August 1 - 31, 2026: Issue 657

 

NSW Government's new laws to target organised crime prompt concern over privacy 

Publicity photo on the set of the 1953 Westinghouse Studio One adaptation of George Orwell's dystopian novel Nineteen Eighty-Four, with a poster of Big Brother. Image: Colombia studios

On the 6 August 2026 the NSW Government announced ‘new legislation introduced to Parliament will strengthen the powers of police and the NSW Crime Commission to investigate organised crime, access critical evidence and disrupt criminal networks’.

‘The NSW Government is today introducing new laws into Parliament to modernise the fight against organised crime, giving the NSW Police Force and NSW Crime Commission stronger powers to investigate sophisticated criminal networks, disrupt their operations and hold offenders to account.’ the government stated in a press release

‘The reforms respond to the changing nature of organised crime, with criminal syndicates increasingly outsourcing violence, relying on encrypted technology, exploiting the illicit tobacco market, recruiting children to carry out offending and using layers of associates to distance themselves from the crimes they orchestrate.

These tactics are designed to frustrate investigations and shield offenders from accountability. The new laws will ensure law enforcement has the modern powers it needs to respond to these evolving threats.’

The Bill introduced is called ‘Crimes and Other Legislation Amendment (Further Organised Crimes Reforms) Bill 2026’.

However, Civil Liberties groups are concerned the Bill will introduce a 'Big Brother State' surveillance culture into New South Wales, and, with so many breaches of digitally held data, that it would be open to abuse. 

The NSW Council for Civil Liberties has said the government needed to "slow down" on expanding police powers.

Background: Australian Government Identity-match Bill

The October 5 2017 agreement by the Council of Australian Governments (COAG) under Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull laid the groundwork for a national facial recognition system in 2018 but this lapsed at the dissolution of the 45th Parliament on 11 April 2019.

The subsequent Morrison government revived and introduced the Identity-matching Services Bill 2019 to build a centralised biometric sharing hub managed by the Department of Home Affairs. However, Parliament’s intelligence and security committee rejected the bill, demanding stronger privacy safeguards. 

The Law Council of Australia stated at the release of that committee's report in October 2018, that it supported the bipartisan recommendations by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security (PJCIS) to include greater safeguards and privacy protections in the Identity-matching Services Bill 2019.

''The committee’s report released today reflects recommendations made by the Law Council, which raised serious concerns about the potential scope and application of the proposed laws. The committee has recommended the Bill and the related Australian Passports Amendment (Identity-matching Services) Bill 2019 (Passports Bill) be redrafted.''

Law Council President, Arthur Moses SC, said then the PJCIS is a committee of great importance and worked in the spirit of bipartisanship to ensure Australia’s national security legislation is not only solid, but also proportionate and operating according to the rule of law.

Mr Moses said the committee’s recommendations took into account the unprecedented access all levels of government and the private sector would have to Australian’s private biometric information. They also took into account the lack of detail in the Bill about the architecture of the proposed identity-matching services and the impact it could have on personal privacy and other human rights.

“There are undoubtedly legitimate and proportionate public interest uses for facial recognition technology, particularly in relation to law enforcement and national security,” Mr Moses SC said.

“But there is an urgent need for appropriate and legislated boundaries to govern its application and ensure robust and independent oversight. This is critical as Australia lacks human rights and data protection frameworks to act as a check and balance.

“Misuse of this technology would undermine the rights of individuals, as well as the community’s trust in the system and its operation. It is important to acknowledge committee members reached a bipartisan position on these issues.”

Central to the committee’s report was the need for transparency, proportionality, accountability and oversight in relation to the use of identity-matching technology. The committee recommended that the Bill be redrafted to take into account those principles.

This Bill lapsed April 11 2022 at the dissolution of the 46th Parliament.

NSW commenced rolling out digital drivers licences on June 18 2019.

The government's August 6 2026 release states:

Strengthening police investigations: Digital Evidence Access Orders

Police increasingly rely on mobile phones and other digital devices to investigate organised crime. However, current laws can delay access to critical evidence.

The government stated, 'In an Australian-first, a new Digital Evidence Access Order will allow police to compel an individual to supply access information for digital devices suspected to be associated with organised crime.

