announced under the government of which 54 are largely complete but they've all got some further element to them. So it's not the stopping it's not reform is finished reform is an ongoing exercise within the service and we can think of even just capability reviews of how they work in practice and we're continually refining that model and that's on a fiveyear cycle. So as a set of institutions um that's as that's completed amongst a set of institutions then we'll be preparing for an evaluation and the next phase. So reform is inbuilt and it's an ongoing exercise and I'm just giving two examples but we can talk about many of these elements in that same same way.
>> Thank you. Thanks Dr. Brown. I wanted to pick up on the AI which you mentioned minister. Um the APSAI plan noted that the APSC will continue a will issue a circular um setting out clear standards for consultation on AI related workplace changes. Is there any update on when this circular will be issued?
>> It'll be released um quite soon, Senator. We're just going through that final uh checks and consultations at the
>> Um and uh do you feel minister or you Dr. debrower that you have good oversight about how how AI is being used across the service.
>> Um I think uh yes although I think there's um constant need to stay on top of it. Uh so across government and many of the areas fall under my portfolio. So obviously APSC has responsibilities, DTA has responsibilities and the department of finance has responsibilities. um agencies are required to um issue a um usage of AI statement about where they're using it. Um and that work uh was put in place I think under the AI assurance um framework that was being led by might not be quite that name but um work that was led by the DTA. So there's some good solid whole of government guidance um and understand better understanding of where it's being used and how it's being used. Um and then the coordination function that we've put in place under that AI plan will assist that even further. um you know some of the big agencies as you would expect services Australia atto uh are much more advanced um than some smaller agencies. So part of the work that we're doing is making sure that all agencies regardless of your size have access to good centralized information and guidance about decisions to use AI or not. And do you
have confidence that that we're managing the risks or that the service is managing the risk associated with AI effectively?
>> Uh yes I do. In fact I think you know it you could ask are we being too risk averse with the use of AI is another legitimate question. So I think it's a I think part of it is about so I think the APS as a whole is wary about using AI um and thinks very carefully about how they use it and where they use it um and the vast majority is using it in own systems and processes rather than any you know um automated use for decision making for example. Um so one of the things in the AI plan is having an um essentially a an AI high-risk committee um which is you know a place where if you are wanting to use AI and you've read all the guidance and policies and you think it could fall into that higher risk category that that be more centrally understood. uh and we'll be putting that in place to to um manage that as the use of AI increases. We're seeing through the DTA work that gets done on the digital investment overview that increasingly coming forward from agencies are ICT solutions that have an AI component in them. And I imagine that will just continue as I ICT solutions in are more integrated with AI. Um and so that's something that's where we can also get a good understanding of what's happening. But yeah uh there there is a lot of work going in on this. It could be we I mean I am very supportive of using it where it makes sense to use it and where it drives efficiency and productivity and it helps people do their job and helps free them up to do other more interesting parts of their job. Um but I'm also very conscious of the need not to have failures. um because I think failures in a public sense and in relation to to eroding public trust um you know would have a very disproportionate effect on an on an institution like the APS. So as much as we can yes
>> thank you and that's me done. Thanks for
>> Okay. Um in which case we'll let you go. >> Thank you so much for your time. >> and uh best of luck with your next great adventure.
>> Yeah. Thank you very much, J.