This bill became law on Aug 11th, 2023.
Immigration, border & security
The bill would change national security lawsThe laws that control how Australia’s intelligence and security agencies can operate, which this bill would amend. using recommendations from the Richardson reviewAn independent review of Australia’s intelligence laws that recommended updating the legal framework, and many of the bill’s security changes are based on it. of Australia’s intelligence frameworkThe set of laws and oversight rules that governs Australia’s intelligence agencies and the checks on their powers..
The Richardson reviewAn independent review of Australia’s intelligence laws that recommended updating the legal framework, and many of the bill’s security changes are based on it. found national security lawsThe laws that control how Australia’s intelligence and security agencies can operate, which this bill would amend. needed updating, and the bill also created a push to change the intelligence oversight committee’s makeup. It responds by amending security laws, expanding the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and SecurityA parliamentary oversight committee that reviews intelligence agencies and related laws; this bill would increase its size and change who can sit on it. from 11 to 13 members, and letting non-government MPs sit on it.
Australia’s intelligence agencies were already operating under a legal framework built up since the Hope royal commissionsEarlier royal commissions that helped build the legal rules still shaping Australia’s intelligence system in this page’s background., but a more complex security environment led the Coalition to commission the Richardson reviewAn independent review of Australia’s intelligence laws that recommended updating the legal framework, and many of the bill’s security changes are based on it., which in 2020 recommended a broad refresh of national security lawsThe laws that control how Australia’s intelligence and security agencies can operate, which this bill would amend.. The 2023 bill carried part of that update, but it also added a government-driven change to expand the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and SecurityA parliamentary oversight committee that reviews intelligence agencies and related laws; this bill would increase its size and change who can sit on it. and open it to non-government MPs, breaking with the committee’s long bipartisanSupported by both major sides of politics; critics say the committee works best when it stays that way. pattern and prompting its first dissenting report in 17 years.
The main criticism was not about the bill’s broader national security updates but about adding members and crossbenchMembers of Parliament who are not in government or the main opposition; the bill would let some of them sit on the intelligence committee. representation to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and SecurityA parliamentary oversight committee that reviews intelligence agencies and related laws; this bill would increase its size and change who can sit on it., which critics said was rushed, unconsulted and could weaken its bipartisanSupported by both major sides of politics; critics say the committee works best when it stays that way. trust and security culture. That objection drove Coalition opposition, while the Greens’ concerns were narrower and conditional, focusing on spent convictionsOld convictions that may no longer be treated as active; the Greens say some rules in the bill need fixing on this issue. and provisions they said reduced independent oversight.
Mark Dreyfus MP introduced this bill. It passed on the voices.
Did it become law?
Yes
Became law 11 Aug 2023
Final passage
Passed without a counted vote
Members called out ‘aye’ or ‘no’ — no individual votes were recorded.
Passage speed
135 days
From introduction to the latest recorded parliamentary step
Meaning
The bill would change national security lawsThe laws that control how Australia’s intelligence and security agencies can operate, which this bill would amend. using recommendations from the Richardson reviewAn independent review of Australia’s intelligence laws that recommended updating the legal framework, and many of the bill’s security changes are based on it. of Australia’s intelligence frameworkThe set of laws and oversight rules that governs Australia’s intelligence agencies and the checks on their powers..
The bill would expand the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and SecurityA parliamentary oversight committee that reviews intelligence agencies and related laws; this bill would increase its size and change who can sit on it. from 11 members to 13 members.
The bill would let MPs who are not from parties of government sit on the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and SecurityA parliamentary oversight committee that reviews intelligence agencies and related laws; this bill would increase its size and change who can sit on it..
