The House made a total of 60 amendments to the bill, which now awaits Royal Assent. However, the Australian Greens has raised concerns over its privacy implications and questioned the need for the reforms.
Three New Warrants for Australian Law Enforcement
The bill is officially titled ‘Surveillance Legislation Amendment (Identify and Disrupt) Bill 2020.’ It gives two agencies, namely the AFP and the ACIC, new powers to deal with online crime. These powers are in the form of three new types of warrants. The first is a ‘Data Disruption Warrant’ which gives officials the ability to modify, add, copy, or delete data. The warrant aims to prevent the continuation of criminal activity by participants. It is described as the safest and most expedient option where participant identity and location of the criminals is unknown. Failure to comply with the warrant can lead to ten years imprisonment. The second is a ‘Network Activity Warrant’, which will allow the AFP and ACIC to collect information from the networks and devices of the warrant’s subjects. The third is an ‘Account Takeover Warrant’. This will allow the agencies to take control of an online account to gather information for their investigations.
Over 60 Amendments Made to the Bill
Earlier this month, a Parliamentary Committee gave the go-ahead to pass the bill, as long as its recommendations were met. Some of their recommendations include:
strengthening the criteria to issue a warrant; adding considerations for privacy, public interest, privileged and journalistic information, and financial impacts; reviews by parliamentary committees; sunset powers in 5 years; and good faith immunity provisions for assistance orders.
The committee submitted a total of 33 recommendations, of which 23 were accepted by the house. From the remaining, four will be incorporated in a future national security legislation review.
Concerns Raised by Australian Greens
While the Labor Party has given its support to the bill, the Australian Greens have not. Greens Senator Lidia Thorpe said that the reforms would lead Australia “down the road to a surveillance state.” Thorpe pointed out that two of the warrants do not need the approval of a judge. Instead, a member of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal can issue the warrants. Thorpe also questioned the very need for the reforms. She said that the scope of the new powers was far greater than the threats of the organized cybercrime that it seeks to address. Additionally, Thorpe said that there was a lack of evidence pointing to the need of such warrants and that no other Five Eyes country had taken such a step. For more information on privacy laws, check out our resource on Privacy Legislation in the United States.
