‘Reckless’: Liberal MP Warns Digital ID Bill Being Rushed Through Parliament

Paul Fletcher, former minister for Communications, Cyber Safety and the Arts speaks at the Museum of Contemporary Art prior to the Cathy Freeman projection event on September 25, 2020 in Sydney, Australia. (Lisa Maree Williams/Getty Images)

A Liberal MP has accused the Labor government of rushing its digital identification bill through the Australian Parliament warning it could undermine public trust in government services.

The centre-left Labor government on Sept. 13 introduced the Identity Verification Services Bill 2023 to Parliament, which aims to provide a framework to support the operation of three government identification services.

These include a document verification service (DVS) hub, a face matching service hub, and the national driver’s license facial recognition (NDLFR).

A DVS is used to check the accuracy of the biographic information of one’s identity documents, such as birth certificates or visas, while the face matching service (biometric) is used to compare one’s photo with other photos, such as passport photos.

While these services already exist, the bill would authorise the Attorney-General’s Department to develop and maintain these facilities.

However, Liberal MP Paul Fletcher criticised the bill, saying it has “no regulatory impact analysis,” which is a process of examining the pros and cons of the legislation.

He also accused the government of rushing the bill to the House without consulting the industry or giving Australians enough time to understand the bill, despite their personal information being affected.

“Surely this reckless approach can only undermine trust in the operation of Australia’s identity verification services and identity policy more broadly,” he told parliament on Oct. 17.

Mr. Fletcher noted that one of the largest users of the Document Verification Service in Australia has said they didn’t know about the legislation.

“This particular organisation conducts millions of searches of the DVS every year to meet the customer due diligence requirements designed to prevent terrorism financing and money laundering, and this organisation did not know the bill existed,” he said.

Mr. Fletcher, who was the former minister for Communications and Cyber Safety, argued it was unclear what impact the bill would have on organisation’s business is or whether the legislation would disrupt the provision of ordinary financial services.

He also questioned the impact of the bill on the Australian economy, the effectiveness of the bill in protecting privacy, and the implication of the bill in practice.

The Liberal MP added that the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner (OAIC) had described the assessment revisions in clause 40 of the bill as “unusual” because they do not activate the OAIC’s assessment regulatory powers.

“The OAIC went even so far as to state, ‘The bill does not provide a clear framework for the OAIC to enforce these agreements.’ As anybody who is a student of bureaucratic language would know, that is pretty strong criticism,” he said.

“In spite of these unresolved issues, we know the Attorney-General intends to press ahead with a vote in the House even before the Senate committee holds its first hearing.”

He argued the process of this legislation is “characteristic, unfortunately, of the arrogance and presumption that all too often typify the operation of the Albanese Labor government.”

The Bill Could Provide Further Protection: Law Firm

On the other hand, international law firm Kings and Wood Mallesons said the bill would provide new clarity and enhance protections for users of identity services.

“We are hopeful that, if the identity verification services contemplated by the Bill are implemented securely and effectively, we could see a decrease in the retention by the public and private sector of identity documents,” the law firm said in a statement on Sept. 15.

However, they also noted that it is critical not to “underplay security risks that may arise from the concentration of valuable identity information” and make sure personal information entered into the system is “used solely for narrowly defined identity verification purposes.”

“In other words, it is important that the regime does not inadvertently permit uses of biometric information for other purposes not intended or outside the scope of the relevant individual’s consent.”

“This is something that privacy interest groups will no doubt wish to keep a close eye on, in order to guard against the risk of scope creep of the relevant systems.”