This bill is currently before Parliament.
Immigration, border & security
Adults facing questioning by the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, Australia’s domestic security agency, can be questioned about four new kinds of threat.
Tony Burke (Labor), the Minister for Home Affairs, said Australia’s security environment was expected to become more varied and difficult over the five years to 2030. The government said the powers had produced valuable intelligence when other methods were unsuitable. Since 2003, five parliamentary reviews and two independent reviews had led Parliament to extend them five times.
Australia already had ASIOAustralia’s domestic security intelligence agency., established in 1949, and compulsory questioning powers under the ASIOAustralia’s domestic security intelligence agency. Act 1979, but the questioning framework was temporary and due to sunset while ASIOAustralia’s domestic security intelligence agency. described a more dynamic, diverse and degraded security environment. The Government responded by introducing the bill through Tony Burke MP on 23 July 2025 to make the powers permanent, extend them to additional threats and strengthen safeguards, reporting and oversight; the supplied evidence records parliamentary debate but no final passage or implementation.
Zali Steggall (Independent) argued that compulsory questioning conflicts with the right to remain silent and can force children as young as 14 to answer questions under threat of punishment. She said the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, Australia’s domestic security agency, had never used a child questioning warrant and had said it no longer saw a strong case for the power. David Pocock (Independent) also criticised retaining child questioning and adding serious border threats when, he said, the agency had not sought those powers. He argued that limits on choosing a lawyer were unjustified.
Tony Burke MP introduced this bill. Support so far has come from Labor, Liberal, Nationals, Liberal Party, some crossbench members; opposition has come from Greens, some crossbench members.
Did it become law?
Not yet
Final passage
Recorded vote so far
1 recorded vote on the bill was found earlier in passage, but the final chamber agreement was not a counted division.
Days since introduction
380 days
Updated 07 Aug 2026.
Meaning
Adults facing questioning by the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, Australia’s domestic security agency, can be questioned about four new kinds of threat. These include sabotage, communal violence, attacks on defence systems and serious border threats.
People overseeing compulsory questioning must meet tighter independence rules. Defence personnel, public servants, parliamentarians and several government legal officers cannot fill the role.
People overseeing questioning can lose their appointment for bankruptcy, conflicting interests or failing to disclose an interest.
People questioned after being charged, or when a related charge is near, must have the session overseen by a former senior judge.
The Attorney-General must receive reports about breaches of a warrant, its conditions, questioning rules or an overseer’s directions.
Australians remain covered by these compulsory questioning powers until three years after the amended law starts. A parliamentary committee can review them before their second anniversary.
This item amends current section 34A of the ASIO Act to replace the existing definition for adult questioning matter with a new definition. The existing definition of an adult questioning matter refers to a matter that relates to the protection of, and of the people of, the Commonwealth and the several States and Territories from espionage, politically motivated violence and acts of foreign interference. The new definition provides that an adult questioning matter means a matter that relates to the protection of, and of the people of, the Commonwealth and the several States and Territories, fAustralian Security Intelligence Organisation Amendment explanatory memorandum
This item amends subsection 34AD(2) of the ASIO Act, which sets out persons who are not eligible for appointment as a prescribed authority under subsection 34AD(1). This amendment extends subsection 34AD(2) to include: a member of the Defence Force; an APS employee; an Agency Head (within the meaning of the Public Service Act 1999); a member of the Parliament of the Commonwealth or a State or the Legislative Assembly of a Territory; a person employed under the Members of Parliament (Staff) Act 1984; a Parliamentary Service employee (within the meaning of the Parliamentary Service Act 199Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Amendment explanatory memorandum
This item repeals current subsection 34AD(9) of the ASIO Act and replaces it with new subsections 34AD(9) and 34AD(9A) which provide for the termination of the appointment of a prescribed authority by the Attorney-General in certain circumstances. The new subsections align the termination provisions for prescribed authorities with those of comparable oversight roles, such as Public Interest Advocates under the TIA Act and Regulations and examiners under the ACC Act. Consistent with comparable oversight roles, new subsection 34AD(9) ensures the Attorney‑General maintains a discretion to terminAustralian Security Intelligence Organisation Amendment explanatory memorandum
