This bill became law on Dec 14th, 2023.
Law, justice & rights
Australia’s passport law now clearly lets passport information be disclosed so agencies can use the Document Verification ServiceA government checking service that matches details from a document, such as a passport or driver licence, against official records to see if they line up., the Face Verification ServiceA service that compares a person's photo or facial image with the image on an official identity document to check whether they are the same person., and other minister-approved identity checking services.
Passport law did not clearly allow passport information to be disclosed or matched through the national document and face verification services. This bill fixes that gap by letting agencies and automated systems use passport data for those identity checks when the main identity verification law starts.
Australia’s document and face verification services were already being used at large scale to help government agencies and businesses confirm identities, but passport law did not clearly authorise passport information to be disclosed and matched through those systems. The bill responded by aligning the Australian Passports ActThe law that governs Australian passports, which this bill changes so passport information can be used in identity checks. with the new national identity verification framework so passport data could be used, including through automated systems, received Royal AssentThe final approval that turns a passed bill into an Act of Parliament. in December 2023, and commenced on 14 June 2024 when the linked section 24The trigger provision in the main identity verification law that must start before these passport amendments begin to operate. of the main Identity Verification Services Act commenced.
The main criticism was that the bill was pushed through too quickly, without enough scrutiny, consultation or settled privacy safeguards for expanded identity and face-matching uses of passport data. That concern was raised most clearly by Coalition speakers and some crossbench critics, while the Greens argued support should wait until broader Privacy ActAustralia's main privacy law, which critics say should be stronger before more identity data is shared through these services. reforms were in place.
Mark Dreyfus MP introduced this bill. It passed with support from Labor, Greens, Liberal Party, Jacqui Lambie Network, some crossbench members; opposed by One Nation, Nationals, UAP, some crossbench members.
Did it become law?
Yes
Became law 14 Dec 2023
Final passage
Recorded final vote
1 counted final-passage vote was recorded.
Passage speed
92 days
From introduction to the latest recorded parliamentary step
Meaning
Australia’s passport law now clearly lets passport information be disclosed so agencies can use the Document Verification ServiceA government checking service that matches details from a document, such as a passport or driver licence, against official records to see if they line up., the Face Verification ServiceA service that compares a person's photo or facial image with the image on an official identity document to check whether they are the same person., and other minister-approved identity checking services.
The change allows passport information to be shared or matched to check a person’s identity through the national document and face verification services.
The Minister can set up computer systems to automatically send passport information through the Document Verification ServiceA government checking service that matches details from a document, such as a passport or driver licence, against official records to see if they line up. or Face Verification ServiceA service that compares a person's photo or facial image with the image on an official identity document to check whether they are the same person., instead of relying only on manual handling.
These amendments only start if section 24The trigger provision in the main identity verification law that must start before these passport amendments begin to operate. of the main identity verification law starts, so the passport changes do not operate on their own.
(iii) any other service specified, or of a kind specified, in the Minister’s determination;Identity Verification Services (Consequential Amendments) Act 2023 final Act text
to share or match information relating to the identity of a person;Identity Verification Services (Consequential Amendments) Act 2023 final Act text
The Consequential Amendments Bill will also allow for automated disclosures of personal information to a specified person via the DVS or the FVS. In combination, this comprehensively authorises the operation of the DVS and FVS in relation to Australian travel documents regulated by the Australian Passports Act.Identity Verification Services (Consequential Amendments) explanatory memorandum
However, the provisions do not commence at all if the event mentioned in paragraph (b) does not occur.Identity Verification Services (Consequential Amendments) Act 2023 final Act text
Context
Australia’s document and face verification services were already being used at large scale to help government agencies and businesses confirm identities, but passport law did not clearly authorise passport information to be disclosed and matched through those systems. The bill responded by aligning the Australian Passports ActThe law that governs Australian passports, which this bill changes so passport information can be used in identity checks. with the new national identity verification framework so passport data could be used, including through automated systems, received Royal AssentThe final approval that turns a passed bill into an Act of Parliament. in December 2023, and commenced on 14 June 2024 when the linked section 24The trigger provision in the main identity verification law that must start before these passport amendments begin to operate. of the main Identity Verification Services Act commenced.
Document and face verification services were already widely used
Parliament was told the Document Verification ServiceA government checking service that matches details from a document, such as a passport or driver licence, against official records to see if they line up. was used 140 million times in the previous year and the Face Verification ServiceA service that compares a person's photo or facial image with the image on an official identity document to check whether they are the same person. 2.6 million times in 2022-23, showing these checks were already embedded in everyday identity verification.
Hansard ↗Government introduces the passport amendments bill
The government introduced the bill to let passport information be disclosed through the document verification and face verification services, including by automated systems.
Hansard ↗Parliament describes the services as operating for years without a full statutory footing
During debate, MPs said the bills would place existing identity verification services that had been operating for a number of years onto a clearer legislative basis.
