Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment

Current status

This bill is currently before Parliament.

Policy area

Immigration, border & security

What does this bill do?

Police and courts keep four counter-terrorism systems until 7 December 2029, rather than letting them expire on 7 December 2026.

Why was it introduced?

The government said terrorism threats were coming from a wider range of beliefs, people were being radicalised faster and violence could occur with little warning. It wanted police and court powers due to expire on 7 December 2026 to remain available for another three years. It also said one main system for supervising serious terrorist offenders after prison would reduce duplication.

Broader context

Australia already had a suite of counter-terrorism laws, including control and preventive-detention orders introduced in 2005, but key powers were due to sunset at the end of 2026 as the national terrorism threat level remained “probable” and ASIO warned that radicalisation was accelerating and reaching more young people. The government responded with a bill introduced by Michelle Rowland MP to extend the powers to 7 December 2029, strengthen management of serious offenders and related police tools, and the House passed it on 20 August 2026.

Key criticism

Andrew Wallace (Liberal) argued the government introduced major changes too close to the powers' 7 December 2026 expiry, leaving too little time for scrutiny. He questioned whether replacing renewable extended supervision orders with control orders could remove useful powers once an offender returned to the community. Rebekha Sharkie (Centre Alliance) argued that anyone found guilty of engaging in a terrorist act should have a conviction recorded.

Who supported it?

Michelle Rowland MP introduced this bill. Supportive speeches so far have come from Labor, Liberal, Centre Alliance.

Introduced in House 12 Aug 2026
Passed House 20 Aug 2026
At second reading in Senate 20 Aug 2026
Not yet law —

Did it become law?

Not yet

Final passage

Recorded vote so far

1 recorded amendment or procedural vote was found, but no counted vote on the bill itself was recorded.

Days since introduction

55 days

Updated 06 Oct 2026.

Official record

View on APH

Parliament of Australia bill page

What does this bill do?

  1. Police and courts keep four counter-terrorism systems until 7 December 2029, rather than letting them expire on 7 December 2026.

  2. Serious terrorist offenders leaving prison would usually face control orders — court-set rules on their activities — instead of extended supervision orders.

  3. Young people aged 14 to 17 could face a control orderCourt-set rules intended to reduce terrorism risks. for up to 12 months, up from three months.

  4. Law enforcement agencies could seek electronic-surveillance warrants while serious terrorist offenders are still in custody, to help decide whether to request a control orderCourt-set rules intended to reduce terrorism risks..

  5. Courts considering terrorism-related orders could see relevant guilty findings even when no conviction was formally recorded. The change would not make that finding enough by itself to qualify someone for an order.

  6. State and territory authorities could voluntarily share relevant information with the Australian Federal Police, the national police force, for control-order decisions.

  7. United Nations personnel delivering more kinds of humanitarian, peacebuilding and development work would receive protections under Australian criminal law.

Show source excerpts
  1. The Bill would also extend the operation of Divisions 104, 105 and 105A of the Criminal Code for a further 3 years, until 7 December 2029. These Divisions establish key counter‑terrorism frameworks, including control orders, PDOs and PSOs. The amendments ensure these frameworks will not sunset on 7 December 2026. This will enable future orders to be sought and made under these frameworks, and orders that are currently in place that are not due to end prior to 7 December 2026 to remain in force. This extension is intended to preserve effective and proportionate tools to manage terrorism risks
    Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment explanatory memorandum
  2. The amendments to the PSO framework would reposition control orders as the primary mechanism to impose conditions on serious terrorist offenders following their release from custody in circumstances where it would not be appropriate to seek a CDO. The control order framework in Division 104 of the Criminal Code allows conditions to be imposed on a person by the Federal Court of Australia for the purposes of protecting the public from a terrorist act, preventing the provision of support for or the facilitation of a terrorist attack, or preventing the provision of support for or the facilitatio
    Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment explanatory memorandum
  3. Extend the maximum period for which a control order can be imposed on a young person (between 14 and 17 years of age) from 3 months to 12 months. This amendment is intended to ensure control orders are an effective tool to respond to the growing cohort of young people who pose a threat to the community. It facilitates longer-term support for young people and enables conditions, such as participation in rehabilitative or integration programs, to be imposed for a longer period of time. Importantly, 12 months would be the maximum period for such an order. The court could choose to impose an orde
    Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment explanatory memorandum
  4. The Bill makes consequential amendments to the SD Act and the TIA Act to support the broader reforms to Divisions 104 and 105A of the Criminal Code, which will position control orders as the primary Commonwealth mechanism for managing the risk posed by serious terrorist offenders at the end of their custodial sentence. Currently, law enforcement agencies may obtain warrants to assist in determining whether the AFP Minister should apply for a PSO under Division 105A of the Criminal Code. However, there is no equivalent ability to obtain warrants to inform consideration of whether to seek a cont
    Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment explanatory memorandum
  5. The Bill would make amendments to the Crimes Act and the Criminal Code to remove barriers to the use of information relating to findings of guilt where no conviction has been recorded for the purposes of the control order and PSO frameworks. Enabling this information to be used for the purposes of Division 104 and 105A of the Criminal Code will support the relevant court’s informed decision-making in relation to control orders and PSOs by ensuring the court is able to take into account highly relevant information relating to a person. Paragraph 85ZR(2)(b) of the Crimes Act broadly provides th
    Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment explanatory memorandum
  6. The Bill would also amend the Criminal Code to enable state and territory authorities to voluntarily disclose information to the AFP Minister or to a senior AFP member for the purposes of the administration or execution of Division 104. State and territory authorities are likely to hold information that is highly relevant to various matters relating to Division 104, including considerations as to whether to request, issue, vary and revoke a control order. This amendment would not compel state and territory authorities to provide information, it would only remove barriers to the voluntary provi
    Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment explanatory memorandum
  7. The Optional Protocol was adopted in December 2005 by UN General Assembly Resolution A/60/42, and Australia signed the Optional Protocol in September 2006. In 2009, the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties supported the Optional Protocol and recommended binding treaty action be taken. This amendment gives effect to Australia’s obligations under the Optional Protocol and reinforces Australia’s commitment to protecting those who undertake critical humanitarian, peacebuilding and development work in some of the world’s most challenging environments. To implement the requirements of the Option P
    Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment explanatory memorandum