After subsection 34BD(3) This item inserts new subsection 34BD(3A) to impose an additional requirement for questioning under a warrant that is a post-charge questioning warrant, or where the subject of the warrant has either been charged with a related offence and that charge is still to be resolved, or such a charge is imminent. For such warrants, ASIO is authorised to question the subject of the warrant only before a prescribed authority who is a former judge of a superior court (as appointed under paragraph 34AD(1)(a)). The purpose of this amendment is to provide a further safeguard for tAustralian Security Intelligence Organisation Amendment explanatory memorandum
Providing reports to the Attorney-General Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979 After paragraph 34HA(1)(a) This item inserts new paragraph 34HA(1)(aa) to impose additional reporting requirements on the Director-General to ensure the Attorney-General is made aware of relevant information regarding the conduct of questioning under a compulsory questioning warrant. For each questioning warrant, the written report must provide details of any actions taken in relation to the warrant that: did not comply with guidelines given by the Minister under section 8A; contravened the wrAustralian Security Intelligence Organisation Amendment explanatory memorandum
(1) Schedule 1, item 1, page 3 (lines 4 and 5), omit the item, substitute: 1 Section 34JF Omit “7 March 2027”, substitute “the third anniversary of the commencement of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Amendment Act (No. 2) 2026”. [sunsetting] (2) Schedule 1, item 2, page 3 (line 8), omit “third”, substitute “second”. [sunsetting] (3) Schedule 1, item 2, page 3 (line 10), omit “2025”, substitute “2026”.Proposed amendment 11: CW - Government [sheet SV144]
Context
Australia already had ASIOAustralia’s domestic security intelligence agency., established in 1949, and compulsory questioning powers under the ASIOAustralia’s domestic security intelligence agency. Act 1979, but the questioning framework was temporary and due to sunset while ASIOAustralia’s domestic security intelligence agency. described a more dynamic, diverse and degraded security environment. The Government responded by introducing the bill through Tony Burke MP on 23 July 2025 to make the powers permanent, extend them to additional threats and strengthen safeguards, reporting and oversight; the supplied evidence records parliamentary debate but no final passage or implementation.
ASIOAustralia’s domestic security intelligence agency. is established amid postwar security fears
The organisation was created after the Second World War to counter espionage and subversive activity affecting Australia’s security.
Hansard ↗The ASIOAustralia’s domestic security intelligence agency. Act contains compulsory questioning powers
Division 3 of Part III of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979 provided ASIOAustralia’s domestic security intelligence agency. with a compulsory questioning tool for serious security threats.
Australian Parliament House ↗Tony Burke introduces the permanent-powers bill
Tony Burke MP introduced the bill to remove the compulsory questioning framework’s sunset, broaden the threats covered and strengthen safeguards and oversight.
Parliamentary timeline ↗The compulsory questioning powers face their scheduled sunset
The framework was due to expire on 7 September 2025, making a longer-term legislative decision necessary.
Hansard ↗Parliament debates permanent powers for a changing threat environment
Debate described Australia’s security environment as more dynamic, diverse and degraded and presented the bill as a modernisation of ASIOAustralia’s domestic security intelligence agency.’s questioning framework with stronger safeguards.
Hansard ↗Legislative route
The bill was formally presented to the chamber and read a first time, which starts its parliamentary journey.
Introduced and read a first time
A minister or sponsoring member moved the second reading, opening the main debate on the bill's purpose and principles.
Second reading moved
Referred to Committee (27/08/2025): Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security; Committee report (05/02/2026)
Report tabled 05 Feb 2026
APH bill page notesConsidered by scrutiny committee (27/08/2025): Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights; Report 4 of 2025
Report 4 of 2025
APH bill page notesConsidered by scrutiny committee (27/08/2025): Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills; Scrutiny Digest 4 of 2025
Scrutiny Digest 4 of 2025
APH bill page notesThe bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
Referred to Federation Chamber
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
Second reading debate
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
Reported from Federation Chamber
Recorded vote: 106 to 8.
