Ash Ambihaipahar (Barton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2025. It's largely a technical bill aimed at amending the compulsory questioning powers in the act. At its core, this bill is about making sure our intelligence laws keep pace with the world around us—a world that is quickly changing, with new threats emerging and extremism on the rise. These changes are not theoretical; they reflect the real pressures our security agencies are dealing with every single day. I want to expand on the context during this speech, while also explaining what this means for the role of being a local MP. While enhancing ASIO's powers is essential, we as elected members must also provide a responsible, reliable and empathetic connection between our constituents and the House.

Security laws alone do not keep this country safe. Trust, social cohesion and a sense of belonging do that. That is how we combat distrust in government and reduce the appeal of extremism. Without this work at the community level, we make the task of our security agencies, law enforcement and judiciary harder, and we jeopardise the safety of our constituents. It is a duty that goes to the core of a local member's work, and one that I do take very seriously.

First, I would like to place these reforms within the security environment we find ourselves in. Mike Burgess, the Director-General of Security for ASIO, has said that Australia has entered a period of 'strategic surprise and security fragility'. He made these comments in February last year. In plain terms, what he's telling us is that the world has become more unpredictable, more volatile and less forgiving of complacency. The threats we face are not always obvious and they do not always look like the threats of the past. He went on to say that this fragility is underlined by eroding social cohesion, declining trust in institutions, and a plague of misinformation and conspiracy. These are not abstract concepts—we see them play out in everyday life in how people talk about politics, how they treat one another online and how quickly misinformation spreads. This isn't just something discussed in reports or briefings. It is something that people are living with every single day. It shows up in the 'us versus them' mentality that increasingly defines public debate, and in the digital echo chambers where false claims are repeated until they feel true.

I acknowledge the particular works of the member for Cowan, the Minister for Small Business, Minister for International Development and Minister for Multicultural Affairs. Dr Anne Aly has done a lot of work in this space, and I think it's important that the chamber should take the time to look at her work that she has contributed in this space.

It's the division and hateful rhetoric we see on our streets online, designed to radicalise Australians who feel left out, angry or alone. We don't need study after study to tell us that we are living in a precarious period. People feel it, they see it, they experience it. I encourage people who don't believe me to just to look at the comment sections of my Facebook posts. It's content that I can't put on the Hansard. It's really difficult that debate our community has resulted in that. That kind of language doesn't appear out of nowhere. It's cultivated, encouraged and amplified, often by people who benefit from that division.

Since that day, many Australians have told me they feel a heightened sense of fear and vulnerability. That's not just in the Jewish communities but across the board. When I began writing this speech, before the Bondi massacre on 14 December, we knew that we were living in a dangerous context, but the horror and the evil that unfolded on that day is something that many of us could not have imagined. It was antisemitism, a vile hatred, that motivated such an attack. In the aftermath, many Australians feel that hatred and insecurity all around them.

I am particularly concerned by the number of young people being radicalised in online spaces. ASIO has warned that this will only increase. In ASIO's submission to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security they note that, in 2020, a third of their counterterrorism case load involved minors. This was aggravated by an increased amount of time spent online during the COVID-19 pandemic. Burgess has said that this cohort is overwhelmingly male, largely Australian born and drawn together not by a single ideology but by a fascination with violence. That detail matters because it challenges some easy but incorrect narratives. I'm not repeating these facts to lay blame. Rather, they show that claims about imported violence are often themselves a symptom of radicalisation, not a reflection of reality.

Our young people are being targeted at one of the most vulnerable times in their lives. They're being told that their loneliness, frustration and lack of opportunities are the fault of a neighbour, migrant or minority group. In truth, the threat is often far closer to home. It is the anonymous online forum that rewards outrage. It's the algorithm that promotes the most extreme content because it captures attention. It is the replacement of real human connection with constant exposure to anger and fear. This is why measures like the social media ban matter. They recognise that what happens online has very real consequences offline, especially for developing minds.

As parliamentarians we see this evolving context play out in our communities and, yet, I also hear something else from constituents: how lucky they feel to live in this country and how strongly they want it to remain a safe and welcoming country. There are two parts to that task. The first is passing legislation like this bill before us and the anti-hate legislation that was passed a fortnight ago. The second part is less visible but just as important. We must ensure we are playing proactive, constructive roles in our communities. Being an MP does not just mean turning up to presentations or events, while I do enjoy that. It means connecting with all these groups, families and religious groups across the electorates and providing them with effective, efficient connection to government. It's a role that I'm very much humbled to be able to have and I'm proud to play a part in it. It is about consistent, genuine engagement. It means speaking with people one on one, explaining decisions early and listening seriously to their concerns. Populism connects with people because it speaks directly and plainly. We can do the same, without the fear, division or extremism that often accompanies it. If we do not, we risk increasing the likelihood that extraordinary powers will be needed more often. We want ASIO to have the powers it needs to keep Australians safe and we want those powers to be used carefully, proportionately and only when necessary. To make that possible, we as MPs must do our part.

In a similar vein, let me explain the amendments that are before us. ASIO has a compulsory questioning warrants framework under the act. The warrants were first introduced by the Howard government in 2003 as temporary measures, and these compulsory questioning powers are a valuable intelligence collection tool to protect Australians from threats to their security. The clauses in question have been used sparingly but continuously over successive governments. Though originally temporary, the sunset clause on these provisions has been extended five times. Each time, it has been subject to multiple parliamentary and independent reviews. These amendments remove the sunset clause and make the regime permanent. By making it permanent, we are formalising an already regular practice and, in turn, providing certainty and clarity to our security organisations.

As it stands, there are only three grounds upon which an adult can be questioned. These grounds are if the adult has engaged in espionage, politically motivated violence or acts of foreign interference. It covers where these acts are directed or committed in Australia or not. We are adding four new grounds on which an adult can be questioned. These are where they engage in sabotage, where they promote communal violence, where they attack Australia's defence system or for the protection of Australia's territorial and border integrity from serious threats. The addition of these grounds gives ASIO the power it needs to investigate any potential threats to Australia's peace and security. Put simply, this ensures ASIO can investigate the full range of modern national security threats, not just the ones we were focused on 20 years ago. I think the power to investigate threats of communal violence is particularly important in the wake of 14 December. Wherever there is an actor spruiking violence against a group of people for simply existing, ASIO should have the power to investigate and question this person before the threat becomes real.

There are also amendments to ensure that, for every questioning warrant, the Director-General must give the Attorney-General a written report containing listed details. These details include any non-compliance or contravention of warrants granted. Such enhanced reporting obligations ensure that these laws are not misused whilst maintaining transparency and accountability.

A prescribed authority is a person appointed by the Attorney-General under subsection 34AD(1) of the ASIO Act. They play a crucial role in ensuring compliance with the law and protecting the rights of the person being questioned. Eligible persons are former judges who have served on a superior court for at least five years, the current president or deputy president of the ART, or a senior counsellor like a barrister who has been enrolled as a legal practitioner for at least 10 years and holds a current practising certificate. These amendments expand the list of persons who are not eligible to be a prescribed authority. It does so to make sure that anyone with a conflict of interest cannot act in this role. They include members of the Defence Force, APS employees or a Public Service agency head, members of parliament, the Director of Public Prosecutions or solicitors-general. They also propose grounds where the Attorney-General may or must terminate the term of the person serving in that role.

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.

See this speech in context