Europe leads on transparent borders as Australia lags behind

New research shows that Australia is lagging well behind Europe when it comes to digitized border control, adopting a “staggering” level of secrecy that is threatening individual democratic rights.

A paper authored by University of South Australia researcher Dr. Louis Everuss has found stark differences between the two continents in their approach to digital borders.

Smart gates, biometric screening and automated risk assessment are now common worldwide, but unlike the European Union (EU) where border systems are more transparent, the Federal Government in Australia fails to disclose how this data is being used.

“Sweeping powers are given to the Immigration Minister courtesy of the Migration Act 1958 without any checks in place,” writes Dr. Everuss in the Australian and New Zealand Journal of European Studies.

“This legislation even allows computers to make binding visa decisions on the Minister’s behalf, yet it offers little detail about how these technologies function and what information is captured.

“Digitization is transforming border control across the globe, but transparency is critical for protecting both individual rights and democratic accountability. Our research shows that the EU’s legal frameworks are far more transparent than those in Australia, where the level of secrecy is staggering.”

The EU has introduced a suite of laws and regulations to govern its major digital border systems, including the Visa Information System (VIS) and the Schengen Information System (SIS).

These regulations clearly set out how data should be collected, stored and shared, and what rights individuals have to access their information. The regulations, which are publicly available, are also subject to oversight by EU data protection bodies and courts.

Dr. Everuss says the EU approach embeds transparency obligations into the design of its border systems.

“While not perfect, this provides the public and travelers with a clearer view of how decisions are made,” he says.

In contrast, Australia’s digital border systems, such as the integrated Client Services Environment for visa processing, and SmartGate at airports, operate under far less scrutiny.

Policy frameworks do exist, but they are often heavily redacted, withheld under Freedom of Information Laws, or classified as internal guidance.

“The lack of publicly accessible rules means that Australians have little insight into the digital tools shaping border decisions. In some cases, even oversight bodies have been unaware of the existence of key systems.”

Dr. Everuss argues that border transparency is not only about fairness to travelers, but also about maintaining trust in our governments.

“Without clear rules and accountability, digital technologies risk undermining natural justice and fueling public distrust.”

He suggests that Australia could improve transparency of its border systems by:

• Introducing system-specific legislation, similar to EU regulations, to define the scope of digital border technologies.
• Making publicly available the traveler data details that are captured and assessed and ensure that race, ethnicity and sexuality are excluded when determining border-based decisions.
• Ensuring that individuals can access—and correct if necessary—their data in a clear, user-friendly way.