Fergus Hanson of the Australian Security Policy Institute said that the bill had largely been framed as an antiterrorism measure, but it really had more to do with fighting crime on the state and federal levels.

“I think the police forces are looking at this through the lens that it’s hard, much harder for them to get access to content now, and so they want to address the ‘going dark’ problem across the board,” he said.

Australian tech companies have said that the bill could hurt their business overseas, because customers would doubt their promises to protect encrypted data. The industry has also argued that any “back door” that companies are required to create for law enforcement to access encrypted data would also be vulnerable to hacking.

In a submission to Parliament, Apple challenged “the idea that weakening encryption is necessary to aid law enforcement.” It added, “In just the past five years alone, we have processed over 26,000 requests from Australian law enforcement agencies for information to help investigate, prevent and solve crimes.”

The Australian Information Industry Association, an advocacy group representing digital companies, said it had “no confidence” in the government as far as the bill was concerned.

“The proposed powers are unprecedented, their remit unnecessarily broad, and the consequences of their use completely unknown,” said Kishwar Rahman, general manager of policy and advocacy for the group.

She said its members were committed to working with the authorities “to address operational concerns identified as arising from the use of encrypted technologies,” but that they would “use all available mechanisms to push back if the overly broad notices impact the security or privacy of their customers.”