Face it — we need better privacy laws

TASMANIANS learned this month that our driver’s licence photos are being sent to Canberra for storage on a national facial recognition database.

This has come as a rude shock to many. For some, the concern is the simple fact they were not informed where their photographs were being sent. It is a matter of common courtesy. For others, it is the lack of clarity about what the facial recognition database will be used for, leading to fears it is a step towards constant surveillance by the state.

Others worry the database will be a honey pot for hackers and criminals attracted to the large store of valuable personal information.

Many are furious at the transfer of sensitive information by the

Tasmanian Government with no legislative or parliamentary approval at either state or Commonwealth level.

The State Government has some serious explaining to do.

Its response to date is that the regulations authorising the transfer were scrutinised by the Subordinate Legislation Committee of State Parliament. This sounds comforting but isn’t.

What it means, in effect, is that government wrote a regulation handing itself the power to transfer our photos to the database and had a sixperson parliamentary committee assess that regulation. The issue was not debated by parliament as a whole, only the small committee that met in private.

This committee was established in 1969 to examine all regulations written by government. It serves a very important purpose in scrutinising these technical documents. The committee is not however empowered to be making privacy assessments on behalf of all Tasmanians.

The deficiencies are:

NO PUBLIC INPUT. The committee generally does not call for public submissions. Public consultation occurs in a minority of cases and did not occur for these regulations.

NO PARLIAMENTARY

DEBATE. Discussions of the committee are not recorded and the public cannot attend. NO PUBLIC REPORT. The committee is required to examine whether the regulation interferes with personal rights and liberties. However, this report is not publicly available and we are unaware of their conclusions.

It is 15 years this month since our privacy laws were introduced. They came with a promise of “full transparency” in how government uses personal information. Fifteen years ago Facebook was not available to Australians and Google had just launched on the stock exchange. The world is a dramatically different place with vast amounts of personal data in circulation and identity theft a growing crime. Privacy laws need to keep up. If government makes poor decisions about storing private information, it is the community who pay the price.

Part of the remedy is more public participation in the democratic process and increased accountability for decision-makers.

Amendment should be made to the Personal Information Protection Act to require full parliamentary debate and a vote to approve entry into national schemes like the facial recognition one.

Subjecting the issue to scrutiny and debate ensures a transparent and modern approach to privacy. If it does not stand up to standard parliamentary scrutiny, it risks being voted against and sent back to the drawing board.

Fifteen years on it is more important than ever that the “full transparency” pledge of our privacy laws is lived up to.

Richard Griggs is Tasmanian director, Civil Liberties Australia.