This bill became law on May 30th, 2024.
Government & democracy
Australia now has a legal framework for trusted digital ID providers and the Australian Government Digital ID SystemThe government-run digital ID network that this law puts on a formal legal footing and gradually opens to more public and private users., so government, states, territories and eventually businesses can use the same protected way to verify people online.
Digital ID services lacked a clear legal framework with strong privacy safeguards and trusted oversight, which limited confidence and wider use online. The bill creates national rules for accredited digital ID providers, expands the government system, and gives regulators powers to enforce privacy and consumer protections.
Australia had already shifted many identity checks online, but the 2014 Financial System InquiryThe 2014 review that said Australia needed a more joined-up, regulated model for digital identity. said the country still lacked a cohesive, regulated way to verify people digitally, leaving paper-based checks and fragmented systems in place as online scams and identity theft kept causing heavy losses. The Digital ID Bill 2024 responded by setting national rules for accredited digital ID providers and the government system, and after Parliament passed it in May 2024 and Royal AssentThe final step that turned the bill into an Act after Parliament passed it. followed, Australia had a formal legal framework with stronger privacy and oversight protections.
The main case against the bill was that it did not make digital ID truly voluntary and left privacy, law enforcement access and offline alternatives too weak, creating a risk that people could be pressured into using it or lose control over their information. These criticisms were raised most clearly by Coalition and National Party speakers, while crossbench support for the bill's goal was often conditional on stronger safeguards and broader privacy reform.
Senator Katy Gallagher introduced this bill. It passed with support from Labor, Greens, Jacqui Lambie Network, some crossbench members; opposed by Liberal Party, Nationals, One Nation, UAP, some crossbench members.
Did it become law?
Yes
Became law 30 May 2024
Final passage
Recorded final vote
1 counted final-passage vote was recorded.
Passage speed
182 days
From introduction to the latest recorded parliamentary step
Meaning
Australia now has a legal framework for trusted digital ID providers and the Australian Government Digital ID SystemThe government-run digital ID network that this law puts on a formal legal footing and gradually opens to more public and private users., so government, states, territories and eventually businesses can use the same protected way to verify people online.
Accredited digital ID providers must follow extra privacy rules, including consent rules, bans on profiling and direct marketing, and strict limits on biometric data and police access.
People cannot be forced to use digital ID for Australian Government services through the Australian Government Digital ID SystemThe government-run digital ID network that this law puts on a formal legal footing and gradually opens to more public and private users. if another access method, such as paper, phone or a shopfront, is available.
Accredited digital ID services must meet accessibility and usability requirements, including standards for accessible design, user testing, and access across devices or browsers.
The law gives the Australian Competition and Consumer CommissionThe main regulator that oversees digital ID providers for competition and consumer law breaches under this bill. and the Information CommissionerThe privacy regulator that checks how digital ID services handle personal information and privacy safeguards. strong oversight powers, including civil penalties, to police digital ID providers and participants.
legislate and enable expansion of the Australian Government Digital ID System (AGDIS) for use by the Commonwealth, State and Territory governments and eventually private sector organisations;Digital ID explanatory memorandum
additional privacy safeguards to enhance how personal information and digital ID information is handled by accredited entities. These include: requirements for express consent to share personal information with relying parties; prohibitions on the use of single identifiers between entities; prohibitions on data profiling and the use of information for direct marketing purposes; and restrictions on the use and retention of biometric information, including a prohibition on one-to-many biometric matching. The Bill will also provide additional safeguards over law enforcement access to personal information held by accredited entities.Digital ID explanatory memorandum
require the participating relying party to provide an alternative way for a person to access a service without using a Digital ID, whether that be paper-based, byDigital ID explanatory memorandum
requirements to comply with accessibility standards or guidelines; requirements relating to useability testing;Digital ID explanatory memorandum
strengthen governance arrangements for the Accreditation Scheme and the AGDIS, including by establishing the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) as the Digital ID Regulator, and expanding the role of the Information Commissioner to regulate privacy protections for digital IDs. Both these regulators will have a broad range of powers under the Bill, including to issue civil penalties.Digital ID explanatory memorandum
Context
Australia had already shifted many identity checks online, but the 2014 Financial System InquiryThe 2014 review that said Australia needed a more joined-up, regulated model for digital identity. said the country still lacked a cohesive, regulated way to verify people digitally, leaving paper-based checks and fragmented systems in place as online scams and identity theft kept causing heavy losses. The Digital ID Bill 2024 responded by setting national rules for accredited digital ID providers and the government system, and after Parliament passed it in May 2024 and Royal AssentThe final step that turned the bill into an Act after Parliament passed it. followed, Australia had a formal legal framework with stronger privacy and oversight protections.
