PoliticalClaims.au

The Surveillance Legislation Amendment (Identify and Disrupt) Act 2021 was passed by Parliament on 25 August 2021 and received Royal Assent on 3 September 2021 [1].

The core claim that the legislation introduces new police powers is factually accurate. **The Three New Powers:** The Act introduced three new warrant types for the Australian Federal Police (AFP) and Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission (ACIC) [1]: - **Data disruption warrants**: Allow police to access devices and "modify, add, copy, or delete data" [2] - **Network activity warrants**: Allow law enforcement to surveil online activity of suspects [2] - **Account takeover warrants**: Allow police to take control of online accounts [2] **The "Without Warrant" Claim - MISLEADING:** The claim states police can act "without a warrant, even if they're not suspected of committing any crime." This is partially misleading: - All three powers require warrants under normal circumstances, issued by a judicial officer [3] - However, "emergency authorisation" does allow police to act WITHOUT a warrant in urgent situations if they reasonably suspect "imminent serious violence or damage to property" and believe it's not practicable to apply for a warrant [3] - These emergency measures must be retrospectively approved by a judicial officer [3] - The requirement is "reasonable suspicion" of a "serious crime" (defined as any offence with penalty >3 years), not actual proof of criminal activity [3] The "reasonable suspicion" threshold is notably low and broad, but warrants are technically required in normal circumstances. **Legislation Voted on "Only Hours" After Crossbench Review - TRUE:** The bill was "blitzed through both Federal Houses of Parliament in under 24 hours" and passed on 25 August 2021 [4].

This is confirmed across multiple sources [2], [3].

The brief review period is accurate. **Review by Intelligence Groups But Not Privacy Advocates - PARTIALLY TRUE BUT INCOMPLETE:** The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights did issue a report flagging serious concerns [3].

While the claim is correct that privacy advocates were not part of the formal review process, the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights represents parliamentary scrutiny for human rights impacts.

However, independent civil liberty and digital rights organisations submitted extensive submissions raising concerns that were not formally incorporated into the legislation [3], [4]. **Data Disruption Powers and Two-Factor Authentication - TRUE:** The legislation does allow police to "modify, add, copy, or delete data" [2], [3], which would technically enable removing two-factor authentication from accounts.

This is a legitimate concern raised by security experts and legal analysts [3]. **"Against the Government's Own Review" - UNVERIFIED:** The claim references the government's own review into hacking powers.

A recent statutory review by the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor (INSLM) found serious problems with the Act's implementation, determining that "hacking powers handed out without safeguard" and identifying that warrants were being issued by untrained individuals [5].