Australia’s privacy laws should be updated urgently to protect neural data, the Australian Human Rights Commission has warned in a landmark report calling for new safeguards on the nascent technology.
The commission has also recommended for a ban on using neuromarketing to manipulate political views or consumer behaviour, and urged brain tech developers to build human rights protections into their products from the beginning.
It comes as global investment in neurotech accelerates, with Elon Musk’s Neuralink recently implanting its first wireless brain-computer interface in a human patient in the United States.
The report, published on Wednesday, is the result of two years of work by an expert advisory group chaired by former chief scientist Alan Finkel to better understand the intersection of the nascent field of neurotechnology and freedom of thought.
It makes Australia one of the first jurisdictions to examine brain–computer interfaces, neural implants and cognitive-monitoring tools through both human-rights and economic-policy lenses, rather than as a purely medical or ethical issue.
Titled Peace of Mind, the report argues that neural data has no explicit protection under the Privacy Act 1988, exposing data that could “make it possible to track, analyse and predict the actions, emotions and attitudes of individuals” in future.
While the government has signalled broader privacy reform, the commission notes that overseas jurisdictions are already moving faster, including countries like Chile, Colorado and Spain.
Without similar certainty, the report says Australia risks falling behind both ethically and commercially, and recommends funding for the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner and the Human Rights Commission to issue guidance on neural data.
The report also recommends a ban on the use of neurotechnology in the workplace, “other than for addressing the most serious work health and safety risks in high-risk industries”.
A similar ban has been recommended to prohibit the use of neuromarketing for political and consumer purposes, especially targeting children.
Neurotechnology developers have, meanwhile, been urged to adopt a “human rights by design” approach, embedding safeguards from the prototype stage rather than responding after harm occurs.
Beyond data and privacy, the Commission sketches a policy horizon where neurotechnology begins to influence criminal justice, military training and workplace safety. It also calls for a stronger consumer-protection regime.
In the report’s foreword, Human Rights Commissioner Lorraine Finlay said Australia is well placed to “lead in rights-respecting innovation,” provided industry and government move early on legal clarity around neural data.
The report recommends promoting investment confidence in the field with “well-designed regulation” that promotes innovation by “building public trust, offering legal clarity, and establishing ethical guardrails”.
“Australia is well placed to be a leader in neurotechnology – not only in technical
innovation, but also in ethical and rights respecting innovation,” Dr Finlay added.
With Justin Hendry
Do you know more? Contact James Riley via Email.