Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee, , 5:36:28 to 5:44:36
Senators question officials on whether Australian biometric data provided to the US could be accessed by third-party contractors like Palantir and the status of a final agreement.
Topics: Privacy, Government IT systems
Speakers: Hamish Hansford, Senator David Shoebridge, Ciara Spencer, Senator Jana Stewart, Unknown Speaker, Hon Murray Watt
Um have there been any discussions about the but who in the US would hold the biometric data? Um we know that Palantir, for example, um has a a um has contracts with the the US Department of Homeland Security? We know the Palantir is getting access to vast uh amounts of US immigration data. Have you had any discussion about whether this information would be passed to Palantir?
Senator, as discussed, we're still talking about the options of whether or not we provide that information or whether we simply provide validation of that information.
So you haven't asked. Have you or have you not asked whether if the information is given to the United States, it would find its way into the hands of Palantir? Have you asked that question?
Senator, I haven't, and I wasn't in the discussions in the US.
Have you, Mr. Hansford?
Yeah, certainly have, Senator. So I I've outlined to the US government in in the discussion. So just for clarity that the US were here for three days, a component of which we talked about the visa waiver program. It wasn't a three-day meeting about the visa waiver program. In fact, it was um a component of um two of the meetings. Um that we outlined that any provision of Australian government data would have to be held securely if that's where it ended up. Um our preference though is that we we would manage it a different way. The US are reflecting on our proposal.
But but what does securely mean? Did you say securely and you can't give it to Palantir? You you said palantir was raised. So did you make it clear that it would be 100% unacceptable for Australian biometric material to be handed to Palantir through this process?
I made it clear that the technology solution we would have to work very carefully through.
All right. So did you was the word palantier used in your discussion?
Um I I think I'd start from a principle of secure before we get to the technology solution.
Will you say not by you?
Not by me.
Has it been raised at any point?
We will check and take that on notice, Senator.
All right. And in discussions you were in, was it raised by anybody else in discussion during those discussions?
Uh not from the discussions I was in, Senator No.
Um is now going through a process of public consultation with their proposed agreement. Will the Australian government go through a process of public consultation having come to an arrangement with the United States so that the public can see?
Well, um, Senator, no agreement's been finalised, and that that would be a matter for the government.
Minister?
I would have to take that on notice, Senator.
Hansford, do you understand that this is likely to require a legislative response as well?
Um they're the issues we're working through.
Well, is it your understanding it will require a legislative response? If so, what issues are likely to be picked up in a legislative response?
Well, I think, Senator, we're no agreement's been finalised. We're engaging with the US before we come to the question about whether or not legislation would be required, we need to come to the agreement about what model is agreed and then whether or not legislation. Is required and we're not at that stage yet.
Have you entered into have you made it an express provision that the US cannot send Australian biometric data or other data to third countries? Is that a non-negotiable starting point?
I'm just thinking I don't think we're up to that stage yet either, Senator. Because it really depends on the model. One model may well be that no data is actually sent to the United States. And so it's a it would therefore be a bit of a moot point.
When does this need to be in place?
So the US have said that they would like the agreement to be in place by 31 December. At the 31 December point, the Department of Homeland Security will take a country-by-country view about whether or not to extend the current visa waiver settings, given the negotiations with states or blocks like the EU, or to make alternate arrangements. The alternate arrangement, of course, is for Australians to apply for a visa, but we are confidently working with the US to try and make sure that we are in a position to see what might be possible, protecting, of course, all of those elements, security of technology, privacy and all of the issues that we've talked about here.
Given how little you seem to know about what the parameters are, what information is, what the structures are, and you've been having discussions throughout the whole of this year, and it's now the 27th of October. Are you saying that despite all the uncertainty that you've told us in this hearing that you're aiming for a final agreement resolving all of these issues with the United States by the 31st of December in barely two months? Is that your evidence?
We have said to the US that and they have accepted the fact that each country comes to the discussions with different um different systems, different technology, different ways of working different laws, and that the decision on 31 December by the US government will depend on the existing cooperation and information sharing arrangements in place at the time. That's what the US has said. Separately though, the US have said that Australia is actively engaging. They were very pleased that we sent a delegation to the US to discuss the issues, and of course we come to the information sharing with the US generally. So we come to the discussion in in that context. And so we we expect to continue discussions between now and 31 December to see how far we can progress. And of course the decision by the US government about whether or not the existing visa waiver program will continue is ultimately a matter for them.
Do I read from that that we're working as quickly as a you think the US might think we've been good and we'll get an extension?
Well, I think the Is that the summary?
It was quite a long way of saying that if that's what we are working as we've been cooperative and good and they may give us an extension on the current arrangements. Let me finish the question.
So I think um the answer, Senator, is we are working as quickly as we can to try and um think about where we get to by 31 December. The US are very pleased, though, that we've entered into this in a mature collaborative approach to try and work through the best help for Australians.
But you haven't even asked some of the most important questions for Australians. You haven't even asked if they're going to give it to Palantir. You don't have an answer about whether they're going to give it to third countries. And from what I can tell, you don't even know what information they want. Like, and yet that's the state of play, isn't it, Mr. Hansford?
Senator, the policy outcome is very clear from our perspective. And we continue to work with the US government.
Well, I would defy anyone who's heard the evidence today from you and Ms. Spencer and the Secretary. I would defy anyone to identify the clarity. But um is that an appropriate time to?
Yeah, I'm I'm looking at you encouraging you to move into a minutes block of questions if probably Yes.
Would you like me to?
Yes, please. That's what I'm suggesting. Yes.
Um I have some questions about um transnational repression. Is that you again, Ms. Anson?