Institutional alignment with TEQSA's generative AI principles in Australian universities: a national document analysis with implications for ICT education

Global interest in artificial intelligence- (AI) supported assessment is growing; however, few studies have examined how institutional responses align with regulatory standards, particularly in information and communications technology (ICT) education. This study conducted a national-level document analysis of publicly available resources from 39 Australian universities offering ICT programmes, exploring how institutions are responding to generative AI integration in assessment practices against the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency's two core principles: preparing students to engage ethically in an AI-driven world and ensuring reliable and trustworthy assessments of student competencies. As ICT-specific documentation was largely absent from the public domain, findings were drawn predominantly from generic university-wide policies, with ICT serving as a case context where discipline-specific guidance is notably lacking. Findings revealed encouraging progress in institutional positioning, with publicly available documents indicating increased policy articulation, referenced training initiatives and stated commitments to AI literacy. However, the analysis also exposed inconsistencies in policy coherence, limited ICT-specific guidance and substantial variation in how GenAI is addressed across institutional documents. The paper recommends stronger integration of AI ethics, clearer communication of permitted AI uses and targeted professional development for ICT staff, contributing to evolving discourse on responsible AI use and equitable, future-ready assessment design. Implications for practice or policy: • ICT course leaders should develop discipline-specific GenAI guidance for technical assessments, largely absent across Australian universities. • Institutional leaders should invest in operational governance structures, documented in only 7 of 39 universities. • Sector bodies should develop discipline-specific extensions to existing GenAI frameworks, as institution-level principles have not produced targeted ICT guidance. • Assessors should prioritise process-based and authentic ICT assessment designs, referenced by only 21 universities.