Senator McKENZIE (Victoria—Leader of the Nationals in the Senate) (10:14): I rise to make a brief contribution on the National Security Legislation Amendment (Comprehensive Review and Other Measures No. 2) Bill 2023. It is a result of the Richardson review, a review that was commissioned by the former government into our intelligence framework and that, indeed, sets out a raft of sensible recommendations that, unfortunately, the coalition will now not be supporting.Second reading speech
I had the great privilege to sit on the Joint Parliamentary Committee on Intelligence and Security many years ago and found it the one committee in this place where there was a bipartisan determination to put the needs of our country, the safety of our citizens and the positioning of our nation in the geostrategic space globally at the forefront. Labor, Liberal and National Party members of parliament, as the MPs of government, worked very hard to find consensus positions when I had the privilege to sit on that committee. But it would seem with the hasty addition of the amendment to change the composition of this very important committee to our national security from 11 to13—growing it isn't so much the problem. Putting people who are not parties of government on this incredibly important committee risks the bipartisan nature of the committee, risks the great tradition of the committee of keeping its deliberations to itself and risks, I would argue, the openness with which inquiries will be able to be held by this committee. Therefore, the work of the committee will be compromised. It seems patriots are very hard to find in the Labor government at the moment, whether it is overseeing the Office of National Intelligence, the AFP, our geospatial organisations, the Australian Signals Directorate, the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation or the Australian Secret Intelligence Service.Second reading speech
To ensure that those agencies—they can't run off willy-nilly and be laws unto themselves—do have a level of parliamentary oversight that isn't just the government, we set up this very important committee, because of the level of secrecy required. But to expand it beyond the parties of government just shows how reckless the Labor government is with national security, with conventions that have stood the test of time, and shows that the Labor left is on the ascendancy within the Labour Party cabinet. On these two things the Labor left and the Greens political party fundamentally agree. It is the Labor right, I believe, would argue that this committee should be kept as a committee of government MPs and not be expanded, but they've lost that war. The great privilege of being in government means setting the budget and making sure these agencies are resourced effectively to protect our people and our servicemen and servicewomen from terrorism and other challenges, but it is also a grave responsibility. It is a great privilege to be in government, but it is also a grave responsibility. And I think Attorney-General Dreyfus has completely neglected his responsibility of accountability and transparency that this committee provides the parliament and the Australian people on their behalf.Second reading speech
Context
Australia’s intelligence agencies were already operating under a legal framework built up since the Hope royal commissionsEarlier royal commissions that helped build the legal rules still shaping Australia’s intelligence system in this page’s background., but a more complex security environment led the Coalition to commission the Richardson reviewAn independent review of Australia’s intelligence laws that recommended updating the legal framework, and many of the bill’s security changes are based on it., which in 2020 recommended a broad refresh of national security lawsThe laws that control how Australia’s intelligence and security agencies can operate, which this bill would amend.. The 2023 bill carried part of that update, but it also added a government-driven change to expand the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and SecurityA parliamentary oversight committee that reviews intelligence agencies and related laws; this bill would increase its size and change who can sit on it. and open it to non-government MPs, breaking with the committee’s long bipartisanSupported by both major sides of politics; critics say the committee works best when it stays that way. pattern and prompting its first dissenting report in 17 years.
Coalition commissions the Richardson reviewAn independent review of Australia’s intelligence laws that recommended updating the legal framework, and many of the bill’s security changes are based on it. of intelligence laws
The review was commissioned after the independent intelligence reviewAn earlier review mentioned as part of the background that helped prompt a wider look at intelligence laws. to examine whether Australia’s national intelligence laws still struck the right balance between security, oversight and individual liberty.
Second reading speech ↗Richardson reviewAn independent review of Australia’s intelligence laws that recommended updating the legal framework, and many of the bill’s security changes are based on it. recommends updating the legal framework
The review produced recommendations that both government and opposition speakers later described as the basis for many of the bill’s national security law changes.
Hansard ↗Government introduces the bill as part of the Richardson overhaul
The Attorney-GeneralThe minister responsible for the bill in Parliament, and the person speakers say introduced the changes. presented the bill as a response to a more complex and unpredictable security landscape and as a way to modernise rules governing the national intelligence community.
Hansard ↗Opposition says the bill adds an unconsulted change to the intelligence committee
Coalition speakers said they supported most Richardson-based reforms but opposed the bill as drafted because it also changed the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and SecurityA parliamentary oversight committee that reviews intelligence agencies and related laws; this bill would increase its size and change who can sit on it.’s composition without bipartisanSupported by both major sides of politics; critics say the committee works best when it stays that way. consultation.
