How does Australia's records management framework under the Archives Act and state archives differ from the federal-only US system?

Australia and the United States both treat public records as accountable assets, but they organize the governing law differently. The key contrast is structural: Australia operates a two-tier system spanning the Commonwealth (national) government and each state and territory, while US federal recordkeeping law governs only federal agencies, leaving the 50 states to set their own rules.

How Australia is structured

At the national level, the Archives Act establishes the framework for Commonwealth records and gives the National Archives of Australia authority over their creation, retention, disposal, and transfer. Crucially, this national law does not reach into state government. Each state and territory has its own archives or public records legislation and its own archival authority, which independently regulates recordkeeping for that jurisdiction’s agencies, courts, and (often) local councils.

The result is a layered landscape:

• Commonwealth agencies answer to national archives law and guidance.
• State and territory agencies answer to their own state legislation and their own archives institution.
• A given record’s rules depend on which level of government created it.

Australia is also notable for its strong influence on international recordkeeping standards, including the records management practices reflected in ISO 15489, which emphasize systematic capture, classification, and disposition.

How the US compares

US federal records management is anchored in federal statute and overseen by the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), which issues schedules and guidance for executive-branch agencies. This authority is confined to the federal government. State, county, and municipal records fall under separate state laws and state archives, meaning practitioners must consult the relevant jurisdiction’s statute rather than a single national rulebook.

Why the difference matters

Despite the structural contrast, both systems share core principles: records must be authentic, reliably retained for set periods, and disposed of only under lawful authority. The practical implication for professionals is jurisdictional awareness. In Australia you determine whether a record is Commonwealth or state to find the governing authority; in the US you distinguish federal records from state and local ones the same way.

For more on how recordkeeping obligations are organized across jurisdictions, see the compliance and standards hub.