Rushed national security scrutiny
Coalition and Greens speakers said the government delayed acting on the issue, then gave the intelligence committee and outside stakeholders too little time to examine a complex national security bill.
Criminal Code Amendment (State Sponsors of Terrorism)
Current status
This bill became law on Nov 6th, 2025.
Policy area
Immigration, border & security
What does this bill do?
The law creates a process to list foreign governments, agencies or other state bodies as state sponsors of terrorism if they carry out, support or advocate terrorist acts targeted at Australia.
Why was it introduced?
Australia’s terrorism listing laws could publicly list terrorist organisations, but did not cover foreign governments or state bodies. The bill was introduced to close that gap, create offences for state-backed terrorist activity aimed at Australia, and give agencies matching terrorism powers while preserving defences for legitimate dealings.
Broader context
Australia already had terrorism laws for listed organisations, but those laws did not extend to foreign state bodies. In debate, supporters linked the bill to long-running calls from Iranian, Kurdish and other communities for action against the IRGC, and to ASIO’s public attribution of two 2024 attacks in Australia to the IRGC. The bill created the legal machinery for listing foreign state entities, while debate focused on whether the process had been rushed and whether safeguards were strong enough.
Key criticism
The main concerns were about process and safeguards, not about whether Australia should respond to state-backed terrorism. Critics said the bill arrived late but was then rushed through scrutiny, and argued for stronger oversight plus clearer protections for humanitarian aid, journalism and defendants relying on statutory defences.
Who supported it?
Michelle Rowland MP introduced this bill. It passed on the voices.
Introduced in House 08 Oct 2025
Passed House 29 Oct 2025
Passed Senate 06 Nov 2025
Became law 06 Nov 2025
Did it become law?
Yes
Became law 06 Nov 2025
Final passage
Passed without a counted vote
Members called out ‘aye’ or ‘no’ — no individual votes were recorded.
Passage speed
29 days
From introduction to the latest recorded parliamentary step
Meaning
What does this bill do?
-
The law creates a process to list foreign governments, agencies or other state bodies as state sponsors of terrorism if they carry out, support or advocate terrorist acts targeted at Australia.
-
A listing is made by regulation by the Governor-General, on advice from the Australian Federal Police Minister and with written agreement from the Foreign Affairs Minister.
-
The law adds offences for state-backed terrorist acts and for helping listed state sponsors of terrorism, including directing activity, giving support or funding, recruiting, associating, training, membership and financing a state terrorist actA terrorist act targeted at Australia and connected to a foreign state entity under the new Criminal Code framework..
-
Existing terrorism tools, including control orders, preventative detention orders and post-sentence orders, can be used for state-sponsored terrorism. Related police, intelligence, passports, citizenship, surveillance and other laws are updated to match.
-
The offences do not apply retrospectively, and the law includes defences for some legitimate, unavoidable, legal, humanitarian, family or religious dealings with a listed state bodyA foreign government, part of a foreign government, or another body connected to a foreign state..
Show source excerpts
-
The Bill would amend the Criminal Code Act 1995 to allow the Commonwealth to list foreign state entities that have engaged in a state terrorist act, or otherwise supported or advocated terrorist acts targeted at Australia.
Criminal Code Amendment (State Sponsors of Terrorism) explanatory memorandum -
The Bill would create a new legislative framework that would enable the Governor-General to list foreign state entities as state sponsors of terrorism on the advice of the Australian Federal Police Minister, with agreement from the Foreign Affairs Minister.
Criminal Code Amendment (State Sponsors of Terrorism) explanatory memorandum -
New Division 112 would provide for offences in relation to dealings with a state sponsor of terrorism, including directing the activities of a state sponsor of terrorism, the provision of support and funding, membership, association and recruitment.
Criminal Code Amendment (State Sponsors of Terrorism) explanatory memorandum -
Schedule 2 of the Bill would amend Part 5.3 of the Criminal Code to provide that Part 5.3 orders available under Divisions 104 (control orders), 105 (preventative detention orders) and 105A (post sentence orders) of the Criminal Code which are used to respond to terrorism threats are available in respect of state sponsors of terrorism and state terrorist acts in Part 5.3A.
