Richard Marles (Corio, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Immigration and Border Protection) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

With your indulgence, Mr Deputy Speaker Kelly, before I begin my contribution I might acknowledge Deborah Seccombe, who is sitting in the advisers box. Deborah is an intern with me from the Lachlan Macquarie Institute and is doing a great job this week. The Lachlan Macquarie Institute are fantastic in the work that they do and they have always provided me with wonderful interns.

Having taken that indulgence, I speak on the Migration Amendment (Strengthening Biometrics Integrity) Bill 2015. The purpose of the bill is to consolidate, simplify and enhance provisions within the Migration Act relating to the collection of biometrics at Australian border points and the processing of visa applications.

The collection of personal identifiers at the border is an important part of Australia's national security framework. Of course it is important that we know precisely who is entering Australia and leaving Australia at any given time. Of course it is important that we know exactly who is applying for, and being provided, a visa to live and work in Australia. And of course preventing identity fraud is unambiguously a good thing. The collection of biometric information allows us to do all of this. However, this must be done in a way that is balanced with a person's right to privacy. It must be done in a way which respects a person's civil liberties. And we must ensure that people are treated with dignity in the process of providing personal information. This is particularly important when we are considering minors and vulnerable people.

Labor is concerned that the bill in its current form may not get this balance right. Questions raised by Labor during departmental briefings have not, in our view, been completely answered. I note that an inquiry into this bill by the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee is currently underway and that a number of submissions to the inquiry have expressed concern that the bill does not currently provide adequate safeguards with respect to personal privacy and dignity. In addition, there appear to be inconsistencies between what has been presented to the Senate inquiry and what has been provided to us during departmental briefings. Accordingly, Labor will not oppose this bill in the House but will reserve our position in respect of this bill and any amendments that we may make in the other place following the outcome of the Senate inquiry, which is due to report on this bill on 5 June.

The majority of Australian citizens will not be impacted by this bill and will not be required to provide additional biometrics on entering or departing Australia. The foreign fighters act authorised the Department of Immigration and Border Protection to conduct security checks, not law enforcement checks, on Australian citizens. Customs officers at our airports may already use fingerprint checks to conduct a security check of an Australian citizen who 'fails' the automated clearance through passport SmartGate because their photo does not match the facial scan, their passport is listed as stolen or missing, they trigger an alert as a person of interest or they match a profile. Currently these triggers only lead to paper based verification of identity. The intent of this bill is to enhance the ability of Department of Immigration and Border Protection to verify identity by allowing the use of biometrics to conduct a 'higher integrity identity and security check of citizens' than is currently possible with the paper based system.

The main change this bill seeks is to provide the legislative ability for Customs officers to use mobile hand-held fingerprint scanning devices in the collection of personal identifiers in the circumstances that I have just described. I reiterate that it is important to note that the foreign fighters act, passed last year, already provides the department with the authority to collect fingerprints. The information thus collected will enable the ability to check this information against that held in the databases of organisations such as the AFP, ASIO and ASIS and overseas organisations such as the FBI and the CIA.

A key question for Labor has been whether, as stipulated in this bill, the biometric information gathered in this way is or is not retained, and is only used for identity verification purposes. The legislation clearly states that the Department of Immigration and Border Protection will not retain Australian fingerprints and facial recognition scans when obtained in this way. I note that this issue has been raised in the current Senate inquiry. In the course of that inquiry, it seems to us that ambiguities have arisen in respect of this question. Labor obviously believes that this is a critical question and one that must be clarified.

In respect of noncitizens who apply for visas, the bill provides Customs with the flexibility to obtain all the legislated forms of biometric information, such as facial scans and fingerprints, in all circumstances relating to noncitizens and all visa applications. It obviously does not mandate that all of that information be obtained, but it provides the flexibility for that to occur. As I stated earlier, it is vital to our security that we do know exactly who is applying for, and being provided, a visa to live and work in Australia. Biometric information allows us to do this accurately and efficiently. It is important to note, however, that, in the case of the biometric information collected from visa applicants, this information will be retained by the appropriate authorities. So, again, I reiterate our concern that this be done in a way that safeguards personal privacy and civil liberties, and Labor will be keenly awaiting the advice of the Senate committee inquiry on this point.

The bill will allow all biometric information that can be taken from an adult to also be taken from a minor or incapable person without the requirement of consent or the presence of a parent or guardian. This is usually done to ensure the welfare of a minor, and often it may well be that the relationship between a child and the adult with whom they are travelling is sought to be tested by the gathering of this information. It is also worth noting that this can, in a limited way, already occur right now through the collection of a facial scan on presentation of a passport through SmartGate technology at airports. That does not require, obviously, the consent of a parent right now. The purpose of the changes in this bill is to enhance the ability of law enforcement to prevent the arrival or departure of known radicalised minors but also, importantly, to prevent children being taken from the country without the appropriate parental consent. There have also been cases of child trafficking where minors have been brought to Australia as part of a family unit of which they are not a member.

