This bill became law on Nov 4th, 2025.
Transport & communications
The Telecommunications and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2025 (the Bill) amends the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979The main Commonwealth law controlling when agencies can intercept calls and messages, access stored communications, and use that information. (TIA ActThe main Commonwealth law controlling when agencies can intercept calls and messages, access stored communications, and use that information.), Surveillance Devices Act 2004The Commonwealth law setting rules for warrants and the use of devices or other methods to monitor people, places, data or networks. and Crimes Act 1914A Commonwealth criminal law that this bill changes to clarify protections for officers in controlled or undercover operations. to ensure key provisions operate as intended, and to support the proper administration of government, law enforcement, national security and criminal justice processes.
Strict limits on protected network activity warrant informationInformation linked to a network activity warrant, which was mainly meant for intelligence use but can now be disclosed or used in limited ways to support fair criminal trials. left uncertainty about using it for prosecution decisions and criminal disclosure dutiesRules requiring prosecutors to give an accused person relevant material before or during a criminal trial so the trial is fair.. The bill amends surveillance, interception and crimes laws to let that information support fair trials and make related law enforcement, national security and criminal justice powers work as intended.
Australia already had interception, surveillance-device and crimes laws for intelligence, policing and criminal prosecutions, but officials said some provisions were not working cleanly as technology changed, including limits that made it uncertain how protected network activity warrant informationInformation linked to a network activity warrant, which was mainly meant for intelligence use but can now be disclosed or used in limited ways to support fair criminal trials. could be used for prosecution decisions and criminal disclosure dutiesRules requiring prosecutors to give an accused person relevant material before or during a criminal trial so the trial is fair.. After Home Affairs responsibilities were reshuffled in May 2025, Tony Burke MP introduced a technical bill to align portfolio powers, clarify testing and stored-communications access, protect undercover officers and let necessary warrant information support fair trials; Parliament passed it in October and it received Royal Assent in November.
The main criticism was that the bill would expand surveillance and information-sharing powers before Parliament had properly tested the privacy, rights and oversight safeguards. This case was led by Greens senator David Shoebridge, whose attempt to delay the bill until wider surveillance-law reviews and consultation were considered was defeated in the Senate.
Tony Burke MP introduced this bill. In the latest recorded vote on the bill in the Senate, support came from Labor, Liberal, One Nation, Nationals, some crossbench members; opposition came from Greens, Australia's Voice, some crossbench members.
Did it become law?
Yes
Became law 04 Nov 2025
Final passage
No counted final vote
2 recorded votes on the bill were found earlier in passage, but the final chamber agreement was not a counted division.
Passage speed
69 days
From introduction to the latest recorded parliamentary step
Meaning
The Telecommunications and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2025 (the Bill) amends the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979The main Commonwealth law controlling when agencies can intercept calls and messages, access stored communications, and use that information. (TIA ActThe main Commonwealth law controlling when agencies can intercept calls and messages, access stored communications, and use that information.), Surveillance Devices Act 2004The Commonwealth law setting rules for warrants and the use of devices or other methods to monitor people, places, data or networks. and Crimes Act 1914A Commonwealth criminal law that this bill changes to clarify protections for officers in controlled or undercover operations. to ensure key provisions operate as intended, and to support the proper administration of government, law enforcement, national security and criminal justice processes.
(Circulated by authority of the Minister for Home Affairs, the Honourable Tony Burke MP)
The amendments in the Bill have no financial impact.
The Bill is compatible with the human rights and freedoms recognised or declared in the international instruments listed in section 3 of the Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act 2011.
The amendments also provide clearer legal protections for officers involved in undercover operations targeted at taking down sexual abuse syndicates.