Hansard ↗House passes the bill
The House agreed to the bill at second and third reading, sending the passport amendments forward as part of the broader identity verification package.
Parliamentary timeline ↗Parliament passes the bill
Both houses settled the bill in the same form after the House agreed to a Senate amendment, completing its parliamentary passage.
Parliamentary timeline ↗Bill receives Royal AssentThe final approval that turns a passed bill into an Act of Parliament.
Royal AssentThe final approval that turns a passed bill into an Act of Parliament. turned the bill into an Act. Its passport data changes commenced later, on 14 June 2024, when the linked section 24The trigger provision in the main identity verification law that must start before these passport amendments begin to operate. of the main identity verification law commenced.
Parliamentary timeline ↗Legislative route
The bill was formally presented to the chamber and read a first time, which starts its parliamentary journey.
Introduced and read a first time
A minister or sponsoring member moved the second readingThe stage in Parliament where members debate the purpose of a bill and decide whether it should proceed., opening the main debate on the bill's purpose and principles.
Second readingThe stage in Parliament where members debate the purpose of a bill and decide whether it should proceed. moved
Referred to Committee (14/09/2023): Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee; Committee report (09/11/2023)
Referred to committee
APH bill page notesThe bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
Referred to Federation Chamber
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
Reported from Federation Chamber
The chamber agreed to the bill at second readingThe stage in Parliament where members debate the purpose of a bill and decide whether it should proceed., meaning it accepted the bill in principle and allowed it to continue.
Second readingThe stage in Parliament where members debate the purpose of a bill and decide whether it should proceed. agreed to
The chamber agreed to the bill at third reading, which completed passage through that chamber. Later message exchanges with the other chamber were still recorded afterwards.
Third reading agreed to
The bill was formally presented to the chamber and read a first time, which starts its parliamentary journey.
Introduced and read a first time
A minister or sponsoring member moved the second readingThe stage in Parliament where members debate the purpose of a bill and decide whether it should proceed., opening the main debate on the bill's purpose and principles.
Second readingThe stage in Parliament where members debate the purpose of a bill and decide whether it should proceed. moved
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
The chamber agreed to the bill at second readingThe stage in Parliament where members debate the purpose of a bill and decide whether it should proceed., meaning it accepted the bill in principle and allowed it to continue.
Second readingThe stage in Parliament where members debate the purpose of a bill and decide whether it should proceed. agreed to
Recorded vote: 32 to 6.
The chamber considered amendments before the bill moved to the next stage.
Third reading agreed to :
The House dealt with Senate amendments or requests so both chambers could settle the bill in the same form. The main accepted Senate changes reflected in the final bill were: The introduced and as-passed bill texts differ in 1 observed text block. Observed text changed from "(b) the commencement of the Identity Verification Services Act 2023.
Both houses passed the bill in the same form, completing parliamentary passage.
Finally passed both Houses
The Governor-General gave Royal AssentThe final approval that turns a passed bill into an Act of Parliament., turning the bill into an Act.
Key criticism
The main criticism was that the bill was pushed through too quickly, without enough scrutiny, consultation or settled privacy safeguards for expanded identity and face-matching uses of passport data. That concern was raised most clearly by Coalition speakers and some crossbench critics, while the Greens argued support should wait until broader Privacy ActAustralia's main privacy law, which critics say should be stronger before more identity data is shared through these services. reforms were in place.
Most criticism focused on process and privacy safeguards, not the basic goal of identity verification.
Rushed process and weak scrutiny
Critics argued the bill should not pass in a hurry because parliament had not had enough time for hearings, consultation and detailed testing of its effects. They said the policy direction may be acceptable, but the drafting and process were not strong enough to justify waving it through unchanged.
Privacy safeguards not strong enough yet
The sharpest policy objection was that the scheme would share or match sensitive identity data before broader privacy law reforms were in place, leaving people exposed to weaker consentPermission from the individual whose identity is being checked, which the bill and debate treat as a key safeguard. protections. Critics warned that consentPermission from the individual whose identity is being checked, which the bill and debate treat as a key safeguard. could become effectively take-it-or-leave-it rather than genuinely free and informed.
Surveillance and coercion risks
A narrower but stronger line of criticism said the bill could help normalise biometric tracking and expand centralised government data systems beyond what existing safeguards could safely control. These critics warned that once built, the framework could be used coercively or create larger harms if data was misused or breached.
Further sources
Votes
The chamber-passage votes come first. Expand a vote to see the party breakdown.
House agreed to the bill's third reading on the voices, so there is no list of individual Aye and No votes for final passage in that chamber.
Passed on the voices
In a voice vote, members call out Aye or No and the presiding officer judges which side has it. Individual names are only recorded if a formal division is called.
