… now seemingly meaning “any algorithm that gives a result that someone doesn’t like”.
While the above article is interesting, I don’t think it’s a very good example for this topic because a computer algorithm can have a clean, simple, transparent, non-learning, 100% correct implementation, according to the specification given to the IT team … but if the specification is not in accordance with the law then the software should not be used.
Quite right. There was nothing wrong with the algorithm technically at all, it did exactly what it was specified to do but the spec was wrong.
I thought it was a very silly to mention robodebt in the context. We have had several attempts at this kind of thing in the media, lumping robodebt with AI and learning systems where it does not belong.
For the non-technical readers consider these two cases.
The software requires huge amounts of data to train it before it gets to do any work. The outcomes can be biased by the data sets the system is trained on. The programmers and experts can be surprised at what it produces. It may be impossible to say exactly why it produces any single outcome. A human being couldn’t do anything like it given years even to get a single outcome.
The software is not trained to do its work, it is given step by step instructions of exactly what to do by the programmer. It is quite deterministic, the outcome in any particular case is entirely predictable and any deviation from the expected outcome is certainly an error. Given the raw data for one case and the correct formula for the calculation a competent human can get the correct answer with a pocket calculator, pencil and paper in a short time, somewhere between 5 minutes and an hour depending on the case.
Item #1 describes the black box algorithms in the linked article. Item #2 describes robodebt.
I think it is a reflection of the opinion(?) (by the ABC) that, in the longer term, those other cases are far more concerning than the original robodebt. The ABC has been on this for, maybe, 6 to 12 months i.e. looking at the power of secret algorithms.
That’s the extreme case - but even with a deterministic, procedural algorithm there is the issue that it is a blackbox, it is opaque, it is unreviewable outside the operator of the algorithm. Machine Learning just takes that to the next level.
But the Robodebt methodology was never secret, or opaque. Except to the recipients of the debt notices.
The matching data from the ATO was based on a year. So the DSS simply divided by 12 to match their monthly payment method.
I worked in the then Department of Social Security for over 10 years and at one point it was my job to raise overpayments in a regional office (as it was done then). I was given formal training to do so, and it was all focussed on the fact that The Social Security Act decreed that each customer’s payment fortnight was the pivot around which all calculations were made, ie income averaging was unlawful. When I read today about all the buck passing associated with Robodebt I know they’re all lying through their teeth as it wouldn’t have taken any level of legal advice to know that it was completely outside the law. Even a base-grade clerk would have known.
We already have the posturing, misdirection and confusion commencing from those who think they can gain some benefit from the release itself or its timing.
The reason it was a legal and ethical disgrace, that the calculation method was contrary to the Act, will be confused again by those emphasising the fact that it was automated. You could have got the same outcomes (but slower) if it was done with quill pens on parchment sitting on high stools in front of slope desks wearing armbands to keep the sleeves off the wet ink.
The report is out. It is some thousand pages (plus a secret section referred to the NACC) and no executive summary. It will take quite some time to extract the meat from it but there is plenty. There will be vigorous denials aplenty too.
I was pleased to see that not only the substance of how it all went wrong and who did it was addressed but also broader issues of:
The overall treatment of welfare recipients and the vulnerable.
The role and processes of the public service in providing advice to government.
The secrecy of the process.
Maybe some good will come of it in the end. So far all I can manage is
Well done commissioner Holmes thou good and faithful servant of the people.
that hope against hope might make those responsible for persevering even after advice what they were doing was not on, personally responsible and liable beyond merely expressing [empty self serving] apologies if anyone felt they were affected, as pollies and corporate spins doctors usually phrase it.
I note, without much surprise, that the current leader of the Guilty Party has declared that the delivery of the report, as by the due date, is a political stunt by the Labor Party.
As dribbles are released the pollies responsible (as usual) seem to be innocent by definition or beyond reach, and some are thought to have politicised the public service knowing ‘the bus’ stops there not here.
Given that Scott Morrison’s stated view was that the APS was there to ‘implement the goals of the government of the day’, I think it would be a little disingenuous for him to deny politicising it. He never wanted an independent or thinking public service.
I believe that is an accurate description of a parliamentary system public service. The difference as I understand it is that the government of the day sets policies, the public service advises the government of the pros and cons and how to implement them without creating havoc, and off they go.
Many pundits view is for many years our government of the day set policies and told the public service how to implement them, no negative or contrary opinions being entertained.
Agency heads and a couple of ranks down deal with Ministers and consult on behalf of their agencies. There is a great deal of political influence on appointments at that level, consequently unless they are prepared to sacrifice their careers for principle (which happens now and then) their reactions to policy proposals are constrained by what the Minister of the day wants.
There are times when the attitude adjustment is fairly minor as broad party, or personal, policy lines are well known and often not too dissimilar from others. There are other situations where a lot more than flexibility of attitude is required. For those who fail to comply it only takes an occasional beheading to keep the other ducks in a row and quacking in tune.
The public service is no different to any other large hierarchical organisation. Those at the top of the tree set the tone and standards in the private sector too whether they personally initiate doubtful, unethical or illegal activities or not.
For the young and ambitious I can only say that the higher you rise, if you have any integrity, the more often you need to check the integrity of your parachute.
A key problem that was apparent with Robodebt is that the public service is supposed to provide the first line of defence against over-zealous government policy. Either they failed in their attempt to do so, in which case, there should have been a resignation on principle from at least one of them, or they agreed that it was reasonable to break the law, or they were ignorant of the law - in which case, they were unqualified for the job.
None of which relieves the minister of his responsibilities. The buck stops with him. Overseeing an illegal program ought to have consequences.
Each minister is responsible for handling public money on trust. Mishandling public money - whether by recovering it, misdirecting the public service (especially against advice or in the face of knowledge that it would be unlawful) or otherwise, is potentially corrupt behaviour, regardless of whether it is illegal or not. If it is done knowingly, it is an abuse pf power, and that is corruption at its core.
At the very least, it should be brought out into the cold, harsh light of public scrutiny, and reputations should live or die by the actions of the owners of the said reputations - whether retrospective or not.
Making a mistake is one thing, but knowingly doing the wrong thing in exercising power is deplorable. Attacking the vulnerable is the domain of cowards.
Frank and fearless advice was not welcomed by the government that implemented Robodebt. It also appointed senior public servants who would implement government policy without question. That is the US model of ‘public service’, not the Westminster system we allegedly hold dear.
Even some US Cabinet Secretaries and Civil (eg Public) Servants have become whistleblowers or stepped down in protest from time to time. Some of many, one older and one new.
Our ministers generally have no shame and their main quality for their roles is politics and finger pointing.
There would have been some slightly lower level public servants who tried to do or say the right thing at the time and were slapped down. They will be walking around with an inexplicable smile for a few days whether they stayed or jumped.
There will be some who knew it was wrong but complied and shut up who managed to keep their name away from the enquiry who will also be smiling. A vacancy at the top means everybody takes one step up.
This is hierarchy: public or private makes no difference.