The Telecommunications and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2025 (the Bill) amends the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979 (TIA Act), Surveillance Devices Act 2004 and Crimes Act 1914 to ensure key provisions operate as intended, and to support the proper administration of government, law enforcement, national security and criminal justice processes.Telecommunications and Other Legislation Amendment explanatory memorandum
(Circulated by authority of the Minister for Home Affairs, the Honourable Tony Burke MP)Telecommunications and Other Legislation Amendment explanatory memorandum
The amendments in the Bill have no financial impact.Telecommunications and Other Legislation Amendment explanatory memorandum
The Bill is compatible with the human rights and freedoms recognised or declared in the international instruments listed in section 3 of the Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act 2011.Telecommunications and Other Legislation Amendment explanatory memorandum
The amendments also provide clearer legal protections for officers involved in undercover operations targeted at taking down sexual abuse syndicates.Second reading speech
Context
Australia already had interception, surveillance-device and crimes laws for intelligence, policing and criminal prosecutions, but officials said some provisions were not working cleanly as technology changed, including limits that made it uncertain how protected network activity warrant informationInformation linked to a network activity warrant, which was mainly meant for intelligence use but can now be disclosed or used in limited ways to support fair criminal trials. could be used for prosecution decisions and criminal disclosure dutiesRules requiring prosecutors to give an accused person relevant material before or during a criminal trial so the trial is fair.. After Home Affairs responsibilities were reshuffled in May 2025, Tony Burke MP introduced a technical bill to align portfolio powers, clarify testing and stored-communications access, protect undercover officers and let necessary warrant information support fair trials; Parliament passed it in October and it received Royal Assent in November.
Existing surveillance laws leave disclosure uncertainty
The explanatory memorandum said limits on protected network activity warrant informationInformation linked to a network activity warrant, which was mainly meant for intelligence use but can now be disclosed or used in limited ways to support fair criminal trials. needed clarification so prosecutors could meet pre-trial and ongoing disclosure obligationsRules requiring prosecutors to give an accused person relevant material before or during a criminal trial so the trial is fair. while preserving the intelligence purpose of those warrants.
Telecommunications and Other Legislation Amendment explanatory memorandum ↗Home Affairs takes responsibility for the interception law
A new Administrative Arrangements OrderA formal order that allocates laws and government functions to ministers and departments; here it moved responsibility for the interception law to Home Affairs. transferred responsibility for the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act from the Attorney-General to the Minister for Home Affairs, requiring related portfolio references and functions to be updated.
Telecommunications and Other Legislation Amendment explanatory memorandum ↗Tony Burke MP introduces the bill
The bill was introduced in the House of Representatives to amend interception, surveillance-device and crimes laws so key provisions could operate as intended for law enforcement, national security and criminal justice processes.
Parliamentary timeline ↗House passes the bill
The House agreed to the third reading after debate that described the bill as allowing protected network activity warrant informationInformation linked to a network activity warrant, which was mainly meant for intelligence use but can now be disclosed or used in limited ways to support fair criminal trials. to meet disclosure obligationsRules requiring prosecutors to give an accused person relevant material before or during a criminal trial so the trial is fair. and be admitted where necessary for defensible prosecutions and fair trials.
Hansard ↗Parliament passes the bill
The Senate agreed to the third reading and both houses passed the bill in the same form, completing parliamentary passage.
Parliamentary timeline ↗Royal Assent turns the bill into an Act
The Governor-General gave Royal Assent, turning the bill into an Act after its passage through both houses.
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 (01/09/2025): Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security; Committee report (07/10/2025)
Report tabled 07 Oct 2025
APH bill page notesConsidered by scrutiny committee (02/10/2025): Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights; Report 5 of 2025
Report 5 of 2025
APH bill page notesThe bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
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 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.
Recorded vote: 30 to 10.
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 bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
The chamber agreed to the bill at third reading, which completed passage through that chamber.
Third reading agreed to
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
The main criticism was that the bill would expand surveillance and information-sharing powers before Parliament had properly tested the privacy, rights and oversight safeguards. This case was led by Greens senator David Shoebridge, whose attempt to delay the bill until wider surveillance-law reviews and consultation were considered was defeated in the Senate.
Criticism was concentrated in the Greens; the Coalition supported the bill without amendment.
Expanded surveillance powers before safeguards were settled
Senator David Shoebridge argued the bill should not proceed because it broadened surveillance and data-sharing powers without proper safeguards, consultation or scrutiny, creating a risk that intrusive powers would be normalised before privacy and rights protections were resolved.
