A new private member’s bill would impose mandatory transparency, human oversight and review rights as automated decision-making expands across aged care, the NDIS and other Commonwealth services.
It’s been 10 years since Robodebt was introduced and three years since the royal commission found the automated debt recovery scheme was unlawful.
But there is still no government commitment to introduce transparency or safeguards when automated decision-making (ADM) tools are used by Commonwealth departments.
A bill has been introduced into parliament to change that.
The Automated Decision-Making (Safeguards and Transparency) Bill 2026, introduced by Independent MP for Curtin Kate Chaney and seconded by Dr Monique Ryan, would implement recommendations 17.1 and 17.2 of the Robodebt Royal Commission and establish a mandatory framework governing the use of automated decision-making across Commonwealth departments and agencies.
“The Prime Minister and countless members of the Labor Party have stood in this place and condemned the Robodebt scheme, vowing never to repeat the trauma and harm that it caused,” Ms Chaney said in her second reading.
She said the government accepted two recommendations: to introduce a legal framework to guide the use of automated decision-making in government, and to establish a body to monitor the use of automated decision-making in government.
“But the government has not implemented these recommendations,” she said.
“There are still no guardrails around the use of automation across government, and, as the memory of Robodebt slowly fades from this place, automation is causing real problems once again.”
Related
The issue has become particularly acute in aged care, where for the better part of a year an automated tool has had the final say on support packages for older Australians.
“Incredibly, human decision-makers have been unable to override a result when they believe it to be incorrect,” Ms Chaney said.
“There’s been concern and fear across our community. People don’t understand how this automated tool works. People with decades of experience are arguing that the automated tool is producing decisions that are clearly incorrect. Older Australians are finding their support slashed, despite their declining condition.”
Council on the Ageing (COTA) Australia CEO Patricia Sparrow agreed that safeguards needed to be urgently introduced.
“Government should not be using automated systems to make important decisions about people today and promising to work out the rules tomorrow,” Ms Sparrow said.
“Automated decision-making is already being used across government. The safeguards need to keep pace.
“People need to know when an automated system has been used to make a decision about them, understand why, and have access to a real person with authority to review and change it if required.”
She said the algorithm was already deciding how much Support at Home funding an older person received, with no human oversight.
“Older people have been carrying the risk of not having proper oversight since the systems introduction nearly a year ago. The review outcomes must remove the risk and ensure that assessments deliver the right level of care to individuals while also rebuilding trust in the assessment process,” Ms Sparrow said.
But aged care was only one area where automated decision-making is expanding.
“Automation is increasing across the board. In the NDIS, the government is introducing automated tools to determine eligibility for support and then the level of support. Automation is increasingly being used in social payments, in immigration decisions and in environmental approvals, and concern is growing,” said Ms Chaney.
She admitted there are legitimate reasons to use automation.
“Done well, it can process routine rules-based decisions faster and more consistently than a human alone, freeing up public servants to focus on complex cases where judgement and empathy matter the most; and it can support our government to deliver services like the NDIS and welfare at scale. But it needs safeguards, transparency and oversight,” she said.
Australian Federation of Disability Organisations (AFDO) CEO Ross Joyce said the issue was particularly important as the NDIS introduced new assessment and administrative processes.
“Our members are concerned about how standardised assessments and automated decision-making may affect access, eligibility and supports across social services and aged care, and increasingly within the NDIS,” Mr Joyce said.
“People must be able to understand how decisions are made, know that there is always human oversight, challenge decisions where necessary, and have a meaningful right to human review.”
Ms Chaney’s bill was based on her March 2026 policy paper, Fairer and Faster Government Decisions, which was developed through consultation with legal experts, advocates and more than 760 Curtin constituents.
“More than 80% of the people I surveyed are uncomfortable with government using automated systems to make decisions about them, and nearly 80% want legislated, mandatory rules. That’s an overwhelming call for basic accountability.
“My bill sets one standard for the whole of government: transparency about where ADM is used, mandatory human oversight and override for high-risk decisions, and a fast, genuine right to review — so no Australian has to wait for their case to make headlines before someone is allowed to check the algorithm’s work,” she said.
She said even in the case of the aged care algorithm, it was only after complaints, the Ombudsman opening an investigation and a Senate revolt to force the government’s hand.
“Even now, this 11th hour fix only applies to cases that are ‘clearly incorrect’, and only in aged care.
“That’s not good policymaking, it’s damage control. And it doesn’t prevent the same situation arising in the NDIS, or Centrelink, or another government agency that none of us are watching. Governments shouldn’t wait for public complaints before checking a computer’s homework,” Ms Chaney said.
