This bill became law on Aug 26th, 2026.
Immigration, border & security
Adults can be compelled to answer ASIOThe Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, Australia’s domestic security intelligence agency. questions or produce records about four additional kinds of security threat: sabotage, promotion of violence between community groups, attacks on Australia’s defence system, and serious threats to Australia’s territory or borders.
The government said ASIOThe Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, Australia’s domestic security intelligence agency.’s compulsory-questioning powers remained valuable where its other powers were not appropriate, and that warrants were likely to involve people who were not cooperating voluntarily. It said the system needed to keep pace with a more complex security environment. The powers began in 2003 and had undergone five parliamentary reviews and two independent reviews, with Parliament extending their expiry date five times; the minister also said ASIOThe Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, Australia’s domestic security intelligence agency. expected several kinds of security threat to intensify over the following five years.
ASIOThe Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, Australia’s domestic security intelligence agency.’s compulsory-questioning powers were created in 2003 after the 11 September 2001 attacks, and remained available for serious threats while Parliament repeatedly extended their expiry; the government said a more complex security environment meant the system needed updating. The bill widened adult questioning matters to sabotage, communal violence, attacks on Australia’s defence system and serious threats to territory or borders, while adding safeguards, and after passage and Royal Assent it retained a three-year sunset and brought the parliamentary review forward.
David Pocock (Independent) argued that the bill still allowed compulsory questioning of children from age 14, although he said ASIOThe Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, Australia’s domestic security intelligence agency. had never used that power in 22 years and had previously said it no longer saw a strong case for keeping it. He also objected to adding border security when, he said, ASIOThe Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, Australia’s domestic security intelligence agency. and the Department of Home Affairs had not asked for that expansion, and raised concern that a person’s chosen lawyer could be removed. Alex Antic (Liberal) argued that compelling uncharged people to answer questions under threat of punishment cut across the right to silence, and that “promotion of communal violenceActivities directed at promoting violence between different community groups in a way that endangers the Commonwealth’s peace, order or good government.” was too broad and unclear. David Shoebridge (Australian Greens) opposed the scheme more broadly, arguing that warrants were approved by the Attorney-General rather than a judge and that the bill expanded compulsory questioning powers without enough scrutiny.
The government introduced this bill. It passed with support from Labor; opposed by Greens, One Nation, Liberal, some crossbench members.
Did it become law?
Yes
Became law 26 Aug 2026
Final passage
Recorded final vote
1 counted final-passage vote was recorded.
Passage speed
399 days
From introduction to the latest recorded parliamentary step
Meaning
Adults can be compelled to answer ASIOThe Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, Australia’s domestic security intelligence agency. questions or produce records about four additional kinds of security threat: sabotage, promotion of violence between community groups, attacks on Australia’s defence system, and serious threats to Australia’s territory or borders. Existing grounds include espionage, politically motivated violence and foreign interference.
ASIOThe Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, Australia’s domestic security intelligence agency.’s compulsory-questioning powers will expire three years after this law starts, unless Parliament extends them again. The government originally proposed making the powers permanent, but the final law instead moves the previous expiry date of 7 March 2027.
Parliament’s intelligence and security committee may begin a review of the questioning system before the second anniversary of the law’s commencement. This brings the review forward from the third anniversary proposed in the original bill.
More categories of people are barred from overseeing compulsory questioning. They include serving defence personnel, federal public servants and agency heads, federal and state parliamentarians, parliamentary staff, public prosecutors, solicitors-general and Australian Crime Commission examiners.
The Attorney-General may dismiss a questioning supervisor for misbehaviour or incapacity. Dismissal is required if the supervisor becomes bankrupt, has a conflicting job or interest, is no longer eligible, or fails without a reasonable excuse to disclose an interest as required.
After each warrant, ASIOThe Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, Australia’s domestic security intelligence agency.’s Director-General must tell the Attorney-General about actions that broke ministerial guidelines, questioning procedures, the warrant or its conditions, or a direction from the independent person supervising the questioning.
If a person has been charged with a related offence, that charge is unresolved, or a related charge is imminent, ASIOThe Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, Australia’s domestic security intelligence agency. may question them or require records only before a supervisor who is a former senior-court judge. This is intended to reduce the risk that questioning harms the person’s right to a fair trial.