Hansard ↗PJCISA parliamentary oversight committee that reviews intelligence agencies and related laws; this bill would increase its size and change who can sit on it. reports on the bill and the split becomes public
Speakers said the committee had reviewed the bill’s Richardson measures but that disagreement over the committee-membership change helped produce the first dissenting report from the PJCISA parliamentary oversight committee that reviews intelligence agencies and related laws; this bill would increase its size and change who can sit on it. in 17 years.
Hansard ↗Senate debate confirms the bill would enlarge the PJCISA parliamentary oversight committee that reviews intelligence agencies and related laws; this bill would increase its size and change who can sit on it. and admit non-government members
During Senate debate, supporters and critics alike described the bill’s committee change as lifting membership from 11 to 13 and requiring representation from non-government senators and House members.
Second reading speech ↗Legislative route
The bill was formally presented to the House and read a first time.
Introduced and read a first time
The Attorney-GeneralThe minister responsible for the bill in Parliament, and the person speakers say introduced the changes. moved the second reading, opening debate on the bill.
Second reading moved
Referred to Committee (29/03/2023): Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and SecurityA parliamentary oversight committee that reviews intelligence agencies and related laws; this bill would increase its size and change who can sit on it.; Committee report (12/05/2023)
Referred to committee
APH bill page notesConsidered by scrutiny committee (09/05/2023): Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights; Report 5 of 2023
Considered by scrutiny committee
APH bill page notesConsidered by scrutiny committee (10/05/2023): Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills; Scrutiny Digest 7 of 2023
Considered by scrutiny committee
APH bill page notesThe House continued debate on the bill.
The House referred debate to the Federation Chamber.
Referred to Federation Chamber
The Federation Chamber continued debate on the bill.
The House agreed to the bill in principle.
Second reading agreed to
The bill returned from the Federation Chamber.
Reported from Federation Chamber
The House completed passage of the bill.
Third reading agreed to
The bill was introduced into the Senate and read a first time.
Introduced and read a first time
The Senate opened debate on the bill.
Second reading moved
The Senate debated the bill.
The Senate continued second-reading debate.
The Senate agreed to the bill in principle.
Second reading agreed to
The Senate considered the bill in committee of the whole.
Committee of the Whole debate
The Senate moved the final reading stage.
The Senate debated the final stage.
The Senate completed passage of the bill.
Third reading agreed to
Both houses passed the bill in the same form.
Finally passed both Houses
The Governor-General gave Royal Assent, turning the bill into an Act.
Key criticism
The main criticism was not about the bill’s broader national security updates but about adding members and crossbenchMembers of Parliament who are not in government or the main opposition; the bill would let some of them sit on the intelligence committee. representation to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and SecurityA parliamentary oversight committee that reviews intelligence agencies and related laws; this bill would increase its size and change who can sit on it., which critics said was rushed, unconsulted and could weaken its bipartisanSupported by both major sides of politics; critics say the committee works best when it stays that way. trust and security culture. That objection drove Coalition opposition, while the Greens’ concerns were narrower and conditional, focusing on spent convictionsOld convictions that may no longer be treated as active; the Greens say some rules in the bill need fixing on this issue. and provisions they said reduced independent oversight.
Most criticism targeted committee design and safeguards, not the bill’s overall policy aim.
PJCIS changes could weaken bipartisan oversight
The strongest case against the bill was that expanding the intelligence committee and changing its membership without bipartisanSupported by both major sides of politics; critics say the committee works best when it stays that way. agreement could damage the trust, culture and security practices that depend on a tightly managed bipartisanSupported by both major sides of politics; critics say the committee works best when it stays that way. model.
The committee changes were rushed and poorly consulted
Opponents said the government handled the committee-membership change badly by adding it without proper consultation and pushing it through a short inquiry process, creating a poor precedent for changing one of Parliament’s most sensitive oversight bodies.
Some provisions were said to reduce safeguards
The Greens supported accountability improvements overall but argued parts of the bill still weakened safeguards, especially spent convictionsOld convictions that may no longer be treated as active; the Greens say some rules in the bill need fixing on this issue. settings and changes they said would strip the Ombudsman of oversight, and they said those defects should be amended.
Further sources
Votes
The bill passed both chambers on the voices, so there is no list of individual Aye and No votes for final passage.
House agreed to the bill's third reading on the voices, so there is no list of individual Aye and No votes for final passage in that chamber.
