Search

What should Jordan do?

• Jordan uses a public generative AI tool to help identify publicly available research papers, reports, and case studies related to the policy issue without including any security classified information.
• Jordan can prompt the AI tool to generate targeted questions on international approaches, highlight key differences and create draft content for further development.
• Jordan carefully reviews the AI-generated content, cross-referencing it with authoritative sources to ensure it’s accurate and reliable. If the AI tool can cite its sources, Jordan can independently verify these to confirm or correct the information.
• If Jordan identifies incorrect, misleading or questionable information, they can clarify or reframe the prompt, compare outputs from different prompts or tools, verify claims against trusted sources and discard any unsupported or unverifiable claims.
• Before using any insights in briefings, Jordan consults with subject matter experts or experienced colleagues to validate complex or ambiguous content and check for accuracy and completeness.
   

Listen to and understand diverse user needs 

Consider diverse user needs from the outset to make sure your service caters to as many users as possible. Consider the different identities, characteristics, and perspectives of users to make your digital service
welcoming and inclusive for all.

Conduct usability testing with diverse user groups

Do usability testing with individuals from diverse backgrounds, including those with different abilities, ages, and cultural
contexts. Adopt inclusive prototyping techniques, to simulate the experiences of users with different abilities and identify potential challenges. Recognise that various aspects of a person’s identity, such as race, gender, and age all intersect to shape their digital experience.

What should Sofia do?

• Sofia can ask public generative AI tools to suggest ways to present program information and tailor messaging for different community needs – without sharing personal information or information that’s security classified as OFFICIAL: Sensitive or above.
• Sofia employs the AI tool to help research local community information, rephrase bureaucratic terminology into plain language and organise content into clear, accessible formats.
• Sofia cross-checks AI-generated content against original sources, asks colleagues to fact-check drafts and contacts any external parties before including their information in public material.
• Sofia remains responsible for the final content, ensuring it accurately conveys current program guidelines and aligns with departmental requirements. Sofia uses public generative AI tools to suggest different ways to structure program information for broad community understanding and help rephrase complex program terminology into plain English.

What should Alex do?

• Alex can upload the report to a public generative AI tool to help break down complex concepts, explain unfamiliar terms and find further information on related topics.
• Alex asks the generative AI tool to help structure summaries and identify key themes while ensuring only OFFICIAL level government information is shared with the external platform.
• Alex validates AI-generated content by consulting subject matter experts to ensure technical accuracy and appropriate interpretation.
• Depending on team or agency expectations regarding disclosure of AI-influenced content, Alex may choose to include a statement advising readers how AI was used to develop the summary.

What should Chris do?

• Chris uses public generative AI tools to generate ideas for community engagement methods and consultation formats, taking care to only share OFFICIAL level information on the program and consultation objectives. Chris does not share any personal information about individuals connected to the consultations or the program itself with the AI platform.
• Chris asks the public AI tool to suggest project management strategies and draft project planning materials. For example, the tool can draft a consultation schedule, progress report templates and content and consultation session logistics checklists.
• Chris can also seek advice on developing survey questions and interview and focus group prompts and ways to track engagement and evaluate consultation outcomes, without entering any security classified or personal data.
• Chris asks the AI tool to suggest approaches for making consultations accessible to people with different language backgrounds and accessibility needs. Chris notes that public generative AI tools may not produce accurate translations from English into other languages. If translation is needed, Chris should follow agency guidelines for accessing professional translation services.
• Chris thoroughly checks and edits the AI-generated content and validates engagement strategies with colleagues, ensuring they align with government consultation standards and inclusive engagement principles.
• Chris reviews all draft consultation materials to ensure they meet plain language requirements and government communication guidelines.

What should Dinesh do?

