Tom French (Moore, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

In 2026, security is not just borders and bases; it's networks, data and trust. That is the world this bill addresses. The Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2025 modernises ASIO's questioning framework. It keeps what works, fixes what is outdated and strengthens safeguards end to end. Schedule 1, part 1 repeals section 34JF of the ASIO Act. This removes the 7 September 2025 sunset and makes division 3 permanent while keeping the existing safeguards and oversight in place. Schedule 1, part 2 expands the definition of an of an adult questioning matter. Adult questioning warrants may now apply beyond espionage, politically motivated violence and foreign interference. They may also relate to sabotage, the promotion of communal violence, attacks on Australia's defence system and serious threats to Australia's territorial and border integrity.

Schedule 1, parts 3 and 4 strengthen the independence of prescribed authorities. They do this by widening the categories of people who cannot be appointed and by clarifying when appointments may and must be terminated. Schedule 1, part 5 strengthens ministerial oversight. It requires the Director-General to report to the Attorney-General on any relevant non-compliance or contraventions connected with a questioning warrant. This includes breaches of guidelines, procedures, warrant conditions or prescribed authority directions. Schedule 1 part 6 adds a specific safeguard to post-charge questioning and closely related circumstances. In those cases, questioning, and any production of documents, must occur only before a prescribed authority who is a former judge of a superior court.

Finally, schedule 1 part 1 also amends the Intelligence Services Act. This enables the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security to undertake a further review of division 3 three years after this act commences. That is the legislative skeleton.

Now I'll move to the 'why'. Since 2003, ASIO has had compulsory questioning powers under division 3 of part III of the ASIO Act. They have been used judiciously to obtain high-value intelligence in circumstances where ASIO's other powers may not be appropriate. That restraint tells Australians that the power is exceptional and applied only when necessary. But the threat environment has changed profoundly in two decades. Espionage is now digital extraction, not trench coats under bridges. Foreign interference can be covert influence campaigns disguised as community debate. Sabotage can target satellite links, water treatment plants or defence supply chains. Radicalisation can happen in a private chat channel faster than any pamphlet could spread.

A legal framework frozen in 2003 cannot keep Australia safe in 2025. This bill recognises that reality and updates the reach of the power with tighter guardrails. Australians expect strong powers and strong safeguards, not one at the expense of the other. That is what this bill delivers. The Attorney-General must personally approve each questioning warrant. Questioning occurs before an independent prescribed authority who oversees conduct throughout. The Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security can review every stage and inspect records. The post-charge safeguard ensures questioning of a charged person occurs only before a retired judge. That recognises the interface with the criminal justice process and protects fairness.

The strengthened eligibility and termination settings for prescribed authorities reinforce independence. The new reporting requirements to the Attorney-General enhance ministerial oversight in real time. The framework remains targeted, warranted and proportionate. Courts remain the arbiters of guilt and innocence. This bill respects that line and keeps it bright.

Let me bring this home to Moore. In Joondalup, Edith Cowan University's cybercapability is world class. ECU's work with government and industry shows national security runs through suburbs like ours, not just Canberra. ECU'S cyber researchers safeguard the critical systems our community depends on every day. This bill does the same, protecting our institutions and our people. It strengthens capability and accountability together, not one at the expense of the other.

Some will ask whether making the framework permanent opens the door to overreach. The answer lies in the checks: Attorney-General approval; prescribed authority supervision; IGIS review; and a mandated PJCIS review after three years. That combination provides discipline, transparency and renewal.

Others will ask whether the expanded matters are too broad. The matters reflect real-world harms that Australians face today. Sabotage can be disabling of a critical control system from offshore. Promotion of communal violence can be foreign backed agitation designed to fracture social cohesion. Attacks on our defence system can be interference with command, control or supply. Threats to territorial or border integrity include hostile activities short of armed conflict. Each remains subject to the same warrant thresholds and the same oversight. The expansion recognises contemporary risk; it does not loosen standards.

We also hear questions about rights. Rights are protected by process, and this bill strengthens that process. Questioning is time bound, recorded and supervised. Legal representation is available. Protections against self-incrimination apply as provided by law. Complaints and reviews are possible through established oversight bodies. These safeguards are not decorative; they are enforceable and enforced. That is how liberal democracies wield exceptional powers responsibly.

