The first Long-term Insights Briefing explores how the APS could integrate artificial intelligence (AI) into public service delivery in the future, and how this might affect the trustworthiness of public service delivery. This background paper summarises the results of two complementary surveys used to capture community sentiment: a quantitative survey administered to a representative sample of the Australian population, and an online ‘Have You Say’ survey to hear from people in their own words. The surveys provide an insight into the community’s expectations, concerns, and views on possible benefits from the public service’s use of AI.
On 13 October 2022, the Minister for the Public Service, the Hon Katy Gallagher, announced that the APS would commence Long-term Insights Briefings as a part of the Government’s APS Reform Agenda.
The Long-term Insights Briefings are an initiative under Priority Two of the APS Reform Agenda: An APS that puts people and business at the centre of policy and services. They will strengthen policy development and planning in the APS by:
The purpose of the briefings is not to make recommendations or predictions about what will happen in the future. Instead, they will provide a base to underpin future policy thinking and decision making on specific policy challenges that may affect Australia and the Australian community in the medium and long term. It is anticipated they will form part of the evidence base for policy and decision making.
The briefings will use stakeholder engagement, research and futures thinking to analyse significant, complex, longer-term and cross-cutting issues. Importantly, the briefings will be developed through a process of genuine engagement with the Australian community on issues affecting them, as well as with experts from the APS, academia, industry and the not-for-profit sector.
This background paper summarises the results of surveys undertaken for the first Long-term Insights Briefing, on ‘How might artificial intelligence affect the trustworthiness of public service delivery’.
The first Long-term Insights Briefing explored how the APS could integrate AI into public service delivery in the future, and how this might affect the trustworthiness of public service delivery. AI could potentially transform public service delivery in ways that deliver a better experience and outcomes for the whole community. However, implementing AI poorly – such as by failing to address known risks of the technology, or failing to understand and respond to the concerns of different cohorts in the community – could erode the trustworthiness of the public service. This could result in the APS and the community as a whole failing to capture the benefits of AI.
The briefing used community engagement and research, together with futures thinking and expert engagement to explore how AI could transform public service delivery and the potential impacts of these changes on trustworthiness of service delivery agencies (Figure 1).
Figure 1. Phases and activities in the Long-term Insights Briefing pilot
Surveys were used to capture community sentiment and provide insights into the community’s expectations, concerns, and views on possible benefits from the public service’s use of AI. Importantly, the surveys filled a gap in knowledge of community sentiment. While there is information available on trust in public services,¹ and trust in AI and other emerging technologies, less is known about trust in government’s use of AI in public service delivery. Surveys in the Long-term Insights Briefing pilot were a means to better understand the community’s views on the use of AI in the delivery of public services, and the factors that affect the trustworthiness of government agencies.
Two complementary survey instruments were used for this purpose:
Survey of Trust in Australian Democracy: Three close-ended questions were included as part of a larger, online “Survey of Trust in Australian Democracy” conducted by the Australian Public Service Commission. These questions sought to:
The survey was administered by Painted Dog Research via an online panel to ensure a robust, representative sample.
The responses to both surveys were analysed in combination with demographic factors including age, gender and location, in order to understand differences in sentiment across community cohorts. The Survey of Trust in Australian Democracy and Have Your Say survey are in Appendix A.
A sample of 5039 responses was collected, aiming for representation across gender, age and location. The sample was then post weighted to be representative of the Australian population by age and gender (interlocking) and state. The demographic split of responses was as follows:
We received 135 responses to the Have Your Say public consultation – 133 survey responses and 2 written submissions. This was a self-selection survey, meaning that people choose to complete it, and as such is not representative of the Australian population. Most people shared demographic details with us, with only 11 people choosing to not share these details. Responses were received from 74 women, 49 men and one non-binary person. An equal number of responses was received from people under 45 and over 45; 62 responses for each of these categories. Three quarters of people were based in capital cities. Eight people indicated that they identify as a person with disability.
People were asked to note their responses to three questions.
Question 1 : To what extent do you …
Options [Not at all – Slightly – Moderately well – Very well – Completely]
When asked about their knowledge of AI and understanding of AI applications, more than half of people (57%) reported having zero or slight knowledge of AI. Almost two thirds (63%) reporting having zero or slight understanding of when AI is being used.
Figure 2. Knowledge of AI and understanding of when its being used
Source: Australian Public Service Commission, Survey of Trust in Australian Democracy (forthcoming)
Question 2: How much do you trust government agencies to responsibly use AI for the following purposes?
Options [Strongly distrust – Distrust – Neither trust or distrust – Trust – Strongly trust- Not sure]
When asked about their current level of trust in government to responsibly use AI, the responses varied by the purpose for which AI is used (Figure 3).