Broader context for this bill

Australia already had a suite of counter-terrorism laws, including control and preventive-detention orders introduced in 2005, but key powers were due to sunset at the end of 2026 as the national terrorism threat level remained “probable” and ASIO warned that radicalisation was accelerating and reaching more young people. The government responded with a bill introduced by Michelle Rowland MP to extend the powers to 7 December 2029, strengthen management of serious offenders and related police tools, and the House passed it on 20 August 2026.

  1. 2005

    Control and preventive-detention orders begin

    Australia introduced these special counter-terrorism frameworks to manage terrorism risks beyond ordinary criminal-law powers.

    Hansard ↗
  2. 2026

    Key counter-terrorism powers approach their 2026 sunset

    The control-order, preventive-detention, post-sentence-order and terrorism police-power frameworks were due to expire at the end of 2026 unless Parliament extended them.

    Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment explanatory memorandum ↗
  3. 12 Aug 2026

    Michelle Rowland MP introduces the bill

    The bill proposed extending the threatened powers to 7 December 2029 while strengthening arrangements for serious terrorist offenders and investigative powers.

    Parliamentary timeline ↗
  4. 19 Aug 2026

    Australia's terrorism threat level remains “probable”

    A parliamentary speech said ASIO had warned that radicalisation was occurring faster and increasingly affecting children and young people.

    Hansard ↗
  5. 20 Aug 2026

    House passes the bill

    The House completed its consideration of the bill, allowing the proposed counter-terrorism extensions and reforms to proceed to the Senate.

    Parliamentary timeline ↗

How did it move through Parliament?

House Senate
Introduced 12 Aug 2026

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 12 Aug 2026

A minister or sponsoring member moved the second reading, opening the main debate on the bill's purpose and principles.

Second reading moved

Intelligence and Security review 12 Aug 2026

Referred to Committee (12/08/2026); Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security

Referred to committee

APH bill page notes
Second reading debate 19 Aug 2026

The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.

Sent to Federation Chamber for debate 19 Aug 2026

The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.

Referred to Federation Chamber

Federation Chamber debate 19 Aug 2026

The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.

Second reading debate

House second reading agreed 19 Aug 2026

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

Consideration in detail 19 Aug 2026

The chamber considered the bill in detail and dealt with amendments before the next stage.

Consideration in detail debate

Returned from Federation Chamber 20 Aug 2026

The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.

Reported from Federation Chamber

House third reading agreed 20 Aug 2026

The chamber agreed to the bill at third reading, which completed passage through that chamber.

Third reading agreed to

Introduced 20 Aug 2026

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 20 Aug 2026

A minister or sponsoring member moved the second reading, opening the main debate on the bill's purpose and principles.

