--- title: "Request for reasons and review of an automated or AI-assisted government decision" url: "https://ailawframework.com/precedents/administrative-and-public-law/automated-decision-review-request" type: "precedent" site: "AI Law Framework" id: "a31-automated-decision-review-request" area_id: "A31" kind: "letter" ai_level: "yellow" version: 1 law_stated_as_at: "2026-10-17" --- # Request for reasons and review of an automated or AI-assisted government decision > A letter to a Commonwealth agency asking whether and how an automated system or AI shaped a decision, who actually decided, and under what authority, while seeking reasons, preservation of system records and review. Canonical page: https://ailawframework.com/precedents/administrative-and-public-law/automated-decision-review-request Law stated as at: 2026-10-17 Site index for agents: https://ailawframework.com/llms.txt ## Key facts - Kind: Letter. A letter or email you adapt and send. - Practice area: [Administrative & Public Law](https://ailawframework.com/precedents/administrative-and-public-law.md) - Jurisdictions: Australia, Commonwealth, United Kingdom (England and Wales), European Union - AI level: Yellow. AI can help in set ways. A lawyer checks specific points before use. - Law stated as at: 2026-10-17 - Status: Maintained. Checked on 2026-10-17 against the 10 authorities it cites, for 4 jurisdictions. ## When to use it Use when a decision looks system-generated (template letters, data matching, risk scores, debt calculations) or the client suspects AI was used. Use it alongside, not instead of, the time-limited review application. Do not use it as the only step when a review deadline is close. ## How AI may be used AI may help map the visible automated steps against the review grounds and tailor the question list. A lawyer settles the legal theory, the questions put and the review strategy, and checks every factual statement against the decision papers. **AI may:** - Extract the decision dates, reference numbers, amounts and template wording from the decision papers into a chronology with page references. - Flag signs of automation in the papers (identical template text, system codes, calculated figures, no named officer) for the lawyer to assess. - Draft tailored versions of the questions in paragraph 4 from the lawyer's instructions. **AI must not:** - Must not assert that AI or automation was used unless the papers or the agency confirm it; frame it as a question. - Must not enter the client's Centrelink, tax, visa or health records into a public AI tool or one that trains on inputs. - Must not give the client a view on prospects of review, or on whether a decision was validly made, without lawyer review. **The lawyer checks:** - The correct reasons regime and review pathway, and that every review deadline is diarised independently of this letter. - Whether the enabling Act expressly authorises computer-made decisions, and what follows if it does not. - That the preservation request is proportionate and that any FOI request in the letter meets FOI Act s 15(2). - That foreign-law references are deleted unless the decision-maker is subject to UK or EU law. ## Authorities - [Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth) ss 5, 13](https://www.legislation.gov.au/C2004A01697/latest/text) - [Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 (Cth) ss 268, 269](https://www.legislation.gov.au/C2024A00040/latest/text) - [Pintarich v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation 2018 FCAFC 79 (a decision requires a mental process of reaching a conclusion and an objective manifestation of it)](https://www.judgments.fedcourt.gov.au/judgments/Judgments/fca/full/2018/2018fcafc0079) - [Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 (Cth) s 6A (example of express authority for decisions made by computer programs)](https://www.legislation.gov.au/C2004A00580/latest/text) - [Royal Commission into the Robodebt Scheme, Report (7 July 2023) recs 17.1 and 17.2](https://robodebt.royalcommission.gov.au/publications/report) - [Privacy Act 1988 (Cth) Sch 1 APP 1.7 to 1.9 (automated decisions in APP privacy policies), inserted by the Privacy and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2024 (Cth) Sch 1 items 87 to 89, commencing 10 December 2026](https://www.legislation.gov.au/C2024A00128/asmade/text) - [Freedom of Information Act 1982 (Cth) s 15](https://www.legislation.gov.au/C2004A02562/latest/text) - [Commonwealth Ombudsman, Automated Decision-Making Better Practice Guide (March 2025)](https://www.ombudsman.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0025/317437/Automated-Decision-Making-Better-Practice-Guide-March-2025.pdf) - [UK GDPR arts 22A to 22D (substituted for art 22 by the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025 (UK) s 80; fully in force 5 February 2026)](https://www.legislation.gov.uk/eur/2016/679/article/22A) - [Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 (Artificial Intelligence Act) art 86 (right to explanation of individual decision-making)](https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj/eng) ## Official form [Official form](https://www.ombudsman.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0025/317437/Automated-Decision-Making-Better-Practice-Guide-March-2025.pdf) ## Full text and drafting notes The full text and the drafting notes are not part of this public page. Signed-in firm accounts can read them at https://ailawframework.com/precedents/administrative-and-public-law/automated-decision-review-request and through the signed-in MCP connector https://ailawframework.com/mcp/firm. *Practice guidance for planning and review. Confirm current primary sources and the requirements of the actual matter. This is general information, not legal advice.*