Figure 3. Trust in government to responsibly use AI in public service delivery varies by the purpose for which AI is being used
Notes: Trust results show percentage of people who said they ‘trust’ or ‘strongly trust’ government agencies to responsibly use AI for the outlined purpose; Distrust results show percentage of people who said they ‘distrust’ or ‘strongly distrust’ government agencies to responsibly use AI for the outlined purposes.
Source: Australian Public Service Commission, Survey of Trust in Australian Democracy (forthcoming)
Question 3: Thinking about how much you trust or distrust government agencies to responsibly use AI, how important are each of these factors to you?
Options [Not important at all – Somewhat important – Important – Very important – Not sure]
When asked about factors that are important for trusting government to responsibly use AI, all options were selected as important by at least 80% of people (Figure 4). However, there were notable differences in the factors that were considered to be “very important”. Three in 4 people consider protecting personal information as ‘very important, and around 2 in 3 indicate transparency in how/when AI is used and laws/regulations protecting community is also ‘very important’. Providing personalised services ranked lowest, with only one in 3 people considering it ‘very important’.
Figure 4. Importance of factors in trusting government agencies to responsibly use AI
Notes: Results show importance given to each of the listed factors in trusting government agencies to responsibly use AI. Others include results for people who selected “Somewhat important”, “Not important at all” and “Not sure”.
Source: Australian Public Service Commission, Survey of Trust in Australian Democracy (forthcoming)
People with higher knowledge of AI have higher trust in government to responsibly use AI for the range of purposes. For example, 70% of people who reported knowing ‘very well’ about AI trust government to responsibly use AI to deliver faster services, compared with 54% who reported a moderate knowledge of AI, 37% who reported having a slight knowledge of AI, and 12% of people with no knowledge of AI (Figure 5).
Figure 5. Higher knowledge of AI is associated with higher trust in government to responsibly use AI in public service delivery
Notes: Results show percentage of people who said that they ‘trust’ or ‘strongly trust’ government agencies to responsibly use AI for the outlined purpose. Results are cut by people’ self-reported knowledge of AI from the options ‘Not at all’, ‘Slightly’, ‘Moderately well’, ‘Very well’, and ‘Completely’.
Source: Australian Public Service Commission, Survey of Trust in Australian Democracy (forthcoming)
Trust in government to responsibly use AI varies by demographic factors, with younger people (under 45) and culturally and linguistically diverse people reporting significantly higher trust and women, people in regional areas and unemployed people reporting lower trust than the total population.
Figure 6. Young people reported higher trust in government to responsibly use AI in public service delivery
Notes: Results show percentage of people who said that they ‘trust’ or ‘strongly trust’ government agencies to responsibly use AI for the outlined purpose, cut by age.
Source: Australian Public Service Commission, Survey of Trust in Australian Democracy (forthcoming)
Figure 7. Women reported lower trust in government to responsibly use AI in public service delivery
Notes: Results show percentage of people who said that they ‘trust’ or ‘strongly trust’ government agencies to responsibly use AI for the outlined purpose, cut by gender.
Source: Australian Public Service Commission, Survey of Trust in Australian Democracy (forthcoming)
Figure 8. People in regional Australia reported lower trust in government to responsibly use AI in public service delivery
Notes: Results show percentage of people who said that they ‘trust’ or ‘strongly trust’ government agencies to responsibly use AI for the outlined purpose, cut by region.
Source: Australian Public Service Commission, Survey of Trust in Australian Democracy (forthcoming)
Figure 9. People born in Australia reported lower trust in government to responsibly use AI in public service delivery
Notes: Results show percentage of people who said that they ‘trust’ or ‘strongly trust’ government agencies to responsibly use AI for the outlined purpose, cut by country of birth.
Source: Australian Public Service Commission, Survey of Trust in Australian Democracy (forthcoming)
Figure 10. People who speak a language other than English at home reported higher trust in government to responsibly use AI in public service delivery
Notes: Results show percentage of people who said that they ‘trust’ or ‘strongly trust’ government agencies to responsibly use AI for the outlined purpose, cut by language spoken at home.
Source: Australian Public Service Commission, Survey of Trust in Australian Democracy (forthcoming)
People shared ‘in their own words’ what was important to them for building trust in public services through the Have Your Say survey. Some common themes were:
People also indicated that it was important that the services being accessed are truthful, fair, impartial, without bias, accountable and responsible. People said it was important to them that the service did what they said and kept their service delivery promises. People also indicated that users being included in service design process and ensuring human oversight for important decisions was important in them trusting the service being provided.