The Department of Immigration and Border Protection has advised that removing the age restriction on seeking consent in these circumstances is appropriate for a number of reasons, and we understand those. Firstly, the use of mobile hand-held fingerprint scanners has been put to us as a form of collecting fingerprints which is apparently not intrusive. Secondly, it has been put to us that it will enhance the department's ability to tackle child-smuggling cases. Thirdly, the age limit that is being proposed is consistent with all the other Five Country Conference partners, namely New Zealand, the UK, the US and Canada. Finally, the current age limit has been used by people to avoid identity, security, law enforcement and immigration checks by claiming to be 15 years old or younger. I have been advised that people-smuggling boat crews have used this claim to avoid fingerprinting in the past. Removing the age restriction will prevent this from happening in the future. We understand the points being made by the department in giving us that advice.

In its submission to the Senate committee inquiry, the Law Council of Australia has recommended the bill should include safeguards 'to ensure adequate protection of all people affected by the legislation, including vulnerable groups', such as minors. If minors' identity and their relationship with the person they are travelling with is to be tested without the consent of their parents, then it is critical that appropriate measures be taken to ensure the dignity and the safety of these children in that process. For example, it would appear to me that it is appropriate that female officers be involved in undertaking these processes when we are talking about girls; it seems to me that it would be appropriate that people with appropriate skills in working with minors are those who are involved in performing this work; and it seems to me also appropriate that there be a rigorous system of oversight of how these processes would be undertaken. All of these issues are being dealt with and discussed in the current Senate committee inquiry into this bill. Again, Labor will await the outcome of that report with keen interest in terms of informing our approach to this legislation in the other place.

Finally, I take this opportunity to note that immigration detainees are expressly not affected by the substantive changes which are contained in this bill, and that is an important point to note.

In summary, Labor support the measures to enhance the ability of our Customs personnel to use biometric information as part of our robust national security system; but, as I indicated earlier, Labor have a number of questions and concerns about the bill in its current form. We will reserve our final position in terms of how we deal with this bill in the other place until we have heard the outcome of the Senate committee inquiry, but Labor will not be opposing this bill in the House.

Don Randall (Canning, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am pleased to be presented with the opportunity to speak in the parliament today on an important bill such as this one. The Migration Amendment (Strengthening Biometrics Integrity) Bill 2015 seeks to consolidate and to streamline this government's efforts to ensure that Australia's security and safety are not compromised whilst also maintaining our current levels of both temporary and permanent migration.

This bill further supports the changes introduced last year in the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment (Foreign Fighters) Act 2014. It also reinforces the Prime Minister's statement on national security when he announced that legislation that would support the fight against terrorism as well as ensure the security of Australian citizens was a priority. Recent events have demonstrated the need to increase our ability to protect our borders, and obtaining biometric data, also known as personal identifiers, will be critical in doing this.

Since the advent of the biometric program, there have been more than 9,000 instances of fingerprint matches under either Australian Law Enforcement agencies or Five Country Conference partner countries. Those countries are Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and the United States. There is no arguing that the threat level to Australia domestically has risen and that the technology used by those seeking to do harm to our citizens is improving. This bill seeks to counter their efforts.

Strengthening our ability to collect biometric information will assist on two fronts: the ongoing fight against terrorism and terrorist activities, and the government's efforts to disrupt human-trafficking activities in Australia. Since 2006, current legislation has been amended several times, leading to overlapping and occasionally inconsistent results. This new legislation seeks to streamline and build on our existing ability to protect our borders.

We know that those on this side of the House are very keen on protecting our borders. In addressing the migration bill that was before the House earlier today, I spoke about what had happened over the six years of the previous government: 800 boats and 50,000 people; we do not know exactly who many of them are, because they came in such a flood. Many of them are still sitting in the Australian community now, unprocessed, waiting for their status to be determined.

As I said, this legislation protects our borders. It does not do this by introducing universal biometric collections or by undermining any human rights of those who may be subject to checks. In fact, the implications of these changes have been heavily measured against Australia's obligations. These changes have been sparked by a series of events where photographic identification has not proven to be accurate enough. The amendments in this legislation further consolidate the coalition's efforts to reduce red tape and increase efficiency. The amendments are not expected to incur any additional costs that cannot be drawn from existing resources. Faster checks equal more checks, which increases the strength of our border protection practices.

The Department of Immigration and Border Protection's biometrics program has been almost 10 years in the making, and a step-by-step approach to its implementation has been taken. As a result, there are a large number of noncitizens still in the community that have managed to evade checks that would have been subject to stronger scrutiny, whether that be due to the time or the way that they arrived in Australia. Current legislation still requires citizens and noncitizens to identify themselves and provide biometric identifiers. However, limits are placed on the types of identifiers that may be used and the manner in which they are collected. The provisions for the collection of these identifiers have been made in several different sections through various amendments; this has resulted in loopholes, overlapping provisions and inconsistencies in legislation.