3 Section 34A (definition of adult questioning matter) Repeal the definition, substitute: adult questioning matter means a matter that relates to: (a) the protection of, and of the people of, the Commonwealth and the several States and Territories from any of the following: (i) espionage; (ii) sabotage; (iii) politically motivated violence; (iv) promotion of communal violence; (v) attacks on Australia’s defence system; (vi) acts of foreign interference; whether directed from, or committed within, Australia or not; or (b) the protection of Australia’s territorial and border integrityAustralian Security Intelligence Organisation Amendment Act (No. 2) 2026
Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979 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”.Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Amendment Act (No. 2) 2026
Intelligence Services Act 2001 2 Paragraph 29(1)(ce) Omit “7 September 2023”, substitute “the second anniversary of the commencement of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Amendment Act (No. 2) 2026”.Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Amendment Act (No. 2) 2026
Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979 4 At the end of subsection 34AD(2) ; or (h) a member of the Defence Force; or (i) an APS employee; or (j) an Agency Head (within the meaning of the Public Service Act 1999); or (k) a member of the Parliament of the Commonwealth or a State or the Legislative Assembly of a Territory; or (l) a person employed under the Members of Parliament (Staff) Act 1984; or (m) a Parliamentary Service employee (within the meaning of the Parliamentary Service Act 1999); or (n) the Director of Public Prosecutions or a person performing a similar funAustralian Security Intelligence Organisation Amendment Act (No. 2) 2026
Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979 5 Subsection 34AD(9) Repeal the subsection, substitute: Termination of appointment (9) The Attorney‑General may terminate the appointment of a prescribed authority: (a) for misbehaviour; or (b) if the prescribed authority is unable to perform the duties of a prescribed authority because of physical or mental incapacity. (9A) The Attorney‑General must terminate the appointment of a prescribed authority: (a) if the prescribed authority becomes bankrupt; or (b) if the prescribed authority engages in paid or unpaid work, or has an intAustralian Security Intelligence Organisation Amendment Act (No. 2) 2026
Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979 6 After paragraph 34HA(1)(a) (aa) details of any action taken in relation to the warrant that: (i) did not comply with guidelines given by the Minister under section 8A; or (ii) contravened a written statement of procedures in force under section 34AF; or (iii) contravened the warrant; or (iv) contravened a condition or restriction in the warrant; or (v) contravened a direction given by a prescribed authority in connection with the warrant; andAustralian Security Intelligence Organisation Amendment Act (No. 2) 2026
8 After subsection 34BD(3) Additional requirements for post‑charge questioning etc. (3A) For the purposes of paragraph (1)(b), if: (a) the warrant is a post‑charge questioning warrant; or (b) the subject of the warrant has been charged with a related offence and that charge is still to be resolved; or (c) such a charge is imminent; the warrant authorises the Organisation to question the subject only before a prescribed authority to whom paragraph 34AD(1)(a) applies.Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Amendment Act (No. 2) 2026
Context
ASIOThe Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, Australia’s domestic security intelligence agency.’s compulsory-questioning powers were created in 2003 after the 11 September 2001 attacks, and remained available for serious threats while Parliament repeatedly extended their expiry; the government said a more complex security environment meant the system needed updating. The bill widened adult questioning matters to sabotage, communal violence, attacks on Australia’s defence system and serious threats to territory or borders, while adding safeguards, and after passage and Royal Assent it retained a three-year sunset and brought the parliamentary review forward.
11 September 2001 attacks prompt new ASIOThe Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, Australia’s domestic security intelligence agency. questioning powers
The attacks were cited as the reason Australia introduced compulsory questioning powers in 2003 to address the growing threat of terrorism.
Hansard ↗ASIOThe Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, Australia’s domestic security intelligence agency. compulsory questioning powers begin
The powers gave ASIOThe Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, Australia’s domestic security intelligence agency. a compulsory intelligence-gathering tool that was later reviewed and repeatedly extended by Parliament.
Hansard ↗The government introduces the bill to update ASIOThe Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, Australia’s domestic security intelligence agency. questioning powers
The government proposed making the powers permanent and widening adult questioning matters as it argued the framework needed to keep pace with a more complex security environment.
Parliamentary timeline ↗Temporary extension keeps the powers in force until 7 March 2027
The earlier Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2025 supplied an 18-month extension while this bill was considered.
Hansard ↗Parliament passes the bill with a three-year sunset
The final amendments kept compulsory-questioning powers temporary, moved the review forward to before the second anniversary and added the agreed safeguards.