Delay sought until wider surveillance-law review
The Greens’ second-reading amendmentA proposed Senate change to the motion that a bill be accepted in principle, often used to state opposition or call for delay rather than rewrite clauses. said the bill should wait until Parliament had considered concerns about expanded surveillance powers, including the recent INSLMAn independent reviewer who examines Australia's national security laws and reports on whether they are necessary, effective and rights-respecting. report and the broader review of electronic surveillance laws, rather than making targeted fixes in isolation.
Further sources
Votes
The bill passed both chambers on the voices. The counted divisions below were about amendments or procedure, not 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.
Passed 30 to 10. Support came from Labor, One Nation, Liberal, Australia's Voice, and minor parties and independents. Opposition came from Greens.
Did not vote: Liberal Party
Passed 30 to 12. Support came from Labor, Liberal, One Nation, and Nationals. Opposition came from Greens and Australia's Voice. Minor-party and independent votes were split.
Did not vote: Liberal Party
Recorded amendment and procedural votes grouped by chamber. Expand a vote to see the party breakdown.
Senate
Defeated 15 to 24. Support came from Greens, One Nation, Australia's Voice, and minor parties and independents. Opposition came from Labor and Liberal.
This was a statement-of-principle vote at second reading rather than a direct text change to the bill. Its defeat meant the Senate rejected the Greens' call to delay or oppose the bill over surveillance and privacy concerns, and the bill's second reading could continue.
Did not vote: Liberal Party
This list includes amendment votes, procedural votes and votes on the bill itself.
Parliamentary debate
Start here — lead voices
Tony Burke supports the bill, saying its technical amendments are needed to keep surveillance, interception and undercover-operation laws working as intended as technology changes and online crime grows.
Read in Hansard ↗David Shoebridge says the Greens oppose the bill because it expands surveillance and data-sharing powers without proper safeguards, consultation or scrutiny.
Read in Hansard ↗Tim Wilson says the opposition will support the bill because it gives police and intelligence agencies stronger powers to pursue child abuse, sexual violence, terrorism and organised crime carried out through telecommunications.
Read in Hansard ↗Claire Clutterham supports the bill, saying its technical changes are needed to keep surveillance and law enforcement powers effective as technology changes while preserving safeguards.
Read in Hansard ↗All speeches by bloc
3 speakers · 3 support
“This bill, the Telecommunications and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2025, sets forth a number of very technical amendments that recognise that we are in an era of rapid and constantly changing and evolving technological and cyber development and that law enforcement agencies are being expected to operate in this challenging environment whilst remaining charged with the very serious obligation to protect Australians. More specifically, this bill makes technical amendments to the Surveillance Devices Act 2004, the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979 and the Crimes Act 1914. These amendments are required to clarify or correct provisions in Australia's electronic surveillance and law enforcement frameworks, particularly when they have been rendered less effective due to technological change. The amendments are set out in the various schedules to the bill.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“The Australian government will always ensure that our law enforcement and intelligence agencies have the capabilities they need to keep us safe. This bill will ensure that our agencies can adapt to the rapid evolution of technology used to conduct criminal activity.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“In conclusion the Telecommunications and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2025 will address defects preventing agencies from exercising powers consistent with parliament's intent when enacting the relevant provisions of the Telecommunications Act 1979, the Surveillance Devices Act 2004 and the Crimes Act 1914. I commend the bill to the Senate.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
7 speakers · 7 support
“Of course, we in the opposition are supporting this legislation because we understand how important it is to protect children and, of course, anyone else who is at the end of sexual violence, sexual crimes or any other type of violent crime where people perpetuate or use telecommunications as a mechanism to do harm. It's more important because we understand how much technology has become an enabler of some of the most distressing parts of increased crime. There are lots of different challenges that are now being presented. We know that telecommunications is a very significant part of the networks that organised crime uses. It's a very important part of how terrorist organisations connect with each other, whether it's through mechanisms of distribution of finance, distributing information to others around the promotion and propagation of the information about their crimes, or pathways of coordination for their various different attacks. It's also for other types of harm, where people use telecommunications as a mechanism to distribute the consequences of their criminal conduct and to be able to send it out to consumers as well.