This paper examines the role of public interest litigation in promoting accountability for AI and automated decision-making (ADM) in Australia. Since ADM regulation faces political and geopolitical headwinds, effective governance will have to rely on the enforcement of existing laws. Drawing on interviews with Australian public interest litigators, technology policy activists, and technology law scholars, the paper positions public interest litigation as part of a larger ecosystem for transparency, accountability and justice with respect to ADM. The paper explores the tactics and strategies of what one participant described as 'retrofitting' old laws to ADM. These go beyond creative legal argumentation, to encompass practices of community-building, collaboration on theories of change, canny selection of clients and causes of action, and the alignment of the interests of stakeholders in litigation. Naturally, the paper also contends with the limits of these strategies, and of the Australian legal system. Where limits are, however, capable of being overcome, the paper presents findings on urgent needs: the enabling institutional arrangements without which effective litigation and accountability will falter. The paper is relevant to law and technology scholars; individuals and groups harmed by ADM; public interest litigators and technology lawyers; civil society and advocacy organisations; and policymakers.

翻译：本文探讨了公共利益诉讼在推动澳大利亚人工智能与自动化决策系统可问责性方面的作用。由于自动化决策监管面临政治与地缘政治阻力，有效的治理体系不得不依赖现行法律的执行。基于对澳大利亚公共利益诉讼律师、技术政策活动家及技术法学者的访谈，本文将公共利益诉讼定位为自动化决策领域透明度、问责制与正义更大生态系统中的组成部分。本文探究了参与者所称"改造"旧法律以适应自动化决策的策略与方法——其内涵远超创造性法律论证，涵盖社区建设、变革理论协作、当事人与诉因的审慎选择、以及诉讼中利益相关者利益的协调。论文自然还涉及这些策略及澳大利亚法律体系的局限性。对于尚存突破空间的局限，本文提出了紧迫需求：若缺乏制度性安排支持，有效的诉讼与问责机制将难以为继。本研究对法律与技术学者、受自动化决策影响的个人与群体、公共利益诉讼律师与技术法律从业者、民间社会及倡导组织、以及政策制定者具有参考价值。