Criminal Code Amendment (State Sponsors of Terrorism) explanatory memorandum -
The new offences proposed by the Bill will not apply retrospectively. Although, the AFP Minister, in listing a state entity, is able to consider, and be satisfied of acts that occurred prior to the commencement of the provision, any criminality attached to the listing would not be retrospective.
Criminal Code Amendment (State Sponsors of Terrorism) explanatory memorandum
Context
Broader context for this bill
Australia already had terrorism laws for listed organisations, but those laws did not extend to foreign state bodies. In debate, supporters linked the bill to long-running calls from Iranian, Kurdish and other communities for action against the IRGC, and to ASIO’s public attribution of two 2024 attacks in Australia to the IRGC. The bill created the legal machinery for listing foreign state entities, while debate focused on whether the process had been rushed and whether safeguards were strong enough.
- Sep 2022
Woman Life Freedom movement strengthens IRGC listing calls
Speakers linked community pressure for action against the IRGC to Jina Mahsa Amini’s death and the Woman Life Freedom movement.
Senate second reading speech ↗ - Feb 2023
Senate inquiry urges action on the IRGC
A Coalition Senate speech said a Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee report tabled in February 2023 recommended listing the IRGC as a terrorist organisation.
Senate second reading speech ↗ - 20 Oct 2024
Sydney kosher restaurant is firebombed
Lewis’ Continental Kitchen in Sydney was later described in debate as one of two confirmed IRGC-directed terrorist incidents on Australian soil.
House second reading speech ↗ - 06 Dec 2024
Adass Israel Synagogue is set alight
The Melbourne synagogue arson was later cited in debate as the other confirmed IRGC-directed incident and as causing an estimated $45 million in damage.
House second reading speech ↗ - 26 Aug 2025
ASIO links the attacks to the IRGC
Parliamentary debate recorded that Director-General of Security Mike Burgess said the IRGC used a covert facilitator network to direct the two attacks; Australia then expelled Iranian diplomats and closed its embassy in Tehran.
House second reading speech ↗ - 08 Oct 2025
Government introduces state-sponsors bill
The bill was introduced to create a listing framework for foreign state entities linked to terrorism targeted at Australia.
Parliamentary timeline ↗ - 16 Oct 2025
Fast committee inquiry draws criticism
A Coalition speech said the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and SecurityThe Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, which reviews intelligence and national security laws and can scrutinise some terrorism listings. held a two-hour public hearing after submitters had only seven clear days to prepare submissions.
House second reading speech ↗ - 06 Nov 2025
Parliament passes the bill
Both houses passed the bill in the same form, and it received Royal Assent on the same day.
Parliamentary timeline ↗
Legislative route
How did it move through Parliament?
House Senate
Introduced 08 Oct 2025
The bill was formally presented to the chamber and read a first time, which starts its parliamentary journey.
Introduced and read a first time
Second reading opened 08 Oct 2025
A minister or sponsoring member moved the second reading, opening the main debate on the bill's purpose and principles.
Second reading moved
Second reading debate 28 Oct 2025
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
Sent to Federation Chamber for debate 28 Oct 2025
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
Referred to Federation Chamber
Federation Chamber debate 28 Oct 2025
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
Second reading debate
Consideration in detail debate 28 Oct 2025
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
Returned from Federation Chamber 29 Oct 2025
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
Reported from Federation Chamber
House third reading agreed 29 Oct 2025
The chamber agreed to the bill at third reading, which completed passage through that chamber.
Third reading agreed to
Introduced 29 Oct 2025
The bill was formally presented to the chamber and read a first time, which starts its parliamentary journey.
Introduced and read a first time
Second reading opened 29 Oct 2025
A minister or sponsoring member moved the second reading, opening the main debate on the bill's purpose and principles.
Second reading moved
Second reading debate 05 Nov 2025
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
Second reading debate 06 Nov 2025
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
Senate second reading agreed 06 Nov 2025
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
Committee of the Whole debate 06 Nov 2025
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
Senate third reading agreed 06 Nov 2025
The chamber agreed to the bill at third reading, which completed passage through that chamber.