People saw many benefits of using AI in public services, mainly around improving how quickly and efficiently public services are provided. Other benefits mentioned by people includes cost savings, personalisation, optimising resource allocation and increased accuracy and productivity. People suggested care needs to be taken in where AI was used, especially when it came to:
Some people suggested that AI use be limited until guardrails like governance and ethics frameworks are established and risks are properly understood and mitigation strategies and controls are in place. Some people suggested that the APS would need to increase its knowledge of AI and capacity to protect personal data. People indicated they would like the face-to-face model for client services to be retained, as some services always need human interaction. People also suggested a need for human oversight when AI is used, as they felt some services will always need human intervention.
Over half of the people indicated they have some understanding of AI and a third indicated they were well-informed about AI and its applications (Figure 11). This is expected in a self-selected survey as people interested in AI (and knowledgeable about AI) are likely to choose to complete the survey.
Figure 11. Knowledge of AI and understanding of when its being used
Source: Results of the Have Your Say consultation on How might artificial intelligence affect the trustworthiness of public service delivery?
News is the most popular AI learning source (Figure 12). People who are well-informed indicated they learnt about AI from ‘academic/technical research’ and ‘professional experience’. People who have some understanding of AI indicated their learning came from ‘news’, ‘research’ and ‘friends/family’. People who have little knowledge/understanding looked to ‘news’ and ‘social media’ for their knowledge.
Figure 12. How do people learn about AI
Source: Results of the Have Your Say consultation on How might artificial intelligence affect the trustworthiness of public service delivery?
People expressed multiple emotions in thinking about the impact of AI on society (Figure 13).
Figure 13. Feelings about the impact of AI on society
Source: Results of the Have Your Say consultation on How might artificial intelligence affect the trustworthiness of public service delivery?
Universities and research institutions are most trusted to responsibly use AI, with 3 in 5 people indicating that they trust them to do so. This is followed by Australian government, with one in 2 indicating trust. Businesses were trusted to responsibly use AI by 13% of respondents.
Figure 14. Entities trusted to responsibly use AI
Source: Results of the Have Your Say consultation on How might artificial intelligence affect the trustworthiness of public service delivery?
Respondents were also asked how important the following factors are in deciding whether they could trust how AI is being used, considering the use of AI in the delivery of public services:
‘Protection of personal information’ and ‘Having AI regulations in place’ were the most important, with 9 in 10 rating them as ‘very important’. Eight in 10 respondents indicated that ‘transparency about how and where AI is used’ and ‘AI systems treating different groups fairly’ are ‘very important’. On the other hand, less than half of respondents indicated that ‘innovation is supported’ was ‘very important’.
Figure 15. Importance of factors in trusting government agencies to use AI
Notes: Results show importance given to each of the listed factors in trusting government agencies to use AI. Others include results for people who selected “Somewhat important”, “Not important at all” and “Not sure”.
Source: Results of the Have Your Say consultation on How might artificial intelligence affect the trustworthiness of public service delivery?
Respondents were asked how much they trust government agencies to do the following well, considering the use of AI in the delivery of public services:
One in 2 trust government agencies to deliver services faster and ensure regulations about AI are in place. Over 2 in 5 trust government agencies to protect personal information. Trust is lowest in the ability to ensure systems treat different groups fairly. Highest distrust was seen in service agencies ability to ensure that different groups are treated fairly. One in three also distrust that government agencies will be transparent about how and where AI is used, and ensure humans have higher level of control in final decisions.
Figure 16. People trust government agencies to do some things better than others when using AI in public service delivery
Notes: Trust results show percentage of people who said they ‘trust’ or ‘strongly trust’ government agencies to use AI well for the outlined purpose; Distrust results show percentage of people who said they ‘distrust’ or ‘strongly distrust’ government agencies to use AI for the outlined purpose.
Source: Results of the Have Your Say consultation on How might artificial intelligence affect the trustworthiness of public service delivery?
People were asked to note their responses to three questions as part of a larger “Survey of Trust in Australian Democracy”.
“We now have some questions about your views on use of artificial intelligence (AI) by government agencies.
Q30. To what extent do you …
[Not at all – Slightly – Moderately well – Very well – Completely]
Think you understand when AI is being used
Q31. How much do you trust government agencies to responsibly use AI for the following purposes?
[Strongly distrust – Distrust – Neither trust or distrust – Trust – Strongly trust- Not sure]
Q32. Thinking about how much you trust or distrust government agencies to responsibly use AI, how important are each of these factors to you?
[Not important at all – Somewhat important – Important – Very important – Not sure]
People were asked to note their responses to below questions, this included a mix of open-ended and option based questions. People were also provided with the option to submit a written submission instead of filling the survey.
Area/program/initiative
Long-term Insight Briefings
Release date
Friday 27 October 2023
Category
Report
Authors
Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet
Subscribe and stay up to date
Connect with us
PM&C acknowledges the traditional owners and custodians of country throughout Australia and acknowledges their continuing connection to land, water and community. We pay our respects to the people, the cultures and the elders past, present and emerging.

source