As it currently stands, all citizens and noncitizens are required to provide identification when entering and leaving Australia. As we all know, when we go through the airport or on a cruise, you have to identify yourself when you come and go. That usually takes the form of an Australian passport. Noncitizens have a far more expansive requirement to submit biometric information, as they should. This information is required when a visa is to be granted, when determining whether a valid visa is held and in any decisions surrounding the detention of noncitizens. In instances where checks are being done on travellers under the age of 18, parental consent is required in the context of visa applications. However, consent is not required when arriving or departing at border control. It is inconsistencies such as these that often create unnecessary conflict between border protection officers and the travellers they are serving.

Some of the more common personal identifiers under the current legislation include fingerprints, hand prints, measurements of height and weight, image of an individual's head and shoulders, an iris scan and a signature. However, in 2013-14 less than two per cent of noncitizens who were allowed to come into Australia were required to submit biometric information. Since 2007, only a small number of those travelling into Australia were required to submit to biometric identifiers. Despite this, there have been significant successes in exposing fraudulent and illegal activities. There are also a number of safeguards that need to be applied when carrying out an identification test which afford a great deal of privacy to the individual. However, modern technology has allowed many of these safeguards to be rendered unnecessary. While current legislation has provided an excellent framework for establishing the collection and management of biometric identifiers, new technology is allowing improved checks without any additional compromises in privacy. It would be irresponsible for a government to not ensure legislation keeps pace with modern technology.

The proposed amendments build on an existing framework for biometric data collection. They also provide a way for this government to close the loopholes within the system and address any inconsistencies created by the multiple amendments to current legislation over the past number of years. They seek to strengthen the ability for border protection officers to collect biometric information under a single power, removing restrictions and providing greater flexibility in the opportunities to collect data. This will also allow officers to request information either in writing or verbally.

The amendments do not provide a carte blanche approach to the collection of data. They will allow for the collection of information from individuals who have not previously submitted data and who have been identified as a concern after their arrival in Australia, whether through intelligence agencies, law enforcement or immigration officials. They also allow for the collection of data for any reason where a link to the Migration Act or Migration Regulations can be appropriately demonstrated. The removal of current safeguards is not an indifference to the privacy of visitors but a reflection of new technology. Fingerprint scans can now occur on mobile devices then and there, without the removal of any articles of clothing or the need to obtain facial images.

Current processing procedures can take between 30 and 60 minutes; mobile fingerprint scanners take a matter of seconds. Removing the necessity for this to occur in private will ensure faster processing and an optimisation of staffing resources. Scans will be used to conduct checks against the existing data in order to verify a person's identity and detect individuals who may be a cause for concern in relation to security, law enforcement and/or immigration, as it applies under the Immigration Act. After scans have been completed, data will not be retained.

Another provision within this bill removes the necessity to seek a parent's or guardian's consent when obtaining personal identifiers from those under the age of 18 or those considered incapable. This is simply a child protection measure to assist in the prevention of human trafficking or child smuggling. The circumstance where data is collected from a child or incapable person is specifically limited to when the identity of a child or incapable person needs to be verified to a higher level of integrity. At no point are there any provisions for the forcible collection of data or to compel individuals to provide it. So you would ask, 'What happens?' I will tell you what happens. Refusing to comply with a request may result in having a visa refused, detention, delayed departure from Australia or refused entry into Australia, which would result in having to return to their original departure location on the next available flight.    That is not an unreasonable condition or request to make of someone who wishes to enjoy the security and safety of a country like ours, Australia.

Ensuring the correct identity of noncitizens has significant consequences beyond just entry into Australia. Many of those seeking to live here permanently eventually wish to access government services at local, state and federal levels. It is beyond essential that we are able to correctly identify those who seek to cross our borders and live in our communities, for the safety and security of all those who reside here now. There have been several instances where persons of interest or concern may have been prevented from travelling by the use of increased biometric information. In Western Australia, to take a local example, Mr Junaid Thorne, often called a radical Islamist and a hate preacher, has been charged with purchasing an airfare under a false name and using the ticket to travel. This individual has openly expressed support for ISIL, and has defended the actions of the perpetrator of the Charlie Hebdo massacre. Deputy Speaker, I refer you to an article by Grant Taylor in The West Australian newspaper on 16 January of this year where you can read more about Junaid Thorne's activities.