Third reading agreed to
Passed both houses 06 Nov 2025
Both houses passed the bill in the same form, completing parliamentary passage.
Finally passed both Houses
Assent 06 Nov 2025
The Governor-General gave Royal Assent, turning the bill into an Act.
Key criticism
The main case against this bill
The main concerns were about process and safeguards, not about whether Australia should respond to state-backed terrorism. Critics said the bill arrived late but was then rushed through scrutiny, and argued for stronger oversight plus clearer protections for humanitarian aid, journalism and defendants relying on statutory defences.
Most collected debate speakers supported the bill; criticism was mainly about timing, scrutiny and safeguards.
Aid and journalism safeguards
The Greens supported the bill but argued that humanitarian organisations and public-interest journalists needed clearer protection when operating in places controlled by listed terrorist organisations or state bodies.
Oversight of new listing powers
The Opposition proposed extending Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and SecurityThe Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, which reviews intelligence and national security laws and can scrutinise some terrorism listings. functions from existing terrorism matters to the new Part 5.3A state-sponsor framework.
Defendants carrying evidential burdens
One Nation supported the bill but warned that defences requiring defendants to carry a burden should be scrutinised carefully, even though it accepted the approach in this case.
Votes
Recorded votes
How the bill itself passed
The bill passed both chambers on the voices, so there is no list of individual Aye and No votes for final passage.
Passed House passed the bill
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
House passed the bill
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 Senate passed the bill
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
Senate passed the bill
Passed on the voices
In a voice vote, members call out Aye or No and the presiding officer judges which side has it. Individual names are only recorded if a formal division is called.
Parliamentary debate
Who spoke, and what they said
Start here — lead voices
Sponsor speech Supports
Michelle Rowland
Rowland supports the bill and urges parliament to pass it because it creates a balanced new framework to list foreign state sponsors of terrorism, adds offences and powers, and strengthens Australia's ability to keep Australians safe.
Read in Hansard ↗ Lead supporting voice Supports
Andrew Wallace
Wallace says the coalition will support the bill because it will help protect Australians from foreign state-backed terrorism, though he argues the government delayed introducing it and rushed its scrutiny.
Read in Hansard ↗ Lead voice Supports
David Shoebridge
Shoebridge says the Greens support the bill and want it passed so Australia can list the IRGC as a terrorist organisation, arguing this is overdue and responds to serious abuses against Iranians.
Read in Hansard ↗ Lead voice Supports
Claire Chandler
Chandler says the coalition will support the bill and wants it passed because it gives Australia stronger powers to designate state sponsors of terrorism and target the IRGC.
Read in Hansard ↗All speeches by bloc
Labor
3 speakers · 3 support
Labor
3 speakers · 3 support
-
Michelle Rowland ★ Rowland supports the bill and urges parliament to pass it because it creates a balanced new framework to list foreign state sponsors of terrorism, adds offences and powers, and strengthens Australia's ability to keep Australians safe.
“In introducing and seeking passage of this bill, the government is standing with all Australians against hatred, violence and division, and I urge the entire parliament to do the same.”
Read the full speech in Hansard ↗ -
Raff Ciccone Ciccone backs the bill and says it should pass because it strengthens Australia's counterterrorism laws, formally enables action against state sponsors of terrorism such as the IRGC, and helps protect Australians.
“Faced with evidence of attacks on Australian soil, we're also going further, and that is formalising the listing of the IRGC as a terrorist organisation. Through this bill, the government is once again doing what responsible governments must do—protecting Australians and defending our national sovereignty. We are closing the gap that allows malicious foreign actors to operate in this country, and we are doing so with clear purpose, firm resolve and proper oversight. These amendments before the Senate strengthen Australia's counterterrorism framework and ensure that our agencies have the tools that they need to act decisively against those that seek to do us harm. This is about keeping Australians safe—the foremost duty of any government.”
Read the full speech in Hansard ↗ -
Nita Green Green says Labor supports the bill and wants it passed because it creates new powers and offences to target foreign states that sponsor terrorism against Australians.