Second reading moved

Scrutiny of Bills review 20 Aug 2026

Considered by scrutiny committee (20/08/2026): Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills; Scrutiny Digest 10 of 2026

Scrutiny Digest 10 of 2026

APH bill page notes

The main case against this bill

Andrew Wallace (Liberal) argued the government introduced major changes too close to the powers' 7 December 2026 expiry, leaving too little time for scrutiny. He questioned whether replacing renewable extended supervision orders with control orders could remove useful powers once an offender returned to the community. Rebekha Sharkie (Centre Alliance) argued that anyone found guilty of engaging in a terrorist act should have a conviction recorded.

Wallace said the Coalition would not oppose the bill and supported extending the expiring powers. The government said the changes drew on law-enforcement experience, preserved safeguards and would keep the powers effective and proportionate.

Post-sentence safeguards

The revised framework could leave authorities less able to manage serious terrorist offenders after release unless scrutiny confirms that control orders preserve existing operational capability.

Raised by Coalition speakers Julian Leeser and Andrew Wallace Source ↗

Unrecorded convictions

A person found guilty of a terrorist act could still have no conviction formally recorded, which was argued to be inappropriate for conduct of that seriousness.

Raised by Rebekha Sharkie, independent member for Mayo Source ↗

Recorded votes

Amendments at a glance

Recorded amendment and procedural votes grouped by chamber. Expand a vote to see the party breakdown.

House

Defeated

Require convictions for engaging in terrorist acts

Aye 39 No 90

Defeated 39 to 90. Support came from Liberal, Nationals, and Centre Alliance. Opposition came from Labor and Greens. Community Strong Australia had split recorded votes. Minor-party and independent votes were split.

20 Aug 2026

The House rejected the proposed amendment.

Party Recorded votes Aye / No
Labor 0 / 84
Liberal 21 / 0
Nationals 13 / 0
Independent 3 / 4
Community Strong Australia 1 / 1
Greens 0 / 1
Centre Alliance 1 / 0

These are amendment votes, not the final passage vote on the bill itself.

Who spoke, and what they said

Start here — lead voices

Sponsor speech Supports

Michelle Rowland

Australian Labor Party • MP 12 Aug 2026

Rowland supports the bill, arguing it will keep Australia's counter-terrorism powers effective and proportionate by extending key frameworks, improving the management of high-risk offenders and responding to evolving threats.

Read in Hansard ↗
Lead supporting voice Supports

Julian Leeser

Liberal Party of Australia • MP 19 Aug 2026

Leeser says the coalition will not oppose the bill and supports extending essential counterterrorism powers, while reserving the right to seek changes after scrutiny of the proposed framework for managing serious terrorist offenders.

Read in Hansard ↗
Lead non-major voice Supports

Rebekha Sharkie

Centre Alliance • MP 19 Aug 2026

Sharkie supports the bill as a necessary strengthening of protections against a probable terrorist threat, while seeking an amendment to ensure that anyone found guilty of a terrorist act receives a recorded conviction.

Read in Hansard ↗
Lead voice Supports

Tim Ayres

Australian Labor Party • Senator 20 Aug 2026

Ayres supports the bill, arguing it will keep counter-terrorism powers effective and proportionate as threats evolve, while improving the management of high-risk offenders and protections for United Nations personnel.

Read in Hansard ↗

All speeches by bloc

Labor

3 speakers · 4 contributions · 3 support

  1. David Moncrieff Moncrieff supports the bill, arguing that extending and strengthening counterterrorism powers is vital to avoid a dangerous gap in national security while retaining judicial safeguards and parliamentary review.
    “This bill is balanced, this bill is proportionate and this bill plays a vital role in ensuring the continued safety and security of Australians into the future. That's why I commend this bill to the House.”

    Australian Labor Party • MP • 19 Aug 2026

    Read the full speech in Hansard ↗

Coalition

2 speakers · 2 support

  1. Andrew Wallace Wallace says the coalition will not oppose the bill because its counterterrorism powers are necessary and must not lapse, but criticises Labor's delay and demands scrutiny of whether the revised post-sentence framework preserves operational capability.
    “The temporary exclusion order regime was established by the coalition because, where the legal threshold is met, the Commonwealth must retain the capacity to control the timing and conditions of a terrorism linked Australian's return. The coalition also introduced the Criminal Code Amendment (Keeping Australia Safe) Bill 2026. Labor voted that legislation down. Australians deserve a government that plans properly, acts early and gives police and intelligence agencies the tools they need before a risk becomes urgent. The coalition will not oppose this bill, because the powers it extends are important and necessary and should not be allowed to lapse, but the government should not confuse support for these powers with approval of Labor's handling of national security.”

    Liberal Party of Australia • MP • 19 Aug 2026

    Read the full speech in Hansard ↗

Minor parties and independents

1 speaker · 1 support

Full record

Full chat