Tania Lawrence (Hasluck, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak in support of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2025. The central responsibility of this parliament is to keep Australians safe, in their homes and in their communities. The terrible events across the country recently have stressed that duty, and the parliament has responded. We also have a parallel duty to ensure that the powers that we confer upon the government and its security agencies are exercised lawfully, with proportionality and with proper oversight. These objectives are not in conflict. Proper oversight provides a strengthening of our systems of security. As Minister Burke stated earlier in this debate, there are amendments here to ensure the independence and impartiality of the prescribed authorities, further safeguards around questioning powers, and additional reporting requirements to the office of the Attorney-General.

ASIO's compulsory questioning powers are among the most serious authorities available to the Commonwealth. They are powers that the parliament has revisited repeatedly over the past two decades, not because we doubt their necessity but because we understand the gravity of granting them. Each review, each sunset extension and each added safeguard reflects a consistent parliamentary instinct: vigilance. This bill acknowledges a changed security environment while reinforcing that instinct. As the Director-General of Security has made clear in ASIO's most recent threat assessment, Australia faces a more complex, more diffuse and more interconnected set of risks than at any time in recent history. Espionage, foreign interference, sabotage, attacks on defence systems, the promotion of communal violence and threats to border integrity are no longer discrete risks operating in isolation. They overlap and reinforce one another and evolve quickly. The bill responds to that reality by extending adult questioning warrants to additional heads of security. This is not about expanding powers for its own sake. It is about ensuring that the tools available to ASIO match the threats it is tasked with countering.

But with expanded remit must come strengthened restraint. One of the most significant changes in this bill is the removal of the sunset clause on compulsory questioning powers. Sunsets have played an important role. They have forced governments to justify the continued use of extraordinary powers and have required parliament to take stock of how those powers operate in practice. The fact that these provisions have been reviewed multiple times by parliamentary committees and independent reviewers should give the House confidence that they have not drifted beyond their original intent. Removing the sunset does not mean removing scrutiny, though. On the contrary: this bill embeds further statutory review by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security three years after commencement. The PJCIS is a committee of which I am proud to be a member.

I want to focus on what I regard as the most important aspect of this legislation: the strengthening of safeguards. The bill tightens the eligibility requirements for prescribed authorities, expanding disqualifying factors to ensure clear independence from the executive, parliament and prosecutorial roles. And that matters. When individuals are compelled to answer questions under warrant, public confidence depends on the independence and impartiality of the authority overseeing that process.

The bill also clarifies and strengthens arrangements for post-charge questioning, ensuring that, where criminal proceedings are underway or imminent, questioning occurs only before appropriately qualified prescribed authorities. This process protects the integrity of the criminal justice process and the fundamental right to a fair trial. In addition, the enhanced reporting requirements to the Attorney-General, including mandatory reporting of any noncompliance or contravention of warrant conditions, reinforce transparency and accountability. These are not procedural niceties; they are core democratic safeguards.

In Hasluck, I represent communities that are richly diverse, outward looking and deeply connected to the world beyond our shores. As well, many of my constituents work in defence-adjacent industries—logistics, resources and advanced manufacturing. Others come from communities with direct lived experience of conflict, authoritarianism and state overreach. When they talk to me about national security, they do not frame it as an abstract debate; they want Australia to be resilient in the face of foreign interference and emerging threats. But they are equally clear that our response must reflect the democratic values that brought many of them to this country in the first place. This is why, for me, safeguards, independence and proportionality are not theoretical concepts. They inevitably shape whether people trust our institutions, cooperate with authorities and have confidence that the government's power is exercised judiciously and fairly.

In previous contributions to this House I have spoken about the importance of proportionality—the idea that strong laws are legitimate only when they are accompanied by strong protections. Australians understand the need for security agencies to operate effectively. But they also expect, rightly, that extraordinary powers will be used sparingly and lawfully and will be subject to rigorous oversight. Public trust is not automatic. It is earned through transparency, restraint and accountability.

This bill reflects that balance. It recognises that security and rights are not competing values but complementary ones. A system that protects rights strengthens security, because it maintains the legitimacy on which our institutions depend. I've spoken previously in this House about the importance of pairing security with humanity and restraint. In August 2025, when speaking on a motion commemorating Hiroshima and Nagasaki, I reflected on the long shadow cast when states pursue security without sufficient regard to human consequences. That contribution was not about history alone. It was about the enduring lesson that power, once normalised, must always be bounded by conscience and law. Similarly, during debate in 2024 on domestic and family violence measures, I spoke about community safety as something that is strengthened, not weakened, when people trust the institutions designed to protect them. That same principle applies here. Intelligence powers are most effective when the public is confident that they are used judiciously, independently and as a last resort.

Finally, this legislation is a reminder of parliament's ongoing responsibility. National security laws are never set-and-forget. They require constant attention, regular review and a willingness to adapt as circumstances change. By modernising ASIO's questioning powers, expanding their scope to meet contemporary threats and reinforcing the safeguards that govern their use, this bill meets that responsibility. It equips ASIO to do its vital work, while ensuring that the exercise of power remains subject to law, oversight and democratic control. I commend the bill to the House.

See this speech in context