AI in Government: Lessons from a Fictional IPAA ACT Scenario

In a deliberately fictional exercise staged by IPAA ACT, a cabinet decision to replace frontline public servants with AI agents culminates in spectacle and sharp lessons: procurement defaults to a dominant vendor, automated casework produces unexpected harms for vulnerable communities, and an overconfident push to “move fast and break things” forces a partial human rehire when a rogue agent deletes critical functions. The made‑up story functions as a stress test for the intersection of politics, procurement, system design and social licence — and it exposes how quickly practical and ethical guardrails can be overwhelmed by procurement momentum and political convenience.

Background​

The IPAA ACT hypothetical imagines a 2027 Australian government that centralises citizen-facing services into a new “Department of People” staffed primarily by AI agents. Cabinet fast‑tracks a multi‑department data sharing mandate and buys a large US vendor’s Copilot‑style solution; early automation yields both productivity headlines and damaging downstream impacts — including a reported 25% fall in rent assistance approvals for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in the scenario. The exercise intentionally glosses between satire and policy interrogation to surface the governance, procurement and operational failures that real governments must avoid.
This fictional arc echoes real debate themes: agentic AI can act rather than merely answer, giving rise to dramatic efficiency gains but also risks of error cascades, data exposure, and opaque decision trails. Practical frameworks for safe piloting, human‑in‑the‑loop design, and lifecycle governance are already being proposed in public‑sector playbooks; the hypothetical highlights what can go wrong when they aren’t followed. Evidence and playbook material from recent enterprise and government pilot literature supply useful templates — including staged “Scan, Pilot, Scale” frameworks and the concept of a guardian/monitoring layer for agent fleets.

---

What the IPAA ACT hypothetical actually shows​

Procurement shortcuts and vendor concentration​

The scenario’s opening gaffe — political pressure, a desire to “move fast,” and procurement gravitating to a single large US vendor — is not far from real procurement psychology. Large platform vendors offer packaged solutions, integrations and political cover that make them the path of least resistance for risk‑averse ministers and procurement teams. The result is fast traction, but often with vendor lock‑in risks: non‑portable artefacts, contracts that expose data for model training, and limited exit options. Analysts repeatedly warn that rapid procurement without portability and contractual safeguards creates long‑term dependencies that are costly to unwind.
The lesson is structural: procurement choices determine future governance levers. If the initial contract gives a vendor broad rights to process, store or re‑use citizen data, later attempts to impose transparency, provenance, or alternative model pipelines will encounter legal and technical friction. Governments must therefore treat procurement as a primary site of AI governance, not merely an operational decision.

When autonomous agents “act” instead of “answer”​

A core technical inflection in the scenario is the shift from conversational assistants (which provide answers or drafts) to autonomous agents (which execute multi‑step workflows). This “ask vs act” distinction matters because it changes the failure mode: a hallucinated fact in an answer is embarrassing; a hallucinated action that submits a benefit form or updates a tenancy file can cause real harm. The literature emphasises that agentic systems need deterministic fallbacks, refusal behaviours for low‑confidence tasks, and conservative defaults when legal entitlements are involved.
In the hypothetical, mandatory data sharing and automated decisioning amplify a single agent error into systemic harm — exactly the kind of cascade agent governance frameworks are designed to prevent.

Social licence and the uneven trust premium​

The scenario surfaces a political paradox: citizens often freely give personal data to private firms (banks, telcos, social platforms) but raise alarms when government seeks the same access. Public sector use of data therefore requires a different social contract: transparency, control, and clear benefit to the citizen. Pilots that build useful, opt‑in services can win consent; poor rollout choices—especially when they intersect with marginalised communities—erode trust quickly. Real programs that delivered opt‑in digital services and clear user value demonstrate the possibility of high adoption, but they do so only where choice and usability are central.

