NSW has expanded the machinery for sharing licence photographs and accessing toll-camera images, with a privacy-law override written into the legislation.
The Australian War Memorial was built to honour those who served Australia, not to become another battleground in the campaign to rewrite the nation’s history.
The Government’s draft online-safety law would expressly allow the eSafety Commissioner to use false identities and generate material with AI while exercising regulatory functions online.
NSW has expanded the machinery for sharing licence photographs and accessing toll-camera images, with a privacy-law override written into the legislation.
You handed over your photograph because you needed a driver’s licence. Now the NSW Government has strengthened the legal machinery for feeding that identity information into a national face-matching system.
Somewhere between passing your driving test and renewing your licence, the transaction became considerably bigger than permission to drive.
The Crimes and Other Legislation Amendment (Further Organised Crimes Reforms) Act 2026 received assent on 1 October. Packaged as a crackdown on organised crime, it also changes how government agencies can collect, use and share information associated with the faces of ordinary Australians.
The government’s own announcement says Transport for NSW will be able to share driver-licence and photo-card images through a centralised Commonwealth database. Ministers present that as a way to prevent identity fraud.
Yet the most revealing sentence sits in the legislation itself.
The new face-matching provision declares: “The Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998 does not apply to the extent of an inconsistency with this section.”
Read that as a taxpayer whose photograph is sitting in a government database. Where the privacy legislation conflicts with this particular power, the privacy legislation gives way.
That is a remarkable instruction to bury inside a package sold under the banner of fighting organised crime.
The provision also permits collection and use for an agency’s other lawful functions, alongside face matching. Sharing is tied to the national agreement or Commonwealth legislation, and the text expressly includes uploading information to the National Driver Licence Facial Recognition Solution.
The question is whether Australians accept that expansion of purpose. A government possessing information does not settle every question about what it should be allowed to do with it.
For a tradesman who needs a ute, a nurse travelling to an early shift or a parent doing the school run, obtaining a licence is a practical necessity. Governments know that. They should therefore be held to an especially demanding standard when repurposing information collected through an essential service.
The same legislative package reaches into the car itself. Its toll-camera provisions expressly cover photographs of drivers and passengers, including children under 16.
The government says police access to unredacted images will initially cover the Sydney Harbour Bridge and Harbour Tunnel, before expanding to other public roads. It identifies serious-crime investigations and missing-person cases among the purposes.
Consider how far that takes us from collecting a road toll. Infrastructure motorists pay to use acquires a broader investigative role, while the people travelling through it become the subjects of more valuable records.
Every additional use should require a specific public justification. “Fighting crime” cannot be the phrase that ends the discussion before citizens even learn what has changed.
Australians should be particularly alert to this. Distrust of concentrated state power is an elementary defence of freedom. Powers created under politicians you might support remain available when politicians you despise inherit the office.
Nor does privacy depend on having something criminal to conceal. Australians should be able to visit a doctor, attend church, meet a friend or support a lawful political cause without having to justify why those activities deserve protection from unnecessary scrutiny.
The burden belongs on the government seeking access.
NSW residents deserve a clear account of which agencies can use their identity information, for which precise purposes, how access is recorded, how misuse is detected and what remedy follows when officials overstep.
A privacy protection that yields whenever another provision authorises more access is a poor substitute for firm limits on that access.
You supplied a photograph to prove who you were. You did not thereby surrender your right to demand limits on the state.
“The right to be let alone—the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by civilized men.”
– Justice Louis Brandeis
The Australian War Memorial was built to honour those who served Australia, not to become another battleground in the campaign to rewrite the nation’s history.
The Government’s draft online-safety law would expressly allow the eSafety Commissioner to use false identities and generate material with AI while exercising regulatory functions online.
A response arguing that mixed ancestry does not erase national continuity, nor settle today’s debate over immigration, assimilation and multiculturalism.
As charges disappear and courtroom evidence emerges, the media narrative surrounding Alan Jones is beginning to look far less certain than the public was first led to believe.
Join 50K+ readers of the no spin Weekly Dose of Common Sense email. It's FREE and published every Wednesday since 2009