It is not unreasonable for us to keep up with the technology of things like eye scans and other biometric identifiers. On a personal level, having gone through the US recently myself—no-one in any way even thinks twice about it, and it is every time you go through. It is not just your thumbprint; it is your whole handprint—and it is if you are just transiting, not even trying to enter the country. That is just taken as a matter of fact. Hollywood makes it much of, for example, fingers being cut off and used; all this sort of stuff. But when you cross-reference a number of identifiers, it is very difficult to defraud—when you have, for example, iris scans. I was fortunate enough to go on a parliamentary program to Afghanistan, and most of the people entering the base had to identify themselves with an iris scan. It is not a problem. The only people that have a problem with that sort of further identification are those who have something to hide, or those who have an issue. I was quite happy to have an iris scan; I am quite happy to be fingerprinted many times. It is for our wellbeing—and, unfortunately, it is due to the increased activity around the world in terms of fundamentalists and those who are involved in terrorist activities or those who would seek to defraud or harm others.

Another case in point well known to all of us here is the case of Khaled Sharrouf. He gained notoriety for being the father of the seven-year-old boy who was pictured holding a decapitated head, somewhere in the Middle East; around Iraq, I suspect. I have the ABC article here: ' Khaled Sharrouf: the Australian radical fighting for Islamic State in Iraq and Syria'. It says: 'With a single photo of his seven-year-old son holding a severed head, Khaled Sharrouf has shot to global infamy.' This is the guy that went through Sydney Airport using his brother's passport. The biometric identifiers did not kick in then, did they? He got through this country by just swapping passports with his brother. What we know about Khaled Sharrouf is that, aside from having a history of being mentally unstable, he is also the person who had his passport—quite rightly—cancelled. But that is when he decided to use his brother's passport. The most recent reports indicate that his 14-year-old daughter has married his cohort and purported best friend, Mohamed Elomar—that is his 14-year-old daughter; he somehow got her overseas, too. This is why we are talking about these under-18s: the greatest tragedy is that these children could have been prevented from having their lives ruined by their misguided and mentally unstable parents. So Deputy Speaker, you can see it is in the interests of the mums and dads of Australia that we are collecting this information. But it is to identify those who pose a greater security threat by supporting terrorist activities, such as Khaled Sharrouf.

As I mentioned before, admittance is not the only concern when considering immigration fraud and the way that biometrics can assist. Having the gift of permanent residency, and subsequently citizenship, bestowed often means having access to world-class health and welfare systems, and simpler travel requirements. In October 2013, a Ghanian national was convicted in a court of law for falsifying documents in order to apply for citizenship, obtaining an Australian passport, and opening and operating an Australian bank account. On 10 October 2013, Senator Cash outlined this case in the other place.

That is why this bill to toughen our stance on biometrics is to be supported.

Matt Thistlethwaite (Kingsford Smith, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Having a system of collecting biometric information is a necessary element and an important part of the integrity of a strong border protection system. It is not something that is peculiar to Australia; in most nations throughout the world now, for new migrants, fingerprints and other biometric information are routinely collected at the borders. Australia is lucky to have some very well trained and professional staff who oversee our borders. Theirs is a difficult job, and it is incumbent upon the government to ensure that they have all the resources necessary to do that job well.

The reforms that are part of this bill today come about as a result of the inquiries that have been conducted by the Parliamentary Joint Committee On Intelligence And Security regarding the adequacy of our security and intelligence laws. We recently had an update to those laws that was a bipartisan commitment—from Labor and the coalition—to strengthen Australia's security and intelligence laws. And it has been helpful to see that those laws have been working, and that our police and intelligence organisations have had success in stopping potential terrorist activities here in Australia. This suite of reforms is part of that strengthening of those provisions.

Thousands of people cross Australia's borders every day, mainly via our eight international airports and the 60 seaports that people can access our island continent from. There are many things to consider in maintaining control of the flow of people into and out of Australia. Safety, of course, is one of the highest priorities. It is a difficult task, and one that is not getting any easier as the number of people who are coming to Australia continues to grow each year. In fact, movements are expected to grow from just over 33 million in 2012-13 to 50 million by 2020. This highlights the importance of managing the data associated with those movements. The purpose of this bill—the Migration Amendment (Strengthening Biometrics Integrity) Bill 2015—is to consolidate, simplify and enhance those provisions within the Migration Act relating to the collection of personal data and identifiers.

Facial recognition and fingerprint-matching biometric technology is not new. It has become a crucial part of the process of identifying persons and managing their migration through our borders. The term 'biometrics' refers to measurable physical characteristics of personal behaviour traits that are unique to an individual. Examples include fingerprints, iris scans, the shape of a person's ear, the way a person walks or a person's voice. These physical characteristics can be referred to as personal identifiers.

Personal identifiers such as fingerprints and facial images can be converted into biometric templates which allow them to be searched against other templates very quickly. Biometric systems can be used to compare someone's personal identifiers against stored copy or to search against all data holdings to see if a person is already known. In that context the provisions of this bill are intended to enhance the capability of the Department of Immigration and Border Protection to identify persons seeking either to enter or to depart Australia and noncitizens who remain in Australia.

