Skip to content

Regulation Tracker · Country · Asia-Pacific

Australia

Extensivecommon lawupdated 2026-09-04verified 2026-09-04

As of 4 September 2026 Australia has the densest court-level AI rulebook outside the United States: binding practice notes in the Federal Court, the Federal Circuit and Family Court, NSW, Victoria and Queensland and several tribunals, plus judicial guidelines and a joint regulator statement. There is no AI statute; the profession is governed through conduct rules and costs sanctions.

As of 2026-09-04, Australia has 4 binding rules, official guidance in 11 categories, 1 proposal and 1 position set only by case law across the 20 categories in the map. Binding rules cover disclosure of AI use in filings, duty to verify AI output, self-represented litigants, ai-generated evidence. In 2 categories we found nothing; in 1 the position is not yet determined.

How to read this page
  • Binding rule Binding rule means a rule in force from a court, statute, regulator or equivalent authority.
  • Official guidance Official guidance means an official non-binding position from a judiciary, regulator, bar or public body.
  • Proposed / consultation Proposed / consultation means a public bill, draft rule or consultation that is not yet in force.
  • Set by case law Set by case law means no rule was found, but courts have set the position in decisions.
  • Nothing found Nothing found means the category was checked and no rule, guidance, proposal or case-law position was found.
  • Not yet determined Not yet determined means research did not establish a reliable position yet.

The rules, category by category

Disclosure of AI use in filings

Binding rule

verified 2026-09-04

Court-ordered or automatic disclosure in most jurisdictions. NSW SC Gen 23 requires affidavits and witness statements to state that Gen AI was not used; GPN-AI and Victoria's SC GEN 25 let the court direct a party to disclose or identify AI-produced parts; Queensland's PD 5 of 2025 requires a named responsible person on every submission.

Duty to verify AI output

Binding rule

verified 2026-09-04

Universal. Every Australian instrument imposes a personal duty to verify citations and evidence references. NCAT PD 7 and Victoria's SC GEN 25 add that verification must not be carried out with another AI tool. Western Australia's guidelines require a human who takes legal responsibility for the document.

Self-represented litigants

Binding rule

verified 2026-09-04

Practice notes bind self-represented litigants directly (NSW SC Gen 23, NSW Local Court, NCAT PD 7, GPN-AI, PD-AI). Queensland, Victoria, South Australia and Western Australia also publish plain-language guidelines for non-lawyers. Queensland PD 5 of 2025 warns of adjournment and adverse costs for fake citations.

AI-generated evidence

Binding rule

verified 2026-09-04

Affidavits, witness statements and character references must be the maker's own words; Gen AI must not generate their content (NSW SC Gen 23, NCAT PD 7, PIC PD 13). Queensland SC PD 14 of 2024 requires expert reports in criminal proceedings to name the Gen AI program and annex complete prompt and output records.

Judges' use of AI

Official guidance

verified 2026-09-04

The Chief Justice of NSW issued Guidelines for New South Wales Judges on 21 November 2024, applying to all NSW courts. Victoria's Supreme Court issued judicial guidelines on 14 May 2026 and Queensland Courts publish guidelines for judicial officers. All require verification and bar entry of case material into public tools.

AI barred from deciding cases

Official guidance

verified 2026-09-04

NSW judicial guidelines cl 4-5: judges must not use Gen AI to formulate reasons for judgment or to assess or analyse evidence, and no part of a draft judgment may be submitted to a Gen AI program. Victoria's judicial guidelines bar Gen AI from decision-making and judgment reasoning.

Client data in AI tools

Official guidance

verified 2026-09-04

The December 2024 joint statement of the VLSB+C, Law Society of NSW and Legal Practice Board of WA says confidential client information must not be entered into public AI tools. NSW SC Gen 23, NCAT PD 7 and PIC PD 13 add a binding prohibition on entering suppressed, non-publication or summonsed material.

