AI accountability

The Air Canada chatbot decision shows why organisations remain responsible for automated outcomes. The AICD and Human Technology Institute's 2026 Director's Guide adds practical board questions for assigning AI decision rights and oversight.

ASIC and APRA now both expect a named accountable person behind every material AI use case, not a shared committee. This post looks at what Beware the Gap, APRA's April 2026 letter to industry, and a real AI hiring-platform ownership failure mean for boards before the regulator asks who was responsible.

Without a clear AI use-case lifecycle—from identification through retirement—organisations risk fragmented governance, hidden risks, and missed control opportunities. Executives and risk managers must demand disciplined visibility and stage-gate controls to keep AI aligned with strategy and risk appetite.

APRA's and ASICs AI governance letters have made one thing clear: named business ownership of AI use cases is now the regulatory minimum. Without it, your organisation is carrying unquantified executive risk.