AI Policy and Governance Newsletter — September 2025
Australia's AI regulatory direction is actively contested right now — agencies need to understand the landscape as policy could shift toward mandatory guardrails.
Key points
- Australia's AI regulation debate is intensifying, with ministers favouring 'light touch' adaptation of existing laws over a dedicated AI Act.
- Multiple Australian reports released recently signal growing expert consensus that current laws are inadequate for general-purpose AI risks.
- The Australian Responsible AI Index 2025 found a median responsible AI maturity score of just 43/100 across Australian organisations.
Summary
Good Ancestors' September 2025 newsletter surveys a crowded two months of AI governance activity. In Australia, the central debate is whether to legislate a dedicated AI Act or rely on adapted existing laws; key ministers favour the latter, but this faces pushback from the Human Rights Commission, former ministers, and multiple expert reports. Internationally, the US released a 103-action AI Action Plan, China has issued a competing governance vision, and the EU has advanced its AI Act Code of Practice. Several new Australian-focused reports — including the Good Ancestors 'Legislation Stress Test', the National AI Centre's Responsible AI Index, and the Gradient Institute's multi-agent risk analysis — collectively paint a picture of significant governance gaps and capability-confidence mismatches across Australian organisations.
Implications for Australian agencies
- Monitor APS AI governance practitioners could monitor the Australian AI Act debate closely, as the government's regulatory approach may shift in response to ongoing expert, parliamentary, and public pressure.
- Consider Agencies could assess their responsible AI maturity against the National AI Centre's Responsible AI Index benchmark (median 43/100) to identify internal confidence-implementation gaps before any mandatory framework is introduced.
- Consider Risk and governance teams may want to consider the Gradient Institute's multi-agent AI risk findings when assessing whether existing agency risk frameworks adequately cover agentic or multi-system AI deployments.
Implications are AI-generated. Starting points, not advice.
"AI Policy and Governance Newsletter — September 2025" Source: Good Ancestors – AI Policy & Governance Newsletter Published: (undated) URL: https://www.goodancestors.org.au/newsletter/2025-09 Good Ancestors' September 2025 newsletter surveys a crowded two months of AI governance activity. In Australia, the central debate is whether to legislate a dedicated AI Act or rely on adapted existing laws; key ministers favour the latter, but this faces pushback from the Human Rights Commission, former ministers, and multiple expert reports. Internationally, the US released a 103-action AI Action Plan, China has issued a competing governance vision, and the EU has advanced its AI Act Code of Practice. Several new Australian-focused reports — including the Good Ancestors 'Legislation Stress Test', the National AI Centre's Responsible AI Index, and the Gradient Institute's multi-agent risk analysis — collectively paint a picture of significant governance gaps and capability-confidence mismatches across Australian organisations. Implications for Australian agencies: - [Monitor] APS AI governance practitioners could monitor the Australian AI Act debate closely, as the government's regulatory approach may shift in response to ongoing expert, parliamentary, and public pressure. - [Consider] Agencies could assess their responsible AI maturity against the National AI Centre's Responsible AI Index benchmark (median 43/100) to identify internal confidence-implementation gaps before any mandatory framework is introduced. - [Consider] Risk and governance teams may want to consider the Gradient Institute's multi-agent AI risk findings when assessing whether existing agency risk frameworks adequately cover agentic or multi-system AI deployments. Retrieved from SIMS, 18 May 2026.