Passed 32 to 6. Support came from Labor, Greens, Jacqui Lambie Network, and minor parties and independents. Opposition came from One Nation, Nationals, and UAP. One cross-floor vote was recorded: Alex Antic (Liberal Party) voted no. Liberal Party had split recorded votes. Minor-party and independent votes were split.
Amendments grouped by chamber. These cards include amendment outcomes recorded without a counted division.
House
The House agreed to the amendments made by the Senate, so the bill could pass both chambers in the same form.
Carried on voices
The chamber decided this amendment without a counted division, so there is no list of individual Aye and No votes.
Senate
Defeated 6 to 33. Support came from One Nation, Nationals, and UAP. Opposition came from Labor, Greens, Jacqui Lambie Network, and minor parties and independents. One cross-floor vote was recorded: Alex Antic (Liberal Party) voted aye. Liberal Party had split recorded votes. Minor-party and independent votes were split.
If carried, the bill would have used a stricter consentPermission from the individual whose identity is being checked, which the bill and debate treat as a key safeguard. test for each instance of identity verification. The amendments were defeated.
Defeated 8 to 30. Support came from Greens. Opposition came from Labor, Liberal Party, One Nation, Jacqui Lambie Network, and minor parties and independents.
If carried, the bill would have added explicit limits on restricted information in identity verification facilities. The amendments were defeated.
The Senate accepted the Government amendment that tied commencement to section 24The trigger provision in the main identity verification law that must start before these passport amendments begin to operate. of the main Identity Verification Services Act.
Carried on voices
The chamber decided this amendment without a counted division, so there is no list of individual Aye and No votes.
Senator Shoebridge’s second-reading proposal, decided on voices, would have postponed further consideration of the bill until the Government’s comprehensive privacy reforms were available.
Defeated on voices
The chamber decided this amendment without a counted division, so there is no list of individual Aye and No votes.
The Senate recorded this proposed amendment as carried on voices without a counted division.
Carried on voices
The chamber decided this amendment without a counted division, so there is no list of individual Aye and No votes.
The Senate rejected Senator Shoebridge’s proposal on voices; it would have postponed further consideration of the bill until the Government’s comprehensive privacy reforms were available.
Defeated on voices
The chamber decided this amendment without a counted division, so there is no list of individual Aye and No votes.
The Senate accepted the Government amendment package on sheet UD100, including privacy, consentPermission from the individual whose identity is being checked, which the bill and debate treat as a key safeguard., review and rule-making changes.
Carried on voices
The chamber decided this amendment without a counted division, so there is no list of individual Aye and No votes.
This list includes amendment votes, procedural votes and votes on the bill itself.
The parliamentary record also shows 1 Government amendment agreed without a counted division.
Parliamentary debate
Start here — lead voices
Dreyfus supports the bill, saying it makes the passport framework work with the document verification and face verification services so personal information can be disclosed automatically to specified people.
Read in Hansard ↗McCormack says the coalition will oppose the bill because it has been rushed through without enough scrutiny, hearings, consultation, or answers about privacy and operational impacts.
Read in Hansard ↗Wolahan supports the identity verification bills, but says the government has handled them badly and needs to do much better on consultation, privacy and public trust.
Read in Hansard ↗Fletcher says the opposition cannot support the bill as it stands because there are too many unknowns and the process has been rushed.
Read in Hansard ↗All speeches by bloc
5 speakers · 5 support
“Our bill is a step towards restoring public trust in government and confidence in the digital economy by making it safer for Australians to use online services. The Identity Verification Services Bill is about both recognising that digital identity services are the future and providing necessary safeguards to ensure Australians can embrace them with confidence and trust.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“The Identity Verification Services (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2023 will amend the Australian Passports Act 2005 to allow for automated disclosures of personal information to a specified person via the Document Verification Service or the Face Verification Service.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“These bills before the House today will ensure these systems have a clear legislative underpinning and are subject to robust privacy safeguards. They will authorise one-to-one matching for DVS, which allows the verification of biographic information, such as a name and date of birth, against government issued IDs. They will also authorise one-to-one matching through FVS, which will allow the matching of photographs with government issued IDs.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“The Identity Verification Services (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2023 will amend the Australian Passports Act 2005 to allow for automated disclosures of personal information to a specified person via the Document Verification Service or the Face Verification Service. This will enable the continued verification of identity using passports.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“I commend the bill to the House.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
8 speakers · 4 support · 2 oppose · 2 mixed
