Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee, , 2:58:55 to 3:03:45
The department responds to criticisms about the IAT's implementation, detailing the live trials and validation processes used to ensure the tool's accuracy before its final rollout.
Topics: Health, Government IT systems
Speakers: Mr Blair Comley, Ms Sonja Stewart, Senator Penny Allman-Payne, Senator Ellie Whiteaker, Unknown Speaker
Um does the department have confidence that the integrated assessment tool is accurately assessing older people, particularly those with cognitive issues and mental health conditions.
So I have a high level of confidence around the integrated assessment tool. I note that um in the work and um we were talking about that before, Senator Ollman Payne, in terms of the uh rapid review that we were tasked to the priority um algorithm that there were feedback from um stakeholders that uh that were consulted as part of that around the integrated assessment tool. Uh government has acknowledged um and tasked uh work around a review of the algorithms, the priority and the classification algorithms that work with the integrated assessment tool, but in terms of its robust testing and its um and its application, um you know I I have a level of confidence in that. It is not to say that we don't continually uh think about the integrated assessment tool, think about continuous improvement, um, but I've got a high Degree of confidence with the integrated assessment tool?
Just to you mentioned robust testing. Page 12 of the Ombudsman's report says that the department implemented the IAT in its current form without any meaningful risk assessment, evaluation or analysis, despite the obvious risks that would arise with deterministic automated decision making. What do you say to that finding?
So I think that the Secretary might have addressed that in his letter, but I'm mindful that he's sitting next to me. Do you want to?
I will I will refer to my reply to the Ombudsman because I think it's we have spent a bit of time thinking about how best to express this. I wrote in my letter to the Ombudsman. In your draft report, you state that the trials and consultation on the IAT completed over several years did not support the development of the IAT in its current form, and that the department implemented the IAT in its current form without any meaningful risk assessment evaluation or analysis. The department does not accept this characterisation. The questions used in the IAT today were settled in mid-2023. They were then validated through 22,000 live trials in 2023, with minor modifications such as to the sequence of questions made post the live trials. The data from these live trials was used in the development of the classification algorithm. The IAT was also used to complete more than 200,000 assessments during 2024-25. The data from these assessments was used to refine and validate the classification algorithm. The IAT and supporting classification and prioritizing algorithms, as introduced on 1 November 2025, were therefore subject to significant testing and validation. This iterative approach to development is consistent with standard arrangements for major system changes. The alternate view would be that following testing, the IAT should have been locked in its final form and then subject to extensive further testing. We do not believe that that would have been practical and would have extended the implementation time frame, delaying the benefits of the new system. We also note that we do not view the algorithms as final products. The government is committed to ongoing review and monitoring of the system and intends to make any necessary refinements over time. To your point about risk assurance also, the government had significant governance, assurance and risk management processes in place during the development of the age care act 2024 and associated reforms. A dedicated age care transformation steering committee with cross-government oversight and an independent assurer was established to monitor the implementation of reforms, including the introduction of the IAT. The reforms were also subject to independent processes, including the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills. An implementation readiness assessment was undertaken in September 2023 with two gateway reviews that followed in November 2024 and September 2025, respectively. This provided significant oversight of the IAT and associated changes. So I I we take the feedback from the Ombudsman seriously. On this point, as I've put in the letter that we put in response to the draft Ombudsman's report, we respectively disagree that we don't accept that characterisation of the testing of the algorithm, the IAT and the implementation.
Thank you. Thank you, Senator.