Passed on the voices
In a voice vote, members call out Aye or No and the presiding officer judges which side has it. Individual names are only recorded if a formal division is called.
Senate agreed to the bill's third reading on the voices, so there is no list of individual Aye and No votes for final passage in that chamber.
Passed on the voices
In a voice vote, members call out Aye or No and the presiding officer judges which side has it. Individual names are only recorded if a formal division is called.
Parliamentary debate
Start here — lead voices
Dreyfus supports the bill and says it updates Australia’s intelligence laws by implementing long-delayed review recommendations and strengthening oversight while keeping the national security framework fit for purpose.
Read in Hansard ↗James Paterson says the coalition will not support the bill as drafted because it would expand and reshape the PJCISA parliamentary oversight committee that reviews intelligence agencies and related laws; this bill would increase its size and change who can sit on it. without consultation, which he says risks undermining the committee's bipartisanSupported by both major sides of politics; critics say the committee works best when it stays that way. character.
Read in Hansard ↗Whish-Wilson says the Greens support the bill overall because it improves reporting, accountability and the handling of some intelligence powers, but he wants amendments to fix spent convictionsOld convictions that may no longer be treated as active; the Greens say some rules in the bill need fixing on this issue. and oversight changes that the Greens oppose.
Read in Hansard ↗Khalil supports the bill and its national-security reforms, including the PJCISA parliamentary oversight committee that reviews intelligence agencies and related laws; this bill would increase its size and change who can sit on it. composition change.
Read in Hansard ↗All speeches by bloc
5 speakers · 5 support
“I would like to come to some of the matters raised by the member of Fisher, the deputy chair of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, but I want to start by speaking to some of the amendments and recommendations around the National Security Legislation Amendment (Comprehensive Review and Other Measures No. 2) Bill 2023 that have been agreed to.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“This bill implements sensible reforms that support our agencies while also strengthening their accountability, and it is for that reason that I commend it to the House and look forward to the contributions of other members.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“The government sees no reason to abandon them, and many good reasons to retain them.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“I thank my parliamentary colleagues for their contributions to the debate on the National Security Legislation Amendment (Comprehensive Review and Other Measures No. 2) Bill 2023. The government is committed to ensuring that the legal framework governing the national intelligence community is fit for purpose. It is vital that the responsibilities and powers of these agencies are underpinned by a rigorous legal framework and strong mechanisms. The national intelligence community is essential in protecting Australia's sovereignty and security. The Australian community trusts that our intelligence agencies are operating lawfully, with propriety and consistent with human rights. This great trust is built on an extensive and robust legal framework and reviews of this framework that underpin activities while also providing accountability and assurance.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“This bill will continue to progress the important work of the Comprehensive review of the legal framework of the national intelligence community by implementing some of its recommendations, including those that will strengthen Australia's national security legislation. The measures in this bill support implementation and will provide increased assurance to the Australian community that intelligence agencies are operating in accordance with the law.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
13 speakers · 14 contributions · 10 oppose · 3 mixed
“Finally, I will just foreshadow that, if we are not able to reach agreement with the government on this bill and the other, the opposition will be moving amendments to this bill that seek to remove the changes to the PJCIS membership from this bill so that the other important provisions of this bill can pass, can be enacted and can be changed.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“I rise to express concern about the National Security Legislation Amendment (Comprehensive Review and Other Measures No. 2) Bill 2023, echoing the comments that Senator Birmingham has just made, and, indeed, that many of my colleagues have made.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“Again, I urge the government to hit the pause button on this bill, to consider it alongside the intelligence services legislation in a coordinated and comprehensive way, and to compromise—in particular, by withdrawing its amendments to the composition of the PJCIS that threaten the way in which that committee operates.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“But, as Senator Paterson has said, unless and until we can secure agreement and restore bipartisanship, regrettably the bill is not in a form that we can support.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“I say, as Senator Cash has said, as Senator Paterson has said, that the Attorney and the government should reconsider. This is an awful precedent. Just reflect on the fact that, for the first time in 17 years, the opposition members—opposition of either political colour—have been moved to write the dissenting report. It's an awful precedent, and the Attorney should reflect on it.