Only 17 per cent of Australian Government agencies disclose their use of automated decision-making (ADM) systems despite legal requirements to inform the public, according to a new report from the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner (OAIC).

The review of 23 agencies authorised to use ADM found 74 per cent could not be identified as using the technology through publicly available information. No agency has published guidelines or policies on ADM use.

"Proactively publishing clear information about automated decision-making is essential to building trust and ensuring accountability," Australian Information Commissioner Elizabeth Tydd said.

"Through this Report we can encourage agencies to deliver greater community awareness and satisfaction about how government decisions are made."

The OAIC's report, Automated Decision-Making And Public Reporting Under The Freedom Of Information Act, follows a desktop review conducted in October 2025 of agency websites, AI transparency statements and Information Publication Scheme (IPS) materials.

ADM refers to the use of technology, commonly called a 'computer program' in Commonwealth legislation, to automate decision-making processes. It is used across government in areas including social services, taxation, aged care and veterans' entitlements.

The review found all 23 agencies publish IPS-related information on their websites. However, only four agencies - the Australian Taxation Office, Services Australia, Department of Veterans' Affairs and Department of Health, Disability and Aging - disclosed that they use ADM in decision-making processes.

A further nine agencies made reference to ADM in their IPS information but did not confirm whether they used it. Ten agencies made no mention of ADM despite having statutory authority to use it.

Commissioner Tydd said the findings highlighted opportunities for improvement in meeting Freedom of Information Act 1982 obligations.

"Information about decision-making and the exercise of agencies functions is important information for the Australian community," she said. "It improves integrity, accountability and trust."

The report identified several case studies illustrating the transparency gap. One regulatory agency authorised to use ADM has an AI transparency statement saying it does not use AI without human oversight. However, external evidence found the agency employs ADM to calculate fees in its online portal, with the explanatory statement for the legislative instrument explicitly confirming this use.

Another case study described an agency that mentioned ADM only in a data strategy report, stating it was "embracing automation and artificial intelligence, which allows it to make decisions based on data, in a more timely manner." The agency did not elaborate on how decisions are made or whether any are based solely on automated processes.

"Without published guidelines, policies or procedures," the report stated, "we did not categorise any agency as 'better practice'. This is despite 4 agencies acknowledging that they use ADM and a further 2 that had external evidence suggesting that they also used ADM."

The review follows the 2023 Robodebt Royal Commission, which found the scheme's heavy reliance on ADM for income averaging did not comply with Social Security Act provisions. The Commission recommended legislative reform to introduce consistent legal frameworks where automation in government services can operate, including clear paths for review and plain language explanations on departmental websites.

The OAIC report makes four key recommendations for agencies authorised to use ADM:

1. Publish information as part of the IPS, including the statute granting power and whether ADM is utilised to provide information and services.

2. Clearly state the types of ADM used to make automated decisions, not just AI - from simple calculators to machine learning.

3. Publish both a list of decisions where ADM is used and relevant, easy-to-understand examples.

4. Publish policies that clearly set out principles for when and how ADM is used to make decisions affecting members of the public.

Commissioner Tydd confirmed the OAIC will begin consultation to update the Information Commissioner Guidelines as a priority in 2026.

"The OAIC will update Part 13 - Information Publication Scheme of the FOI guidelines so that ADM is expressly included as an example of 'operational information'."

The report identified good practices among the four agencies that disclosed ADM use. The Department of Veterans' Affairs disclosed ADM through multiple reference points including privacy policy and data collection notices, listed services where ADM may be used, and listed all relevant legislation.

Services Australia provided a dedicated automation and AI webpage with technical information on three broad types of automation used. The ATO provided an easy-to-read case study about ADM in relation to franking credits.

The Privacy and Other Legislation Amendments Act has added requirements for entities to include in privacy policies information about whether ADM has substantially and directly made decisions that significantly affect individual rights or interests.

The Attorney-General's Department is leading development of a whole-of-government framework to provide additional transparency obligations on agencies regarding ADM use, including clear safeguards.

The full report and recommendations are available HERE