The majority of Australians will not be affected by this bill, and will not be required to provide fingerprints and iris scans on departing or entering Australia. The bill makes no change to the types of biometric information that can be collected. What the bill does is provide greater flexibility in respect of the collection of that information. For instance, at the airport mobile fingerprint scanners—if this legislation were to be passed—could now be used in the collection of fingerprints for newly-arrived migrants.

It is important to note that the department will not retain the biometric information of Australian citizens. It will only be used for identification verification purposes. However, there have been submissions, including by the Law Council of Australia, to the Senate inquiry which is currently looking into this bill, highlighting that this aspect should be strengthened in the legislation. I will make some comments regarding that in a moment. It is something that I think is important and something that should be given attention by the government.

The bill will also allow biometric information to be taken from a child or an incapable person without the consent or presence of a parent or guardian. The purpose behind this change is to put in place the same arrangements for the collection of fingerprints and iris scans for minors, the overriding aim of which is to provide better protection surrounding children. Child trafficking and smuggling, unfortunately, are on the increase. These are horrific crimes. Child trafficking may take the form of forced marriages, fraudulent adoptions or organised begging. These changes are designed to enhance the ability of law enforcement to break child-trafficking rings—to be able to identify children who may be part of such criminal activities.

In some cases, unfortunately, children are taken out of Australia by one parent who is involved in a custody dispute or battle that may still be before the courts, and without the consent of the other parent. Without the ability to identify that child it makes it all the more difficult for law enforcement agencies to prohibit those sorts of activities. These changes are designed to provide additional resources and additional powers to those enforcement agencies to combat those sorts of acts.

The provisions are also aimed at identifying radicalised minors who may seek to enter Australia, potentially with a mind to undertaking terrorist activities. Unfortunately, we are seeing all too frequently the threat that is posed with respect to people who would seek to harm other Australians in this manner. The department has advised that removing the age restriction on seeking consent is considered appropriate for the following reasons: the use of mobile, hand-held fingerprint scanners means that the collection of fingerprints will be less intrusive; experience to date in tracking and tackling child smuggling and trafficking cases makes this an effective deterrent; recent terrorist related incidents involving minors in conflicts in the Middle East and Africa; and the current age limit is inconsistent with other Five Country Conference partners and other countries. The current age limit has been used by people to avoid the relevant checks. They are some of the reasons why the department is seeking these additional powers.

It is important to note that in the submission to the Senate inquiry, as I mentioned earlier, the Law Council of Australia has recommended that the bill should include safeguards to ensure adequate protection of all people affected by the legislation, including those vulnerable groups such as minors. Given the weight of that evidence and given the fact that the Senate inquiry is still proceeding it is my belief, and the belief of the Labor Party, that the inquiry should be able to run its course. The parliament should wait for the recommendations of that inquiry in respect of this bill.

We do hold some concerns regarding this bill and the extremely sensitive nature of this matter and the material which is being collected. Naturally, Australians have concerns when government departments are collecting personal identifiers and biometric information. It is incumbent upon this parliament to do all that it can to put in place the appropriate safeguards to provide protection of the privacy of Australian citizens and migrants visiting or coming to and departing from Australia. In that respect, we believe it is unwise to move forward with this bill until those recommendations of the Senate inquiry have been tabled. I understand that will occur in early June.

For that reason I and my colleagues will reserve our position on this bill until the outcome of the Senate inquiry is known.

Luke Simpkins (Cowan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am speaking today on the Migration Amendment (Strengthening Biometrics Integrity) Bill 2015, which seeks to expand biometric data gathering and checks at borders in order to tackle threats such as Australians seeking to travel overseas to fight with terrorist organisations like Islamic State or Daesh. There is no doubt that biometrics is a key tool in our ability to combat terrorism and fraud and I therefore wholeheartedly support the bill.

When we talk to people in our electorates and around this country, I think the vast majority of people are not concerned at all about this and that they welcome the moves to make this country a safer and more secure place. I am convinced that is exactly the position of the vast majority of Australians. But it is true that there is a long history of people who seek to conceal their identities from authorities and decision makers, particularly with regard to matters of migration. There are those who attempt to use false documents, there are those who destroy their own documents and there are also those who suggest that they, or children with them, are someone they are not.

I see measures like those in this bill will help to stop terrorists and criminals entering this country and will also help combat human trafficking. Recent events have clearly demonstrated that there is a domestic terrorist threat in this country and we must be able to properly identify those seeking to leave to join terrorist organisations as well as those returning. This bill takes further action to strengthen Australia's border protection measures by enhancing the capability of the department to identify persons seeking either to enter or depart Australia and noncitizens who remain in Australia.

I would make the point that I believe there are some in this country who absolutely do support terrorist organisations like Daesh, also known as Islamic State. Of course, most would be Sunni Muslims like Daesh, but the threat remains of this fundamentally quiet support becoming much more, such as has been seen in Melbourne or Sydney. I think the vulnerability of young Muslim Australians to the message of Daesh is often because their families do not feel comfortable talking about it. It is a hush moment or a shhhh moment rather than family members saying, 'Daesh is evil. Daesh is wrong, and this is why.' It is in that sort of environment where social media can fill gaps, and it is filled too often with the slick advertising from that evil and sub-human philosophy that is Daesh. But I divert from the bill, and the matters that I have talked about are covered elsewhere in the government's plans.

