close up of police vest with camera
(Image: Adobe)

Australian police will be given an arsenal of new hacking powers after both the government and Labor voted to pass a controversial bill that failed to include some of the protections that the parliament’s security committee called for.

Federal parliament voted to pass the Surveillance Legislation Amendment (Identify and Disrupt) bill on Wednesday. When enacted, the law will introduce three new warrants:

  • A data disruption warrant, which gives the police the power to modify, add, copy, or delete data to stop and inhibit crimes
  • A network activity warrant, which allows access devices and networks belonging to suspected criminals
  • An account takeover warrant, which commandeers a suspect’s online accounts to gather evidence for an investigation.

The law, which was passed with support from both major parties but not from the Greens or One Nation, was given the tick of approval from the bipartisan Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security (PJCIS), pending 33 suggested changes.

Nationals senator Anne Rushton cited Australia’s participation in the successful Operation Ironside as reason to give law enforcement further surveillance powers. 

“In the case of Operation Ironside, ingenuity and world-class capability gave our law enforcement an edge. This bill is just one more step the government is taking to ensure our agencies maintain that edge,” she said. 

In a speech welcoming the bill, Senator Kristina Keneally noted 23 of those recommendations had been included in the bill. Of the remaining 10, Keneally said she’d received assurances from the government that others were being sought outside of this bill, but at least three about expanding the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security oversight over the intelligence functions of the AFP’s intelligence functions had been rejected. Nor were Labor’s additional comments attached to the PJCIS report on the bill calling for the laws tied to just “serious offences” heeded, either. 

Senators from the Greens, One Nation, and the Rex Patrick team raised concerns about the law. 

Greens senator Lidia Thorpe slammed the existence of the law, pointing out that the Richardson review recommended law enforcement agencies not be given specific cyber disruption powers. 

One Nation senator Malcolm Roberts spoke out about the definition of a “criminal network of individuals” for the network activity warrant being used against large groups who had nothing to do with an individual’s criminal activity. 

Senator Rex Patrick acknowledged the need for information gathering powers but proposed an amendment to expand PJCIS oversight to the intelligence community that was unsuccessful.

Just a day after being introduced into Parliament, Australia’s major parties have rushed through further powers to law enforcement to surveil and take action against its citizens. Meanwhile, the process of reviewing Australia’s Privacy Act to ensure privacy safeguards for ordinary Australians launched in 2019 seems to have gone nowhere.