Watchdog Exposes Federal Agencies' Automated Decision-Making Transparency Gap
The Australian Information Commissioner has delivered a stark warning to federal agencies, following a comprehensive review that found not a single government body demonstrates full transparency regarding their use of automated decision-making systems.
This revelation comes despite the lingering shadow of the Robodebt scandal, highlighting ongoing concerns about how computerised systems affect Australian citizens' lives across critical service areas.
Systemic Transparency Failures Uncovered
The Office of the Australian Information Commissioner conducted a detailed desktop review of 23 agencies across 12 portfolios, including major departments like the Australian Taxation Office, Services Australia, and the Department of Veterans' Affairs.
While all reviewed agencies possess legal authority to implement automated decision-making (ADM) systems, none published the mandatory guidelines or comprehensive policies that would explain how these technological systems actually function in practice.
The review uncovered a troubling pattern of disclosure deficiencies:
- 43 percent of agencies (10 departments) make no mention whatsoever of ADM use on their official websites
- 39 percent (9 agencies) make vague references to automated systems but fail to confirm actual implementation in decision processes
- Only 17 percent (4 agencies) disclosed ADM use through Information Publication Schemes, but even these disclosures lacked clarity about specific operational applications
Real-World Impact on Citizens
Automated decision-making refers to the computerisation of government determinations, particularly in sensitive domains including taxation calculations, social welfare assessments, and healthcare provisions for veterans and elderly Australians.
A concerning case study highlighted how one regulatory agency employed ADM to calculate fees through an online portal, yet completely omitted this information from their terms and conditions. Instead, the agency misleadingly stated they did not utilise artificial intelligence without human oversight.
Australian Information Commissioner Elizabeth Tydd emphasised that "an open government was built on transparency" and that clear explanations about when and how agencies deploy automated systems could significantly enhance integrity while strengthening public confidence.
Regulatory Response and Future Directions
The OAIC has confirmed that formal freedom of information guidelines will be updated to specifically include automated decision-making as an example of "operational information" that agencies must properly disclose.
This regulatory change would compel government bodies to provide clearer explanations of their automated systems, ensuring citizens better understand how these technological tools function and affect their daily interactions with government services.
The information commissioner's office has also recommended that agencies publish concrete examples and formal policies to ensure automated systems remain both transparent and contestable by affected individuals.
Commissioner Tydd acknowledged that the OAIC itself requires guideline improvements, stating the agency "will begin consultation to update the Information Commissioner Guidelines as a priority in 2026."
Building Trust in Government Technology
The transparency findings emerge against the backdrop of the Australian Public Service's AI Plan launched in 2025, where Finance and Public Service Minister Katy Gallagher emphasised that trust from both public servants and citizens remains fundamental to technological implementation.
Despite the overall transparency failures, the review identified that several major agencies including the ATO, Services Australia, DVA, and Health Department each adopted at least one good practice in flagging ADM use within their IPS materials.
These isolated examples demonstrate that while government-wide consistency remains lacking, foundational elements for improved transparency already exist within some departments and could potentially form the basis for more comprehensive disclosure standards across the federal public service.
