Report Calls for Audit of Government Automated Decisions
The Centre for Public Integrity says Australians may not know when automated tools shape decisions affecting them.
Updated on Nov. 4, 2026 in Artificial Intelligence
Live Poll
Do you trust the federal government to be open about when computers make decisions affecting you?
The Centre for Public Integrity launched its "Computer Says No" report on Thursday, examining the government's use of automated decision-making tools. The report contains eight recommendations, including a mandatory audit and public register of all automated decision-making use.
Why it matters
The centre is concerned Australians may not know whether automated decision-making has been used in decisions affecting them. The report follows findings that an aged care assessment algorithm routinely under-assesses older people's needs and package entitlements.
The report sets out eight recommendations, including a mandatory audit and public register of automated decision-making, drawn from the Centre's review of government use of such tools. It is not yet clear whether the government will act on them, and the status of the attorney general's framework after its January 2025 consultation remains unconfirmed.
The players
Centre for Public Integrity
An Australian think tank that focuses on government accountability and integrity in public administration.
Kate Chaney
An independent member of the Australian House of Representatives who has pursued reform of government automated decision-making.
The details
The integrated assessment tool, an algorithm used to determine the level of home support older Australians are entitled to, has been found to routinely under-assess people's needs. Aged care assessors are banned by the government from overriding incorrect algorithmic decisions, and the report calls for an independent oversight body to monitor, audit and investigate such tools.
Timeline
January 2025: attorney general's department consultation on an automated decision-making framework closed.
October: a Commonwealth ombudsman report found transparency recommendations from the robodebt royal commission were ignored when developing the integrated assessment tool.
September: Kate Chaney introduced a private member's bill on automated decision-making.
Thursday: the Centre for Public Integrity launched its Computer Says No report.
Big Picture
The report follows the robodebt royal commission, whose transparency recommendations the Commonwealth ombudsman found were overlooked when the integrated assessment tool was developed. It shows the same accountability gap persisting in newer automated systems used in Australian government services.
Older Australians assessed by the integrated assessment tool may receive less home support than they are entitled to, and they cannot rely on an assessor to override an incorrect algorithmic result. The report's recommendations would give people a public register showing where automated decisions are used.
The takeaway
Knowing whether an algorithm shaped a government decision is the first step toward challenging it. The report's call for a public register would make that visible to everyone affected.
Further reading
For broader context on how these tools are reshaping public services, explore Artificial Intelligence coverage.
Source note: This article includes information reported by The Guardian.
Live Poll
Do you trust the federal government to be open about when computers make decisions affecting you?
