Law proposes to give AFP power to possess, share and use child abuse material

Proposed changes aim to give the Australian Federal Police (AFP) stronger powers to possess, share and use child abuse material (CAM) in undercover investigations, to help catch sex offenders online.

These proposals have triggered strong responses—some support them as essential to protect children, others warn of serious legal and ethical risks.

Let’s break down what’s happening, what the debates are, and what this could mean for victims, privacy, and legal practice.

What’s Proposed: AFP to Possess & Share CAM Under Special Conditions

• Under new telecommunications law amendments, the AFP would gain protection from criminal and civil liability when conducting authorised “controlled operations” involving CAM.

• In effect, investigators could hold and share CAM as evidence or use it in infiltration of illicit online networks—without themselves being prosecuted for possessing it.

• The bill has been referred to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, and has received conditional endorsement.

• Advocates say the changes are needed to keep pace with offenders using encrypted platforms, requiring more creative tools to trace them.

Public Discourse

The proposal has drawn strong public discourse. Here are some of the popular arguments on both sides:

Arguments In Favour

1. Closing loopholes in investigations
   Offenders increasingly use end-to-end encryption and hidden forums. Supporters argue the AFP needs more flexibility to infiltrate these networks.

2. Victim protection & urgency
   Faster detection and disruption of networks could save children from further harm. Some say that without such powers, law enforcement is hamstrung.

3. Legal safeguards built in
   The proposals come with controls—only authorised operations, oversight, and limits. The intention is balancing investigative need with protection against abuse.

Aguments Against

1. Re-victimisation & re-distribution
   Some survivors oppose the idea of their abuse material being held, moved or used—arguing that even “for lawful purpose” use can perpetuate harm.

2. Blurred lines & slippery slope
   Critics warn that expanding powers here could lead to creeping overreach into privacy and civil liberties.

3. Transparency and accountability
   It must be clear when, how, and by whom such powers are used. Without strong oversight, abuses are possible.

4. Legal conflicts & gray areas
   The proposals grant indemnity from civil or criminal liability—but questions remain over how they will interact with existing laws, state jurisdictions, and rights protections.

5. Ethical dilemmas
   Even with safeguards, the idea of police handling CAM might disturb public trust, especially if there is inadequate communication and justification of how material is used.

Legal Practice

The proposed changes could intersect with clients’ interests in a variety of ways:

• Privacy & civil liberties claims
  If powers are misused, individuals could contest the legality of investigations, or bring claims for oversight failures or breach of rights.

• Criminal defence strategy
  Defence lawyers will scrutinise whether an undercover investigation’s use of CAM was lawful, proportionate and properly authorised.

• Victim advocacy & consent
  Lawyers representing survivors will need to advise on how their material may be handled, whether they can opt out, and how their rights are protected.

This OYBlog was created with AI assistance based on the following sources: ‘Fears for victims as police win greater powers to use child abuse material to snare offenders’, ‘Advocates mixed on plans to bolster undercover police powers to share child abuse material’ and ‘AFP to get power to possess and share child abuse material to target sex offenders online’