This bill is currently before Parliament.
Climate, energy & environment
The bill would cover Commonwealth automated actions that have, or could reasonably be expected to have, a significant legal or practical effect on a person, community or the environment.
Kate Chaney said the bill was intended to implement recommendations 17.1 and 17.2 of the Robodebt Royal Commission by creating mandatory safeguards and independent oversight for Commonwealth automation. She said Robodebt automatically raised debts against more than 400,000 Australians between 2015 and 2019. In her community consultation, more than 760 people responded; more than 80 per cent were uncomfortable with automated government decisions about them, and nearly 80 per cent wanted mandatory rules in legislation. She argued that automation can make routine decisions faster and more consistent, but needs testing, transparency and human oversight.
Australia already used automated government decisions without a single mandatory framework, and the Robodebt scheme raised debts against more than 400,000 Australians between 2015 and 2019 before the Royal Commission’s July 2023 report recommended safeguards and oversight. As automated tools continued into aged-care assessments and agencies missed transparency deadlines in 2026, private member Kate Chaney MP introduced this bill on 7 September 2026 to require risk testing, explanations, human accountability, review rights and independent Ombudsman oversight for significant Commonwealth automation.
The included speeches do not record criticism of the bill itself. Kate Chaney (Independent), who moved the bill, instead criticised the government for not yet implementing the Robodebt Royal Commission's recommendations and said automated aged-care decisions could not be overridden by human decision-makers. Monique Ryan (Independent), who seconded the bill, criticised the Integrated Assessment Tool used for aged care, saying assessors could not override its funding classification and that it had not been tested in live use before introduction. She also described the NDIS assessment tool as blunt and opaque.
Kate Chaney MP introduced this bill. Supportive speeches so far have come from some crossbench members.
Did it become law?
Not yet
Final passage
No final vote yet
The bill has not yet completed passage through Parliament.
Days since introduction
29 days
Updated 06 Oct 2026.
Meaning
The bill would cover Commonwealth automated actions that have, or could reasonably be expected to have, a significant legal or practical effect on a person, community or the environment. It would regulate automation already authorised under another Commonwealth law; it would not create a new power to automate decisions. Its rules would override inconsistent Commonwealth laws to the extent of the inconsistency.
Government bodies could not automate covered actions where the result is likely to be unlawful, requires human judgement, unduly influences a person's discretion, cannot be explained, unjustifiably harms human rights, or is likely to significantly harm Australia's democratic system or public confidence. Regulations could create exceptions for specified decisions requiring human judgement.
Before using covered automation, the responsible department would have to assess its risk and publish that assessment on a public register. Every assessment would need written approval from the department's accountable authority. Automation must be classed as high risk if the action could reasonably be expected to have a significant adverse effect on a person, community or the environment. High-risk assessments would also need Commonwealth Ombudsman approval; if the Ombudsman did not decide within two months, approval would be automatic.
Departments would have to review published risk assessments every 12 months for high-risk automationAutomation classified as high risk in a published risk assessment. It must receive that classification when the action could reasonably be expected to significantly harm a person, the community or the environment. and every three years for other covered automation. A revised assessment would go through the approval process again. High-risk assessments not updated within 18 months, and other assessments not updated within three years and six months, would be removed from the register.
Each automated action would need a named human role responsible for it. Where another Commonwealth law already requires someone to be notified of the action, that notice would also have to say automation was used, explain why the outcome occurred and how the computer was involved, identify the responsible officerThe human legally treated as having taken an automated action., and explain review rights.
High-risk automationAutomation classified as high risk in a published risk assessment. It must receive that classification when the action could reasonably be expected to significantly harm a person, the community or the environment. would need written legal advice and testing for accuracy, different outcomes across groups, and missing or out-of-range information. Department leaders would have to be satisfied that the program considers relevant information, ignores irrelevant information, does not improperly limit human judgement, treats people fairly and follows the law in force at the time. They would have to certify this in writing and record their reasons. Departments would also have to consult people or representative organisations likely to be disproportionately affected, as well as people or representative organisations who will interact with or administer the computer program.
If a private supplier operates or maintains high-risk automationAutomation classified as high risk in a published risk assessment. It must receive that classification when the action could reasonably be expected to significantly harm a person, the community or the environment., the Commonwealth would need an enforceable right to obtain the information required to oversee it; commercial confidentiality could not block access. A human would need power to replace an automated action when it was not correct or preferable. A separate complaints process would have to acknowledge complaints within five business days and provide a substantial response within 30 business days.
High-risk automated decisions could only be used where an affected person could request a fresh internal reviewA fresh examination of a decision within the responsible government body. by someone who did not use the original computer program. The reviewer could uphold or replace the decision. Reviews would be due within four weeks, or within two weeks for categories where a longer delay may cause serious and irreversible harm. Review by the Administrative Review TribunalThe independent tribunal that reviews certain government decisions. and a court would also have to remain available, although tribunal review could wait until internal reviewA fresh examination of a decision within the responsible government body. was finished.
