Consumer privacy advocates have responded with alarm after Coles and Woolworths confirmed they were testing facial recognition technology that they could use in their Australian supermarkets to record shoppers’ personal biometric data.

The two companies confirmed on Monday that they had tested the technology and said they were considering installing it in their Australian stores to crack down on retail crime including aggression towards staff. They also said they had not made a final decision on whether to proceed with the rollout, and neither supermarket chain would disclose which company had provided them with the software they had tested.

The supermarkets’ exploration of facial recognition software follows a decision by the administrative review tribunal in February to greenlight Bunnings’ use of the technology on its customers. After an appeal by Bunnings, the tribunal reversed a 2024 ruling by the privacy commissioner that had found the hardware giant breached the privacy of store visitors by scanning and checking their faces.

Marketing expert Dr Pallant from RMIT University said the trials posed a “security versus privacy dilemma”, when the solution is all about being transparent and educating consumers about how the procedure works. Tom Sulston, the head of policy at Digital Rights Watch, also said facial recognition was “wildly inaccurate”, and the supermarkets’ approach is rendering consumers’ experience unsafe.

Treasurer Jim Chalmers says the government is prepared to fast-track a fix to the unintended “widow tax” created by its changes to negative gearing if it will win the Coalition’s support to save $37 billion in NDIS spending.

Opposition Leader Angus Taylor issued the government an ultimatum for its support on the NDIS, which is to fix the loophole unintentionally cutting off home owners from negative gearing if their partner dies or they separate due to family violence.

Property investors are still able to claim rental losses on their income tax, known as negative gearing, if the home was bought or settled before budget night. But the government’s tax changes announced in May introduced an unintended consequence for co-owners of an investment property that meant if one of them died, the partner who inherited their share of the property would lose the ability to negatively gear it, since it now counted as a new ownership for tax purposes.

The federal government has introduced draft legislation that would fix the loophole as part of a second tranche of housing tax reforms. However that bill was not expected to be dealt with this fortnight.

The government and opposition briefed a Labor backbench committee and the Coalition shadow ministry on about 15 amendments on Monday evening, ahead of a full caucus and partyroom meeting for final approval on Tuesday morning.

The opt-out register would be established by the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA), with people able to request their various online accounts be blocked from viewing gambling advertising. The plan includes needing people to provide information such as their email address linked to the platform they are seeking to opt out of ads on.

With the shadow cabinet backing the bill, it is expected to pass. However, Liberal sources have told the ABC some in the party are considering crossing the floor because they believe the laws still will not be strong enough. In addition to TV and radio restrictions, the government’s current draft bill creates a “triple lock” system that would require social media, streaming and other online platforms to only show gambling ads to logged-in users verified as over 18.

Communications Minister Anika Wells used a speech in parliament, before the deal was finalised, to signal Labor was poised to move on so-called gambling inducements and online ads, after criticism its bill did not go far enough.

Opposition Leader Angus Taylor and the prime minister met several times to negotiate the gambling laws, which Labor is seeking to pass by the end of this week. But it is said that Prime Minister Albanese was not prepared to entertain such a large change.