The minister would be taking advise and recommendations on any new algorithm program from the relevant public department, I doubt very much the system they used was of his own invention.
There does seem to be a problem with advise given by the public department, they would be the ones required to do due diligence on a number of providers and options based on the brief. They are the ones that have recommended an inferior algorithm program/provider that obviously did not go through an adequate testing regime (did they take short cuts due to time constraints)?.
Yes the Minister cops the hit on this however it does not negate the fact that there seems to be a systemic issue with the process involved which is the responsibility of the relative public department and its employees.
Who continued to provide poor advise to the Minister once questions were raised?
Can the Minister be commended for finally getting the public department to come clean and admit the failings of the system?
