Reasons for decision

When an AI agent makes or recommends a decision that affects a citizen, the citizen has a right to know why, in terms they can actually assess and contest. Administrative law already requires adequate reasons for a government decision; the harder question is whether reasons generated by an agent can meet that standard.

The challenge is to produce reasons that are articulable, surfaced before the decision takes effect, and durable enough to stand up in a later dispute.

Australian administrative law — duty to give reasons. Under the AAT Act 1975 (now superseded by the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024), decision-makers must provide written reasons; parties may request a formal statement within 28 days, and inadequate reasons constitute an error of law and grounds for appeal. See Federal Register of Legislation — Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 and the Administrative Review Tribunal.

GDPR Article 22 — right to explanation of automated decisions. Data subjects have the right not to be subject to solely automated decisions with legal or similarly significant effects, with rights to human intervention, to express a view, and to contest the decision; Articles 13-15 require "meaningful information about the logic involved." A rubber-stamp review does not satisfy the requirement. See GDPR Info — Article 22 Explained and DPO Centre — AI and Article 22.

EU AI Act Article 14 — human oversight of high-risk AI. High-risk systems must be designed with interface tools enabling effective oversight; for biometric identification, no action may be taken unless verified by at least two qualified persons. This is a design requirement, not merely organizational policy. See EU AI Act — Article 14 and IAPP — EU AI Act Human Oversight.

Robodebt Royal Commission recommendation on transparency. The Commission recommended people be told when subject to automated decision-making and how to challenge outcomes, that business rules and algorithms be available for independent scrutiny, and that a body have power to monitor and audit automated decision-making for fairness, bias, and usability. See iTnews — Robodebt report and Keypoint Law — ADM transparency.

The administrative-law "reasons for decision" requirement translates directly: if an agent recommends or makes a decision, the reasons must be articulable and surfaced. GDPR and the AI Act add that the interface itself must enable meaningful oversight: not just provide reasons after the fact, but allow intervention before the decision takes effect.

For an agent pattern library this means: (a) the agent must explain its reasoning in terms the citizen can assess, (b) the explanation must be available at the review checkpoint before submission, and (c) post-decision, the reasons must be durable and citable in any dispute. Whether an agent can generate an explanation that satisfies an administrative tribunal is genuinely untested.