Technological competence

Official guidance

verified 2026-09-04

No AI-specific competence rule; the Australian Solicitors' Conduct Rules are applied through guidance. QLS Guidance Statement No. 37 and the Law Society of NSW guide require solicitors to understand the tools they use. Queensland PD 5 of 2025 ties verification to conduct rules 3, 4, 5, 17, 19 and 37.

Supervision of AI work

Official guidance

verified 2026-09-04

Principals must supervise employees' AI use and set firm policies (QLS GS 37; Law Society of NSW guide; joint regulator statement). NSW judicial guidelines cl 8 require associates, tipstaves and researchers to disclose Gen AI use to the judge and to verify output separately.

Bar guidance on generative AI

Official guidance

verified 2026-09-04

Dense. A joint statement of three regulators (6 December 2024), QLS Guidance Statement No. 37 (31 May 2024) and a QLS AI checklist, and the Law Society of NSW's Solicitor's Guide to Responsible Use of AI (9 January 2026), which also runs a court-protocols hub tracking every Australian court instrument.

Courts' own AI deployment

Official guidance

verified 2026-09-04

Addressed inside the judicial guidelines rather than a standalone deployment policy: NSW guidelines govern associates, tipstaves and researchers; Victoria's judicial guidelines cover chambers staff and require the judicial officer to verify any administrative AI output. No published court procurement or deployment policy was found.

Data protection and legal AI

Official guidance

verified 2026-09-04

OAIC guidance on privacy and the use of commercially available AI products (21 October 2024, updated 17 January 2025) applies the Australian Privacy Principles to AI inputs and outputs, requires product due diligence and accuracy steps, and advises against entering personal information into publicly available generative AI tools.

Vendor due diligence

Official guidance

verified 2026-09-04

The Law Society of NSW guide tells firms to select tools with appropriate data protections; QLS publishes an AI checklist developed with the ACT, NT and Tasmanian law societies for firms assessing third-party AI vendors; OAIC guidance requires due diligence before deploying a commercial AI product.

Sanctions for AI misuse

Set by case law

verified 2026-09-04

The largest body of AI-citation case law outside the United States (110 Australian decisions in the Charlotin database at 4 September 2026). Courts use personal costs orders and referral to regulators: Valu (No 2), Dayal (VLSB+C practising-certificate conditions), JNE24 (AUD 8,371 personal costs), Asif (AUD 9,098 against a litigant).

Consumer AI legal services

Nothing found

verified 2026-09-04

The Legal Profession Uniform Law prohibits unqualified legal practice, but no Australian ruling, regulator decision or guidance applying it to consumer AI legal products was found as of 4 September 2026.

Arbitration and ADR

Not yet determined

verified 2026-09-04

Not established. No ACICA, Resolution Institute or equivalent Australian arbitration AI guideline was located before the search budget was exhausted; NCAT PD 7 and PIC PD 13 cover tribunal, not arbitral, proceedings.

Sub-national rules

Where states, provinces or courts set their own rules. Cells show the status in each category the record covers.

UnitDisclosure of AI use in filingsDuty to verify AI outputJudges' use of AIAI barred from deciding casesSelf-represented litigantsAI-generated evidenceClient data in AI toolsClient consent and transparencyBar guidance on generative AISanctions for AI misuseMandatory AI trainingVendor due diligence
New South Wales
Victoria
Queensland
Western Australia
South Australia
Tasmania
Australian Capital Territory
Northern Territory

Official documents recorded for Australia (21)

Court incidents on the record in Australia

all incidents →

Cite this page

SafeLegalAI Legal AI Regulation Tracker, "Australia" (updated 2026-09-04, verified 2026-09-04), https://safelegalai.com/regulation/country/au (accessed 2026-09-04). Data: CC BY 4.0.

SafeLegalAI is a research publication by Cognesio LLP, not a law firm. Nothing here is legal advice, and no lawyer–client relationship arises from reading it. Rules change; always check the official document linked on each record and take advice on your own situation. Researched and drafted with AI assistance; verified against primary sources and edited by Cognesio LLP. The linked official documents are the record — our summaries are not the law and are not legal advice.