The chamber agreed to the bill at second reading, meaning it accepted the bill in principle and allowed it to continue.
Second reading agreed to
The chamber considered the bill in detail and dealt with amendments before the next stage.
Consideration in detail debate
The chamber agreed to the bill at third reading, which completed passage through that chamber.
Third reading agreed to
The bill was formally presented to the chamber and read a first time, which starts its parliamentary journey.
Introduced and read a first time
A minister or sponsoring member moved the second reading, opening the main debate on the bill's purpose and principles.
Second reading moved
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
Key criticism
Zali Steggall (Independent) argued that compulsory questioning conflicts with the right to remain silent and can force children as young as 14 to answer questions under threat of punishment. She said the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, Australia’s domestic security agency, had never used a child questioning warrant and had said it no longer saw a strong case for the power. David Pocock (Independent) also criticised retaining child questioning and adding serious border threats when, he said, the agency had not sought those powers. He argued that limits on choosing a lawyer were unjustified.
Maria Kovacic (Liberal) supported the wider grounds and safeguards but said the powers should not continue indefinitely without Parliament reviewing them. She said their use about 20 times in 22 years showed restraint rather than a lack of need.
Permanent powers without guaranteed review
Removing the sunset clauseA rule making powers expire automatically. could allow extraordinary coercive powers to continue indefinitely without Parliament being required to reconsider whether they remain necessary, proportionate and adequately safeguarded.
Questioning children
The expanded regime would retain compulsory questioning for children as young as 14, raising concern that intrusive national-security powers could undermine children’s rights despite the bill’s safeguards.
Further sources
Votes
These were the main recorded votes on the bill.
Passed 106 to 8. Support came from Labor, Liberal, Nationals, and Liberal Party. Opposition came from Greens. Minor-party and independent votes were split.
Did not vote: LNP, Nationals
Recorded amendment and procedural votes grouped by chamber. Expand a vote to see the party breakdown.
House
Defeated 10 to 67. Support came from Greens and minor parties and independents. Opposition came from Labor, Nationals, Liberal Party, and Liberal.
The defeat preserved the bill's removal of the sunset clauseA rule making powers expire automatically., allowing the compulsory questioning framework to become permanent without the proposed mandatory committee review.
Did not vote: LNP, Nationals
Defeated 9 to 60. Support came from Greens and minor parties and independents. Opposition came from Labor and Liberal.
The defeat left the bill's framework for compulsorily questioning people aged 14 to 17 in place without the proposed 2027 cut-off and additional limits.
Did not vote: Liberal Party, LNP, Nationals
This list includes amendment votes, procedural votes and votes on the bill itself.
Parliamentary debate
Start here — lead voices
Burke supports the bill, arguing that making ASIOAustralia’s domestic security intelligence agency.'s compulsory questioning powers permanent and extending them to emerging security threats will help the agency operate effectively, while stronger safeguards and oversight will protect individual rights.
Read in Hansard ↗Kate Chaney opposes the bill because it would permanently expand ASIOAustralia’s domestic security intelligence agency.'s coercive questioning powers without adequate scrutiny, and argues that the sunset clauseA rule making powers expire automatically. should be retained or periodic parliamentary reviews made mandatory.
Read in Hansard ↗Hawke says the opposition will support the bill because making ASIOAustralia’s domestic security intelligence agency.'s compulsory questioning powers permanent and updating them for contemporary threats is necessary, proportionate and accompanied by strong safeguards and oversight.
Read in Hansard ↗Helen Haines opposes making ASIOAustralia’s domestic security intelligence agency.'s compulsory questioning powers permanent, arguing that the bill weakens democratic scrutiny and risks normalising executive overreach while leaving important civil-liberties safeguards unresolved.
