Labor, Liberal MPs reject bill allowing government to share facial images

Liberal and Labor MPs say a bill allowing the Department of Home Affairs to share facial images raises privacy concerns.

Andrew Hastie during Question Time. Picture: Kym Smith.

The powerful Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security has rejected a government bill that would allow the Department of Home Affairs to create a national facial recognition database, calling for it to be redrafted to better protect Australians’ privacy.

The government-led committee said the Identity-matching Services Bill, which would see the department create and maintain two facilities to share facial images and other identity information between government agencies and some private businesses, lacked important detail and left people guessing how it would impact them.

Labor sources said it was the first time since 2002 the PJCIS had recommended a bill be redrafted.

Opposition legal affairs spokesman Mark Dreyfus said he did not believe the government was planning to conduct mass surveillance of Australians but warned that because of the “near complete absence of legislated safeguards” those concerns could not be ignored.

Under the bill, an interoperability hub would be established to “operate as a router through which participating government agencies and non-government entities can request and transmit information as part of an identity-matching service”.

There would also be a “national driver licence facial recognition solution”, which would function as a federated database of information contained in government identity documents such as driver's licences.

The PJCIS said the bill should be redrafted to ensure the facilities were built around privacy, transparency and subjected to robust safeguards.

There should also be parliamentary oversight and annual reporting on the use of the identity-matching services and all organisations who access the data should sign up to a participation agreement.

According to the PJCIS report, organisations will need a legal basis for collecting and disclosing personal information and must meet certain access requirements.

Liberal MP Andrew Hastie, chair of the PJCIS, acknowledged concerns the bill needed to ensure appropriate governance, accountability and protection of the individual’s right to privacy.

“In the committee’s view, robust safeguards and appropriate oversight mechanisms should be explained clearly in the legislation,” Mr Hastie said.

The Australian Rights Commission told the committee the bill “appears to contemplate intrusive surveillance of persons or, indeed, of the community at large before any crime has been committed and indeed, potentially, before there is any reason to believe that a particular crime will be committed”.

Mr Dreyfus said if there was no intention for the proposed identity-matching services to be used to engage in mass surveillance activities, the government should not object to amending the bill.

“Concerns were also raised about the proposed ‘one-to-many’ identity-matching service being used to identify people who are engaging in protest activity. This does concern me,” Mr Dreyfus said.

“It was only this month that the Minister for Home Affairs (Peter Dutton), the minister responsible for this very bill, called for mandatory prison sentences for people who engage in protest activity; called for the same people to have their welfare payments cancelled; and also called for them to be photographed and publicly shamed.”

The PJCIS also scrutinised a bill that would authorise the foreign minister to disclose personal Australian travel document data for the purpose of participating in the identity-matching services.

The committee recommended that bill be amended to ensure automated decision making can only be used for decisions that produce favourable or neutral outcomes for the subject.

The origins of the Identity-matching Services bill came from the need to combat growing incidences of identity crime, which Mr Hastie said had devastating impacts on individuals and the economy.

The Council of Australian Governments agreed in October 2017 to implement a framework for national identity-matching services.

Law Council president Arthur Moses SC said the committee’s bipartisan recommendations took into account the unprecedented access all levels of government and the private sector would have to Australians’ private biometric information.

“There are undoubtedly legitimate and proportionate public interest uses for facial recognition technology, particularly in relation to law enforcement and national security,” Mr Moses said.

“But there is an urgent need for appropriate and legislated boundaries to govern its application and ensure robust and independent oversight. This is critical as Australia lacks human rights and data protection frameworks to act as a check and balance. Misuse of this technology would undermine the rights of individuals, as well as the community’s trust in the system and its operation.”

A government spokeswoman said it would work with the PJCIS to legislate the bills.