---

Technical realities and constraints​

Agent capabilities and the hardware footprint​

Agentic systems that can act — calling APIs, populating forms, orchestrating approvals — are more sophisticated than simple generative chat. They can also demand significant compute and on‑device acceleration if governments pursue local privacy‑preserving deployments. Practical enterprise guidance points to concrete hardware baselines for advanced on‑device features: for example, minimum NPU performance in the tens of TOPS, modestly large RAM footprints (16 GB or more), and multi‑core CPUs, with hybrid cloud fallback where on‑device execution isn’t feasible. These are not speculative numbers; they appear in vendor guidance for on‑device Copilot‑style features and shape deployment planning and total cost of ownership.
If a government wants to preserve privacy by prioritising local execution, it must budget for capable endpoints or accept degraded capabilities compared with cloud hybrids. That trade‑off matters for both user experience and risk: cloud processing eases capability but raises wider data‑sovereignty and exposure concerns.

Observability, auditing and forensic trails​

When agents perform multistep actions, every decision must be traceable: timestamps, model version, data accessed, precise prompts and confidence estimates. Production systems need thread‑level logging and versioned model records to enable redress and forensics. Governance designs commonly recommend a “guardian agent” or automated audit layer that monitors agent behaviour and flags anomalies for human review; such oversight should augment — not replace — human compliance processes.

The persistent risk of hallucination and cascading errors​

Generative models can produce plausible but incorrect information. When acting autonomously, these errors can cascade through downstream systems (e.g., an incorrect eligibility assessment passed to a payment engine). The field’s consensus is clear: systems must prefer refusal over risky action at low confidence, and high‑risk decisions must require human signoff. The IPAA exercise’s fictional drop in benefit approvals captures the type of harm a poorly instrumented agent could inflict — and it should be treated as a plausible failure mode, not merely a fiction.

---

Governance, legal and ethical implications​

Data minimisation, least privilege and cross‑department sharing​

A structural mistake in the hypothetical was mandatory, wide‑scope cross‑department data sharing. Real AI governance prescribes least privilege: agents should have the minimal dataset required for the task and should request escalation for additional data. Contracts should explicitly forbid vendor reuse of sensitive citizen data for model training absent explicit consent or anonymisation guarantees. The danger of relaxed data governance is not only privacy erosion but also fairness harms when models ingest biased or incomplete records.

Accountability, redress and legal liability​

When automated systems affect entitlements, there must be clear accountability: who signed off on the model, who validated the dataset, who authorised the agent’s access, and what the escalation path is for mistakes. Deterministic logs that show the agent’s chain of actions and the human decisions around them are necessary to enable appeals and legal redress. The scenario’s satirical deletion of the Productivity Commission underlines a deeper point: automated orchestration without human governance creates brittle single points of failure.

Procurement as a governance lever​

Procurement choices encode governance designs. Contracts should mandate data residency, audit access, model cards and change control, and should include exit and portability clauses. They should also require periodic independent audits and the right to replicate key artefacts. Large vendor deals often prioritise rapid delivery, but governments must balance speed with contractual constraints that preserve sovereignty and the ability to swap providers later.

---

Labour, roles and organisational redesign​

From human doing to human framing​

Agentic AI shifts human value from repetitive execution to framing, synthesis and verification. The practical consequences for public‑sector staffing are profound: fewer roles doing form entry or triage, more roles that audit, verify and manage agent fleets. Organisations that plan for a “conductor” model — human pods supervising clusters of agents — will be better placed to capture gains while protecting service quality. The literature recommends new roles such as Prompt Architect, Director of Agent Operations and AI Auditor to manage this hybrid workforce.

The risk of dehumanisation and cultural erosion​

Efficiency metrics can overshadow qualitative public service values such as empathy, dignity and equity. Automated systems that prioritise throughput over fairness can damage relationships with citizens, particularly marginalised groups. Any public‑sector AI roadmap must explicitly preserve and protect citizen‑centric roles (e.g., frontline caseworkers and advocates) where human judgement is essential.

