Facial recognition in policing: Part 2

Australia’s pragmatic middle ground

Facial recognition technology (FRT) continues to sit between operational opportunity and public concern across global policing.

In Part 1 of this series, we explored how the United Kingdom is moving toward wider operational adoption while the United States remains fragmented, with strong rights-focused scrutiny and regulatory debate.

Australia appears to occupy a pragmatic middle position. Public attitudes show conditional support for the technology when it is used in clearly defined policing scenarios and governed by strong oversight frameworks.

Conditional acceptance, not blanket endorsement

Research into public attitudes in Australia suggests that support for facial recognition technology is nuanced rather than absolute.

There is broad acceptance when FRT is used for clearly defined purposes such as:

• Investigating serious crime

• Locating missing persons

• Responding to emergencies

However, support drops significantly when the technology is perceived as enabling routine monitoring or mass surveillance.

This conditional acceptance creates an operating environment where policing agencies are expected to justify how and why the technology is used. The public expectation is that deployment must be limited, proportionate, and supported by transparent safeguards.

Operational use: investigative support rather than surveillance

Australian law enforcement agencies have explored facial recognition primarily as an investigative tool.

Rather than being positioned as a real-time surveillance capability, FRT has generally been framed as an analytical aid that supports investigators during specific cases.

Unlike some jurisdictions, Australia does not operate under a single national framework dedicated exclusively to police use of facial recognition. Instead, governance sits within existing privacy legislation, agency policies, and regulatory oversight.

This distributed framework places responsibility on individual agencies to demonstrate necessity, proportionality, and compliance when deploying the technology.

Regulatory oversight shaping deployment

Regulatory bodies have played an active role in shaping how facial recognition technology is used in Australia.

The Office of the Australian Information Commissioner (OAIC) has taken enforcement action against organisations that deployed facial recognition without meeting legal requirements around consent and transparency.

These interventions have reinforced clear expectations around:

• Purpose limitation and lawful use

• Data minimisation and secure data handling

• Transparency with the public

• Strong internal governance and audit processes

Rather than halting the use of facial recognition entirely, regulatory oversight has encouraged more disciplined and accountable deployment models.

A governance led model

Australia’s emerging approach can be described as a governance led model.

Facial recognition is treated as a specialised capability rather than a routine policing tool. Its use is expected to be tightly scoped, with human decision makers remaining central to investigative processes.

Operational legitimacy depends less on the sophistication of the technology itself and more on confidence that its deployment is controlled, documented, and open to scrutiny.

Public trust is built not through the technology alone, but through governance structures that ensure accountability.

Implications for police leaders and technology providers

Within Australian policing, the legitimacy of facial recognition increasingly depends on whether the technology can demonstrate clear operational value while remaining aligned with legal and ethical standards.

For technology providers, success is not defined solely by technical capability. It is also shaped by how well systems support responsible deployment.

This includes features such as:

• Transparent audit trails

• Configurable thresholds and controls

• Clear explainability of results

• Privacy focused system architecture

Tools that support governance and accountability are becoming just as important as analytical performance.

Australia’s role in the global debate

Australia does not appear to be moving toward widespread deployment of facial recognition, nor toward outright bans.

Instead, it is converging on a model where the technology is considered acceptable only when it operates within strong governance frameworks and clear operational justification.

This position reflects a broader global trend. The future of facial recognition in policing will likely be shaped not only by advances in technology, but by the quality of the governance structures that surround it.

Continue the series:

This article forms part of Altia’s global analysis of facial recognition in policing.

Read Part 1: UK and US perspectives on facial recognition in policing here.