Centre for Public Integrity urges mandatory audits of government algorithms

Commonwealth Ombudsman found robodebt transparency recommendations were ignored

The Centre for Public Integrity has called for mandatory audits of all automated decision-making by the Australian government, warning that people may not know when software has shaped decisions affecting them. The independent think tank’s chief executive, Dr Catherine Williams, launched the centre’s “Computer Says No” report on Thursday and called for urgent reform of the framework governing government ADM.

The report examines ADM use across government and makes eight recommendations. The eight include a mandatory audit and public register of all ADM use, along with an independent oversight body empowered to monitor, audit and investigate the government. Williams said the centre’s work responds to its concern that Australians may not know whether ADM has been used in decisions affecting them.

A particular concern is the integrated assessment tool, or IAT, which uses an algorithm to assess the level of home support older Australians are entitled to. The report said the IAT had been found to routinely under-assess people’s needs and package entitlements. The government has also barred aged care assessors from overriding incorrect algorithmic decisions.

“We have been watching the evidence emerge in relation to the aged care algorithm tool, and becoming increasingly concerned about what is clearly the lack of an appropriate and robust framework to govern use of ADM by the government,” Williams said. “It feels as though we are sleepwalking into another robodebt scenario,” she said, adding that the report was intended to help inform any framework the government proposes.

The attorney general, Michelle Rowland, said the framework would implement recommendations from the royal commission into robodebt. Her department has been developing an ADM framework, and public consultation ended in January 2025. Rowland did not answer questions about when a draft might be completed and made public, or whether the rules would apply retrospectively.

Rowland said the government “is committed to ensuring the safe and responsible use of ADM to deliver timely and efficient services for the Australian community.” The framework “will be designed to improve accuracy and consistency of administrative decisions, embed robust safeguards, including transparency obligations, and ensure that ADM is used lawfully, responsibly, and with appropriate human oversight.” Rowland also said the framework would lift productivity and help deliver faster, more reliable services.

A Commonwealth Ombudsman report published in October found that transparency recommendations from the robodebt royal commission had been ignored by the government in developing and rolling out the IAT. The Ombudsman finding concerned the same tool that Williams said had prompted the centre’s growing concern.

In September, independent MP Kate Chaney introduced a private member’s bill that would establish the first legislated, mandatory framework for ADM use by the government. “I have met with the attorney general about it and they say ‘We’re working on it’,” Chaney said. “I think it’s really important that we keep the pressure up so that it doesn’t get dropped because it’s too hard.”

Chaney said government departments were making ADM decisions with little consistency or transparency. She said the government wants to find cost savings in the public service and that automating decisions can help achieve those savings. “But I think trust in the government is low. There does need to be transparency about when decisions are automated, and when it’s not appropriate for those to be automated,” she said. Chaney said people need a clear understanding of why a decision was made and what pathways are available to review it.

For people relying on public benefits, the unresolved questions are whether they can know an automated tool was used, how an incorrect assessment can be challenged and whether safeguards apply consistently across departments. Those concerns were central to the Centre for Public Integrity’s call for a public register, mandatory audits and independent oversight. Williams said the report was intended to inform any framework the government proposes, while Rowland did not set out when a draft would be completed and published.