GIRAI logo
Australia flag

Global Index Score

56.40

Global: 23rdRegional: 1stIncome Group: 22nd

Australia's index score lands +23.4 against the Asia and Oceania average (33.0) and +4.3 against High income peers (52.1). It scores ahead of 84% of the 135 economies assessed this edition. Published score 56.4 reflects a URAI adjustment from 58.8 (1 government-misuse evidence item on file). The profile rests on 53 documented evidence items spanning policy frameworks, government initiatives and civil society activity.

How Australia Performs Across the Five Dimensions

GIRAI evaluates countries across five core dimensions that capture the social, ethical, and institutional impacts of artificial intelligence.

AI Policy

48.81

Avrg. Score

25.65

Global: 28thRegional: 3rd

Enabling Conditions

82.36

Avrg. Score

55.27

Global: 17thRegional: 2nd

Civil Society Engagement

47.50

Avrg. Score

17.68

Global: 12thRegional: 2nd
1

Inclusion and Diversity

64.20

Index Score

33.21

Avrg. Dimension score

Global: 19thRegional: 1st

Australia runs +31.0 against the regional average (33.2) on Inclusion and Diversity. Strongest indicators: Cultural and Linguistic Diversity (63.6), Gender Equality (57.6). Weakest: Children's Rights (54.2). This dimension ranks 19th globally — ahead of the country's overall position (23rd). 11 evidence items on file, including "Basic Online Safety Expectations Regulatory Guidance (July 2024)" and 3 other documented items.

2

Ethics and Sustainability

48.69

Index Score

31.00

Avrg. Dimension score

Global: 39thRegional: 7th

Australia runs +17.7 against the regional average (31.0) on Ethics and Sustainability. Strongest indicators: Fairness and Non-discrimination (50.0), Human Oversight and Determination (49.2). Weakest: Environmental Impact (27.3), Transparency and Explainability (38.6). This dimension ranks 39th globally — behind the country's overall position (23rd). 10 evidence items on file, including "Voluntary AI Safety Standard" and 3 other documented items.

3

Labour and Skills

59.83

Index Score

36.03

Avrg. Dimension score

Global: 22ndRegional: 1st

Australia runs +23.8 against the regional average (36.0) on Labour and Skills. Strongest indicators: Reskilling/Upskilling Initiatives (90.9), AI Literacy (32.8). Weakest: Labour Protections (18.2). This dimension ranks 22nd globally — ahead of the country's overall position (23rd). 13 evidence items on file, including "Australian Framework for Generative Artificial Intelligence in Schools" and 4 other documented items.

4

Trust and Safety

66.56

Index Score

38.45

Avrg. Dimension score

Global: 23rdRegional: 1st

Australia runs +28.1 against the regional average (38.4) on Trust and Safety. Strongest indicators: Access to Redress and Remedy (69.7), AI-facilitated Misinformation and Violence (65.9). Weakest: Impact Assessments (47.7), Safety and Security (50.0). 13 evidence items on file, including "Criminal Code Amendment (Deepfake Sexual Material) Act 2024" and 2 other documented items.

5

AI Use in Public Service

54.45

Index Score

30.02

Avrg. Dimension score

Global: 19thRegional: 2nd

Australia runs +24.4 against the regional average (30.0) on AI Use in Public Service. Strongest indicators: Public Disclosure of Government Algorithmic Systems (39.2), Public Procurement (38.6). Weakest: Public Sector Skills Development (38.2). This dimension ranks 19th globally — ahead of the country's overall position (23rd). 6 evidence items on file, including "Policy for the responsible use of AI in government (Australia)" and 1 other documented items.

Comparing Results Across Editions

Explore how country performance, scores, and governance indicators have changed between GIRAI editions.

14 indicators

Indicator2024 Edition2026 Edition
Gender EqualityNon-Binding FrameworkNon-Binding Framework
Children's RightsNon-Binding FrameworkBinding Framework
Cultural and Linguistic DiversityNon-Binding FrameworkNon-Binding Framework
Fairness and Non-discriminationNon-Binding FrameworkNon-Binding Framework
Transparency and ExplainabilityNon-Binding FrameworkNon-Binding Framework
Human Oversight and DeterminationNon-Binding FrameworkNon-Binding Framework
Labour ProtectionsNo FrameworkNo Framework
Reskilling/Upskilling InitiativesNon-Binding FrameworkNon-Binding Framework
Safety and SecurityNon-Binding FrameworkNon-Binding Framework
Access to Redress and RemedyNo FrameworkBinding Framework
Impact AssessmentsNo FrameworkNon-Binding Framework
Public Sector Skills DevelopmentNo FrameworkBinding Framework
Public ProcurementNo FrameworkNon-Binding Framework
Government Mechanisms for CSO Inclusion in AI Policy and GovernanceNon-Binding FrameworkBinding Framework

Indicator definitions changed between editions; this table compares evidence presence and status, not directly comparable scores. A — indicates the item is not applicable or was not assessed for that edition.

