In an important new analysis, Dr. Louis Everuss has outlined these and other progressive differences between the European Union’s and Australia’s deployment and use of digital border technologies. His study, published in the Australian and New Zealand Journal of European Studies, uncovers a significant trend. Through transparency requirements in the governance of its border systems, the EU has built a norm or expectation around visibility into the process of border control decision-making. In comparison, Australia’s digital border systems function with much less public oversight, raising accountability and legitimacy issues that jeopardize public confidence and trust.
This gap raises serious questions about how effective Australia’s current digital border technologies actually are. Other technologies such as the integrated Client Services Environment for visa processing and SmartGate at airports warrant deeper examination. Without transparency, Dr. Everuss believes it becomes impossible to be fair to travelers and hold government accountable.
Digital Border Technologies in Australia
Towards the end of our conversation, Dr. Everuss touches on an important concern in Australia’s digital border landscape. Without any publicly available rules, Australians are left completely unaware of the digital tools that shape these pivotal border decisions. This lack of obligations or transparency is a dramatic difference from the EU, where system-specific legislation comes in to establish clear obligations for transparency.
To take one applicable example, though Australia uses cutting-edge technologies to make their border control more efficient, such systems are still largely non-transparent. “Sweeping powers are given to the Immigration Minister courtesy of the Migration Act 1958 without any checks in place,” Dr. Everuss stated, emphasizing the potential risks associated with such unchecked authority.
The combined Client Services Environment and SmartGate are among the best examples of Australia’s digital border in action. Yet, as many of us know, the inner workings of these systems are not open to public scrutiny. Consequently, most Australians are blissfully unaware of how their private information is informationalized. This ignorance covers internal visa processing and border control procedures.
The EU’s Model of Transparency
Dr. Everuss underlines that the EU is serious about transparency in its border management. This new approach serves as an inspiring precedent for other geographic areas, like Australia. The EU introduces transparency requirements to its technological border regime, creating more opportunities for public awareness and accountability to enter the picture.
He noted that the EU’s method, though flawed, provides the public and future travelers a much more transparent process for understanding how decisions are being made. These measures increase transparency and public trust and help protect individual rights. They work to make sure that increasingly vague and arbitrary border control practices don’t undermine democratic freedoms.
Dr. Everuss highlights that public policy frameworks for digital border technologies in Australia have been heavily redacted. Fully half of these policies are listed as internal guidance only, restricting public transparency. This much secrecy breeds public distrust about how decisions that will affect their travel experiences are being made.
Implications for Fairness and Trust
The implications of these findings are significant. As Dr. Everuss points out, “Without transparent governance and accountability, digital technologies may threaten natural justice and sow discord with the public.” This assertion sums up perfectly why fundamental reform is needed in Australia’s digital border strategy.
Recent research confirms that digitization has radically changed border control across the globe. We need to always defend individual rights and democratic accountability. “Digitization is transforming border control across the globe, but transparency is critical for protecting both individual rights and democratic accountability,” he stated. “Our research shows that the EU’s legal frameworks are far more transparent than those in Australia, where the level of secrecy is staggering.”