“I conclude by making the point that there are too many unknowns for the opposition to support these bills as they stand. We will consider our position carefully, including through the committee process. Once the committee has completed its review and it has been possible to properly consider these questions and the answers that have been provided, it may be that the opposition will be in a position to support these bills at that time. I simply cannot make a commitment on that now.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“Principally, the coalition does not object to the ethos of this legislation, but we are concerned that the Senate committee apparently asked to not hold even a single hearing. Concerns have already been raised in submissions. There are far too many questions unanswered and too much uncertainty. We simply cannot, as an opposition, effectively just wave legislation such as this through.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“In conclusion, it may be that, once the committee has completed its review, we will support this. As I said, we do support the principle of this bill. At their heart, they are good ideas. It is important that we get this right. But it is, as I said, a missed opportunity, a failure to follow through and, ultimately, a botched process. Until these bills are scrutinised and we have that clarity about their scope and impact, it's not the sort of legislation that we can just wave through.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“When we combine those two issues of bringing people with you—not taking them for granted—and acknowledging their legitimate distrust in how the digital economy can be weaponised against them in the most significant way, where you cannot even pay for basics and you are humiliated in front of others on a large scale—I've had a significant amounts of calls on that—I think this is an example and a process that should be done much better.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“The many changes that have been agreed, and the supporting work around the edges, have improved this legislation. The legislation is now in a position where the coalition can support it.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“The government would do well to heed those words. My colleague Senator Shoebridge, who makes an outstanding contribution on the Legal and Constitutional Affairs committees on which I serve with him, raised the issue of consent. Can I just say that expressed consent is one thing, but it also can't be Hobson's choice. It's got to be a real choice for people with respect to these matters.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“I do acknowledge the government is bringing this bill forward for all the right reasons, and I thank the communications minister for that. The only concern on our side is that has been the process and doubling down in looking at that to make sure all those changes which could be made to protect Australians are made.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
2 speakers · 2 oppose
“Omit all words after "that", substitute "further consideration of this bill be postponed until the Government's comprehensive privacy reforms are available to ensure the best possible privacy protections are in place for personal information".”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“"the House declines to give the bill a second reading until the Privacy Act reforms are in place in recognition of the significant privacy and data implications of this proposal".”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
1 speaker · 1 oppose
“I implore the Senate to vote against this bill and to reject this bill. This is the first of three bills necessary to turn Australia into the world's first World Economic Forum digital prison.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
Record
House · Introduced and read a first time
Introduced
The bill was formally presented to the chamber and read a first time, which starts its parliamentary journey.
House · Second reading moved
Second readingThe stage in Parliament where members debate the purpose of a bill and decide whether it should proceed. opened
A minister or sponsoring member moved the second readingThe stage in Parliament where members debate the purpose of a bill and decide whether it should proceed., opening the main debate on the bill's purpose and principles.
House · Second reading debate
Second readingThe stage in Parliament where members debate the purpose of a bill and decide whether it should proceed. debate
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
House · Referred to Federation Chamber
Referred to Federation Chamber
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
House · Second reading debate
Second readingThe stage in Parliament where members debate the purpose of a bill and decide whether it should proceed. debate
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
House · Reported from Federation Chamber
Reported from Federation Chamber
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
House · Second reading agreed to
Second readingThe stage in Parliament where members debate the purpose of a bill and decide whether it should proceed. agreed
The chamber agreed to the bill at second readingThe stage in Parliament where members debate the purpose of a bill and decide whether it should proceed., meaning it accepted the bill in principle and allowed it to continue.
House · Third reading agreed to
Third reading agreed
The chamber agreed to the bill at third reading, which completed passage through that chamber.
Senate · Introduced and read a first time
Introduced
The bill was formally presented to the chamber and read a first time, which starts its parliamentary journey.
Senate · Second reading moved
Second readingThe stage in Parliament where members debate the purpose of a bill and decide whether it should proceed. opened
A minister or sponsoring member moved the second readingThe stage in Parliament where members debate the purpose of a bill and decide whether it should proceed., opening the main debate on the bill's purpose and principles.
Senate · Second reading debate
Second readingThe stage in Parliament where members debate the purpose of a bill and decide whether it should proceed. debate
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
Senate · Second reading agreed to
Second readingThe stage in Parliament where members debate the purpose of a bill and decide whether it should proceed. agreed
The chamber agreed to the bill at second readingThe stage in Parliament where members debate the purpose of a bill and decide whether it should proceed., meaning it accepted the bill in principle and allowed it to continue.
Senate · Amendments considered
Recorded vote: 32 to 6.
Amendment packages agreed
The chamber considered amendments before the bill moved to the next stage.
House · Consideration of Senate message
Consideration of Senate message
The House dealt with Senate amendments or requests so both chambers could settle the bill in the same form.
Parliament · Finally passed both Houses
Passed both houses
Both houses passed the bill in the same form, completing parliamentary passage.
Assent · Assent
Assent
The Governor-General gave Royal AssentThe final approval that turns a passed bill into an Act of Parliament., turning the bill into an Act.
Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee; Committee report (09/11/2023)
Referred to committee
Referred to Committee (14 Sept 2023): Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee; Committee report (9 Nov 2023)
APH bill page notes