Compare responsible AI performance

Explore how countries and regions perform across GIRAI's governance dimensions, scores, and structural indicators.

Compare
🇦🇺Australia

56.40

Global 23rdRegional 1st
Asia and Oceania

32.98

Regional average

Dimension scores

Inclusion and Diversity
Australia
64.2
Asia and Oceania
33.2
Ethics and Sustainability
Australia
48.7
Asia and Oceania
31.0
Labour and Skills
Australia
59.8
Asia and Oceania
36.0
Trust and Safety
Australia
66.6
Asia and Oceania
38.4
AI Use in Public Service
Australia
54.5
Asia and Oceania
30.0

Indicators

37 of 37
IndicatorAustraliaAsia and Oceania
Inclusion and Diversity7
APGender Equality
57.624.5
APChildren's Rights
54.227.8
APCultural and Linguistic Diversity
63.625.9
CSOCivil Society Engagement in Inclusion and Diversity
7.715.4
ECEgalitarian Democracy
85.833.2
ECSocioeconomic Inclusion in Connectivity
100.049.2
ECGender Inclusion in Connectivity
97.878.0
Ethics and Sustainability6
APFairness and Non-discrimination
50.026.1
APTransparency and Explainability
38.633.5
APHuman Oversight and Determination
49.226.2
APEnvironmental Impact
27.318.0
CSOCivil Society Engagement in Ethics and Sustainability
53.920.8
ECEnvironmental Performance
35.140.9
Labour and Skills6
APLabour Protections
18.27.7
APReskilling/Upskilling Initiatives
90.941.4
APAI Literacy
32.839.0
CSOCivil Society Engagement in Labour and Skills
65.618.6
ECLabour Rights
69.439.0
ECPopulation Digital Readiness
96.571.3
Trust and Safety11
APSafety and Security
50.033.8
APAccess to Redress and Remedy
69.723.2
APImpact Assessments
47.727.9
APAI-facilitated Misinformation and Violence
65.925.5
CSOCivil Society Engagement in Trust and Safety
70.313.6
ECData Protection and Privacy
83.456.4
ECData Sharing and Access
43.868.3
ECConsumer Protection
96.872.3
ECCybersecurity
96.176.8
ECRule of Law
88.548.2
ECGlobal Peace
88.768.4
AI Use in Public Service7
APPublic Sector Skills Development
38.232.0
APPublic Disclosure of Government Algorithmic Systems
39.211.1
APPublic Procurement
38.614.8
CSOGovernment Mechanisms for CSO Inclusion in AI Policy and Governance
40.020.0
ECCivil Society Oversight
85.247.9
ECPublic Service Delivery
99.276.9
ECRight to Information
88.039.6
Score adjustment
URAIUnacceptable Risk AI Systems
×0.961 government-misuse item×0.98Regional average
APAI Policy
CSOCSO Engagement
ECEnabling Conditions
Misuse Of AI

Unacceptable Risk AI Systems

Evidence related to government use of AI systems associated with unacceptable-risk categories.

Contact GIRAI
  • Social Scoring

    Security Risk Assessment Tool (SRAT) for immigration detainee risk scoring

    Security Risk Assessment Tool (SRAT) developed by the global corporation Serco used for visa processing and immigration detention in Australia assigns detainees algorithmic risk scores that determine housing restraints movement and access to activities. Evidence shows inflated data systemic errors and no ability for detainees to view or challenge their scores (Guardian 12 Mar 2024; AHRC Use of Force inquiry). This functions as a government social-scoring system with severe impacts on liberty fairness and human rights.

    View Trusted Source

What Drives This Performance?

A breakdown of the structural factors shaping this country's score.

AI Policy

National AI strategies, laws, and oversight mechanisms that establish formal governance structures.

Contribution to overall score

50%

Civil society engagement

Participation of academia, advocacy groups, and non-state actors in shaping governance and ensuring accountability.

Contribution to overall score

8%

Enabling conditions

Institutional capacity, rule of law, digital readiness, and labour protections that enable effective governance.

Contribution to overall score

42%

  • Strongest context signal: Socioeconomic Inclusion in Connectivity (100.0)
  • Public Service Delivery (99.2)
  • Gender Inclusion in Connectivity (97.8)

Evidence for Australia

Loading evidence explorer…