Currently, a device can only be ordered to be unlocked if it is seized as part of a Search or Crime Scene warrant. This significantly limits the circumstances in which police can access devices.

Our bill extends these orders for prescribed serious offences linked to organised crime, including drug supply, the illicit tobacco trade, fire-bombings and public place shootings.

This means police can quickly access digital devices and gather critical evidence to assist with fast-moving investigations.

The bill also increases the maximum penalty for non-compliance from five to seven years.

Access to unredacted images captured by toll cameras on public toll roads

It will also enable police investigating suspected serious indictable offences, or responding to missing person cases, to access unredacted images captured by toll cameras on public toll roads.

If the Bill passes Parliament, the Government will commence preparations for a staged implementation of these reforms, beginning with cameras on the Sydney Harbour Bridge and Sydney Harbour Tunnel.

The changes are targeted and will not affect law-abiding motorists, with access to unredacted toll camera images only available for investigations into suspected serious indictable offences or missing person reports.

These proposed changes are the latest in a suite of reforms and funding aimed at giving NSW Police and the NSW Crime Commission the tools they need to disrupt and dismantle organised crime networks.

They recognise that organised crime today rarely involves a single offender. Instead, criminal networks increasingly rely on third parties and technology to try and evade the law.

Doubling penalties for obstructing Crime Commission investigations

The legislation will also strengthen the powers of the NSW Crime Commission by doubling the maximum penalties for failing to comply with Commission orders - including refusing to answer questions, providing false or misleading evidence, or obstructing investigations - to up to 10 years imprisonment, while streamlining contempt processes.

NSW to participate in the Commonwealth face-matching service

The government stated the Bill will enable NSW to participate in the Commonwealth’s national Face Matching Services to help prevent stolen identity documents being used for organised crime purposes, including being sold on the dark web.

''NSW will join Western Australia and South Australia, which are already connected to the National Driver Licence Facial Recognition Solution, strengthening the national effort to combat identity crime.

This works by allowing Transport for NSW to securely share driver licence and photo card images through the National Driver Licence Facial Recognition Solution, in accordance with Commonwealth identity verification laws.

If a person’s driver licence, Medicare details or other identity information are exposed in a data breach and obtained by organised criminals, the Face Matching Service can help prevent those documents being used to create fraudulent identities.

For example, where a criminal attempts to use stolen identity documents to open a bank account, facial verification can identify that the person presenting the documents does not match the legitimate owner, preventing the fraud attempt.

About 1 in 4 Australians every year are impacted by identity theft, which costs Australian business about $2.2 billion annually. Face Matching Services provide a critical tool to combat identity theft.

Backing police with stronger laws and greater capability

The government stated the package builds on the Minns Labor Government's work to combat organised crime, including:

  • Cracking down on ‘kill cars’ and targeting public shootings and fire-bombings
  • Introducing new offences targeting the recruitment of children into organised crime
  • Providing law enforcement with additional powers to tackle emerging criminal threats

This includes a $126.6 million investment in the 2026/27 NSW Budget, $108.8 million to continue our nation-leading ICT infrastructure and capability to fight criminals through major enhancements to cyber security, vital policing technology systems and digital evidence management, and $17.4 million for the NSW Crime Commission to disrupt organised violence and confiscate proceeds of crime. 

Premier of New South Wales Chris Minns said:

"Organised crime has changed, and our laws need to change with it. Criminal syndicates are exploiting encrypted technology, the dark web and layers of intermediaries to distance themselves from the violence they commission.

"Often, the people directing serious offences are nowhere near the crime scene. They're recruiting others to steal cars, source weapons or carry out shootings while they hide in the background. We are making it harder for those criminals to operate.

"We're giving police stronger powers to access critical evidence stored on encrypted devices that have been lawfully seized, ensuring technology can't be used to shield organised criminals from justice."

Minister for Police and Counter-terrorism Yasmin Catley said:

“The operating model of organised crime is evolving and we’re ensuring police have the powers they need to stay ahead of threats.

“Criminals are increasingly facilitating and coordinating their crimes online, thinking they can distance themselves from the law. This couldn’t be further from the truth: the NSW Government is giving police every tool to come after them hard.

