  As the use of algorithmic systems in high-stakes decision-making increases,
the ability to contest algorithmic decisions is being recognised as an
important safeguard for individuals. Yet, there is little guidance on what
`contestability'--the ability to contest decisions--in relation to algorithmic
decision-making requires. Recent research presents different conceptualisations
of contestability in algorithmic decision-making. We contribute to this growing
body of work by describing and analysing the perspectives of people and
organisations who made submissions in response to Australia's proposed `AI
Ethics Framework', the first framework of its kind to include `contestability'
as a core ethical principle. Our findings reveal that while the nature of
contestability is disputed, it is seen as a way to protect individuals, and it
resembles contestability in relation to human decision-making. We reflect on
and discuss the implications of these findings.