Read in Hansard ↗All speeches by bloc
8 speakers · 10 contributions · 8 support
“The measures I have outlined in this Bill deliver important reforms to ensure ASIO has the powers it needs to respond to emerging challenges and deliver on its mission to counter threats to Australia's security and ensure that all Australians can be safe and feel safe. The Bill reflects this Government's commitment to ensuring Australia's national security laws continually evolve to protect the Australian community, while ensuring strong safeguards remain firmly in place.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“I support this bill because it serves my constituents in Moore by safeguarding what they build and rely upon. I support this bill because it serves Australia's security without eroding Australia's liberties. I support the bill because it replaces uncertainty with clarity, and pairs it with accountability. These are the hallmarks of good law in a serious parliament. I commend the bill to the House.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“Terrorists, malign actors and extremists need to get it right once in order to cause destruction, injury and death on a mass scale. ASIO has to get it right 100 per cent of the time, and it needs to be properly equipped to do so. I stand with the Minister for Home Affairs in this important work, and with this government as it prosecutes its commitment to ensuring Australia's national security laws continually evolve to protect the Australian community while ensuring that strong safeguards and public trust and confidence in the process remain firmly in place. I commend the bill to the House.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“This bill reflects the reality of the security environment Australia is now facing. It acknowledges that threats have evolved and extremism is adapting and that our legal framework must do the same. At the same time, it reinforces the principle that strong security powers must sit alongside strong safeguards, oversight and accountability. And it reminds us that laws alone are not enough. As parliamentarians, we must continue to build trust, strengthen social cohesion and ensure people are heard, supported and included. That is how we reduce the conditions in which extremism thrives. That is how we support the work our security agencies do, and that is how we keep Australia safe not just in law but in practice.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“In closing, we should support this bill as it delivers a finely-struck balance between what is necessary to achieve security and what is sufficient to protect the individual rights of Australians. It is necessary in these times to get that balance right. I believe that this bill does and, importantly, it allows our security agencies to do what they need to do to protect Australia and our interests.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“I rise to speak in support of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2025. The central responsibility of this parliament is to keep Australians safe, in their homes and in their communities. The terrible events across the country recently have stressed that duty, and the parliament has responded. We also have a parallel duty to ensure that the powers that we confer upon the government and its security agencies are exercised lawfully, with proportionality and with proper oversight. These objectives are not in conflict. Proper oversight provides a strengthening of our systems of security. As Minister Burke stated earlier in this debate, there are amendments here to ensure the independence and impartiality of the prescribed authorities, further safeguards around questioning powers, and additional reporting requirements to the office of the Attorney-General.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“The ASIO Amendment Bill (No. 2) will help support ASIO to continue that vitally important work.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
Hansard records 3 separate contributions by Tony Burke on this bill. They are grouped here so the speaker is listed once.
Second reading speech
Burke supports the bill, arguing that making ASIOAustralia’s domestic security intelligence agency.'s compulsory questioning powers permanent and extending them to emerging security threats will help the agency operate effectively, while stronger safeguards and oversight will protect individual rights.
“The measures I've outlined in this bill deliver important reforms to ensure that ASIO has the powers it needs to respond to emerging challenges and to deliver on its mission to counter threats to Australia's security and ensure that all Australians can be safe and feel safe. The bill reflects this government's commitment to ensuring Australia's national security laws continually evolve to protect the Australian community, while ensuring that strong safeguards remain firmly in place.”Read this contribution in Hansard ↗
Consideration in detail speech
Burke supports the bill and rejects the proposed amendment, arguing that the government deliberately removed the sunset provision because the terrorism threat environment has changed and the powers remain necessary. He says rapid online radicalisation, including among minors, means these ASIOAustralia’s domestic security intelligence agency. questioning powers are now more essential than ever, with safeguards already in place.
“I wish these powers were not required. I wish what I believe the Howard government had genuinely thought 20 years ago—that this would be something required for a finite period of time—had turned out to be true. I wish the concept of having to compulsorily question minors never arose. The reality is that the arguments now for these powers are stronger than they have ever been, and I cannot pretend to the parliament that I think they're going to go away. Every indicator we have of the direction now is that these powers are more essential than they've ever been.”Read this contribution in Hansard ↗
Consideration in detail speech
Burke rejects the proposed amendments, arguing they would undermine the bill by extending the sunset clauseA rule making powers expire automatically. and unnecessarily directing the PJCIS to conduct a review. He says the government intentionally wants to remove the sunset because the need for these powers has proven ongoing, supporting the bill as drafted.