“In concluding on the bill itself, I want to reiterate that the bill sends the strongest possible signal that Australia condemns the actions of foreign states who seek to harm Australians and that any attack targeting Australians will not be tolerated. We must stand in unity against attempts to divide our society. In supporting this bill, this place would be displaying a strong resolve in defence of our sovereignty and our collective way of life. I thank the chamber.”
Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
Coalition
3 speakers · 3 support
Coalition
3 speakers · 3 support
-
Andrew Wallace ★ Wallace says the coalition will support the bill because it will help protect Australians from foreign state-backed terrorism, though he argues the government delayed introducing it and rushed its scrutiny.
“In summary, the coalition supports this very important national security bill. It is long overdue. The federal government's primary responsibility is to keep Australians safe. This bill will assist in that aim. No foreign state entity should think that it can get away with perpetrating acts of terrorism on Australian soil or against Australians—not now; not ever. I commend the bill to the House.”
Read the full speech in Hansard ↗ -
Claire Chandler ★ Chandler says the coalition will support the bill and wants it passed because it gives Australia stronger powers to designate state sponsors of terrorism and target the IRGC.
“The coalition supports this bill unequivocally, but we must also acknowledge the regrettable delay in its introduction. The government had ample warning. The opposition offered their support for legislative change, yet action was only taken after the worst possible outcome—a terrorist attack on Australian soil happened. This reactive approach to national security must end. We must be prepared to call out regimes that use terrorism as a tool of oppression and aggression, we must ensure that our laws reflect the seriousness of that threat and we must stand firm in the defence of our values.”
Read the full speech in Hansard ↗ -
Jessica Collins Jessica Collins says the coalition supports this bill and wants it passed because it strengthens Australia's response to state sponsored terrorism.
“Today I rise to speak in support of the Criminal Code Amendment (State Sponsors of Terrorism) Bill 2025. Terrorism is an ongoing threat to the security, democracy and values of the Australian people, and the coalition will always support sensible legislation that protects our national security. This bill empowers the Governor-General, on the advice of the AFP minister and with the agreement of the foreign affairs minister, to list foreign state entities as state sponsors of terrorism. The bill also introduces new offences for financing, supporting or associating with listed state sponsors and extends existing law enforcement powers to these provisions. The coalition has long called for these reforms, and, while we may disagree with the government on the timeliness of the reforms, they are undoubtedly welcome in tackling the issue of state sponsored terrorism. I am, however, concerned with the government's approach to this legislation and the rushed and inadequate consultation with the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security.”
Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
Greens
1 speaker · 2 contributions · 1 support
Greens
1 speaker · 2 contributions · 1 support
-
David Shoebridge ★ 2 contributions Shoebridge says the Greens support the bill and want it passed so Australia can list the IRGC as a terrorist organisation, arguing this is overdue and responds to serious abuses against Iranians.
Hansard records 2 separate contributions by David Shoebridge, including an amendment-moving contribution. They are grouped here so the speaker is listed once.
Second reading speech
Shoebridge says the Greens support the bill and want it passed so Australia can list the IRGC as a terrorist organisation, arguing this is overdue and responds to serious abuses against Iranians. He also criticises the rushed scrutiny and says the Greens will move amendments to protect humanitarian aid and journalism, while arguing the new power should also be applied consistently to the IDF.
“Let's pass this bill, and let's get on with listing the IRGC. But then let's list the Israeli Defence Force as a state sponsor of terrorism for their actions against Australians. And that doesn't count the obscenity of their actions against millions of Palestinians. No more double standards based on who our purported friends are. That's not justice. That's just politics dressed up as national security. Let's amend the law. Let's allow for state entities to be listed as terrorist organisations, and then let's look clearly at the world and see where the largest state directed terror organisations are. If you cast your eyes fairly across this planet asking, 'Which are the largest terrorist organisations that are state terrorist organisations?' and you don't see the IDF, then you're not looking.”