• Given the dataset contains only OFFICIAL information, with no personal or security classified information, Dinesh can use public generative AI tools to assist with data analysis and pattern identification.
• Dinesh provides only the necessary data elements to the public AI tool, avoiding any information security classified OFFICIAL: Sensitive or above.
• Noting that generative AI tools can produce biased or inaccurate outputs, Dinesh thoroughly validates all insights and analysis before using them in any official capacity.
• Before sharing findings more broadly, Dinesh asks a colleague to review the analysis to confirm it accurately reflects the data and meets government analytical standards.

What should Hannah do?

• Hannah should not use public generative AI for this task. Inputting personal information into public AI tools would breach privacy obligations and government information handling rules.
• Hannah understands that personal information including names, dates of birth, reference numbers, financial details, and case-specific information must never be shared with public AI platforms.
• Hannah acknowledges that using such sensitive information in public AI tools could result in data breaches, identity theft risks, and serious privacy violations.
• Instead, Hannah uses approved government systems and templates to draft the response, consulting with team members and agency experts as needed for complex cases.
• Hannah ensures all personal information remains secure and is handled in accordance with government privacy and information security policies.
   

What should Wei do?

• Wei should not use public generative AI platforms for this task. Instead, Wei should rely on established internal processes, consulting with colleagues and using approved government systems.
• If Wei has access to an enterprise generative AI tool, cleared by the agency to process security classified information, they could consider using this. If Wei is unsure which generative AI tool can handle security classified information, they should consult relevant internal guidance and the IT security team if needed.
• Wei recognises that security classified information must never be entered into public AI tools. This includes information classified OFFICIAL: Sensitive or above, including PROTECTED: CABINET information.
• Wei understands that using public generative AI platforms for this task could compromise security and breach the Protective Security Policy Framework (PSPF).
• Wei ensures the appropriate security classification markings are applied to all documents and follows proper information handling protocols.
   

What should River do?

• River should not use generative AI tools for this purpose.
• River recognises that generating AI images based on First Nations artwork would be culturally inappropriate. River realises that authentic cultural representation requires genuine engagement with First Nations communities and cannot be replicated through public AI tools.
• River notes that public generative AI platforms may retain uploaded content, which could result in the artwork being reused or incorporated into AI training datasets without the artists’ consent – breaching intellectual property rights, Indigenous data sovereignty and cultural protocols.
• River acknowledges that using AI-generated cultural content could cause harm to First Nations communities by perpetuating stereotypes, misrepresenting sacred or sensitive cultural elements, and contributing to cultural appropriation.
• Instead of using generative AI, River explores commissioning new artwork from First Nations artists or using existing approved materials developed in consultation with community representatives.
• River ensures any cultural materials are developed through proper consultation with First Nations artists, cultural advisors and community representatives, and that intellectual property rights are respected and appropriately acknowledged.
   

What should Jamie do?

• Jamie should not use public generative AI tools for this purpose.
• Jamie recognises that grant applications can contain personal details and confidential business information that must not be shared with public AI platforms.
• Jamie acknowledges that government decision-making requires human judgement, accountability, and transparency that cannot be delegated to public AI tools.
• Jamie understands that using public AI tools to make funding decisions could introduce bias, produce inaccurate results, compromise the integrity of the assessment process, and breach privacy obligations.
• Instead, Jamie uses established assessment frameworks and internal IT systems, asks colleagues for peer review, and ensures all decisions are properly documented.
• Jamie maintains the confidentiality of all application information and ensures fair and consistent assessment processes are followed.
   

What should Omar do?

• Omar should not use public generative AI tools for this task.
• Omar recognises that tender specifications may contain commercially sensitive information that could provide unfair market advantage if disclosed prematurely through public AI platforms.
• Omar understands that inputting procurement details into public AI platforms could breach the Commonwealth Procurement Rules and compromise the integrity of the tender process.
• Omar avoids using any public AI tools that could inadvertently signal government intentions to potential suppliers or create conflicts of interest.
• Instead, Omar consults internal technical experts and relevant industry standards, and uses approved government procurement resources to develop specifications.
• Omar ensures all procurement activities maintain appropriate confidentiality.