Now I have a word on cost and consultation. The explanatory memorandum states that the amendments have no financial impact. Agencies will operate within existing resources. The reforms were refined through consultation across government with the PJCIS process. Stakeholder feedback sharpened definitions and improved reporting triggers. The framework has been examined repeatedly over two decades and is now being modernised methodically. That's reform done properly not on the run.

I turn to the opposition. The coalition will likely support this bill, and I welcome that, but they've had years in which these reforms could have been made. During that time the threat has evolved rapidly, and reform did not keep pace. This government is providing the clarity that the agencies and public deserve. Our approach is straightforward—capability and transparency. Capability without transparency is risky, and transparency without capability is hollow. We are delivering both. That is the Labor balance. I'd like to return to Moore for a practical example. Suppose a hostile actor targets a research partner connected to ECU's cyber-labs. Traditional powers may not be sufficient to identify the facilitator and method quickly. A questioning warrant approved by the Attorney-General and overseen by a prescribed authority may close that gap. The session is recorded and reviewable, and the outcome is reported to the Attorney-General. If the matter moves to a charge, any further questioning occurs before a retired judge. Parliament would later examine the framework's operation through the PJCIS review. That change shows how power and accountability work together.

Another Western Australian example involves a small Defence supplier helping to secure our systems. If a foreign agent attempts to subvert access credentials, time is critical. The questioning framework can surface who is involved and how the intrusion was orchestrated. The inspector-general can audit the use and the records. The parliament stays informed through mandated reported and scheduled review. That is practical, not theoretical, protection.

For prescribed authorities, independence is not rhetoric. It is defined by law and enforced by rules. The amended eligibility and termination provisions reduce any risk of perceived bias. Tenure settings create clarity about service and departure. Removal grounds are spelled out not improvised. These changes keep the safeguard independent and seen to be independent.

On reporting, the Attorney-General must be informed of relevant warrant conduct. That creates a clearer picture on how powers are exercised and why. It supports ministerial accountability to this parliament. It also assists the PJCIS in its future review. Together these measures embed transparency throughout the life cycle of a warrant. They are practical tools for oversight not paperwork for its own sake. Some may ask whether these reforms restrict operational agility. The opposite is true. Clear rules speed decisions and improve confidence in outcomes. Scheduled review encourages continuous improvement. I want to speak to my younger constituents, studying at ECU and working in local tech firms. Many of you will serve your country by strengthening systems not by wearing a uniform. These laws support that service by ensuring agencies can act quickly and lawfully when you are targeted. These also ensure that your rights are respected and your trust is earned. To local businesses in Joondalup, Edgewater and Woodvale, certainty matters. Permanent powers with clear checks provide certainty. You should not be left wondering whether necessary authority exists when a threat hits your network. You should also not worry that power is used without restraint. This bill addresses both concerns.

National security is not a static portfolio. It is a discipline that adapts as adversaries adapt. The best way to avoid overreach tomorrow is to legislate carefully today. This bill reflects that philosophy. It moves the framework from ad hoc renewal to stable authority under constant scrutiny. It recognises more kinds of modern harm and matches them with proportionate process. It upholds a line between intelligence and prosecution. It respects the role of courts and the rights of individuals. It keeps the parliament firmly in the loop through mandated review. That is how a mature democracy protects itself.

I would like to thank the officials and the oversight bodies who have contributed to the process. I also acknowledge the constructive input received through the prior PJCIS review process. The result before the House is a balanced bill that reflects experience and evidence. The community expects trust in matters of national security.

The business community across Perth's northern corridor depends on secure and predictable supply chains. Students and staff in Joondalup expect strong protections for research security. Families in Kingsley, Padbury and Craigie look for confidence in the protection of democratic institutions. This bill delivers that confidence through stronger powers, clearer safeguards and firm oversight.

Australians want their government to be calm, competent and careful in this domain. That is what this bill represents. It is a careful adjustment, not a sweeping departure. It is grounded in two decades of practice and review. It puts in statute the standards the public rightly expects. It delivers continuity for agencies and accountability for parliament. It keeps Australians safe while keeping Australia itself open, free and lawful.

From the cyberlabs of ECU to the workshops of Heathridge and the homes of Iluka, Mullaloo and Duncraig, these reforms matter. They matter because they reduce risk without reducing rights. They matter because they make the exceptional possible and keep it exceptional. They matter because they ensure the law keeps pace with reality. That is the essence of responsible legislation.

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.

See this speech in context