Parliamentary timeline ↗Royal Assent turns the bill into an Act
The enacted law continued the questioning powers for three years from commencement while broadening the threats they could address and tightening oversight.
Parliamentary timeline ↗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. Later message exchanges with the other chamber were still recorded afterwards.
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.
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
Recorded vote: 26 to 15.
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
Recorded vote: 26 to 15.
The chamber considered amendments before the bill moved to the next stage.
Third reading agreed to :
The House dealt with Senate amendments or requests so both chambers could settle the bill in the same form.
Consideration of Senate message
Both houses passed the bill in the same form, completing parliamentary passage.
Finally passed both Houses
The Governor-General gave Royal Assent, turning the bill into an Act.
Key criticism
David Pocock (Independent) argued that the bill still allowed compulsory questioning of children from age 14, although he said ASIOThe Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, Australia’s domestic security intelligence agency. had never used that power in 22 years and had previously said it no longer saw a strong case for keeping it. He also objected to adding border security when, he said, ASIOThe Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, Australia’s domestic security intelligence agency. and the Department of Home Affairs had not asked for that expansion, and raised concern that a person’s chosen lawyer could be removed. Alex Antic (Liberal) argued that compelling uncharged people to answer questions under threat of punishment cut across the right to silence, and that “promotion of communal violenceActivities directed at promoting violence between different community groups in a way that endangers the Commonwealth’s peace, order or good government.” was too broad and unclear. David Shoebridge (Australian Greens) opposed the scheme more broadly, arguing that warrants were approved by the Attorney-General rather than a judge and that the bill expanded compulsory questioning powers without enough scrutiny.
The government said the wider grounds matched an evolving threat environment and that the bill strengthened oversight, reporting and fair-trial protections. The final law also retained an expiry date—three years after commencement—rather than making the powers permanent.
Votes
The chamber-passage votes come first. Expand a vote to see the party breakdown.
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.
Passed 26 to 15. Support came from Labor. Opposition came from Greens, One Nation, Liberal, and minor parties and independents.
Earlier bill-stage votes
Passed 106 to 8. Support came from Labor, Liberal, and Nationals. Opposition came from Greens. Minor-party and independent votes were split.
Did not vote: Liberal Party, LNP, Nationals
Passed 26 to 15. Support came from Labor. Opposition came from Greens, One Nation, Liberal, and minor parties and independents.
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, and Liberal.
Did not vote: Liberal Party, LNP, Nationals
Defeated 9 to 60. Support came from Greens and minor parties and independents. Opposition came from Labor, Liberal, and minor parties and independents.
Did not vote: Liberal Party, LNP, Nationals
Senate
Defeated 12 to 27. Support came from Greens and minor parties and independents. Opposition came from Labor. One cross-floor vote was recorded: Maria Kovacic (Liberal) voted no. Liberal had split recorded votes.
Passed 26 to 11. Support came from Labor. Opposition came from Greens and minor parties and independents. Liberal had split recorded votes.
Defeated 12 to 28. Support came from Greens and minor parties and independents. Opposition came from Labor. One cross-floor vote was recorded: The Hon Jonathon Duniam (Liberal) voted no. Liberal had split recorded votes.
Defeated 3 to 37. Support came from One Nation. Opposition came from Labor, Greens, Liberal, and minor parties and independents.
Defeated 15 to 27. Support came from Greens, One Nation, and minor parties and independents. Opposition came from Labor. Liberal had split recorded votes.
Defeated 26 to 36. Support came from Nationals, One Nation, and Liberal Party. Opposition came from Labor, Greens, and minor parties and independents. One cross-floor vote was recorded: Andrew McLachlan Csc (Liberal) voted no. Liberal had split recorded votes.
Passed 26 to 11. Support came from Labor. Opposition came from Greens and minor parties and independents. Liberal had split recorded votes.
Defeated 11 to 26. Support came from Greens and minor parties and independents. Opposition came from Labor. One cross-floor vote was recorded: Andrew McLachlan Csc (Liberal) voted aye. Liberal had split recorded votes.
This list includes amendment votes, procedural votes and votes on the bill itself.
The parliamentary record also shows 3 Government amendments agreed without a counted division.
Parliamentary debate
Start here — lead voices
Burke supports the bill, arguing that making ASIOThe Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, Australia’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 ↗David Shoebridge says the Greens will oppose the bill because it expands and extends ASIOThe Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, Australia’s domestic security intelligence agency.'s compulsory questioning and secret detention powers, which he considers an unjustified threat to civil liberties and the rule of law.