“We’ve listened to NSW Police, we’ve listened to the NSW Crime Commission and this is what they’ve told us they need to disrupt and dismantle criminal networks and keep our streets safe.

“We will continue to be informed by law enforcement and support them with the tools, laws and budget necessary to continue targeting serious and organised crime."

Attorney General Michael Daley said:

“Organised crime is evolving and we need to make sure that our laws keep up.

“These are innovative measures that will give investigators strong and effective powers to combat the threats posed by new technologies that can be exploited by criminals.

“Our Government’s message is clear: If you try to block the Crime Commission’s work in disrupting and reducing organised crime, you will face significant penalties. If you engage in or facilitate organised crime in this State, you can expect to be caught and prosecuted.”

Minister for Roads Jenny Aitchison said:

"Our toll road network generates information that can be valuable to police - supporting investigations into serious criminal offences, organised crime, coronial matters, and helping to reunite missing people with their families.

"These changes will give investigators access to another important source of evidence when examining serious crimes, strengthening their ability to identify offenders, progress investigations and help keep the people of NSW safe."

Crimes and Other Legislation Amendment (Further Organised Crimes Reforms) Bill 2026

Long title: 'An Act to amend the Crime Commission Act 2012 to increase penalties for offences under that Act and clarify matters relating to contempt of the New South Wales Crime Commission; to amend the Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002 to provide for digital evidence access orders (organised crime); to amend the Road Transport Act 2013 to support the Intergovernmental Agreement on Identity Matching Services; to amend the Roads Act 1993 to provide for the collection, use and disclosure of toll camera images; and for related purposes.'

The second reading speech was given by Minister for Police and Counter-terrorism the Hon. Yasmin Catley on August 6, with debate adjourned. The NSW Parliament next sitting days commence September 15 2026.

Organised crime reforms cover for attacks on civil liberties  

On the same day, Thursday August 6, the NSW Greens stated the expansion of anti-privacy laws proposed by the Minns Labor Government represents a further serious attack on civil liberties of every person in NSW with zero transparency over what impact, if any, these privacy invasion laws have had on organised crime.   

Greens MP and Justice Spokesperson Sue Higginson said, “These changes are a matter of concern for every single person that lives in NSW, while couched as targeting organised crime, they will apply to everyone. The face of every single person with a licence in NSW will be up for sale to the highest bidder on the dark web if these laws pass,” 

“They are part of the continuing trend towards personal privacy being diminished in favour of extensive and opaque police powers and a State that will soon have the right to permanently store your entire digital history as a result of relatively minor infringements,”

“Organised crime in NSW is complex and is a serious threat to the community, and in many instances is being driven and funded by the failed practice of prohibition or by forcing new powers on a Police Force that was never designed to surveil the public en masse,”

“There is a lack of accountability and transparency about the use of existing warrants and powers relating to Police accessing phones, and the Government will not tell the community what is happening to all of this very detailed and personal data. We should not blindly accept that further and extensive changes are necessary just because Chris Minns wants the electorate to be frightened,”

“Considering the weaknesses that have been repeatedly and increasingly exposed in data storage systems, National identity facial recognition databases could as easily make identity theft more likely when a cost-saving Government signs the wrong contract with some private for-profit data storage provider,”

“These new expanded police powers and capacity is about one thing, more control of the people by an increasingly hostile and arrogant Government. Organised crime must be dealt with, but not at the expense of our civil liberties, our privacy and our freedom from the arbitrary intervention of the state,” Ms Higginson said.

WA police is using live facial recognition to make arrests. This trial is testing privacy law

Nicola Lockhart, Edith Cowan University

On June 22, Western Australian police became the nation’s first law enforcement agency to use live facial recognition technology to find persons of interest.

The trial involves a clearly marked van with cameras driving around Perth and Mandurah. It scans the faces of everyone it passes, comparing them against a watchlist of about 4,000 people. It includes those with outstanding arrest warrants, reportable offenders, people subject to lawful exclusion orders, and missing persons.

The exercise is overt and widely publicised, with the dates of deployments posted in advance.