“In terms of the sunset provision, the government is very deliberately removing the sunset. The sunset provision, when it was brought in, was brought in in the hope that these powers would be temporary. I wish the need for these powers were temporary, but history has shown us that it isn't. One of the key elements of the bill would in fact be undone by reintroducing and extending the existing sunset clause in the act. The sunset clause was put there not simply in the terms in which the member described, as being ongoing accountability; sunsets are put there in the hope that one day they won't be required. Since that time, the need for these powers has only become stronger. That's the reason why the government has decided to put to the parliament that the sunset be removed.”Read this contribution in Hansard ↗
5 speakers · 4 support · 1 mixed
“The opposition will be supporting the passage of this bill. We do so because the changes it encompasses are reasonable and responsive to the threats that Australia face. We've just seen the tragic attempt at Bondi to undermine national security, to directly threaten not just Australians of Jewish descent but the safety and order of our streets to strike fear and terror into our whole society. As a society, we stood up and resisted the terrorists at Bondi, and we have said to them that they will not strike fear and terror into our hearts or on our streets or divide us further. The country has come together.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“We do support these bills. They are important. I'm glad that the PJCIS has run ruler over them, and I commend them to the House.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“While this bill is essential, it should not be the end of the conversation when it comes to equipping our intelligence agencies to navigate our current threat environment. More needs to be done to prevent emerging threats in the current security environment post Bondi, particularly threats emanating from radical Islamist extremism. Following the Bondi attack, the coalition's antisemitism, extremism and counterterrorism taskforce called for a broader package of reforms to modernise Australia's counterterrorism framework. This includes updates to control order regimes, surveillance capabilities and other preventive powers. These commonsense measures would complement the intelligence tools provided in this bill and help ensure Australia's counterterrorism laws remain effective in a heightened and evolving threat environment. This bill is a step in the right direction, but much more must be done to properly equip our intelligence and security agencies to navigate the complex threat environment we face today.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“The proposed amendments to oversight and administrative arrangements are also broadly sensible. However, we do not accept that these powers should operate indefinitely without further parliamentary review. The coalition's position is that a sunset clause must remain in the bill. We therefore call for the amendment to retain a sunset clause for three years, and we are thankful the government has agreed to this call. Subject to the passage of that amendment, the opposition will support the remaining measures in the bill.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“The provision of this bill is very important and tragically necessary. I wish it were not and we didn't have to support these types of powers. One of the things I also support is the ongoing review of these powers and sunset clauses so that there's an acknowledgement that they've not become a permanent state of affairs. But we know what happens when they don't exist. It makes Australians weaker and less safe, and that's the basis on which I'm prepared to support the legislation.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
1 speaker · 1 support
“I don't doubt for one second the patriotism of the Prime Minister or anything like that. Dismiss any idea that I have such an inclination—I don't. But we have to understand that, given where we are right now, in the western Pacific, and noting what is happening in real time around Australia and within Australia, the circumstances that we find ourselves in are entirely different to what they would have been 20 years ago or 30 years ago, and the technology and capacity that is here now is multiple times more complicated and more destructive than what we would have had 20, 30 or 40 years ago. This is way beyond Cold War clumsiness, the Petrov affair and Kim Philby—that's all interesting reading. This is sleeping code, whether it's in the banking sector or whether it's in critical infrastructure, which has a 24/7 process of observation. For this purpose I support the bill, but I say: it's really just a forerunner of the far greater work that we need to do.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
5 speakers · 7 contributions · 1 support · 2 oppose · 2 mixed
Hansard records 2 separate contributions by Kate Chaney on this bill. They are grouped here so the speaker is listed once.
Second reading speech
Kate Chaney opposes the bill because it would permanently expand ASIOAustralia’s domestic security intelligence agency.'s coercive questioning powers without adequate scrutiny, and argues that the sunset clauseA rule making powers expire automatically. should be retained or periodic parliamentary reviews made mandatory.
