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 geopolitical headwinds, effective governance will have to rely at least in part 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. It builds on one participant's characterisation of litigation about ADM as an exercise in legal retrofitting: adapting old laws to new circumstances. The paper's primary contribution is to aggregate, organise and present original insights on pragmatic strategies and tactics for effective public interest litigation about ADM. Naturally, it 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：本文探讨了公益诉讼在推动澳大利亚人工智能与自动化决策问责机制中的作用。鉴于自动化决策监管面临地缘政治阻力，有效治理至少需部分依赖现有法律的执行。基于对澳大利亚公益诉讼律师、技术政策活动家及科技法学者的访谈，本文将公益诉讼定位为自动化决策透明度、问责与正义更大生态系统的一部分。研究借鉴了一位参与者对自动化决策诉讼的定性——即法律适应性改造：将旧有法律适用于新情境。本文的主要贡献在于汇集、梳理并呈现了关于自动化决策有效公益诉讼实用策略与战术的原创性见解。当然，文章也探讨了这些策略及澳大利亚法律体系的局限性。而对于那些可能被突破的局限，本文提出了关于紧迫需求的发现：若缺乏相应的制度安排支持，有效诉讼与问责机制将难以维系。本研究对法律与科技学者、受自动化决策损害的个体与群体、公益诉讼律师与技术法律师、公民社会与倡导组织以及政策制定者具有参考价值。