Read in Hansard ↗Hawke says the opposition will support the bill because making ASIOThe Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, Australia’s domestic security intelligence agency.'s compulsory questioning powers permanent and updating them for contemporary threats is necessary, proportionate and subject to strong safeguards and oversight.
Read in Hansard ↗Chaney opposes the bill as drafted because it would permanently entrench and expand ASIOThe Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, Australia’s domestic security intelligence agency.'s coercive questioning powers without adequate scrutiny.
Read in Hansard ↗All speeches by bloc
9 speakers · 12 contributions · 9 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 ↗
“Finally, this legislation is a reminder of parliament's ongoing responsibility. National security laws are never set-and-forget. They require constant attention, regular review and a willingness to adapt as circumstances change. By modernising ASIO's questioning powers, expanding their scope to meet contemporary threats and reinforcing the safeguards that govern their use, this bill meets that responsibility. It equips ASIO to do its vital work, while ensuring that the exercise of power remains subject to law, oversight and democratic control. I commend the bill to the House.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“ASIO's compulsory-questioning powers are a valuable intelligence collection tool to protect Australia and Australians from threats to their security. For over 20 years, ASIO has used these powers to obtain high-value intelligence in circumstances where ASIO's other powers were not appropriate. Since the introduction of this compulsory-questioning framework in 2003, it's been the subject of multiple parliamentary and independent reviews, causing the parliament to extend the sunset date of these provisions on five occasions. This bill will make the framework permanent by repealing the sunset provision, in recognition that these powers have yielded high-value intelligence and been subject to multiple reviews, and would be consistent with ASIO's other powers.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
Hansard records 4 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 ASIOThe Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, Australia’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 ↗
Second reading speech
Burke supports the bill, arguing that making ASIOThe Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, Australia’s domestic security intelligence agency.'s compulsory questioning powers permanent and expanding their scope will help address a more complex security environment while strengthening safeguards, oversight and accountability.
“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 provisionA rule that makes legal powers expire unless Parliament renews them. because the terrorism threat environment has changed and the powers remain necessary. He says rapid online radicalisation, including among minors, means these ASIOThe Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, Australia’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 clause 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 ↗
“The government will be seeking to move amendments that ensure that a sunset clause exists for these powers and to ensure that the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security statutory review of operational effectiveness and the implications of the compulsory questioning powers occurs two years after the commencement of this bill. On the nature of the rest of the amendments, I won't go into them, but I will remind my colleagues that the Director-General of Security stated in his annual threat assessment in 2025:”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
6 speakers · 5 support · 1 oppose
“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 faces. 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 ↗
“The Australian people expect their parliament to protect them from serious national security threats. They also expect their parliament to protect the principles and freedoms that define our country. That means being clear-eyed about the threats that we face but careful about the powers that we confirm. It means ensuring intelligence agencies have the tools that they need while ensuring extraordinary powers do not become ordinary by default. For those reasons, the coalition supports the substance of the bill subject to the inclusion of the three-year sunset clause that the government has now graciously agreed to restore. That amendment will preserve the essential balance between national security, accountability and parliamentary oversight and ensure ASIO can continue to undertake its vital work. It will also ensure this parliament continues to do its vital work on behalf of all of those Australians who rightly expect careful and proportionate use of the powers at the heart of this legislation.”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 ↗
“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 ↗
“So I simply won't support a bill that entrenches extraordinary powers at the behest of becoming ordinary. Those powers expand the scope with vague language and treat the fundamental protections of the law as optional. Extraordinary powers should never become ordinary, and I simply will not support this 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 ↗
4 speakers · 4 oppose
“We will oppose this law today, like we opposed these supersized security laws in 2003, like we oppose them every time you tried to extend the sunset clause, because the Greens fundamentally believe that the people in this country deserve rights to protect them against their government. Not only do we say it; we vote that way, we vote on principle, we vote on our policies and we're going to do that today. I move:”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“The Labor Party should stand condemned for being captured by so many vested interests in this place, including the military industrial complex. The coalition should and does stand condemned for the same thing. The Australian Greens will proudly vote against these terrible provisions. We will proudly stand up for the people of Australia against a political duopoly that is determined to turn this country into a police state and a surveillance state.