“Trust grows when powers are used proportionately and overseen credibly. That's why this bill should balance operational need with visible accountability. We cannot afford a false choice between security and rights. Our task is to hold both in view, recognising that the legitimacy of our security laws is itself a national security asset, a measured framework which embeds periodic review and oversight, helps protect against overreach, and sustains the social licence that ASIO needs to do its job effectively. I think there is a credible, constructive middle course: retain the sunset clause consistent with two decades of practice and continue to ensure these powers remain proportionate and appropriate; and/or legislate mandatory periodic reviews by the PJCIS to ensure that parliament periodically tests whether the powers remain necessary and proportionate in light of contemporary risks and practice. Either path respects both the complexity of our security environment and the integrity of our democracy. Either path acknowledges that extraordinary powers deserve extraordinary oversight.”Read this contribution in Hansard ↗
Consideration in detail speech
Kate Chaney argues the bill should be amended to preserve stronger oversight of ASIOAustralia’s domestic security intelligence agency.’s compulsory questioning powers by retaining the sunset clauseA rule making powers expire automatically. until 2030 and requiring mandatory Parliamentary Joint Committee review. She says making the powers permanent while also expanding them goes too far without added safeguards, indicating only qualified support tied to those changes.
“My amendments are straightforward—keep the sunset in place and/or mandate a periodic review. This is about maintaining trust in the way we exercise extraordinary powers, not about tying ASIO's hands. The first amendment would retain the sunset clause in section 34JF of the ASIO Act so compulsory questioning powers remain subject to regular renewal by parliament. This is the safeguard we've applied since these powers were first introduced, and it's functioned as intended, prompting scrutiny and public justification before each extension. The second amendment requires a mandatory statutory review of division 3 of part 3. At present, the PJCIS may choose to review these powers. My amendment would require it to do so, ensuring the parliament periodically tests whether the powers remain necessary and proportionate in light of contemporary risks and practice. This directly answers concerns that current safeguards are marginal, given the breadth of the regime and the proposed expansion.”Read this contribution in Hansard ↗
“I acknowledge that ASIO has used these powers at a discretionary level over the past 20 years and that they have cited the complex, challenging and changing nature of the threat environment as a reason they continue. This bill, though, removes the sunset clause and replaces it with a statutory review in three years. I share the view expressed by the Law Council and others that the sunset clause signals the extraordinary nature of compulsory questioning powers. The very restraint in their use underscores the function of the sunset clause. And by requiring parliament to regularly revisit them, the sunset clause delivers the accountability and balance that were central to its original purpose. It ensures that extraordinary powers remain subject to deliberate democratic scrutiny by us—by the parliament—retaining the check and balance that was a condition of Labor's support back in 2003 and that has proven its value over decades.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“Another really concerning element of the bill is that a person's access to legal representation can be restricted and the lawyer of their choosing can be removed and replaced. How on earth is this happening in Australian law? The Australian Human Rights Commission has been clear on this. These limits on legal representation are not justified and they breach rights Australia has signed up to under international law. There is no equivalent regime in any other country in the Five Eyes alliance—not the US, not the UK, not Canada, not New Zealand, only here. Let that sink in. Australia is doing things that not even the US will do to their citizens. I don't understand how senators can, hand on heart, vote for this sort of legislation. I'll move amendments that seek to make two changes to this bill. The first will remove the power to compulsorily question children. As we've heard, ASIO say this is unnecessary. Home Affairs don't be see the reason for it. It seems to be only the major parties that think we should be compulsorily questioning—”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“The Australian Security Intelligence Organisation plays a very important role in upholding Australia's national security in identifying and disrupting threats and keeping Australians safe. ASIO's compulsory questioning powers are extremely important, and I should note that there is no suggestion that these powers have been used improperly or excessively in the more than 20 years that they have been in place. But it is not something we should take for granted. I honestly don't believe we should take a set-and-forget approach to the significant powers with which we entrust our national security agencies. These powers are extraordinary and should remain so. I urge the government to consider not making these powers permanent. I support the renewal of these powers, and more so than ever given the devastating terrorist attack in my own community. But, given how broad and powerful these powers are, I urge the government not to remove the sunset clause but to retain the sunset clause.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
Hansard records 2 separate contributions by Zali Steggall, including an amendment-moving contribution. They are grouped here so the speaker is listed once.
