NSW gov asked to employ multiple 'chief AI officers'

The NSW government has been asked to appoint ‘chief AI officers’, both at a whole-of-government and department and agency level, as one outcome of a wide-ranging inquiry into AI in the state.

The committee that led the inquiry also wants to see a central ‘NSW Office of AI’ established, a regulatory gap analysis, and a permanent register of automated decision-making systems.

The recommendations [pdf] stem from a year-long examination of AI use and opportunities in the state.

NSW already has an influential role in coordinated national AI policy development, with its AI assurance framework used as a foundation for that effort.

The state-based committee wants to see AI seeded throughout the NSW government, with a range of oversight in the form of personnel, guardrails and transparency.

On the personnel side, it has suggested appointing an NSW chief AI officer, who is supported by chief AI officers in government departments and agencies to maximise the responsible use of artificial intelligence.”

The whole-of-government chief would work “across all government departments and offices, including with the information and privacy commissioner, chief scientist and chief data officer, to assist the responsible uptake and regulation of AI technology by government”.

They would also provide “ongoing strategic advice to the Government about trends, opportunities 

and risks of AI use in NSW government departments” and lead “public education initiatives”, the committee suggested.

In addition, the committee recommended the government “investigate creating a ‘NSW Office of AI’ to ensure the state's service delivery is protected and enhanced through the responsible use of AI technology.”

Another support mechanism is transparency of use, with the committee asking the government to “consider maintaining a publicly available register of automated decision-making systems available within government and its agencies and when they are applied.”

This would effectively replicate the direction being taken at a national level.

Additionally, the committee said it was “convinced of the necessity for a regulatory gap analysis to be conducted as a matter of priority.”

“This will help avoid the unnecessary duplication of laws and maximise the effectiveness of any legislative changes considered necessary,” it stated.

“The committee is firmly of the view that as artificial intelligence is a rapidly evolving technology, consultation with industry, technical, and legal experts will be crucial for ensuring the legal and regulatory framework is beneficial and relevant. 

“This will help cement an approach that is up to date and able to respond as proactively and flexibly as possible to emerging issues.”