The Commonwealth Ombudsman would maintain a free public register with information about high-risk systems, including how they work, their testing and whether a human can override them. The register could not contain personal information about an individual. Information could be withheld where publication would undermine the purpose or administration of the law behind the action, but the Ombudsman could require a written explanation. Departments would report each year on the number, kinds and proportion of high-risk actions replaced by humans. The Ombudsman would review a risk-weighted sample at least every 12 months and every high-risk system at least once every three years. Records would generally be kept for at least seven years.
The core bans would apply from the day after Royal Assent. Most other obligations would apply to automated actions occurring after a 12-month transition period. The operation of the legislation would also face an independent review within three years, and every three years after that.
14 Which automated administrative action is covered? This Act applies in relation to an automated administrative action if, and only if, the automated administrative action has, or could reasonably be expected to have: (a) a legal or similarly significant effect on an individual, inclusive of human rights impacts; or (b) a legal or similarly significant effect on a person other than an individual; or (c) a significant impact on the environment; or (d) a significant effect on the community or a section of the community. 15 Interaction with other Commonwealth laws If this Act applies in rAutomated Decision-Making (Safeguards and Transparency) introduced text
18 Core prohibitions on automating administrative action (1) A responsible entity for an administrative action must not authorise, or arrange for, the action to be automated if this section prohibits the automation of the action. Prohibitions (2) An administrative action must not be automated if: (a) the automation would be likely to result in administrative action that is unlawful; or (b) taking the administrative action requires the making of an evaluative determination (subject to subsection (3)); or (c) automating the administrative action would unduly influence the exercise of a disAutomated Decision-Making (Safeguards and Transparency) introduced text
19 Requirements relating to risk assessments A responsible entity must not authorise, or arrange for, an administrative action to be automated unless: (a) the administering Department in relation to the administrative action has conducted a risk assessment of the automation in accordance with this Division; and (b) the risk assessment has been published, and remains published, on the CAT Register. 20 Risk classifications (1) A risk assessment of the automation of an administrative action must give one of the following classifications to the automation: (a) high risk; (b) not high risk.Automated Decision-Making (Safeguards and Transparency) introduced text
23 Review of risk assessments (1) This section applies to a risk assessment of the automation of an administrative action that is published on the CAT Register. (2) The administering Department for the administrative action may undertake a review of the risk assessment at any time. (3) The administering Department for the administrative action must undertake, and complete, a review of the risk assessment: (a) if the risk assessment classifies the automation of the administrative action as high risk—within 12 months after the day on which the risk assessment is first published on the registAutomated Decision-Making (Safeguards and Transparency) introduced text
25 Responsible officers (1) A responsible entity for an administrative action must not authorise, or arrange for, the automation of the action unless, under a Commonwealth law, there will be an individual (the responsible officer for the automated action) who is taken to be the person who took the automated action. (2) To avoid doubt, the condition in subsection (1) is satisfied if a Commonwealth law provides that the holder of a specified office or position is taken to be the person who took the automated action, so long as that specified office or position is held by an individual. Note:Automated Decision-Making (Safeguards and Transparency) introduced text
28 Preparation by administering Department and accountable authority (1) If automating an administrative action is high risk, a responsible entity for the action must not authorise, or arrange for, the action to be automated unless: (a) the administering Department in relation to the administrative action has obtained written legal advice that the automation is lawful; and (b) the accountable authority for the administering Department is satisfied, on reasonable grounds, that the computer program to be used in the automation: (i) will take into account all relevant considerations, and willAutomated Decision-Making (Safeguards and Transparency) introduced text
(d) if the computer program being used in the automation will be supplied, operated or maintained by a third party—the accountable authority of the administering Department is satisfied that the Commonwealth has a legally enforceable right to obtain, from that third party, any information that is needed in order for a responsible entity to comply with this Act, or any other Commonwealth law, in relation to the automated administrative action; and (e) the accountable authority for the administering Department: (i) certifies in writing that the accountable authority is satisfied as mentioned iAutomated Decision-Making (Safeguards and Transparency) introduced text
32 Internal merits review (1) A responsible entity for an administrative decision must not authorise, or arrange for, the decision to be automated unless: (a) a Commonwealth law provides for a process of internal review in relation to the automated decision (including in relation to any decision that is substituted for the automated decision as mentioned in section 29); and (b) that internal review process satisfies: (i) the requirements set out in this section; and (ii) any requirements prescribed by the regulations for the purposes of this subparagraph. Internal review on applicationAutomated Decision-Making (Safeguards and Transparency) introduced text
34 Publication of information about high risk automation Publication on CAT Register (1) If the automation of an administrative action is high risk, a responsible entity for the action must not authorise, or arrange for, the action to be automated unless all of the following information is entered on the CAT Register: (a) information identifying the provision of the Commonwealth law under which the automated action is taken; (b) an explanation of the legal authority for automating the action; (c) an explanation of the reasons why the action has been automated; (d) an explanation of why tAutomated Decision-Making (Safeguards and Transparency) introduced text
41 Commencement day In this Part, the commencement day is the day when this Act commences. 42 General rule Subject to this Part, this Act applies in relation to an automated administrative action that takes place after the end of the period of 12 months starting on the commencement day. Note: The effect of this section is generally that, subject to this Part, a responsible entity must not authorise, or arrange for, an administrative action that takes place after the end of the 12‑month period to be automated, unless the requirements in this Act are satisfied. 43 Specific rules—core prohibAutomated Decision-Making (Safeguards and Transparency) introduced text
Context
Australia already used automated government decisions without a single mandatory framework, and the Robodebt scheme raised debts against more than 400,000 Australians between 2015 and 2019 before the Royal Commission’s July 2023 report recommended safeguards and oversight. As automated tools continued into aged-care assessments and agencies missed transparency deadlines in 2026, private member Kate Chaney MP introduced this bill on 7 September 2026 to require risk testing, explanations, human accountability, review rights and independent Ombudsman oversight for significant Commonwealth automation.