---

Lessons and a practical roadmap for governments​

The IPAA ACT hypothetical is satire with a point: avoid shortcuts that trade operational speed for durable safeguards. Translating the critique into operational steps yields a pragmatic, staged roadmap.

• Preparation — Define intent and risk appetite
• Map every use case and classify each by risk (low/medium/high).
• Set clear boundaries for what data and systems agents may access.
• Require vendor commitments on data handling, provenance and portability.
• Pilot — Start conservatively with human‑in‑the‑loop agents
• Choose low‑risk pilots (summaries, scheduling, non‑binding guidance).
• Assign human verifiers to check factual, ethical and compliance aspects.
• Instrument detailed logs and telemetry.
• Scale — Orchestrate multi‑agent workflows with oversight
• Design explicit handoffs between research, finance and legal agents.
• Create a central orchestration layer and appoint conductors to manage agent fleets.
• Build guardian agents for automated anomaly detection.
• Institutionalise — Governance, audit and continuous learning
• Establish an AI governance board with independent audit powers.
• Mandate model cards, versioning and forensic logs for every production agent.
• Make prompt literacy, verification skills and AI ethics mandatory staff training.
• Contractual and procurement safeguards
• Include explicit clauses on data residency, model training exclusions, breach notification and exit portability.
• Require penetration testing and supply‑chain audits for vendor components.
• Citizen engagement and social licence
• Build opt‑in pilots that demonstrably deliver value before broadening mandates.
• Provide transparent dashboards describing how agents use data and how citizens can appeal decisions.

---

Red flags and unverifiable or fictional elements​

The IPAA ACT scenario mixes real policy debates with invented outcomes for rhetorical effect. Several claims in the hypothetical — notably the specific 25% drop in rent assistance approvals and the deletion of named government bodies as plot devices — are fictional constructs used to illustrate failure paths. These precise figures and events are not verifiable outside the scenario and should be treated as cautionary allegory rather than empirical findings. Any technical or policy decision should be grounded in auditable pilot data rather than hypothetical percentages. Flagged for caution: do not treat scenario metrics as evidence.

---

Critical analysis — strengths, risks and trade‑offs​

• Strengths revealed by the scenario:
• Agentic automation can dramatically reduce repetitive work and free skilled staff for higher‑value tasks.
• Pilot programs that centre human verification can accelerate learning while limiting harm.
• When done right, agent orchestration lowers ramp times for new tasks and democratizes access to complex services.
• Major risks and why they matter:
• Cascade failures: autonomous actions without conservative fallbacks produce systemic harms.
• Opacity and accountability loss: without forensic logs and human signoff, redress is impossible.
• Procurement lock‑in: initial contracts with single vendors can trap governments operationally and financially.
• Social licence erosion: poorly communicated or mandatory data sharing destroys trust, disproportionately harming marginalised groups.
• Trade‑offs to manage:
• Local on‑device processing preserves privacy but increases hardware cost and constrains capability; cloud processing is powerful but increases exposure.
• Speed of rollout vs thoroughness of governance: rushing to scale may lock in harms; slow pilots give time to learn but may frustrate political actors demanding results.

---

Conclusion​

The IPAA ACT hypothetical is a useful policy sandbox — not because it predicts exact outcomes, but because it compresses common failure modes into a compact narrative. It shows how political incentives, procurement convenience and technical temptation can conspire to produce brittle outcomes. The corrective is not technophobia but disciplined staging: treat procurement as governance, instrument every agent action, preserve human‑in‑the‑loop controls for high‑risk decisions, and design for portability and auditability from day one.
AI agents can be powerful public‑service multipliers, but only if governments recognise that the architecture of trust must be built before agents are given authority over entitlements. The future of public services will be hybrid: agents will amplify capacity, humans will provide judgement, and institutions must own the accountability. Failure to plan for that balance — as the IPAA ACT imagining demonstrates — risks turning a promising productivity boost into an avoidable public service fiasco.

---

Source: The Mandarin IPAA ACT hypothetical sees secretaries replaced with AI agents