A submission to an ongoing Senate inquiry noted at least two citation errors in the ACCS document. Guardian Australia’s analysis identified six references in the ACCS report that contained errors. An ACCS spokesperson initially denied the use of AI in the report when asked by Guardian Australia.

The spokesperson later conceded that AI had been used to rewrite paragraphs more succinctly. This admission followed the identification of four links in the report containing metadata identifying ChatGPT as the source.

The errors included Digital Object Identifiers (DOIs) that link to papers that do not exist. Other mistakes involved DOIs that point to incorrect papers. The report also listed author name, journal and publication year combinations that do not match any known references.

Some DOI links pointed to papers that did not say what the report suggested they said. A list of journal articles provided by ACCS to correct errors in the report included years, authors and journal titles not matching the original citations.

Specific discrepancies emerged regarding a study cited in the report. The ACCS cited an article apparently accessed in March 2025. A lead author of the study confirmed their article was not publicly accessible until it was published in June 2025.

The lead author also confirmed that the person originally cited by ACCS as the paper’s lead author, “Jamil”, had never been on the paper. Additionally, the lead author stated that the ACCS report had summarised their paper incorrectly. There was no reference attributed to Weber in the Monash University paper provided by ACCS.

Department officials told a Senate inquiry hearing on Friday that they met with ACCS, who claimed the errors were due to links breaking that had previously worked. Department officials stated they have not independently verified ACCS's claim that the links previously worked, stating it would be “very difficult” to go back and check. Sarah Vandenbroek, the department’s first assistant secretary, said, “[ACCS] assured us that the links were all checked at the time that the document was published, and they all worked then.” She added, “So, something may have changed in the interim. [They] did also assure us that while some of the links may have been broken, though the source documents do still exist, they are still valid.”

Professor Christian Downie from the Australian National University said if reports or submissions to government are found to have false citations, it could lead to bad decisions and “erode public confidence and trust” in institutions. He said, “One would assume the government is already thinking about this, and that is going to have to require contractual arrangements and presumably penalties to discourage this type of behaviour.” Independent Senator Fatima Payman said, “The saga of last year’s Deloitte AI slop report should have marked the end of slack referencing in reports by government contractors.” Payman said, “The government must demand an apology and refund from the contractor behind the report.” Communications Minister Anika Wells stated the ACCS report showed “many effective options” for checking people’s ages.

Why It Matters

The use of AI-generated content with inaccurate citations in a report supporting national legislation raises questions about verification processes for government contractors. The ACCS report paved the way for Australia’s under-16 social media ban to come into effect in December last year. Errors in foundational documents can influence policy decisions and public trust in institutional outputs.

The incident follows a similar case involving Deloitte, where the firm admitted to using AI and refunded part of its contract. The Senate inquiry is considering whether to strengthen the social media ban law, but no specific hearing, meeting, deadline or decision date has been scheduled in connection with this event, according to the available information. The outcome may influence future contractual requirements for accuracy and accountability in government-commissioned research.

Timeline

Deloitte refunded part of its $440,000 contract with the Australian government last year after errors were identified and the firm admitted to using AI. The ACCS report paved the way for Australia’s under-16 social media ban to come into effect in December last year. The ACCS cited an article apparently accessed in March 2025. A lead author of the study cited by ACCS confirmed their article was not publicly accessible until it was published in June 2025.

What's New

The official record of this event states that the $3.48m age assurance technology trial was run by the UK-based Age Check Certification Scheme (ACCS) last year, and the report was used to support Australia’s under-16 social media ban. Research titled "Quality Check for Australia's Research" was published in 2005 in Science. The Senate inquiry is considering whether to strengthen the social media ban law, but no specific hearing, meeting, deadline or decision date has been scheduled in connection with this event, according to the available information.

How Sources Differ

Regarding the use of AI in the ACCS report, the primary source states that an ACCS spokesperson conceded AI had been used after Guardian Australia identified four links in the report containing metadata identifying ChatGPT as the source. The desk web notes that the official record of this event states that the $3.48m age assurance technology trial was run by the UK-based Age Check Certification Scheme (ACCS) last year, and the report was used to support Australia’s under-16 social media ban.

On the nature of the trial, the desk web states that the official record of this event states that the $3.48m age assurance technology trial was run by the UK-based Age Check Certification Scheme (ACCS) last year, and the report was used to support Australia’s under-16 social media ban. The Age Check Certification Scheme report states that the ACCS trial tested various types of technology that could be used by social media platforms for Australia’s under-16 social media ban.

Concerning the timing of the ban, the desk web states that the official record of this event states that the $3.48m age assurance technology trial was run by the UK-based Age Check Certification Scheme (ACCS) last year, and the report was used to support Australia’s under-16 social media ban. Australian legislation states that the ACCS report paved the way for Australia’s under-16 social media ban to come into effect in December last year.

Regarding the trial details, the desk web states that the official record of this event states that the $3.48m age assurance technology trial was run by the UK-based Age Check Certification Scheme (ACCS) last year, and the report was used to support Australia’s under-16 social media ban. The Age Check Certification Scheme report states that the Age Check Certification Scheme (ACCS) conducted a $3.48m age assurance technology trial last year.