It is important to talk about how much better biometrics are in terms of being personal identifiers rather than biographical document information. Biometrics include individual physical characteristics such as facial image, fingerprints and iris, which are established into a biometric file for automated storage so that they can be accessed digitally for checking.

This is, of course, not an initiation. This is something that is not new as a principle, but rather is an enhancement of what can be collected. In terms of noncitizen, biometric collection started back in 2006 and in 2010 such information began being gathered for those applying for protection who were already in Australia and for higher-risk-country applicants offshore. The drive for this is based entirely on risk.

I will go to the specifics of the measures involved but, like others, I would like to highlight the very real and recent example of why biometrics are so important. Everyone will remember the case of Khaled Sharrouf, a known terrorist and sadly an Australian citizen. In December 2013 he was able to leave the country by using his brother's passport. This could have been prevented if the capability to use fingerprint checks had been provided in the past. This bill will enable that to happen in the future. It will be a great step forward to be able to have a person place their fingers on a mobile scanner and shortly afterwards receive biometric confirmation of their identity or who they really are. This is good for Australians and good for the safety and integrity of this nation. This is legitimate and appropriate. The passage of this bill will enable airports or ports to carry out manual fingerprint based checks using these mobile hand-held devices in order to detect persons of concern. It is important to state that they will be checked against databases of law enforcement or security agencies but not kept. So let us remember that it is checking and not collection.

It is a fact that some people decide not to advise the department's officials of all relevant information or their backgrounds. The ability to be aware of a person's relevant background is what we need to combat the proliferation of terrorism and attempts at human trafficking and to ensure that our humanitarian intake and immigration system as a whole has greater integrity.

When I was in the Australian Federal Police in the 1980s, people who were on the alert system would occasionally try to board flights at international airports and they would be stopped either at immigration control or, on occasion, we would even take them off aircraft before the aircraft departed. The technology has increased since those days as have the threats. Through these measures of additional checks the threats or problems can be acted upon quickly and people that are a risk to this country can be stopped leaving or entering.

There is nothing wrong but everything right with gathering the tools to help us combat identity crime and immigration fraud. As the minister said in his speech, some people have returned, or at least tried to return, using assumed identities to avoid being held to account for their activities that saw them deported in the past, or they have even tried to upgrade to Australia when they had already achieved protection in safe third countries.

I know that there are concerns that have been argued about the removal of the restrictions in the Migration Act surrounding the collection of biometric information on minors. We should remember, and critics should also remember, that there are no restrictions at our borders on collecting biometric data on minors or incapable people. What is proposed is that we should have the ability to collect that information at the time the visa is being applied for. I support this as being another tool for us to combat child trafficking and smuggling.

I do not see a problem in collecting information such as fingerprints, which are fairly consistent through life, as this will help us check international lists of missing or abducted children. It is also true that minors have been involved with terrorist activities; and if they return to or try to leave Australia they still represent a threat, and that threat can be addressed through these measures.

It is true that the government has asked the department and indeed federal agencies to achieve a great deal to support our national security. It is through this bill and others that we are helping them to achieve our plans. This bill, apart from facilitating checking of the data, also helps to streamline collection of biometric information from those that have acted in a manner which is of concern after their arrival and once they are living in the community. There is a real problem that many noncitizens have not had sufficient checks upon them—in particular, identity and criminal checks—because of when they arrived and how, so this bill will help there as well.

We should take note that in the last financial year not even two percent provided biometric information. It is therefore the case that very few arrivals have been checked since biometric technology has started being used. That being said, part of this enhanced collection process will apply to suspicion of activities such as identity fraud, breaches of visa conditions or failing to disclose adverse information when applying for visas.

To conclude, it is true that some people as individuals or with the support of sophisticated technology are attempting to beat our systems. It is therefore important that our biometric capabilities be continually assessed and upgraded to defeat the threats and keep this nation safer. I emphasise that this provides a better system for collection of fingerprints and other biometric data but it is not a policy that requires mass or total biometric collection.

Those that try to suggest that this is some sort of Orwellian threat to privacy are utterly wrong. This is legislative change to provide the best protection we as a government can for the people. The threat is real and we have seen it in terrorist related activities in Australia for years, and in the participation in terrorist activities by Australians overseas as well.

This is also not an over-18 issue only. Minors have been involved and pose a threat as well. That is not to say that minors are not being protected by measures such as the enhanced ability that we will achieve in helping to combat abduction and trafficking of minors as well.

I endorse this bill and will welcome its passage when the time comes.