Financial System InquiryThe 2014 review that said Australia needed a more joined-up, regulated model for digital identity. calls for a regulated digital identity model
A 2014 financial system review said Australia lacked a cohesive approach to identity verification and recommended a federated, regulated model for trusted digital identification.
Hansard ↗Online scams and identity theft keep costing Australians billions
Parliamentarians cited Scamwatch figures showing scams cost Australians about $2.7 billion in 2023, underscoring the pressure for safer online identity checks.
Hansard ↗Government introduces the Digital ID Bill package
The government introduced the bill package to create a legal framework for trusted digital ID providers, stronger privacy safeguards and formal oversight of the national system.
Parliamentary timeline ↗Parliament passes the bill
Both houses passed the bill in the same form, clearing the way for a national digital ID regime with enforceable rules for accredited providers and participants.
Parliamentary timeline ↗Royal AssentThe final step that turned the bill into an Act after Parliament passed it. makes the Digital ID Act law
Royal AssentThe final step that turned the bill into an Act after Parliament passed it. turned the bill into an Act, giving Australia a formal statutory basis for the Australian Government Digital ID SystemThe government-run digital ID network that this law puts on a formal legal footing and gradually opens to more public and private users. and related regulatory powers.
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 reading, opening the main debate on the bill's purpose and principles.
Second reading moved
Referred to Committee (30/11/2023): Senate Economics Legislation Committee; Committee report (28/02/2024)
Referred to committee
APH bill page notesRecorded vote: 33 to 26.
The chamber agreed to the bill at second reading, meaning it accepted the bill in principle and allowed it to continue.
Second reading agreed to
Recorded vote: 33 to 26.
The Senate agreed to the bill at third reading and recorded agreed Government and Australian Greens amendments.
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 reading, opening the main debate on the bill's purpose and principles.
Second reading moved
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
Referred to Federation Chamber
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
Second reading debate
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
Reported from Federation Chamber
Recorded vote: 87 to 56.
The chamber agreed to the bill at second reading, meaning it accepted the bill in principle and allowed it to continue.
Second reading agreed to
The chamber agreed to the bill at third reading, which completed passage through that chamber.
Third reading agreed to
Both houses passed the bill in the same form, completing parliamentary passage.
Finally passed both Houses
The Governor-General gave Royal AssentThe final step that turned the bill into an Act after Parliament passed it., turning the bill into an Act.
Key criticism
The main case against the bill was that it did not make digital ID truly voluntary and left privacy, law enforcement access and offline alternatives too weak, creating a risk that people could be pressured into using it or lose control over their information. These criticisms were raised most clearly by Coalition and National Party speakers, while crossbench support for the bill's goal was often conditional on stronger safeguards and broader privacy reform.
Criticism was substantial but mostly focused on safeguards, voluntariness and scrutiny rather than rejecting digital ID in principle.
Not truly voluntary
Critics argued the bill did not guarantee that people could realistically refuse digital ID, warning that banks, businesses or service systems could pressure people into using it despite formal claims that the scheme was voluntary.
Privacy and state access risks
A second concern was that the bill's safeguards were still too weak, especially around privacy, biometric handling and law enforcement access, with opponents warning the system could expand government or corporate control over personal information.