In its first week, media reports put the trial at more than 130,000 faces scanned and 33 alerts. It led to 18 arrests, along with engagements with registered sex offenders. Work that would have taken weeks of conventional investigative effort has been done in days by a single van.

But harder questions surround its governance. Can we really call it a “trial”? Who gets to authorise such deployments? And who checks the safeguards?

Can we actually call it a ‘trial’?

Any trial of new technology requires success criteria defined in advance, independent evaluation, and the possibility the technology won’t be deployed on a permanent basis after the trial completes.

That’s not what seems to be happening in WA.

WA police both runs the deployment and compiles the results it publishes, and no independent evaluator has been named. Its own privacy impact assessment says funding is not yet determined, and lists event security among the intended uses.

Arrests are an incomplete measure of success, because everyone arrested was already wanted. These are not crimes solved, but simply a known watchlist being worked through more quickly.

And an arrest count only records the hits, not the misses. What remains undisclosed is the human cost – any innocent people the system might misidentify and send officers to stop, question or detain. That cost determines whether a coercive power’s benefits justify its harms, and therefore whether it should be kept.

WA police told media it recorded just one false positive, a rate of 0.0008%. Other reports state two errors. Measured against the 33 alerts that sent officers toward a person, the same data gives a much higher error rate of 3–6%. No official breakdown of those alerts has been released, nor any comparison with conventional policing over the same period.

Facial recognition algorithms have well-documented biases. They produce higher false-match rates for women, younger people, and people with darker skin. In a policing context, this raises the risk of wrongful stops for those groups.

The system in the van is NeoFace Watch from Japanese multinational company NEC. The UK’s National Physical Laboratory (NPL) found no statistically significant race or gender bias in a version of NEC’s algorithm at its default settings.

But the system uses a pre-set threshold to indicate a match between a face and the watchlist. When testers lowered that bar, which operators can do to catch more matches, false alerts fell disproportionately on darker-skinned people.

WA police states the algorithm has been benchmarked by NPL, but as far as we know, no results from WA’s own deployment have been independently verified.

If a tech pilot only measures successes, it’s not a trial – it’s a product launch.

What about safeguards?

As the system scans people, it pixellates any faces on the operator’s screen that don’t generate an alert. The biometric data of anyone not matched is automatically and immediately deleted, and no data is shared with third parties.

Before any van is deployed, the authorising superintendent has to record why the operation is necessary and proportionate, why that particular location was chosen, and which categories of people belong on the alert list.

Every alert the system generates is reviewed by an officer before any action is taken, and WA police stresses that an algorithmic match cannot on its own justify an arrest.

These are good measures. But there are no independent audits of these safeguards in operation and no external party verifies that data deletion happens as described.

Governance is crucial

Poor governance can put a halt to technology that works just fine in practice. In 2020, a court ruling in the UK found South Wales Police’s live facial recognition use unlawful.

Australia has no national legal framework for governing biometric surveillance. But with this police trial, WA has now become a national test case for such legislation.

The state’s Privacy and Responsible Information Sharing Act 2024 is the first Australian law to directly govern how personal information is used in automated decision-making.

Under the act, WA police must be able to demonstrate how the risks of bias, harm and discrimination are being managed. Meanwhile, international human rights law permits interference with privacy only where it is lawful, necessary and proportionate.

Put simply, the benefits of live facial recognition must be measured against harm to the individual.

Does WA police’s use of the technology comply with this? To find out, we need independent scrutiny. Early signs are not encouraging. The police trial, arguably WA’s most consequential test of its new privacy law, was designed without the state’s privacy regulator in the room.

What responsible governance would look like

What would responsible governance of live facial recognition look like?

There’s a list of criteria any trial should meet:

  • success and failure criteria published before a trial starts
  • independent evaluation of the deployed system, with false alert rates broken down by demographic group
  • independent benchmarking of the system as deployed
  • external audit of any data privacy measures.

Additionally, the rules for live facial recognition should be legislated by the federal government: when a deployment can be authorised, what a watchlist may contain, and who provides oversight. These safeguards should not rest on internal police policy that can change without anyone outside the force noticing.The Conversation

Nicola Lockhart, Lecturer and Course Coordinator - Counter Terrorism, Intelligence & Security Science, Edith Cowan University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.