AI Governance for Government
104 APS agencies appointed a Chief AI Officer by July 2026 — mostly dual-hatted executives, drawn from existing senior ranks, with no additional resources and no operating playbook. We help newly appointed CAIOs and AI Accountable Officials build the governance structure the mandate assumed they already had.
The Post-Mandate Reality
The CAIO deadline has passed. Of 106 non-corporate Commonwealth entities required to appoint a Chief AI Officer by 1 July 2026, the overwhelming majority complied — by dual-hatting an existing SES officer, typically a CIO or CDO, with no new funding, no dedicated team, and no governance operating model waiting for them.
Those executives now hold a mandate to lead responsible AI adoption across their agency. The Policy for the Responsible Use of AI in Government v2.0 sets out what that means in practice: an AI strategy, a use-case register, use-case accountability, impact assessments, transparency statements, staff training, and procurement safeguards. The mandate is operational. Most agencies are not.
The same applies to AI Accountable Officials — the compliance and risk counterpart to the CAIO role — who are responsible for governance, assurance, and accountability. These two roles work together and both need operating structures that most agencies have not yet built.
No Playbook
The mandate exists. The policy framework exists. What most newly appointed CAIOs do not have is an operating structure: clear decision rights, a use-case intake process, a risk assessment workflow, or a way to track accountability across the agency.
Shadow AI Is Already There
Salesforce/YouGov (June 2026): 66% of Australian workers regularly use at least one AI tool; 56% of those use tools their employer has not approved. This is not a future risk. It is the present state of most agencies.
v2.0 Policy Has Teeth
The Responsible Use of AI in Government Policy v2.0 is substantially more operational than its predecessor. Mandatory requirements now include use-case registers, AI impact assessments, transparency statements, and agency-level AI strategies — not just general principles.
Procurement Risk
AI capabilities embedded in enterprise software — Microsoft Copilot, Salesforce Einstein, ServiceNow AI — are being adopted through existing procurement relationships, often without the AI-specific due diligence v2.0 now requires.
AI Governance Readiness Review
Our core government engagement. A structured diagnostic and design process that produces the operating infrastructure a CAIO or AI Accountable Official needs to discharge their mandate. Delivered over two to four weeks depending on agency size.
What you leave with:
Governance Maturity Assessment
A structured assessment of your agency's current AI governance posture against the v2.0 Policy requirements — identifying what is in place, what is missing, and what is at risk.
CAIO / Accountable Official RACI
A clear responsibility map across the CAIO, AI Accountable Official, and relevant business units — who decides what, who is accountable for what, and how decisions are escalated.
AI Use-Case Register
A structured register template, populated with your agency's current AI tools and use cases, ready to maintain and expand. Aligned to the transparency and accountability requirements of v2.0.
Use-Case Intake & Approval Process
A documented process for how new AI tools and use cases are proposed, assessed, approved, and tracked — so the CAIO has a working governance system, not just a title.
AI Risk & Impact Assessment Workflow
A proportionate risk and impact assessment process aligned to the National AI Assurance Framework — with worked examples for your agency's most common AI use-case types.
Procurement Checklist
AI-specific due diligence questions and assessment criteria for vendor engagements — covering data governance, model transparency, third-party risk, and contractual safeguards.
Transparency Obligations Map
A plain-language map of your agency's transparency obligations under v2.0 — what must be disclosed, to whom, and when — with template language for transparency statements.
Workforce Capability Plan
A structured plan for meeting the APS AI Plan's foundational learning requirements across your agency — segmented by role type, with recommended training pathways and timelines.
90-Day Implementation Roadmap
A prioritised, sequenced action plan for the first 90 days — what to do first, what can wait, and how to report progress to the agency head and relevant minister.
Scope and pricing for the Readiness Review is confirmed on request — contact us to discuss your agency's context.
Services
All services are available face-to-face in Canberra or online. Scope and pricing confirmed on request.
AI Governance Readiness Review
Structured diagnostic and governance design — see above. Our core product for newly appointed CAIOs and AI Accountable Officials.
Scope and price on request
Executive AI Briefing
A 2-hour briefing for SES Band 1/2 and EL2 — the decisions you need to make, the obligations you hold, and the questions you should be asking before approving any AI tool or use case.
Scope and price on request
AI Policy Design
Independent advisory for developing or reviewing your agency's AI-related policies — acceptable use, procurement, data governance, and transparency statements. Aligned to v2.0 Policy and the National AI Assurance Framework.
Scope and price on request
Workforce AI Literacy
Tailored learning for APS staff — what AI is, appropriate use, APS Values and ethical obligations, Privacy Act implications, and practical guidance for using AI tools in their role. Meets APS AI Plan foundational learning requirements.
Scope and price on request
Procurement Advisory
AI-specific due diligence support for vendor engagements — reviewing AI capability claims, assessing data governance arrangements, and ensuring contractual protections are in place before you commit.
Scope and price on request
Ongoing Advisory Retainer
Monthly advisory support for agencies building AI governance capability — policy review as frameworks evolve, emerging issue briefings, use-case assessments, and access to our team as questions arise.
Scope and price on request
Who We Are
Nathan Eldred
Co-founder, Edvance. Nathan has implemented governance frameworks inside complex public institutions and brings postgraduate study in AI systems, machine learning, and AI ethics, combined with hands-on consulting experience across government agencies and private enterprises. He bridges the gap between what AI systems actually do and what organisational accountability for them looks like in practice.
Vanessa Lahoud
Co-founder, Edvance. Vanessa has over 25 years' experience leading policy reform and governance initiatives across large public sector organisations. She has led statewide portfolios in health, safety and compliance, partnering with regulators, unions and systems to deliver large-scale, evidence-based change — the kind of implementation experience AI governance advisory actually requires.
We Build What We Sell
Our own AI system — visible at AI Agents — operates with persistent school memory, coded human approval gates across three risk tiers, and an append-only audit trail. Every agent action is logged. No email leaves without human approval. We don't advise on governed AI in theory. We implement it in practice, and the system is live.
Independent
We do not resell AI tools, hold vendor relationships, or receive referral fees. Our advisory practice is independent of our build work. When we recommend an approach, it is because it is the right approach for your agency — not because it serves a commercial relationship.
Based in Canberra or the ACT?
We deliver government AI governance engagements face-to-face across Canberra and the ACT, and are available nationally online. If you are a CAIO, AI Accountable Official, or senior executive working through an AI governance challenge, we would like to hear from you.