Independent Curtin MP Kate Chaney has warned that Australians could face a repeat of the failures seen in the Robodebt scandal if the federal government does not introduce a clear framework for automated decision-making (ADM), particularly in sensitive sectors like aged care and disability services.
In a newly released policy paper, Chaney raised concerns that the increasing use of ADM—systems that rely on artificial intelligence and data-driven processes to make or assist decisions—could lead to harmful outcomes if left insufficiently regulated. While she acknowledged that such systems can improve efficiency and service delivery when properly designed, she stressed that their use in high-impact areas poses significant risks without appropriate safeguards.
Chaney highlighted aged care assessments as an immediate concern. She noted that automated systems are already being used to determine the level of care older Australians receive, with limited human oversight. According to her, human assessors are unable to alter these automated decisions, and it remains unclear whether individuals can effectively challenge outcomes through appeal processes. Similar concerns are emerging regarding the planned rollout of automation in assessments for the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS), expected to expand from July.
Drawing parallels to Robodebt, Chaney underscored the dangers of relying on flawed automated systems. The Robodebt program, which operated between 2016 and 2019, used automated data-matching to issue debt notices to welfare recipients, often based on inaccurate calculations. More than 400,000 people—many of them vulnerable—were affected, and the scheme was later found to be unlawful. Its consequences included severe financial distress and were linked to multiple suicides. A subsequent Royal Commission, led by Commissioner Catherine Holmes, described the program as a “colossal failure” and issued 56 recommendations, including the need for stronger governance of ADM.
Despite these findings, Chaney argues that Australia still lacks a comprehensive, legislated framework to regulate ADM use across government. Existing rules, she said, are fragmented, inconsistent, and largely voluntary, leaving significant gaps in accountability and oversight.
Her policy paper proposes the introduction of a mandatory legislative framework that would enforce transparency in automated processes, establish decision-level controls, and create robust mechanisms for review and oversight. The recommendations are informed by consultation with experts, advocacy groups, and the local community. Notably, 761 constituents from her electorate contributed to a survey, with more than 80 per cent expressing discomfort with the use of automated systems in government decision-making. A similar proportion supported the introduction of mandatory legal safeguards.
Chaney emphasised that while ADM has the potential to enhance efficiency and timeliness, its misuse could lead to “perverse outcomes” affecting a wide range of Australians. She argued that legislating clear rules would not only reduce the risk of harm but also help rebuild public trust, which was significantly eroded by the Robodebt experience.
Ultimately, Chaney framed the issue as a critical test for the government: balancing the pursuit of productivity gains through automation with the responsibility to ensure fairness, accountability, and human oversight in decisions that directly impact people’s lives.