Freedom is the greater good!
The Queensland Government has introduced the Fighting Antisemitism and Keeping Guns out of the Hands of Terrorists and Criminals Amendment Bill 2026. It was introduced to Parliament on 10 February 2026 and immediately referred to the Justice, Integrity and Community Safety Committee. Submissions close on 17 February, with the committee required to report back by 27 February. The previous articles examined the impact on freedom of speech and weapons law reforms. This article turns to the Bill’s impact on surveillance legislation.
The Bill’s Explanatory Notes state:
“Currently, Chapter 11 of the Police Service Administration Act 1990 authorises controlled operations for the purpose of obtaining evidence that may lead to the prosecution of persons for relevant offences. It does not currently permit the authorisation of controlled operations for purposes of disruption or prevention of criminal conduct. This bill will allow the authorisation of controlled operations to frustrate criminal activity and better protect the community.
Currently in Queensland, controlled operations, controlled activities and surveillance device warrants are generally limited to offences that carry at least a maximum penalty of seven years imprisonment. This is inconsistent with model laws adopted by other Australian jurisdictions that have a much lower threshold of three years imprisonment. In practical terms, this means that these advanced police investigation strategies cannot be deployed for significant offences that may be linked to hate crimes such as section 69—going armed so as to cause fear—or section 75—threatening violence—of the Criminal Code.
The bill will rectify this deficiency by lowering offence thresholds for controlled operations, controlled activities and surveillance device warrants from seven-year-imprisonment offences to three-year-imprisonment offences. This government is committed to ensuring that law enforcement has the powers necessary to act decisively in the interest of public safety. This reform will ensure that our police have the tools they need to proactively intercept criminal conduct and keep Queenslanders safe”.
On its face, that justification is framed in the language of protection and prevention. But the structural effect of the amendment is significant. It does not merely clarify procedure. It expands the class of offences for which covert and intrusive investigative powers may be deployed.
Section 221A of the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act currently defines a controlled activity as:
a) a seven year imprisonment offence; or
b) an indictable offence mentioned in schedule 2; or
c) an indictable or simple offence mentioned in schedule 5.
The Bill proposes that part (a) of the Act change from seven years to three years. That is not a minor technical adjustment. It is a substantial lowering of the threshold that triggers covert policing powers.
A “controlled activity” is essentially an undercover interaction with a suspect, where police may deliberately conceal their purpose and engage in conduct that would otherwise expose them to criminal responsibility. It is a legislated permission for deception in the pursuit of evidence.
Under section 224, police may engage in conduct that includes:
- communicating with a person in any way
- deliberately concealing the true purpose of the communication
- engaging in conduct for which the officer would otherwise be criminally responsible
- A police officer of at least Superintendent rank may authorise a civilian participant to engage in “ancillary conduct” that aids or enables the controlled activity.
In other words, the Act already allows police, under proper authorisation, to participate in conduct that would ordinarily be unlawful. That is justified only because the offences involved are serious enough to warrant such an intrusion.
A “controlled operation” is defined as an operation conducted to obtain evidence that may lead to prosecution for a “relevant offence,” and which involves or may involve “controlled conduct.” These are surveillance operations. They sit at the more serious end of covert policing, often involving long-term undercover work, informants, and participation in criminal environments.
The surveillance powers afforded to police by the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act have received criticism in the past, with concerns raised that such powers extend deeply into the private lives of Queenslanders. The justification has always rested on the seriousness of the offending being investigated. With the Bill’s proposed amendment to cast a larger net over lesser offences, the impact could be severe and could erode fundamental freedoms. How much freedom are we willing to sacrifice to stop wrongdoing?
The Australian Government Guiding Principles on Government Use of Surveillance Technologies states, “The use of surveillance technologies should be ‘consistent with democratic values and the rule of law’ and should be proportionate and reasonable. “Governments should not use surveillance technologies in a manner that violates human rights or undermines fundamental freedoms.”
Proportionality is the key concept. Intrusive powers require serious justification. If the Bill progresses, covert policing powers designed for the most serious crimes could now apply to a much wider range of offences, including:
- Obstructing police
- Wilful damage
- Minor fraud
- Lower-level violence
These are not trivial offences, but they are not terrorism. They are not organised crime at the highest level. The threshold to invade someone’s privacy, to authorise covert conduct that would otherwise be criminal, should be far higher than an offence like obstruct police.
When a Government says a Bill is about terrorism, but quietly expands surveillance powers into ordinary criminal categories, the public has an obligation to ask why. Is the expansion truly about hate crimes and extremist violence, or does it permanently enlarge the scope of covert state power into everyday law enforcement?
There is a quote that is worth considering in light of such provisions of power to the State.
“Never let anyone take away your freedom because of the greater good. Freedom IS the greater good.” – Unknown