Second reading speech
Zali Steggall opposes the bill because it would make ASIOAustralia’s domestic security intelligence agency.'s intrusive compulsory questioning powers permanent, broaden their scope and retain their application to children as young as 14, weakening parliamentary oversight and children's rights.
“Compulsory questioning is a powerful and intrusive tool. It compels attendance and answers. It criminalises refusal and it conflicts with core legal principles such as self-incrimination and the right to silence. Proposed safeguards in the bill are welcome but incremental, and they don't address the fundamental overreach. The fact that these powers are rarely used is no reassurance. Once permanent, the powers risks becoming normalised and expanded even further. National security and human rights are not mutually exclusive. Australia can be a safe country without enacting disproportionate and unnecessary laws. We can empower intelligence agency while preserving parliamentary oversight, and protect national security without breaching children's rights. Ultimately, Australia's laws must be fair and proportional. They must keep our nation secure but also protect our democracy and its most vulnerable people—children. For these reasons, I will oppose the bill.”Read this contribution in Hansard ↗
Moved amendment
Steggall argues that while ASIOAustralia’s domestic security intelligence agency.’s questioning powers may still be needed, the bill should include stronger safeguards for minors, including mandatory representation during questioning, an eight-hour limit, and a sunset on minor questioning warrants. She supports retaining sunset oversight but criticises the bill as drafted for not adequately protecting children’s rights.
“The human rights statement for the bill states that the Attorney-General must treat a child's best interests as a primary consideration when issuing a warrant for a 14- to 17-year-old. I'll just pause here and note we don't even consider children up to the age of 16 as being mature enough to cope with accessing social media, but we are saying ASIO can compulsorily question a 14- to 17-year-old. There is so much inconsistency in what we consider are the protections we should provide children and where we strip away their rights. My amendment supports that duty by ensuring that a child is never left alone in questioning and is not exposed to prolonged interrogation. I find it quite extraordinary that this is not an amendment supported by the government, I've got to say.”Read this contribution in Hansard ↗
Record
House · Introduced and read a first time
Introduced
The bill was formally presented to the chamber and read a first time, which starts its parliamentary journey.
House · Second reading moved
Second reading opened
A minister or sponsoring member moved the second reading, opening the main debate on the bill's purpose and principles.
House · Second reading debate
Second reading debate
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
House · Referred to Federation Chamber
Referred to Federation Chamber
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
House · Second reading debate
Second reading debate
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
House · Reported from Federation Chamber
Reported from Federation Chamber
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
House · Second reading agreed to
Recorded vote: 106 to 8.
Second reading agreed
The chamber agreed to the bill at second reading, meaning it accepted the bill in principle and allowed it to continue.
House · Consideration in detail debate
Consideration in detail
The chamber considered the bill in detail and dealt with amendments before the next stage.
House · Third reading agreed to
Third reading agreed
The chamber agreed to the bill at third reading, which completed passage through that chamber.
Senate · Introduced and read a first time
Introduced
The bill was formally presented to the chamber and read a first time, which starts its parliamentary journey.
Senate · Second reading moved
Second reading opened
A minister or sponsoring member moved the second reading, opening the main debate on the bill's purpose and principles.
Senate · Second reading debate
Second reading debate
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security
Report tabled 05 Feb 2026
Referred to Committee (27 Aug 2025): Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security; Committee report (5 Feb 2026)
APH bill page notesParliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights
Report 4 of 2025
Considered by scrutiny committee (27 Aug 2025): Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights; Report 4 of 2025
APH bill page notesSenate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills
Scrutiny Digest 4 of 2025
Considered by scrutiny committee (27 Aug 2025): Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills; Scrutiny Digest 4 of 2025
APH bill page notes
