South Australia’s AI Royal Commission: the Terms of Reference are here. Is your organisation ready?

The release of the Terms of Reference provides organisations with a clearer picture of the issues that will shape the inquiry. While the Commission is focused on public policy and South Australia’s future settings, its work could have broader implications for businesses, government agencies, education providers, employers and organisations developing or deploying AI.

What will the Royal Commission examine?

The Terms of Reference direct the Commission to investigate the economic and societal opportunities and implications arising from AI in South Australia. Its areas of focus include:

• the opportunities, barriers and policy settings relevant to using AI to improve productivity, innovation and economic growth;
• how South Australia can realise the social benefits of AI while protecting people and society from AI-related risks;
• the policy, legislative and regulatory frameworks needed to encourage the safe and responsible development, deployment, adoption and use of AI;
• the impact of AI on the labour market and workplace practices, including measures to mitigate employment impacts;
• how schools, vocational education and higher education should adapt;
• the use of AI to simplify and streamline the regulatory environment for South Australian businesses; and
• the opportunities and risks associated with using AI to improve the quality and productivity of public services, including the health system.

This is a deliberately broad brief, consistent with the Royal Commission’s policy development remit. It recognises that AI is not simply a technology or information systems issue. It raises questions about economic development, workforce planning, education, regulation, service delivery, organisational accountability and community confidence.

The Terms of Reference also identify matters outside the Commission’s remit. Any mention of data centres or AI related infrastructure is conspicuously absent.  Also excluded are matters primarily within Commonwealth responsibility, including national security and cyber security, financial market stability, critical national infrastructure, intellectual property and copyright. The exclusion on data centres is interesting, given that much of the national conversation has to date centred around data centres, their development and impact.  It is also somewhat at odds with earlier statements from the Government that it would consider “opportunities related to AI related infrastructure including the interrelationship with energy transformation, water usage and associated impacts (such as electricity grid implications.”[1]

Nevertheless, these exclusions will be important for organisations considering whether and how to engage with the Commission. They do not make those issues irrelevant to AI adoption, but they may affect whether they are best raised through this inquiry or through other regulatory, policy or consultation processes.

What do the Terms of Reference mean for organisations?

The immediate significance of the Terms of Reference is that they move the discussion from the general question of whether AI presents risks and opportunities to a more practical examination of the settings needed to support its adoption.

Organisations may have valuable evidence to contribute. This could include experience with:

• productivity gains achieved through AI-enabled processes;
• barriers to introducing or scaling AI systems;
• uncertainty created by overlapping laws, regulations or guidance;
• the effect of AI on job design, workforce capability and workplace practices;
• the governance measures needed to support responsible AI use;
• the use of AI in education, health and other public-facing services; and
• the measures required to maintain public, employee and customer confidence.

For South Australian businesses, the Commission presents an opportunity to help shape the policy environment in which AI will be developed and used. Organisations should consider whether there are issues within the Terms of Reference that directly affect their operations, workforce, customers or future investment.

Engagement should not be approached simply as an exercise in identifying risk. The Commission is expressly examining how AI can improve productivity, innovation, economic growth and public services. Organisations that can demonstrate practical experience, successful use cases or obstacles to responsible adoption may be well placed to make a constructive contribution.

Preparing to engage with the Commission

Organisations considering a submission or other engagement should begin by identifying the issues on which they can provide direct, credible evidence.

Useful preparatory steps may include:

1. Map current and proposed AI use

Develop an accurate picture of where AI is being used across the organisation, including approved systems, embedded functionality in third-party products and experimentation occurring within business units.

This should extend beyond generative AI. The Commission’s definition and areas of inquiry are broad enough to capture the use of AI in decision support, automation, customer service, workforce management, research and service delivery.

2. Identify benefits, barriers and practical experience

Consider what the organisation has learned from adopting AI. That may include measurable efficiencies, improvements in services or decision-making, implementation costs, skills shortages, data constraints and areas of regulatory uncertainty.

Submissions supported by practical examples and evidence are likely to be more useful than high-level statements about the potential of AI.

3. Review governance and accountability

Boards and senior executives should understand who is responsible for approving, overseeing and monitoring AI use. Relevant questions include whether the organisation has suitable policies, risk assessment processes, human oversight, contractual controls, record-keeping and escalation arrangements.

This work is valuable regardless of whether an organisation participates in the Commission. AI governance is increasingly part of broader organisational risk management and should be proportionate to the nature and consequences of the systems being used.

4. Consider workforce and stakeholder impacts

The Terms of Reference place particular emphasis on employment, workplace practices, education and social outcomes. Organisations should therefore consider how employees, customers, students, patients and other affected stakeholders are involved in decisions about AI.

This may require input from legal, technology, human resources, risk, privacy, communications and operational teams rather than leaving responsibility solely with the IT function.

5. Preserve the evidence supporting the organisation’s position

Organisations should maintain clear records of relevant AI projects, governance decisions, evaluations, risk assessments and outcomes. Good documentation will help an organisation explain its experience accurately, prepare a credible submission and respond consistently to questions from regulators and other stakeholders.

How Piper Alderman can assist

Piper Alderman has established a cross-practice working group led by Tom Griffith and Travis Shueard to coordinate the firm’s response to the Royal Commission and support organisations navigating the legal, governance and commercial implications of AI. The group brings together experience across technology, intellectual property, privacy, disputes and investigations, employment, corporate governance, infrastructure, energy and public policy.

We can assist organisations to:

• identify the issues on which the organisation may be able to contribute useful evidence;
• prepare or review submissions to the Royal Commission;
• develop an engagement and stakeholder strategy;
• review AI governance frameworks, policies and accountability arrangements;
• assess contractual, privacy, consumer, employment and regulatory issues associated with AI deployment;
• prepare boards and senior executives for discussions about AI oversight and risk;
• review document governance, records retention and evidence-management arrangements; and
• monitor the Commission’s work and translate emerging developments into practical actions.

The Royal Commission is an important opportunity for South Australian organisations to contribute to the development of an AI policy environment that supports innovation while maintaining appropriate safeguards.

The release of the Terms of Reference gives organisations a basis to begin that work now. Even where an organisation does not intend to participate formally, the inquiry provides a useful prompt to examine whether its AI governance and strategic planning are keeping pace with the technology.

For further information or assistance in considering the implications of the Royal Commission, please contact Travis Shueard or Tom Griffith.

[1] https://www.dpc.sa.gov.au/news/royal-commission-into-artificial-intelligence-announced