Navigating legal risk in automated Government processes

Ah, marvellous. Australia has looked at the coming wave of automated government decisions and decided that the appropriate legal response is to point fondly at the 64 pieces of Commonwealth legislation already on the books and hope one of them sticks. Norton Rose Fulbright's new analysis of the National AI Plan confirms there will be no standalone AI law in the near term, because why draft one coherent statute when you can have six dozen overlapping ones? It's the legislative equivalent of a car boot sale, and the public are the ones expected to haggle. One almost longs for the simplicity of a single bad law, properly enforced.

Sixty-four pieces of legislation authorise automated decision-making. Sixty-four. That is not a legal framework; that is a choose-your-own-adventure novel in which every ending is a tribunal appeal. The analysis calls the result a 'fragmented legal landscape,' which is lawyer-speak for 'nobody has the faintest idea what is lawful.' Government departments will presumably determine which statute applies by asking the algorithm itself, which seems fair, given the algorithm will also be making the decision, writing the reasons, and composing the apology.

The National AI Plan, meanwhile, is written in the same invisible ink as every other grand strategy that promises to 'look into' regulation. Near term, no standalone legislation; long term, perhaps a roundtable. Automated systems will keep deciding people's benefits, licences and entitlements, and when one of them goes sideways, the lucky citizen will have 64 statutes to choose from and 63 ways to be told it's not our problem. Still, one must admire the efficiency: in the future, the government can reject your appeal and apologise in the same automated email. Splendid stuff — one almost misses the days when government incompetence required a human hand.