The Australian Government released their AI Plan for the Australian Public Service – a comprehensive 30-page blueprint for accelerating AI adoption across government agencies by 2026.

As someone who’s spent years implementing AI transformation across organisations, I read it with particular interest. And while there’s much to applaud, there’s a glaring omission that could undermine the entire initiative.

Here’s what they got right:

The government is taking a proactive, structured approach organised around three pillars: Trust (ethics and governance), People (capability building), and Tools (infrastructure and access). By mid-2026, every public servant will have mandatory AI training, access to secure AI tools through GovAI Chat, and clear guidance on using public AI tools up to OFFICIAL level information.

The ambitious targets are backed by real infrastructure – centralised AI hosting services, Chief AI Officers in every agency, an AI Review Committee for high-risk deployments, and a register to share assessments across agencies. This isn’t theoretical positioning; it’s practical implementation with measurable deliverables.

The strategic insight most are missing:

This plan isn’t just about government efficiency. It positions the Australian Government – one of the nation’s largest employers – as a market-shaping force for AI adoption across the entire economy. The procurement guidelines, ethical frameworks, and workforce practices established here will cascade throughout Australian businesses. This is nation-building disguised as operational planning.

But here’s what’s conspicuously absent:

For all its emphasis on consultation frameworks, Enterprise Agreements, and “genuine staff engagement,” there’s virtually nothing about how jobs will fundamentally change.

The plan mentions “workforce planning” and “identification of how jobs may change” as commitments, but provides no concrete framework for addressing the elephant in the room: which roles will be augmented, which will be automated, and how we transition people between these states.

The feminist lens that’s missing:

Here’s what really concerns me: Women are already significantly underrepresented in STEM occupations. The plan acknowledges this in one brief paragraph about procurement, mentioning future consideration for “better integrating gender equity objectives in AI or STEM-related procurement.”

That’s not enough.

We know from every technological transition that women and marginalised communities bear the disproportionate impact of workforce disruption. Administrative roles, customer service, data entry – positions where women are overrepresented – are precisely the ones most vulnerable to AI automation.

The plan mandates training and consultation but doesn’t mandate analysis of which roles will be affected and who holds those roles. Without this data-driven, intersectional approach to workforce transformation, we risk automating away the jobs that provide economic security for women while creating new opportunities that flow disproportionately to men.

What needs to happen next:

If the Australian Government is serious about ensuring “the benefits of this technology are shared equitably,” they need to add:

→ Gender-disaggregated impact assessments for every AI implementation

→ Specific reskilling pathways for roles identified as high-automation risk

→ Concrete targets for women’s representation in emerging AI-enabled roles

→ Proactive career transition support, not reactive displacement management

The infrastructure, governance, and capability frameworks in this plan are solid. But transformation without equity isn’t progress – it’s just redistribution of advantage.

The narrow window for shaping AI’s impact that this plan references? It applies equally to ensuring women aren’t left behind in the transition.

My challenge to government leaders implementing this plan:

Before you roll out GovAI Chat and appoint your Chief AI Officers, ask these questions:

• Which roles in our agency will be most affected by AI adoption?

• Who currently holds those roles – what’s the gender breakdown, the age distribution, the socioeconomic profile?

• What’s our concrete plan for ensuring these people lead the transformation rather than become casualties of it?

Because AI adoption without this analysis isn’t just incomplete. It’s irresponsible.

The Australian Government has built an impressive framework for AI transformation. Now they need to ensure it transforms work for everyone, not just for those already advantaged in the digital economy.

What’s your take? If you’re in government or enterprise, how are you thinking about the human impact of AI transformation? What frameworks are you using to ensure equity isn’t an afterthought?

🔗 Read the full AI Plan: digital.gov.au