Rushed and under-scrutinised
Opponents also said the government moved too quickly, rejected amendments aimed at stronger safeguards, and was proceeding without enough scrutiny or full state and territory alignment on a national approach.
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 33 to 26. Support came from Labor, Greens, Jacqui Lambie Network, and minor parties and independents. Opposition came from Liberal Party, Nationals, One Nation, and UAP. Minor-party and independent votes were split.
Earlier bill-stage votes
Passed 87 to 56. Support came from Labor and Greens. Opposition came from Liberal Party, Nationals, and Centre Alliance. Minor-party and independent votes were split.
Passed 33 to 26. Support came from Labor, Greens, Jacqui Lambie Network, and minor parties and independents. Opposition came from Liberal Party, Nationals, One Nation, and UAP. Minor-party and independent votes were split.
Amendments grouped by chamber. These cards include amendment outcomes recorded without a counted division.
Senate
Passed 33 to 26. Support came from Labor, Greens, Jacqui Lambie Network, and minor parties and independents. Opposition came from Liberal Party, Nationals, One Nation, and UAP. Minor-party and independent votes were split.
The carried amendments added extra reporting around access to digital ID information.
Passed 33 to 26. Support came from Labor, Greens, Jacqui Lambie Network, and minor parties and independents. Opposition came from Liberal Party, Nationals, One Nation, and UAP. Minor-party and independent votes were split.
The division left the phase-in provision in place and allowed the bill to proceed with the participation timetable unchanged.
Defeated 26 to 33. Support came from Liberal Party, Nationals, One Nation, and UAP. Opposition came from Labor, Greens, Jacqui Lambie Network, and minor parties and independents. Minor-party and independent votes were split.
The defeat left the bill’s access and commencement settings broader than the proposed amendments would have made them.
Defeated 14 to 26. Support came from Greens, One Nation, UAP, and minor parties and independents. Opposition came from Labor, Liberal Party, Jacqui Lambie Network, Nationals, and minor parties and independents.
The vote kept those extra biometric and disclosure restrictions out of the bill.
The Senate agreed on voices to government amendments to the Digital ID bill.
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 agreed on voices to sixteen Australian Greens amendments to the Digital ID bill.
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 27 Government amendments and 16 Australian Greens amendments agreed without a counted division.
Parliamentary debate
Start here — lead voices
Gallagher supports the Digital ID Bill and says it will create a voluntary, secure system for verifying identity online across government and business.
Read in Hansard ↗Fletcher says the coalition will oppose the bill, arguing that digital ID has real potential but Labor has handled the legislation badly and failed to fix major flaws in governance, privacy safeguards, and the role of the private sector.
Read in Hansard ↗Zoe Daniel says she will support the bill on balance because it will improve secure, modern identity verification and bring benefits for Australians and industry.
Read in Hansard ↗Tink says the opposition?
Read in Hansard ↗All speeches by bloc
8 speakers · 9 contributions · 8 support
Hansard records 2 separate contributions by Stephen Jones on this bill. They are grouped here so the speaker is listed once.
Second reading speech
Stephen Jones supports the bill and urges the House to pass it. He says it creates a secure, voluntary digital ID system with stronger privacy safeguards and better alternatives to copying and storing sensitive identity documents.
“Having done that, he should return to the House and vote in favour of this sensible bill. I commend the bills to the House.”Read this contribution in Hansard ↗
Second reading speech
Jones supports the Digital ID Bill 2024, saying the linked transitional bill is needed to ensure a smooth switch to the new digital ID framework and keep services uninterrupted while the new safeguards take effect.