Robodebt raises automated debts
The scheme automatically raised debts against more than 400,000 Australians and became the concrete failure later used to justify stronger safeguards.
Hansard ↗Royal Commission report calls for automation safeguards
The report’s recommendations 17.1 and 17.2 became the stated basis for creating mandatory safeguards and independent oversight of Commonwealth automation.
Automated Decision-Making (Safeguards and Transparency) explanatory memorandum ↗Aged-care classifications begin using an automated tool
The Integrated Assessment Tool began feeding clinicians’ information into an algorithm that determined final funding classifications without allowing assessors to override the result.
Hansard ↗Federal agencies miss AI transparency deadlines
ABC News reported that dozens of agencies missed mandatory deadlines to disclose their use of AI under the government’s agency-managed transparency model.
ABC News ↗Kate Chaney MP introduces the bill
The private member’s bill responded to these gaps by proposing mandatory risk assessments, transparency, human oversight and Commonwealth Ombudsman supervision for significant automated actions.
Parliamentary timeline ↗Legislative route
The bill was formally presented to the chamber and read a first time, which starts its parliamentary journey.
Introduced and read a first time
A minister or sponsoring member moved the second reading, opening the main debate on the bill's purpose and principles.
Second reading moved
Key criticism
The included speeches do not record criticism of the bill itself. Kate Chaney (Independent), who moved the bill, instead criticised the government for not yet implementing the Robodebt Royal Commission's recommendations and said automated aged-care decisions could not be overridden by human decision-makers. Monique Ryan (Independent), who seconded the bill, criticised the Integrated Assessment Tool used for aged care, saying assessors could not override its funding classification and that it had not been tested in live use before introduction. She also described the NDIS assessment tool as blunt and opaque.
The evidence pack contains speeches from the bill's mover and seconder, both supporting it, but no speech from an opponent. It therefore cannot establish what objections other parties or stakeholders may have raised.
Further sources
Votes
No recorded votes have been found yet for this bill.
Parliamentary debate
Start here — lead voices
Chaney urges the House to pass the bill, arguing that government automation needs enforceable safeguards, transparency and human oversight to prevent another robodebt-style failure while preserving legitimate efficiency benefits.
Read in Hansard ↗Monique Ryan supports the bill because it would make government automated decisions transparent, subject to human accountability and review, and independently overseen, protecting older Australians and people with disability from opaque or unfair systems.
Read in Hansard ↗All speeches by bloc
2 speakers · 2 support
“Automation is essential for government to deliver services at scale. As technology improves, the opportunities for efficiency are growing, but we simply cannot continue automating incredibly important and risky decisions without these safeguards and transparency around the process. I commend this bill to the House.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“Where automated decisions from government shape the daily lives of people with a disability or older Australians, we have to understand how those decisions are made. We have to have an avenue to challenge them, and we need capacity for fair and just review by a human. That's what this bill seeks to achieve. It contains a legislative framework for transparency, risk assessment, human accountability, review rights and independent oversight. It will assure that automation will serve us—not the reverse—and that humans have fair and transparent oversight of systems that should serve humans. I am pleased to second this bill, and I thank the member for Curtin for her leadership on this very important issue.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
Record
House · Introduced and read a first time
Introduced
The bill was formally presented to the chamber and read a first time, which starts its parliamentary journey.
House · Second reading moved
Second reading opened
A minister or sponsoring member moved the second reading, opening the main debate on the bill's purpose and principles.