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“What Australia's defence and intelligence organisations need is more transparency and accountability, not the impunity granted by this legislation. At their heart, these laws represent a threat—a threat to our democracy and civil liberties. I'm so proud to join my Greens colleagues in voting against these threats to communities who want to use their democratic right to protest and to speak out and in voting against this bill.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“There is a particular hypocrisy here. In 2003, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese spoke against the expansion of these sorts of ASIO powers—how much changes in 23 years. The Greens are trying to remove the worst elements of this bill, and we will oppose any expansion of these dangerous powers. National security should keep Australians safe. It should not become a back doorstep for suppressing dissent. The real test of democracy is not whether the government can exercise power; it's whether they're willing to constrain their own power. Today, Labor and the coalition are dismally failing that test, and Australians will remember this political cowardice, this power grab and this dodgy deal with the coalition—one of many this week—at the next election.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
2 speakers · 1 support · 1 oppose
“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 ↗
“This bill erodes the rights of all Australians regardless of whether individuals have a desire to commit an act of terrorism. One Nation wants to protect all Australians. That requires specifically identifying and including radical Islamic ideology that drives Islamic terrorism. Once powers like those in this bill are introduced and made permanent, they're almost never wound back; they're here to stay. That's why we oppose it. What's the point of security with no personal freedom?”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
5 speakers · 8 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
Chaney opposes the bill as drafted because it would permanently entrench and expand ASIOThe Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, Australia’s domestic security intelligence agency.'s coercive questioning powers without adequate scrutiny. She argues that the sunset clause should be retained or mandatory periodic parliamentary reviews introduced to protect rights and public trust.
“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 ASIOThe Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, Australia’s domestic security intelligence agency.’s compulsory questioning powers by retaining the sunset clause 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 ↗
Hansard records 2 separate contributions by David Pocock on this bill. They are grouped here so the speaker is listed once.
Second reading speech
David Pocock opposes the bill because it would preserve extraordinary compulsory questioning powers over children and expand ASIOThe Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, Australia’s domestic security intelligence agency.'s powers beyond what the agency requested, despite the restoration of a three-year sunset clause.
“ASIO's powers to question are extraordinary. Many in our communities would be shocked that staying silent under questioning from ASIO means a risk of being sent to prison for five years. Most concerning is the fact that this power applies to children—to any child in this country aged 14 and older. Children don't need to be suspected of any crime at all. To many, these powers sound like those available in an authoritarian state, but they exist in Australian law today. As currently drafted, the bill before the Senate would entrench them in our law forever and expand them further than the agency itself has asked for.”Read this contribution in Hansard ↗
Second reading speech
David Pocock opposes the bill, arguing that it grants ASIOThe Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, Australia’s domestic security intelligence agency. excessive powers over Australians without adequate justification, oversight or access to representation and has no place in a democracy.
“I'd like to take some of the time I have left in my second reading speech to read out excerpts from some of the correspondence I've received from Canberrans. A concerned Canberran who lives in MacGregor told me, 'I object to the frightening level of overreach sought in the name of security with this bill.' A Canberran in Wanniassa said, 'Australia is not and has not and should not be violating our rights by stripping them away without oversight or access to representation if detained per due process.' A concerned Canberran in Gungahlin said, 'I do not believe powers this grotesque and dangerous should be available to any organisation within a democracy.' The views of Canberrans seem aligned with the Law Council, the Australian Human Rights Commission and so many experts and advocates raising alarm at this bill. This bill, in its current form, does not have a place in our democracy. Today, I'll be voting on behalf of Canberrans and experts against this bill.”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 ↗
“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 permanently entrench and expand ASIOThe Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, Australia’s domestic security intelligence agency.'s intrusive compulsory questioning powers, including their use against children as young as 14, while weakening parliamentary oversight.
“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 ASIOThe Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, Australia’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.
Senate · Second reading debate
Second reading debate
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
Senate · Second reading agreed to
Recorded vote: 26 to 15.
Second reading agreed
The chamber agreed to the bill at second reading, meaning it accepted the bill in principle and allowed it to continue.
Senate · Amendments considered
Recorded vote: 26 to 15.
Amendments agreed
The chamber considered amendments before the bill moved to the next stage.
House · Consideration of Senate message
House agreed to Senate amendments
The House dealt with Senate amendments or requests so both chambers could settle the bill in the same form.
Parliament · Finally passed both Houses
Passed both houses
Both houses passed the bill in the same form, completing parliamentary passage.
Assent · Assent
Assent
The Governor-General gave Royal Assent, turning the bill into an Act.
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