“The Digital ID (Transitional and Consequential Provisions) Bill 2023 operates in conjunction with the Digital ID Bill 2024 (the principal bill) and supports the principal bill in two ways.”Read this contribution in Hansard ↗
“This Bill will provide Australians with the choice to use a secure, convenient and voluntary way to verify themselves when interacting with government and businesses online. Digital ID will allow Australia to harness the advances of new technology and its benefits across the economy.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“The Albanese government is not just providing for the Australia of today but also securing the Australia of the future. The Digital ID Bill will deliver a legislative framework for a secure, centralised network of digital identification that not only is going to be more convenient for everyday use but is going to protect millions of Australians from data breaches that leave them vulnerable.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“The Digital ID Bill is about the safety and security of Australians and of their digital identity. We've all been horrified by the data breaches and the ensuing issues that come from them—with people being vulnerable to identity theft and scams. It's an entirely voluntary exercise, it has built-in security measures and it has a regulator to ensure compliance. I commend the bill to the House.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“I rise today in support of the Digital ID (Transitional and Consequential Provisions) Bill as brought to the House by the honourable Minister for Finance. This bill is part of the Digital ID Bill package. This legislation is long overdue.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“In summary, the use of this digital ID will be voluntary. Organisations will need to provide alternatives for those who do not wish to use the system. It won't be difficult, as each organisation or government department already has a system for requiring and proving ID. This bill will reduce the need for people to share their personal and identification documentation and other information repeatedly with the many departments and businesses that now require it as standard practice. This bill will make people safer. It will make the holding of our personal identification more secure and convenient—and we'll ensure it's voluntary. I commend the bill to the House, and I thank the minister for her stewardship.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“I commend these bills to the House as important planks in our progress towards a more secure digital future and a productive, streamlined and connected economy, and as a means of providing smoother access to services for all.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“Digital ID is a major reform. Australians are increasingly becoming accustomed to the use of digital IDs in various forms, the benefits of which are quite clear, but they also are becoming increasingly worried about their privacy. These bills seek to establish the digital ID scheme to allow Australians to access services more easily whilst ensuring their privacy is not compromised and instead enhanced. Digital ID will bring enormous social and economic benefits to Australians, and it is responsible of the government to ensure that there are systems in place to maximise that benefit. It is an important reform that must be done correctly, and I commend the work of the ministers and departments in putting together the legislation. I commend the bill to the House.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
9 speakers · 8 oppose · 1 mixed
“I conclude by reiterating that the coalition believes that digital identity has the potential to deliver significant productivity, efficiency and safety benefits across the Australian economy, but this bill before the House today is deeply flawed. The government has failed to engage with the opposition in our good-faith efforts to resolve those flaws by proposing amendments. For this reason, the coalition will not be supporting this bill.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“In conclusion, Labor's bill does not adequately ensure it is truly voluntary. Every Australian deserves the same quality of service, regardless of how they're accessing it, be it through digital ID or face-to-face. The government should not proceed with this bill until such time as they've reformed the Privacy Act. There should be simultaneous private sector participation in the AGDIS, ensuring that ID is a truly national whole-of-economy solution. The coalition has worked hard and in good faith to address the flaws in these bills by moving amendments in the Senate. Our amendments would have enhanced the privacy protections for Australians who choose to use digital ID. These amendments were not supported and, accordingly, I oppose the Digital ID Bill 2024 as I feel it will cause more harm than good, and this is nothing more than over reach by the current Labor government.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“Accordingly, the coalition voted to oppose the government's digital identity legislation because, as I said a short time ago, it is half baked—that's a good description of it. We want to make sure that any legislation that comes before the House is what it ought to be and is given proper consideration not just in this place, the parliament on the hill, but indeed right throughout this wide brown land.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“One of the cruxes of this bill is: is it truly voluntary? Can people say, 'No, I don't want this to be a part of my engagement with the government or part of my engagement with private business'? The point is that the government did not accept the amendments to make it genuinely voluntary, and, as they didn't, it's involuntary. And, as it is such, it can't be supported.