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“Nonetheless, we support the other elements of this. We've outlined our concerns. We concede, as the member for Fisher indicated, that the government will get their way on this. It's regrettable and disappointing, because, for those who have criticised us for having a dissenting position on this issue of the PJCIS—and I absolutely agree that the history is that that is not the case—it should be something that the government reflects on: why they've chosen to jettison bipartisanship on this, why it is that we have raised these concerns on something that everyone puts way above petty partisan politics and it's been the government's decision to ram this change through and abandon that bipartisanship. That is regrettable to us. Nonetheless, they are deciding to do it. We hold those concerns, and time will tell what the true motivation for that change is. With those comments, I conclude my contribution.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“I'd like to commence by firstly saying that, of course, an Australian government has no greater responsibility than to ensure the protection of its citizens and the homeland. It brings me no joy to have been the deputy chair sitting on the committee when we had to provide a dissenting report—the first time in 17 years. There has only ever been one other dissenting report of this committee, and that was in relation to the listing of the Kurdistan Workers Party. This committee was formed in August 1988. Prior to this inquiry, on only one other occasion has the committee not spoken with one voice. So it was with great reticence that the opposition felt that it had to stand opposed to the recommendations of the majority and, therefore, also this bill. The opposition cannot support this bill in its current form.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“I honestly don't believe that the government is still persisting with this change to the PJCIS's membership. I sincerely hope that, behind closed doors, in the minister's office, in the Attorney-General's office, they are reconsidering this and will withdraw these amendments at an appropriate time during the committee stage.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
Hansard records 2 separate contributions by Claire Chandler on this bill. They are grouped here so the speaker is listed once.
Second reading speech
Chandler says the opposition supports the sensible national security changes in the bill, but cannot back the rushed committee-composition change because it was not consulted on and could undermine the bipartisanSupported by both major sides of politics; critics say the committee works best when it stays that way. character of the PJCISA parliamentary oversight committee that reviews intelligence agencies and related laws; this bill would increase its size and change who can sit on it.. She argues the bill needs further consideration and a form that can command bipartisanSupported by both major sides of politics; critics say the committee works best when it stays that way. agreement.
“As has been outlined, the vast majority of elements of this bill can be supported on a bipartisan basis. As I said, there are some very sensible things in this bill which we as an opposition are certainly supportive of. There is no evidence which explains why this change to the composition of the PJCIS enhances Australia's national security.”Read this contribution in Hansard ↗
Second reading speech
Chandler says the Liberals support the bill's substantive changes to the national intelligence frameworkThe set of laws and oversight rules that governs Australia’s intelligence agencies and the checks on their powers., but she criticises the government for rushing the process and weakening the bipartisanSupported by both major sides of politics; critics say the committee works best when it stays that way. role of the PJCISA parliamentary oversight committee that reviews intelligence agencies and related laws; this bill would increase its size and change who can sit on it..
“Going to the substance of the bill, it proposes amendments to enhance the legislative framework of the national intelligence community by implementing a number of recommendations of the Richardson review. The bill proposes amendments to 13 related Commonwealth acts to support these proposed enhancements. The bill also proposes to amend the Intelligence Services Act to clarify the level of detail required to describe activities issued under ministerial direction. We support these—”Read this contribution in Hansard ↗
“It's not often that we part company on national security bills—in fact, it's very rare—so it is disappointing that the Albanese government has not reached across the aisle and sought to find a position of consensus. But we are acting in the best interests of this country because we believe that the current committee in its current form delivers the best outcomes for our national security as a nation. That's why we will be opposing this bill.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“I'd like to say to the crossbench and the minor parties present: if it is indeed this government's intention to add members from among you to the PJCIS—frankly, we don't know for sure if that's the case, because Labor won't tell us—I can understand the temptation you might have to want to get yourself in amongst the action. But, as I stated earlier, national security is something far too important to think about politically. We must think solely about the national interest. So I urge those of you on the crossbench and in the minors: do not support this bill.