Nickolas Varvaris (Barton, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It gives me great pleasure to be able to speak on this important bill today. The Migration Amendment (Strengthening Biometrics Integrity) Bill 2015 is another important piece of legislation that is part and parcel of the coalition's immigration and border security reform. This important bill amends the Migration Act 1958 to implement an important set of reforms that will consolidate and simplify provisions in relation to the collection of personal identifiers, known as biometrics, that are no longer adequate in our current legislative framework.

Biometrics are unique identifiers based on individual physical characteristics—facial image, fingerprints and the iris of the eye. These identifiers are digitised into a biometric template to be used for checking in the customs process. This, along with other stored biographical data, such as name, age, nationality and date of birth, are used together to verify identity during security, law enforcement and immigration processes.

Whilst documented information such as name, location and nationality can change or be manipulated, biometric characters are not so easily changed. This is not without exception, given that facial images can shift over time due to age, facial reconstructions and so forth; however, fingerprints will always remain stable and reliable. Having personal identifiers which are dependable is essential to detecting fraud and illegal activities, and it will enable the proper security, law enforcement and immigration checks at customs points, prior to granting a visa, at various checkpoints and locations throughout Australia, and prior to arrival at Australian borders.

Given the number of travellers throughout Australia and the world and the means by which people now travel, we must not have antiquated systems that would hinder the security of our nation. Australia is an enviable place in the global community and, whilst the majority of travellers and residents arrive and depart legally and without need for further examination, there are those who flout the rules and seek to undermine Australian law and order. Global mobility is at a historical high, and documented details simply are not enough to ascertain true identity and purpose for being in this country. Similarly, recent domestic and international threats to our security only further highlight the need for our legislative framework to be agile in response to terror alerts and other criminal activities.

Whilst stored biographic details of an individual can be manipulated relatively easily, biometric characteristics are likely to remain stable over time, as they are more difficult to forge and are therefore a more reliable identity check. Having biometrics as part of our immigration and border security system has worked well to ensure Australia is a safe nation, because such identifiers are an important integrity measure which contributes to protecting Australia's border, and preventing the entry of those who threaten the Australian community. Furthermore, biometric allows the capacity to precisely verify a person's true identity against who they claim to be, and to discover any potential links to illegal activities.

As I touched on before, recent terrorism related events in Australia and globally serve to remind us that the threat of a domestic terrorist attack remains very real. This bill has come at a time when we need to strengthen our border protection measures. We must enable our border security agencies, backed by our departments, to identify persons seeking to enter or leave Australia, both citizens and noncitizens.

Although Australia's biometric program has expanded over time, recent developments domestically and internationally mean we must assess our existing framework to ensure it still meets the objectives of our border security measures. Since 2006, the needs and demands of this system have transformed at a rapid scale from obtaining fingerprints of illegal foreign fishers through to offshore visa applicants in high-risk locations and non-citizens being refused entry at airports. Our broader protection immigration efforts have been effective but this bill today allows it to be updated and strengthened so we can continue to protect our country.

Unfortunately, changes in geopolitical security landscapes are at home and afar does mean that this bill needs to be implemented with urgency and, as such, given the scope and necessity of this bill, I would hope that all members of this House support this important piece of reform.

I have outlined broadly why this bill is so crucial. Aside from threats of terror and other security violations in Australia as previously mentioned, fluctuations in asylum seekers, refugees and cases of human trafficking and other illegal activities mean that we must remain vigilant with appropriate resources to determine true identities of individuals. It is important to note that with fewer visa applications done through face-to-face meetings, online transactions must require a reliable form of identity check to ascertain true identity. Whilst technology has enabled unprecedented flexibility and efficiency in the way in which we perform our national security checks, this must not come at the expense of due diligence. The security of our nation is always of paramount concern to our security agencies and law enforcement officers and, as such, this bill is another aspect of fortifying our existing security framework to achieve our national objectives.

We cannot let incidents of foreign fighters who have radicalised return to our shore without detection to further preach hatred and incite violence within our communities. To risk-manage this, an enhanced biometric system is needed. We can also not allow children or individuals to potentially be trafficked through our borders through due to a substandard biometric framework.

Whilst personal current personal identify measures have exposed fraudulent activities, unfortunately the level of sophistication and technology to allow illegal passage through our borders puts a strain on the resources of our border security agencies every day. As politicians and law-makers, it is rightfully our responsibility to ensure the task base for our front-line operators is backed by the appropriate resources.

In addition, looming war and civil crisis elsewhere in the world has created mass migrations of displaced groups of humans seeking refuge. In order to protect the most vulnerable while sustaining our border security, strengthening our biometric system will ensure that those applying for relevant visas have their real identities checked and that they do not have the protection under other identities in other nations. Fundamentally, we must take a risk based approach in the management of our borders. Ensuring our border and migration policies are implemented with integrity is in the best interests of Australia. The amendments made in this bill will further support changes already introduced last year under the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment (Foreign Fighters Act), which I have also spoken on, which precisely examines the issues of radicalised individuals travelling to other nations in allegiance with terrorist organisations. We have been well aware of how this can happen as we noted in the case of terrorist Khaled Sharrouf, who left Australia using his brother's passport. Australia has zero tolerance for this; certainly constituents in my electorate of Barton are appalled at the level of manipulation and deceit conducted by some individuals.