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“There are many diverse reasons that people come and see me and are opposing these bills. But the biggest one is the freedoms that we enjoy right now, followed by the real fears that their information will end up in the wrong hands. This is exactly why we should not support these bills.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“We oppose these bills with regret. I really believe debate, cooperation and compromise in the Senate could have led to much better bills. The efficiencies and productivities of a really good effective digital ID system, with people's privacy respected and with people's voluntary participation respected, and with people's trust—which would have led to more voluntary participation in the system—would have led to a much better situation than we have now and much better bills. With regret, we oppose the bills.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“In conclusion, it's time those opposite reconsidered adopting the amendments we put forward in the Senate. But until such time I won't be supporting this legislation, and I urge the government to take very seriously the concerns of my Durack constituents that I've outlined.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“All in all, it's a pretty complex issue. I just think the issue is not urgent. It needs proper and thorough evaluation. It would be good to send it off to a committee that can really pull it to pieces, and we'll get a better product in the end. I reserve my rights on how I proceed in the vote on this issue.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“As far as I'm concerned, the coalition has made the right decision in opposing the bill as it stands. The amendments would have made it a greater debate. I think the government have done themselves a disservice by not even considering the amendments and rushing it through because they're trying to hide it through budget week. I think that they will pay the price for that, because there will be a backlash from the electorate, because the Australian people, more than anything, want their freedoms protected.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
4 speakers · 1 support · 2 oppose · 1 mixed
“Ultimately, this bill does much to move us forward. But we need to move forward with caution, consideration and compassion. It is a significant piece of legislation that serves an important purpose in strengthening privacy safeguards, but the best interests of the individual must be paramount in the design of the scheme.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“The government have failed to demonstrate the need for digital ID and they have failed to convince us that they are trustworthy enough to keep this information secure. I heard everything in the second reading speech that it was designed by the Public Service to say. I saw all the new commissioners they're putting in place—I saw all of that. But that won't mean one thing to the individual who is crucified under this legislation through his digital ID being attacked. I listen to my constituents, and they tell me they don't like it. They're telling the government they don't like it. The backbench of the Labor Party is telling them they don't like it and the backbench of the Liberal Party is telling them they don't like it. I heard what the shadow minister said today—I thought it was pretty wishy-washy. If you are really going to protect freedoms in Australia, you oppose this bill and you oppose it with all your strength and all your arm.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“To the speakers supporting this bill: maybe the education system doesn't have Brave New World or 1984 on their reading lists. But in Queensland, up until the nineties, anyway, I can assure you they were on the reading list, and every child, every young person, in Queensland, read Aldous Huxley's Brave New World and George Orwell's 1984. The characterisation in those books, as in all the movies that have been made about these two wonderful books, was: Big Brother is watching. You people are advocating Big Brother watching. These people will win the next election, and you'll see what it's like when they have access to every movement that you make.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“On balance, I am inclined to vote for this bill based on the benefits it presents to bringing up to date secure and modern verification of one's identity. But, for the moment, I will reiterate my concerns that this must be closely monitored to guard against unintended consequences.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
Record
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 reading opened
A minister or sponsoring member moved the second reading, opening the main debate on the bill's purpose and principles.
Senate · Second reading agreed to
Recorded vote: 33 to 26.
Second reading agreed
The chamber agreed to the bill at second reading, meaning it accepted the bill in principle and allowed it to continue.
Senate · Amendments considered
Recorded vote: 33 to 26.
Third reading agreed with amendments
The Senate agreed to the bill at third reading and recorded agreed Government and Australian Greens amendments.
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 reading opened
A minister or sponsoring member moved the second reading, opening the main debate on the bill's purpose and principles.
House · Second reading debate
Second reading 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 reading 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
Recorded vote: 87 to 56.
Second reading agreed
The chamber agreed to the bill at second reading, 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.
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 step that turned the bill into an Act after Parliament passed it., turning the bill into an Act.
Senate Economics Legislation Committee; Committee report (28/02/2024)
Referred to committee
Referred to Committee (30 Nov 2023): Senate Economics Legislation Committee; Committee report (28 Feb 2024)
APH bill page notes