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“So, it is self-evident that in moving the numbers from 11 to 13 that risk expands just a little bit further, and you don't need to make comment about who that might be—I don't think that's fair. But just that mere movement of numbers increases risk, and we should be aware of that. Then this question has to be asked: why has that been done? I listened carefully to the member for Wills and I didn't hear a sufficient answer to that. Why is it from 11 to 13? Why is it not to 15 or 17? Let's get everyone involved in the PJCIS. I think expanding it creates risk, and it hasn't been justified.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“As a former member of this committee, I'm appalled by this amendment. I ask the government to reconsider putting it to the chamber because it is an absolute aberration of the function of this committee. Those members of the now government who have worked collaboratively in a bipartisan way on this committee know that. You've got to come clean with what the deal was, because it's absolutely abrogating your responsibility as a party of government. I will not be supporting the bill; and I commend Senator Paterson, as the shadow minister for the opposition, on his staunch rejection of this amendment—in particular—which means we will not be supporting the other sensible review amendments put forward by the Richardson review.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
3 speakers · 1 support · 2 mixed
“The Greens support increasing the public reporting and accountability in this bill. The bill also removes the ability of the Attorney-General to delegate powers under the ASIO Act and TIA Act and prohibits conferral of the Attorney-General's powers under the ASIO Act and TIA Act upon another minister, except by legislative amendment or a substituted reference order made by the Governor-General in exceptional circumstances. Ensuring these powers are exercised by the Attorney-General is only appropriate. But there are things we are concerned about in this bill. I won't go into detail because my colleagues have already, but in particular we're concerned about the expansion of exclusions in the spent convictions scheme to enable ASIO to use, record or disclose spent convictions information.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“From my party's perspective, the Greens perspective, this bill does some good and it does some bad. It takes us forward in some elements of oversight, maybe a little crack in the parties of government, or the parties of war, control of the PJCIS. But then it takes us backwards in other important parts of oversight. It's interesting, isn't it? That's often Labor legislation, isn't it? One step forward, one step back, but you can't clearly define the purpose.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“There are some good features of this bill, including adding crossbench members to the PJCIS and to make that membership slightly more representative, but there are some serious concerns in this bill that we will seek to amend, and my colleague Senator Shoebridge will do that shortly.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
Record
House · Introduced and read a first time
Introduced
The bill was formally presented to the House and read a first time.
House · Second reading moved
Second reading opened
The Attorney-GeneralThe minister responsible for the bill in Parliament, and the person speakers say introduced the changes. moved the second reading, opening debate on the bill.
House · Second reading debate
Second reading debate
The House continued debate on the bill.
House · Referred to Federation Chamber
Referred to Federation Chamber
The House referred debate to the Federation Chamber.
House · Second reading debate
Second reading debate
The Federation Chamber continued debate on the bill.
House · Second reading agreed to
Second reading agreed
The House agreed to the bill in principle.
House · Reported from Federation Chamber
Reported from Federation Chamber
The bill returned from the Federation Chamber.
House · Third reading agreed to
Third reading agreed
The House completed passage of the bill.
Senate · Introduced and read a first time
Introduced in Senate
The bill was introduced into the Senate and read a first time.
Senate · Second reading moved
Second reading opened
The Senate opened debate on the bill.
Senate · Second reading debate
Second reading debate
The Senate debated the bill.
Senate · Second reading debate
Second reading debate
The Senate continued second-reading debate.
Senate · Second reading agreed to
Second reading agreed
The Senate agreed to the bill in principle.
Senate · Committee of the Whole debate
Committee debate
The Senate considered the bill in committee of the whole.
Senate · Third reading moved
Third reading moved
The Senate moved the final reading stage.
Senate · Third reading debated
Third reading debated
The Senate debated the final stage.
Senate · Third reading agreed to
Third reading agreed
The Senate completed passage of the bill.
Parliament · Finally passed both Houses
Passed both houses
Both houses passed the bill in the same form.
Assent · Assent
Assent
The Governor-General gave Royal Assent, turning the bill into an Act.
Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security; Committee report (12/05/2023)
Referred to committee
Referred to Committee (29 Mar 2023): Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security; Committee report (12 May 2023)
APH bill page notesParliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights; Report 5 of 2023
Considered by scrutiny committee
Considered by scrutiny committee (9 May 2023): Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights; Report 5 of 2023
APH bill page notesSenate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills; Scrutiny Digest 7 of 2023
Considered by scrutiny committee
Considered by scrutiny committee (10 May 2023): Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills; Scrutiny Digest 7 of 2023
APH bill page notes
