Technology is never neutral: Robodebt and a human rights analysis of automated decision-making on welfare recipients

Abstract

ABSTRACT Government agencies have embraced automated decision-making systems, particularly in welfare, despite the risk of mass-replicated erroneous decision-making creating systemic issues. This article uses Robodebt as an Australian case study with global ramifications to argue that government agency use of erroneous automated decision-making systems in welfare raises human rights concerns. First, this article examines the shortcomings of administrative law in a digital welfare context. Second, the article closely analyses the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and identifies several human rights concerns raised by Robodebt. This article then examines ex-ante impact assessment models and concludes by recommending an obligation on government agencies to conduct a human rights impact assessment before deploying an automated decision-making system. By demonstrating the human rights implications on welfare recipients arising from automated decision-making systems, this article justifies the use of international human rights law as a complementary framework.