Government computers would face limits on decisions
Kate Chaney is an independent MP. Her private bill, one that does not come from the government, responds to the Robodebt Royal Commission. That was a big public investigation into Robodebt, a scheme that sent people wrong welfare debts. The bill would ban some computer decisions. It would make agencies tell you when a computer decided. It would let a person overrule risky ones.
Official name: Automated Decision-Making (Safeguards and Transparency) Bill 2026
- Federal agencies would have to tell you when a computer made a decision about you. They would have to explain why.
- Some uses would be banned. One is using computers for decisions that need human judgment. Another is using them in ways that break the law.
- High-risk systems would need a person who can overrule them. People would get review rights and a way to complain.
- The federal complaints watchdog would run a public list of the government's computer decision systems.
Who it affects
- People on welfare, aged care or the disability support scheme: Computer decisions about their payments or support would face strict safeguards and review rights.
- Federal departments and agencies: They would need risk checks, testing, legal advice and public notice before using computers for big decisions.
- The Commonwealth Ombudsman: It is the independent complaints officer for federal agencies. It would run a public list and check the government's computer decision systems.
- Tech companies that supply government systems: Agencies would need a legal right to get facts from them about how their systems work.
Robodebt was a computer decision
Sometimes a computer program makes or shapes a government decision. Kate Chaney is the MP who brought this private bill. A private bill is one that does not come from the government. She says computer decisions can be fast and steady. But she says that without safeguards they can also break the law and hurt people.
Her notes on the bill point to Robodebt. That scheme used a computer method to send people welfare debts. It hurt hundreds of thousands of Australians. A Royal Commission is a powerful public investigation. One later found Robodebt's way of averaging income did not follow welfare law.
She also points to computer sums used in aged care. And she points to plans to use computers for decisions in the disability support scheme. She says Australia has no firm rules for computer decisions across government. It only has patchy rules, and many are optional. The bill would carry out two Robodebt Royal Commission suggestions, numbers 17.1 and 17.2.
What is covered
The bill covers any decision, power or task a federal law gives to officials. An action counts as automated if a computer program does it. It also counts if the program does work closely tied to it. One example is a computer making a suggestion that a person just signs off.
Only actions with a real effect are covered. That means a legal or similar effect on a person. Or it means a big effect on the public or the environment. Using email or Google Search would not count. Deciding who gets aged care, welfare or disability support would.
The bill does not give agencies any new power to use computers. It sets limits on computer use that other laws already allow.
Decisions computers cannot make
Some uses would be banned outright. An agency could not use a computer for an action that would likely break the law. It could not use one for decisions that need human judgment, unless the government's detailed rules allow it.
It could not use a computer if nobody can explain the system's results in plain English. It also could not use one if it would unfairly harm human rights. Nor could it use one that would badly damage democracy or trust in government.
Say a system worked out welfare debts using a method the law does not allow, as Robodebt did. That would be banned. So would a computer deciding if your situation is special enough to cancel a debt.
A human in charge
Before using a computer, an agency would have to check the risks and publish the check. Each system would be rated high risk or not high risk. It is high risk if it could fairly be expected to cause real harm to a person, the public or the environment.
The head of the department would approve each check. High-risk ones would go to the Commonwealth Ombudsman. That is the independent complaints officer for federal agencies. The watchdog would have 2 months to approve or say no. High-risk ratings must be checked again every 12 months. Others must be checked every 3 years.
Every computer action would need a named officer. That person is treated as having taken the action.
Telling you a computer decided
Sometimes a law already says you must be told about a decision. If a computer made it, the notice must say so. It must explain how the program was used and the legal power used. It must give the reasons for the result.
The notice must set out the rules and facts used. It must say what would have led to a different result. You could ask for a technical explanation too. The notice must also name the officer in charge and tell you about your review rights.
Rules for risky systems
Before a high-risk system is used, the department would need written legal advice that it is legal. It would have to test the system for mistakes. It would have to test whether it treats different groups unevenly. It would have to test strange cases too. It would also have to ask the people most likely to be affected what they think.
A person must be able to overrule the computer's decision. There must be a way to complain. The agency must reply within 5 working days and give a full answer within 30.
People could ask for the agency to review the decision. The reviewer must not use the same computer program. Reviews must finish within 4 weeks, or 2 weeks in urgent cases. People could then go to the Administrative Review Tribunal, a body like a court but less formal. Or they could go to a court.
Departments would have to publish how the system works. That includes its rules, algorithms, weightings and testing. Weightings are how much each fact counts. There is a small exception if publishing would weaken the law the system serves. Records must be kept for 7 years. Yearly reports must say how often people overruled the system.
Public register and checks
The watchdog would run the Commonwealth Automated Tools Register. It is a free public list of the government's computer decision systems. It would hold no personal details.
The watchdog could review any computer system at any time. It would have to check a sample of high-risk systems every year. It would check each one at least every 3 years. It would report each year to the minister. That report would say whether it has enough money for the job. The whole law would be reviewed by someone independent every 3 years.
Start date
The law would start the day after it was signed into law. The bans would apply straight away. Most other rules would apply 12 months later. That gives agencies time to get ready.
Kate Chaney brought the bill to the House of Representatives, Parliament's main house, on 7 September 2026. She gave her opening speech that day. To become law it would need to pass the House and the Senate. Then the Governor-General, who stands in for the King, would have to sign it.
Its journey through Parliament
| 07 Sep 2026 | House of Representatives: Introduced and read a first time |
| 07 Sep 2026 | House of Representatives: Second reading moved |