CGC - AO appointment reporting

Question

In response to a series of questions on notice relating to Accountable Officials (AOs) under the Policy for the responsible use of AI in government with portfolio question number SBE497, the CGC responded 'Yes' in answer to the question 'Did the agency/department appoint an AO by 30 November 2024?'. In documents tabled in response to order for the production of documents no. 285 (on page 3), an email from a Digital Transformation Agency official notes that the CGC had not appointed an AO as at 18 February 2025. In response to a question asked during AE2025-26 with question number SQ26-000035, CGC changed its evidence and instead advised the Senate that it had not appointed an AO by 30 November 2024, but instead had appointed one on 21 February 2025. 1. Why did CGC answer question 5 of PQN SBE497 by saying that they had appointed an AO by the deadline when they had not? 2. Why did CGC's evidence in SBE497 contradict its evidence in SQ26-000035, in that in the former, it claimed to have appointed an AO by the deadline and in the latter, admitted to having missed the deadline? 3. Why did CGC not acknowledge that it had previously advised the Senate differently when it responded to SQ26-000035? 4. Did CGC intentionally mislead the Senate? 5. Does CGC understand the gravity of misleading the Senate, and that to do so may constitute a contempt of the Senate? 6. Please provide all communications between CGC and DTA in relation to CGC's delayed appointment of an AO.

Answer

See attached response.

Documents

• Question with answer (PDF) (opens in a new tab)
• SQ26-000259 CGC - AO appointment reporting.pdf (opens in a new tab)