David Shoebridge (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

We've come back to the 'computer says no' response. This is almost an articulation of why we're concerned by computer assisted decision-making, which is another aspect of this bill. Is the government proposing to give the AFP commissioner flexibility to leave people without the benefit of witness protection simply for operational efficiencies when there has been a prior determination that they should have witness protection—that is, where they have been engaged in some conduct that limits capacity, that conduct is removed and the reasons are no longer there? Is the government seriously putting operational flexibility ahead of the life and safety of witnesses?