AI confidence remains strong in Australia and New Zealand despite growing accountability and governance challenges, DLA Piper study finds

Businesses in Australia and New Zealand remain bullish on AI, but new research from DLA Piper reveals leaders believes there are gaps in governance, supplier oversight, and contractual accountability that could undermine long-term success.

The findings come from The AI Year, DLA Piper's comprehensive 360-degree examination of the global AI ecosystem. The study surveyed 975 leaders, including investors, innovators, and adopters, across 13 markets and five sectors – AI, technology, strategy, investment, and legal. 

Despite concerns around risk management, confidence in AI remains strong across the region. Respondents in Australia and New Zealand reported 75 percent overall confidence in AI, reflecting positive sentiment around performance stability, investment returns, valuations, and the technology's ability to deliver expected business gains.

However, that confidence is being tested by unresolved accountability across the AI value chain. In Australia and New Zealand, 69 percent of respondents say others in their AI value chain are attempting to pass on liability, while 60 percent say their commercial strategy relies on AI suppliers over which they have no oversight or audit authority. Eighty percent of ANZ AI adopters say AI suppliers cannot meet transparency demands, nine percentage points above the global average, while 36 percent of ANZ adopters are reviewing contracts to limit AI liability. 

Nick Valentine, Partner and Head of Technology and Data at DLA Piper in New Zealand, said the data points to a growing gap between AI ambition and organisational readiness. 

“AI has moved away from the innovation team and into the boardroom, changing the risk profile,” Valentine said. “Organisations are no longer only asking whether AI can create value – they are questioning whether they can explain it, control it, contract for it, and stand behind the decisions it supports. The data suggests many organisations are building critical operations around suppliers they may not be able to oversee, audit, or hold fully accountable. That is a governance issue, a procurement issue and – increasingly – a board-level accountability issue.”

The findings come as AI regulation and policy continue to evolve across the region. In Australia, the government has established an Office of AI and announced plans for a new Australian AI standard, including mandatory requirements for large data centres covering energy and water. In New Zealand, government guidance continues to emphasise governance, security, procurement, skills, transparency, bias, privacy and human accountability in responsible AI use. 

Joel Cox, technology partner at DLA Piper in Australia, has seen the sophistication of AI strategy development and execution among Australian clients increase quickly.

“Boards and executive teams are looking for ways to transform key parts of their business with the use of AI and they are focused on building the necessary infrastructure, team and culture for that. The harder questions are now coming into focus: how much control do they really have over the AI supply chain, what data can they practically and legally leverage to build their own AI models and sovereign capability, what are the costs associated and what alternative funding is available, and are their technology governance settings strong enough to support AI adoption at scale.”

Daniel Street, litigation and regulatory partner at DLA Piper in New Zealand, said contractual disputes are likely to follow rapid AI deployment.

“The next wave of AI disputes may come from missed expectations – procurement promises, data rights, performance claims, integration failures, outages, customer harm and unclear recourse when a supplier cannot explain how the system works,” said Street. “The research shows ANZ businesses are already reviewing contracts to limit liability. That is sensible, but contracts need to be backed by practical governance, testing, documentation and escalation processes.”

The report also found that 51 percent of respondents believe their organisation’s AI governance would be more effective with skilled or specialist oversight, while 44 percent want greater accountability through one team or individual responsible for setting and overseeing AI activities. 

Valentine said the organisations best placed to capture AI’s benefits will be those that treat governance as a commercial enabler.

“Done properly, AI governance gives boards, customers, regulators, and investors confidence that the organisation can scale AI responsibly,” he said. “The point of difference will be execution – with clear ownership, supplier discipline, and resilience built in from the start.”