31%
of boards say AI is not on the board agenda at all.
AI governance training built for boardrooms, not technical workshops.
By the 2026 proxy season, institutional investors expect documented director training in AI oversight. Personal liability under FAR is real, with penalties up to $1.565 million for individuals and $210 million for corporations. In ASIC v RI Advice Group, the Federal Court held directors may be personally liable for failing to implement practices that minimise technology-failure harm.
Built for
Non-executive directors · Audit & risk committees · CEOs, CROs, CTOs, CISOs · FAR accountable persons
Aligned to: Corporations Act ss 180-183 / FAR / APRA CPS 230 / ASIC REP 798 / AICD-HTI 8 elements / Voluntary AI Safety Standard
What directors leave with.
10 director questions
The 10 critical questions every director should ask management about AI solutions. Ready for the next board pack.
AI risk dashboard
Board-level dashboard with 7 to 8 actionable data points covering adoption, risk, compliance, incidents, and ethics scores.
Committee charter
Four committee models with charter, terms of reference, and decision authority. Pick the structure that fits your maturity.
Proxy-ready documentation
Participation certificates and session summaries for proxy statement disclosure. Demonstrate AI literacy to investors and proxy advisors.
Directors carry new AI oversight obligations.
Fiduciary duties under the Corporations Act now explicitly extend to AI oversight. Directors must exercise care and diligence over AI systems operating within their organisations. Unknown AI is unmanaged AI. Unmanaged AI is fiduciary risk.
- 012026
2026 proxy-season pressure.
Major institutional investors have updated stewardship guidelines requiring documented AI governance at board level. By the 2026 proxy season, boards must document director training and oversight frameworks in proxy statements. Nearly half of Fortune 100 companies now cite AI risk as part of board oversight, a threefold rise from 16% to 48%. Boards that fall short face withhold recommendations and shareholder scrutiny.
- 02In force
FAR personal liability is real.
Under the Financial Accountability Regime, accountable persons face personal liability with penalties up to $1.565 million for individuals and $210 million for corporations. AI governance failures that create customer harm or systemic risk trigger FAR liability directly. Compliance is not optional for C-suite executives in regulated Australian organisations.
- 03Case law
Director liability for AI failures.
In ASIC v RI Advice Group, the Federal Court held that directors may be personally liable for failing to implement practices that minimise harm caused by technology failures. AI affects earnings and cost structure. It falls within the board's duty to protect shareholder value. "Management will handle it" does not protect directors when risk management frameworks are absent.
Leadership training vs staff training.
Board members and C-suite executives do not need technical AI training. They need governance training that covers fiduciary duties, risk management, AI committee structures, and the questions to ask management. Each programme designed for its audience.
See staff training programmesTrack A
Staff AI literacy
For the general workforce.
- How to use AI tools safely
- Data privacy when using ChatGPT
- Recognising AI-generated content
- Productivity gains from AI assistance
- Following company AI policies
Track B
Board & executive
For senior leadership.
- Fiduciary duties for AI oversight (Corporations Act)
- Strategic AI risk and risk management
- Questions directors should ask management
- FAR personal liability, APRA expectations
- Board reporting frameworks, committees
- C-suite governance roles (CEO, CTO, CRO, CISO)
Four leadership programmes.
Strategic governance training for directors and executives. Delivered on-site or virtually by specialists in the Australian regulatory landscape, board reporting, and compliance.
- 01Half-day. 4h. Up to 12.
AI governance for board directors.
Tailored for non-executive and executive directors. Oversight obligations under fiduciary duties, the questions that matter for proxy-season AI governance, and documented AI literacy for investor disclosure.
- Director fiduciary duties under Corporations Act ss 180-183
- APRA expectations, ASIC REP 798, Privacy Act 2026
- Strategic, reputational, operational, compliance risk
- 10 critical director questions to management
- AI committee structures (4 models)
- Proxy-season AI governance questions
- 02Full-day. 8h. Up to 15.
AI governance for C-suite executives.
For CEOs, CROs, CTOs, CISOs, CFOs responsible for governance implementation. Build the operating model, assign C-suite roles and accountability, and develop strategies to manage strategic AI risk.
- FAR accountability and personal liability for executives
- Operating models with clear roles for CEO, CTO, CRO, CISO
- APRA CPS 230 compliance and board oversight expectations
- Risk frameworks aligned to NIST and ISO 42001
- Third-party AI vendor due diligence
- Board KPIs, dashboards, governance metrics
- Case studies: Robodebt, consulting AI fabrication, Air Canada chatbot
- 03Custom. 1 to 3h.
Custom executive briefings.
Tailored briefings for audit committee meetings, risk committee sessions, or board strategy days. Designed around your industry, AI maturity, and regulatory obligations.
- EU AI Act impact on Australian businesses with European operations
- Privacy Act 2026 amendments and ADM compliance
- Generative AI risks and sector-specific governance
- AI in M&A due diligence and transformation strategy
- Building an AI committee: charter, composition, authority
- Executive education on AI capabilities and limitations
- 04Annual
Annual board AI governance review.
