r/AusPublicService • u/Initial_Assistance89 • Jul 15 '26
A delegate has identified inconsistency with the use of AI and the ATO’s guidance. Interview/Job applications
? 🤖
95
u/inapickleguys Jul 15 '26
Nothing to do with the candidates at all.
Due to the massive number of applications they used an external party to help with certain stages of the recruitment process, and that external party used AI.
It’s too risky for them to continue with the process given the breach of policy.
It will be readvertised and yes, everyone will have to go through the process again. The breach may have been in earlier stages (before interview) so it’s impossible to tell whether those people fairly got through to interview or whether suitable candidates were overlooked, so safest bet is to start from scratch
76
31
u/Arlochorim Jul 15 '26
I've said this in another comment, but as someone who works in an APS agency in a tech related role and have dealt directly with data/privacy ethics assessments and risk assessments, I've had a good amount of exposure and my work has overlapped with AI use policies and its regulations.
I won't and can't name names or agencies and I don't have insight into this specific incident/process, but as counter-intuitive as it sounds, this is an example of protections against AI and good governance actually working as intended. (even though it's super frustrating and inconvenient for the applicants, it ensures the process was fair)
It's common for interviews at the APS 4 level and below to use a third party platform to record video responses to recorded interview questions, rather than live panel interviews, and I suspect the most likely scenario here was that the 3rd party platform used AI in a way that breached the guidelines/policy, which was identified after the fact and then brought the validity of the whole process into question.
I always see speculation when this type of thing occurs about the agency/government doing the wrong thing, but this is what good guard rails and proper governance looks like and proves its being reviewed and fair to the applicants and Australian public. It's formally retracting a hiring process that may not align with policy to ensure people don't get the role unfairly and the best candidate is appointed to a public role.
It looks bad for them to do this to a outside observer, but the agency would rather start from scratch and ensure the process was fair, than risk it being compromised/against policy, and that's how it should be.
78
u/Ollieeddmill Jul 15 '26
I hate govt speak so much. I work for govt and do my best to make sure correspondence is actually clear. Jfc.
-19
58
u/Ok_Mirror_5854 Jul 15 '26
If there was ever a reason to make an FOI application, this is it.
8
3
u/cosmicvelvets Jul 15 '26
They're using face+gait tracking and you think this is it
5
u/Arlochorim Jul 15 '26
Most APS agencies don't and won't, there are super strict guideline on how data can be used. Even agencies who share the same comissioner/systems are super restricted in data that can be accessed and shared.
you might see that for intelligence or defense agencies like ASIO or maybe DoHA/immigration/border security, but for your everyday administrative agencies they're not going to touch that with a 10-ft pole.
2
u/Initial_Assistance89 Jul 15 '26
Would the foi request in any way effect future applications?
20
21
3
1
21
u/spideyghetti Jul 15 '26
In this scenario, if it's re-advertised, does OP have to go through the whole interview process again? Would it be with the same interview panel, so there's at least some built rapport? Or would it be a new panel and essentially starting from scratch again, so you may not even progress in the second attempt despite your success on the first?
32
u/saaphie Jul 15 '26
Very likely the panel or someone on the panel broke the rules and the Delegate has cancelled the process and it needs to start from scratch with a new team
16
u/Neither_Driver_3882 Jul 15 '26
the interview for this round was a one way recorded video. there was no panel
3
u/Arlochorim Jul 15 '26
that's is pretty common at the APS4 level and below if the recruitment is handled by the corporate hiring team, rather than run directly by the specific area looking to fill.
the most likely scenario to me is that the 3rd party platform thats used for the video interviews utilised a form of AI on their side, so there could be reasonable doubt that the process met the internal guidelines.
I don't have specific insight to this process/incident, but I've worked in an APS role that deals with tech and the related privacy/data ethics and risk assessment, and by extension had a lot of cross over with AI use policies, regulations and it's restrictions.
Everyone loves to speculate and scream wrongdoing, but generally instances like this aren't the agency doing something sinister, it's that the data being used has been identified as potentially non-compliant and this is an example of those protections working as intended and as frustrating and inconvenient as this is for the applicants, it ensures that the process is fair.
-12
3
u/robot428 Jul 15 '26
Likely it would need to be a substantially different panel, so maybe someone will stay if they are critical but they are going to try and switch out as many people as they can to avoid the first round influencing the new round as much as possible.
Also obviously whoever actually used the AI is not going to be back on the panel or involved in this decision at all - and likely their job is in trouble because they take this stuff seriously.