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“But, to this bill, we are supporting the Telecommunications and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2025. It ensures key provisions operate as intended, taking in the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979, the Surveillance Devices Act 2004 and the Crimes Act from way back in 1914. It flows from the government's decision to reconstitute the Home Affairs portfolio from the federal election.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“As we have to as a trading country, we import products from sources that might have a malevolent interest in how they work with us, and we have to be absolutely vigilant in everything we do. We have to use every card that we've got to make sure we keep Australia safe. It's not just from Mr Shearer; we've also heard in the past from Mr Burgess and before that from Mr Pezzullo. They have all said the same thing. All these people who've been in the realm of understanding the threats to our nation have the same thing to say. It's no longer a conspiracy theory; it's no longer outlandish; it is in live play and happening now. I'm absolutely certain that those who are on the National Security Committee are fully aware of that. So any form of legislation we can bring in, such as the Telecommunications and Other Legislation Amendment Bill, that allows us the capacity for the better protection of Australia, the better understanding of anything—of getting any intel that we can as to what other people are up to in our nation—we must use.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“The changes in the Telecommunications and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2025 provide essential clarifications to ensure that the agencies that keep our nation safe can continue to do so in an era of rapid technological development. The coalition will always support sensible reforms which ensure men and women serving in intelligence and law enforcement roles have the tools they need to take down criminals, no matter where they are hiding, and the coalition will be supporting this bill without amendment.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“Now, in 2025, the private sector has got involved and we have LEOs, low-Earth-orbit satellites. Thanks to Elon Musk and Starlink, these have revolutionised regional connectivity.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“The changes in the Telecommunications and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2025 provide essential clarifications to ensure that the agencies that keep our nation safe can continue to do so in an era of rapid technological development. The coalition will always support sensible reforms which ensure that the men and women serving in intelligence and law enforcement roles have the tools they need to take down criminals no matter where they're hiding. The opposition will be supporting this legislation without amendment.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“The changes in the Telecommunications and Other Legislation Amendment Bill provide essential clarifications to ensure that the agencies that keep our nation safe can continue to do so in an era of rapid technological development. The coalition will always support sensible reforms which ensure that the men and women serving in intelligence and law enforcement roles have the tools they need to take down criminals no matter where they are hiding. We will be supporting this bill without amendment.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
1 speaker · 1 oppose
“It's interesting—isn't it?—to watch the debate between the government and what goes for a opposition. Of course, when it comes to national security, it's not an opposition; it's a bunch of people in suits acting as a cheer squad for the government. It's interesting to watch what goes for debate on this. There's no reference to the INSLM report. There's no reference to the review being undertaken by Home Affairs. There's no reference to privacy. There's no reference to core democratic principles. There's no reference to any restraint. Instead there's just a big fat rubber stamp from the so-called parties of government, who have never seen a demand or a grasp for power by executive government that they haven't been willing to cheer through this parliament. It goes to show why there are so many concerns about the way this place operates and why there are so many concerns about the creep of surveillance powers, the expanding reach of surveillance powers and the diminishing spaces in which citizens can act without the intrusive hand of the state reaching in, surveilling without notice and impacting upon our privacy. The core reason this happens is because there's a culture in this place of never questioning the next executive power grab that comes, particularly from agencies like Home Affairs and ASIO. It is dangerous to civil liberties, and, in the long term, it's dangerous for democracy. For those reasons, we oppose this bill.”Read the full speech 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 · Second reading agreed to
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 · 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 agreed to
Recorded vote: 30 to 10.
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 · Committee of the Whole debate
Committee of the Whole debate
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
Senate · Third reading agreed to
Third reading agreed
The chamber agreed to the bill at third reading, which completed passage through that chamber.
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 07 Oct 2025
Referred to Committee (1 Sept 2025): Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security; Committee report (7 Oct 2025)
APH bill page notesParliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights
Report 5 of 2025
Considered by scrutiny committee (2 Oct 2025): Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights; Report 5 of 2025
APH bill page notes