Today's bill also supports the Prime Minister's statement last month about the need for further legislation to combat terror threats to be expedited. Specifically, the bill allows for six distinct provisions; and streamlines seven existing personal identifier collection powers into a broad, discretionary power to collect one or more biometrics from both non-citizens and citizens at our borders. This bill will also provide flexibility on types of personal identifier required, and how and where they are to be collected. Personal identifiers will also be obtained orally, in writing or through an automated system, and allow collection from minors and incapable individuals without consent or need adults or guardians to be present.

Lastly, the bill will also ensure unnecessary and unused provisions will be omitted. The bill also allows for manual finger print based checks to be conducted using mobile, hand-held devices to detect individuals of concern. These will take place in airports and seaports for approximately 30 seconds. The aim is to have the identity of the traveller checked against immigration and security data of up to four finger images. These will not be held on file when the check is completed.

I want to take this opportunity to clarify that whilst this bill consists of large reforms, it is not designed to be a universal biometrics collection policy. As mentioned previously, it will serve to further underscore the coalition's efforts in strengthening our immigration and border securities and that the technology that has served the nation well continues to do this. The majority of the travellers are law abiding people so it is not about allocating further resources to those groups of people. However, considering a large number of non- citizens in the past have not had appropriate identity, security and criminal history checks due to how they arrived or when they arrived, this can pose potential threats to our community if this was to remain our protocol. In fact, less than two per cent of non-citizens granted a visa were checked via our biometrics system in 2013-14. In light of recent events at home and abroad, these statistics are worrying and quite low. Our agencies need to have the ability to cross-check any information presented to them to vet potential terror threats alighting from a vessel or aircraft, or departing from them. The safety of all constituents in our communities is top priority.

Today's bill allows for a streamlined approach to biometrics integrity to allow flexibility and efficiency whereas, previously, separate collections of personal identifiers had to be authorised and under particular circumstances. In order to respond to shifting security settings, a broad discretionary power is more appropriate. The potential spread of terrorism and human trafficking is too great a threat and risk to ignore.

The coalition has an outstanding record of achievement in immigration and border security. At the centre of all our legislative reform is the safety of this nation, its citizens and communities. This bill plays an integral role in achieving this through the prevention of at-risk individuals entering or leaving the country undetected. This bill expands the scope of the Department of Immigration and Border Protection's capabilities to distinguish the true identity of individuals through biometric checks, which are more stable and reliable than document based ones. The ability to create a new legislative framework for collecting personal identifiers contributes significantly to improved decision making and risk management of our border security. Recent events at home and abroad have deemed this bill essential to keeping our nation safe, and I look forward to support from all members of parliament by commending this bill today.

Peter Dutton (Dickson, Liberal Party, Minister for Immigration and Border Protection) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Migration Amendment (Strengthening Biometrics Integrity) Bill 2015 is an important part of the government's efforts to protect the safety of the Australian community. Current legislation in the Migration Act 1958 for the collection of personal identifiers was introduced more than 10 years ago. Technological innovation now allows the Department of Immigration and Border Protection to collect personal identifiers quickly using non-intrusive scanners and other devices, yet the department cannot utilise this new technology effectively because of limitations in the legislation. At the same time, our country faces a period of great threat from terrorism and those would seek to do us harm. We must know who is coming and going across our borders. This year, 33 million people will arrive at and depart from Australia's eight international airports, and by 2020 this figure will rise to 50 million people.

The bill will replace seven existing powers to collect biometrics with a single broad discretionary power to require one or more biometrics to be provided for the purposes of the Migration Act or the Migration Regulations. The department's handling of personal identifiers collected from citizens and noncitizens will remain subject to legislative rules and public scrutiny, as is currently the case. Thousands of cases of undisclosed adverse immigration and criminal history information and cases of identity fraud have been detected by the department using biometric based checks. These checks are not available using documents.

The reforms in the bill will strengthen border controls. The reforms support the department's capacity to verify identity by providing the flexibility to respond on a case-by-case basis to higher risk individuals. At Australia's borders, the power would apply to travellers, citizens and noncitizens, who arrive at and depart from Australia's airports and seaports and is available to be exercised where identity or security concerns are detected. Most people will not be impacted by the bill and will move seamlessly and efficiently across the border. The bill strengthens the department's powers to collect biometrics quickly and efficiently with minimal disruption and intrusion for the majority of individuals. The new broad discretionary power applies to all cohorts of noncitizens, including unauthorised maritime arrivals and those who apply for protection visas.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.