Recurring annual programme to keep board AI literacy current and demonstrate continuous governance improvement. Sized for proxy disclosure and investor scrutiny.
- Annual half-day training with updated case studies and regulatory developments
- Quarterly regulatory updates: APRA, ASIC, Privacy Act
- Maturity assessment against AICD-HTI eight-element framework
- Training documentation for proxy statements and investor disclosure
- New director onboarding and board composition strategy
Board reporting frameworks we teach.
Every leadership programme includes practical board reporting frameworks. Dashboards, governance KPIs, and reporting cadences that make AI risk visible at board level.
Domain A
AI risk dashboard design
7 to 8 actionable data points: adoption metrics, risk exposure, compliance status, incident management, ethical compliance scores. Traffic-light visualisations and trend analysis directors can interpret without technical expertise.
Domain B
Governance KPIs
AI system inventory coverage, risk assessment completion, policy adherence, model performance drift, third-party vendor compliance, and bias testing results. Metrics that demonstrate maturity to regulators and stakeholders.
Domain C
Reporting cadences
Monthly risk dashboards, quarterly deep-dive reports, annual strategic reviews, and as-needed incident reporting. Aligned to ASIC REP 798 recommendations and APRA expectations for board oversight.
Four AI governance committee structures.
The most common question we receive is how to structure AI governance oversight at board level. Pick the model that fits your AI maturity, strategy, and risk profile.
- 01
Full board oversight
Suitable for smaller organisations or limited AI deployment. AI governance remains a standing agenda item for the full board. Works when AI is not yet a core driver but requires board awareness.
- 02
Existing committee expansion
The most common approach. Expand the mandate of audit (AI risk and compliance), risk (AI risk identification and monitoring), or technology committee (AI strategy and innovation). Approximately 15% of S&P 500 companies disclose this approach.
- 03
Dedicated AI / technology committee
For organisations where AI is strategically critical. Focused expertise, may include external AI advisors, reports directly to board. Charter establishes authority to approve, modify, or terminate AI projects.
- 04
AI ethics board with veto authority
For high-risk AI in regulated industries. Focus on ethical considerations, responsible AI review, and independent assessment of sensitive AI use cases. Authority to modify or block high-risk projects.
The board AI governance gap.
Survey data reveals gaps that expose Australian organisations to director liability, regulatory action, and missed strategic opportunities.
66%
of boards admit they do not know enough about AI to provide effective oversight.
40%
of organisations are rethinking board composition due to AI governance requirements.
<25%
of companies have board-approved, structured AI policies and governance frameworks.
What happens when boards lack AI literacy
Risks recognised too late
Without executive education on AI capabilities and limitations, risks surface only after audits, public exposure, or regulatory scrutiny. ASIC's 2025-26 Corporate Plan identifies AI use and director conduct as enforcement focus areas.
Strategic potential constrained
Leaders without AI literacy cannot drive strategic initiatives with confidence. Only 5% of organisations realise significant returns from AI. The difference is governance: board-level AI strategies move faster while managing risk effectively.
Accountability becomes diffuse
Without clear C-suite AI governance roles, ownership of automated decision outcomes is unclear. Under FAR, this ambiguity is dangerous. Personal liability attaches to accountable persons.
AI governance failures we cover in training.
Documented governance failures that resulted in financial loss, reputational damage, and director liability. Real cases, not hypothetical scenarios.
- 01Australia
Robodebt. ADM without oversight.
$1.73 billion wrongfully recovered from 381,000 individuals. The Royal Commission found "venality, incompetence and cowardice." Lessons: human oversight of automated decisions is non-negotiable, legal and ethical review must precede deployment, and mechanisms for challenging AI decisions must exist.
- 02Australia
Major consulting firm. GenAI quality failure.
A 237-page government report contained AI-generated fabricated citations and non-existent court references. The firm refunded part of the AU$440,000 contract. Demonstrates why governance needs output verification, disclosure obligations, and quality assurance for AI-assisted work.
- 03International
Air Canada. Organisational accountability.
A tribunal ruled organisations are legally responsible for statements made by their AI systems. The airline's attempt to deny responsibility for its chatbot compounded the reputational damage. Establishes that businesses cannot distance themselves from the AI they deploy.
Related AI consulting services.
AI governance consulting
End-to-end governance framework design and implementation. Structures, policies, and risk management built for Australian regulators.
Risk framework development
AI-specific risk taxonomies and assessment methodologies aligned to APRA CPS 230, NIST AI RMF, and Australian regulatory requirements.
Staff AI literacy training
Workforce-level AI training across the organisation. Complement board governance training with practical AI literacy for all staff.
Prepare your board for the 2026 proxy season.
Institutional investors will ask about director AI training in proxy statements. Personal liability under FAR is real, with penalties up to $1.565 million for individuals. Book a workshop to document board AI literacy, establish committee structures, and build the risk management strategies your organisation needs.