Read this contribution in Hansard ↗Moved amendment
Shoebridge moves an amendment to shift the debate toward the threat of far-right terrorism, especially the Camp Sovereignty attack, and to urge the government to investigate it as terrorism and ban neo-Nazi groups. The speech text does not make clear whether he wants this bill itself to pass or fail.
“At the end of the motion, add ", but the Senate:”
Read this contribution in Hansard ↗
One Nation
1 speaker · 1 support
One Nation
1 speaker · 1 support
-
Malcolm Roberts Roberts says One Nation will support the bill because it adds reasonable new powers and offences to protect Australians from terrorism and hostile foreign state actors.
“We in One Nation have noticed this increasing trend in Labor-sponsored legislation over the last few years, and that sounds alarm bells to those who are responsible for scrutinising good policy. We're very concerned about this trend. At times, this is a precursor to control and may reflect today's Labor's propensity to control. This reversal of the onus of proof must be carefully scrutinised on each occasion on which it's raised. On this occasion, the government has justified this approach because of the preventive nature of measures that are being enabled to protect the Australian community from targeted acts of terrorism and the high risks of death or injury associated with such acts of terrorism. This bill's additional protections are reasonable in the overall circumstances, given that radicalised Islamic extremists perpetrate relatively frequent terror attacks and Chinese Communist Party agents intimidate and bully law-abiding Australian citizens of Chinese dissent here in Australia. One Nation believes that Australian citizens of all backgrounds must be protected. We support this bill.”
Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
Record
Full record
- Act title
- Criminal Code Amendment (State Sponsors of Terrorism) Act 2025
- Act number
- Act No. 60, 2025
- Became law
- 06 Nov 2025
- Takes effect
-
- Sections 1 to 3 and anything in this Act not elsewhere covered by this table 06 Nov 2025
- Schedules 1 to 3 A single day to be fixed by Proclamation
- Schedule 4 07 Nov 2025
- Administered by
- Attorney-General
- Final law metadata was present in the seed and scaffold; the source bundle’s finalActText field contains the as-passed bill text rather than a separately collected Federal Register Act text.
- Commencement rows were parsed from the bill text.
- Introduction to passage
- 29 calendar days -- Introduced on 08 Oct 2025 and passed both Houses on 06 Nov 2025.
- Introduction to assent
- 29 calendar days -- Royal Assent was also recorded on 06 Nov 2025.
- Recorded divisions found
- 0 -- No counted divisions are recorded in the local scaffold for this bill.
- Proposed amendment sheets found
- 3 -- Local sources include one House Opposition amendment sheet, one Senate independent second-reading amendment, and one Senate Greens committee amendment sheet.
- Status
- Act -- Collected from the APH bill page and seed.
- 08 Oct 2025
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.
- 08 Oct 2025
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.
- 28 Oct 2025
House · Second reading debate
Second reading debate
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
- 28 Oct 2025
House · Referred to Federation Chamber
Referred to Federation Chamber
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
- 28 Oct 2025
House · Second reading debate
Second reading debate
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
- 28 Oct 2025
House · Consideration in detail debate
Consideration in detail debate
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
- 29 Oct 2025
House · Reported from Federation Chamber
Reported from Federation Chamber
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
- 29 Oct 2025
House · Third reading agreed to
Third reading agreed
The chamber agreed to the bill at third reading, which completed passage through that chamber.
- 29 Oct 2025
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.
- 29 Oct 2025
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.
- 05 Nov 2025
Senate · Second reading debate
Second reading debate
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
- 06 Nov 2025
Senate · Second reading debate
Second reading debate
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
- 06 Nov 2025
Senate · 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.
- 06 Nov 2025
Senate · Committee of the Whole debate
Committee of the Whole debate
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
- 06 Nov 2025
Senate · Third reading agreed to
Third reading agreed
The chamber agreed to the bill at third reading, which completed passage through that chamber.
- 06 Nov 2025
Parliament · Finally passed both Houses
Passed both houses
Both houses passed the bill in the same form, completing parliamentary passage.
- 06 Nov 2025
Assent · Assent
Assent
The Governor-General gave Royal Assent, turning the bill into an Act.