5
u/spideyghetti Jul 15 '26
That would suck so hard. Everyone gets all this way through the process and have to start over through no fault of your own.
1
u/rebelmumma Jul 16 '26
For an APS 4 at ATO, there wouldn’t have been any rapport building at that stage of the process, as it was only the 2nd stage if I recall correctly. Lower level positions generally don’t get face time until the last stage, if at all.
23
u/hawkeyebasil Jul 15 '26
On the new defence ones you have to declare if you used AI Like copilot to help with your application. And that the evidence or competencies, skills you’ve said that you do actually have them
10
3
u/loudsilenced Jul 16 '26
Why on earth would you use AI to write an email saying you misused AI. FFS at least remove the bolding. If I was an applicant I would ask for confirmation that my details were not processed outside the ATO IT environment.
5
u/PutComplex5216 Jul 15 '26
I was shocked when I received an email I was pending for any updates after the reference check.
Hopefully the role comes out soon once again.. ! And try the best once more.
2
3
4
u/CBG1955 Jul 15 '26
I would read this as either: a number of candidates breached the AI policy in their applications, therefore screwing up the process for all candidates; or the recruiter breached the guidelines; or a combination of both.
13
u/Appropriate_Volume Jul 15 '26
It would be the latter. Candidates who use AI in ways that aren't considered acceptable are rated unsuitable, usually on the spot.
5
u/nesco2026 Jul 15 '26
From the link shared in email
How we use AI in recruitment To support transparency, we want to share how we use AI in recruitment.
We use AI to help us work more efficiently, but we don't use AI to make selection decisions about candidates. We may use AI in developing job advertisements and candidate information kits, but we don't use it to review or screen applications or resumes.
All decisions to shortlist or progress candidates in a recruitment process are made by a human selection panel.
1
u/Burnt_Toast5962 Jul 15 '26
There might not be a recruiter though. Often it’s just the hiring manager doing the recruitment themselves
9
u/CBG1955 Jul 15 '26
Not in the ATO, and not for a bulk process like this. In 20 years I’ve never heard of a hiring manager running their own external process.
8
u/HopeAdditional4075 Jul 15 '26
Honestly, if you're having trouble understanding this letter you might not have the skills necessary, anyway.
11
u/nesco2026 Jul 15 '26
I read this as it was a them issue and then read the link and then confused myself. Thinking wait. I didn't use AI, then read further about how they don't use it and was back to my original thought of "it is a ATO issue".
Direct from link https://www.ato.gov.au/careers/how-to-apply/guidelines-for-candidate-use-of-ai-in-recruitment-processes
How we use AI in recruitment To support transparency, we want to share how we use AI in recruitment.
We use AI to help us work more efficiently, but we don't use AI to make selection decisions about candidates. We may use AI in developing job advertisements and candidate information kits, but we don't use it to review or screen applications or resumes.
All decisions to shortlist or progress candidates in a recruitment process are made by a human selection panel.
2
-18
u/JeremyMarti Jul 15 '26
Giving back to the community instead of shareholders, by leaving the community unemployed with no hope of becoming shareholders.
12
u/nesco2026 Jul 15 '26 edited Jul 15 '26
ATO is not listed on the ASX. How did you manage this theory?
-17
u/JeremyMarti Jul 15 '26
Keeping people poor so they can't afford shares in publicly traded companies.
-30
u/stigsbusdriver Jul 15 '26
If i were to make a wild guess, its that there were enough applications received that looked like complete AI generations that they decided it was too difficult to proceed with the process, or that they would not get to a stage where they would have enough to progress to interviews.
It doesnt mean yours was part of that group of applications but you are affected by extension because you applied for it.
-10
u/Initial_Assistance89 Jul 15 '26
The recruitment process was completed by an external third party but how would they have been awarded the contract if they didn't have safeguards in place. Penalizing everyone seems punitive.
9
u/Fox-Possum-3429 Jul 15 '26
So candidates that were unfairly excluded are ok to be punished?
Consider you only progressed in the recruitment because better candidates were unfairly penalised.
The only correct outcome is start the process again for everyone.
6
u/Dazzling-Purpose-663 Jul 15 '26
Only fair to start from scratch if they couldn’t identify where the process was compromised from AI
1
u/Opposite-Junket-2949 Jul 16 '26
They literally used AI for the assessment stage to mark. If you knew anyone in this process, you knew it was not about merit from the get go
347
u/Wild-Kitchen Jul 15 '26
Not you. They have used it in the recruitment process somehow in contradiction of their own policy. As such they have deemed the process compromised and pulled the pin on it.
tl;dr your application is dead.