The planned rollout of facial recognition technology in all New South Wales pubs and clubs is expected to proceed, despite a bill that deals with the regulation of the technology being shelved.
Guardian Australia understands ClubsNSW plans to push on with the scheme, already being used in about 100 licensed venues, given it is not contingent on any state based-legislation and is governed under the commonwealth’s Privacy Act.
The powerful lobby group last month claimed the plan would combat problem gambling by matching people’s images to those who have signed up to the industry’s self-exclusion system – a claim rejected by some who have also raised privacy concerns.
Last month, the Perrottet government introduced the bill to allow the use of facial recognition throughout pubs and clubs, as well as to regulate parts of the sector. This week, discussion of the proposed clubs reform law was pushed into 2023, meaning it would not pass before the March election.
Independent MP Alex Greenwich and the Greens had planned to amend the bill to mandate cashless gaming cards – a move recommended in a recently released report from the state’s crime commission.
The report found billions of dollars in “dirty” money was being gambled in pubs and clubs every year and “large sums” of the proceeds of crime were gambled by criminals in pubs and clubs across NSW.
While the government introduced the bill before the report came out, the move from crossbenchers to use it to mandate cashless gaming cards was set to create issues for the government in the lower house, where it lacks the numbers to pass legislation by itself.
Chief advocate for the Alliance for Gambling Reform, Tim Costello, said it was a “devastating” missed opportunity and showed a lack of will from those on both sides of politics who have refused to back the cashless card plan in recent weeks.
“When you get rid of cash, you get rid of the crims putting their billions of dirty money through the pokies,” he said.
“It is very, very devastating that’s it is not going ahead at the moment.”
He also slammed facial recognition plans from ClubsNSW and the Australian Hotels Association, saying allowing venues to collect such data was like putting “Dracula in charge of the blood bank”.
The federal Office of the Australian information commissioner (OAIC) enforces the Privacy Act under which the scheme will operate, but privacy experts are concerned it is not fit for purpose.
Nick Davis, a professor in emerging technology at the University of Technology Sydney, wants to see the federal government step in and lead attorneys-general nationally to implement meaningful change to regulate the use of facial recognition.
“We really need very thoughtful and consistent legislation and an approach to facial recognition in general,” Davis said.
“To apply it in a piecemeal way for one particular purpose without having [a] broader sense of protections and use cases would be a mistake.”
He said the state government now had a chance to “really think through the uses, not just in pubs and clubs and casinos, but also in other contexts”.
“This is a really good moment to reflect on the need for legislation and guidelines that apply across the commercial sector, across pubs and clubs, and across government entities,” he said.
Before the bill was delayed the liquor and gaming minister, Kevin Anderson, told parliament facial recognition technology would be regulated by the OAIC in line with rules “such as signage, purpose of data collection, deletion time frames and other privacy protection mechanisms”.
But Kate Bower, a consumer data advocate from Choice, said the state government needed to do a lot more work on the bill to ensure consumers were able to consent to the invasive technologies.
“We’re letting businesses decide what’s appropriate and safe use, so we’d like to see a strong framework in place … that looks at human rights issues,” she said.
“The bill that was proposed by the government didn’t go far enough. It was probably a bit too business-focused in not really setting out what those safeguards should be to protect consumers.”
