Zali Steggall (Warringah, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

We must oppose overreach of power, especially when applied to children, who are the least able to protect themselves. A fair society does not normalise secret, coercive questioning of children. National security should never come at the cost of our fundamental values. Australia can be safe while also upholding human rights and the rule of law. Parliament has a duty to stay vigilant. Democratic accountability is important.

In speaking on the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2025, I want to say at the outset that I have a deep respect for the work of our intelligence agencies, but I also have a responsibility to scrutinise legislation, especially legislation that seeks to make permanent some of the most intrusive powers ever granted to a Commonwealth agency. Espionage, foreign interference, sabotage and politically motivated violence are real threats. We know this. ASIO plays a vital role in keeping Australians safe amidst complex multithreats to national security and to our security here. We know, following the Bondi terrorism attack, that the accountability of our agencies is incredibly important to ensure Australians are safe. That's why—in that very context—parliamentary oversight is so incredibly important when we are looking at and talking about such broad-reaching powers that this bill seeks to make permanent.

This bill seeks to make three significant changes. It removes the sunset clause for ASIO'S compulsory questioning powers, making them permanent. It expands the scope of those powers and, most concerning, it allows the powers to apply to minors as young as 14, despite ASIO previously stating it does not need those powers in relation to children. Compulsory questioning powers were introduced in 2003 post 9/11 as extraordinary and temporary measures. Over the past 20 years, they have been extended repeatedly. This bill seeks to make these changes permanent and mean that we will not, on a regular basis in this place, make sure that there isn't an overreach of power and have the parliamentary oversight that is so important.

Each time this law has been extended, civil liberties groups and the Law Council of Australia have raised concerns. Rather than addressing those concerns, this bill goes in the opposite direction. It expands the powers and makes them permanent. I have a fundamental issue with that, and every member in this place should also have an issue with that. Sunset clauses are crucial democratic safeguards. They force the parliament to look at the evidence and to consider if laws remain fair and necessary. Removing them strips parliament of oversight and undermines accountability. There should be much more scrutiny of why the government is taking this step at this time.

Grounds for compulsory questioning are expanded in this bill. It now includes sabotage, promotion of communal violence, attacks on our defence system and threats to border integrity. ASIO is on the record stating it does not need powers in relation to border integrity, but they have been included in this bill regardless.

Under this legislation, the scope of adult questioning warrants essentially covers ASIO'S entire security remit, a drift far from the original purpose of the legislation post 9/11, when, I remind you, they were meant to be interim exceptional measures being introduced. The government is now taking a step to make these permanent. It's no longer looking at it from an exceptional point of view but as a permanent situation. It means these powers may be applied in situations that do not present immediate or grave risks to the communities. So the very premise on which these powers were first introduced is not at all the basis on which they are argued to continue.

My biggest concern in relation to this legislation is that this bill fails to protect minors. Children as young as 14 can be compelled to answer questions under threat of criminal penalty. Removing the sunset clause prevents parliament from revisiting whether that is appropriate. Is that commensurate and proportional to threats, embedding a process where minors may be forced to participate in secret questioning? Think of that. We as a nation are saying that we are okay with 14 -year-olds being secretly questioned by ASIO. That is the standard the government is asking us to accept. Australia is a signatory of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, which requires that children's best interests be a primary consideration and that they be protected from coercive measures. How is that being given effect in this legislation? I ask that of members of government supporting this legislation. Permanently enacting powers that compel children to be interrogated is not consistent with those obligations under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.

Then there's a real issue about how children could be interrogated and treated under this legislation in the name of all Australians. In 2024, ASIO confirmed that it had never used a minor questioning warrant and no longer saw a strong case to retain the power—yet children remain captured under this bill. Why? If ASIO are saying they do not need these provisions, why is the government persisting and proceeding with this legislation as it stands? Parliament has a duty to oppose the overreach of power, especially when it comes to children, who are unable to protect themselves. A fair society does not normalise secret, coercive questioning of children. I will move amendments to repeal minor questioning powers or, at the very least, retain the sunset clause for children and add new safeguards.

Compulsory questioning is a powerful and intrusive tool. It compels attendance and answers. It criminalises refusal and it conflicts with core legal principles such as self-incrimination and the right to silence. Proposed safeguards in the bill are welcome but incremental, and they don't address the fundamental overreach. The fact that these powers are rarely used is no reassurance. Once permanent, the powers risks becoming normalised and expanded even further. National security and human rights are not mutually exclusive. Australia can be a safe country without enacting disproportionate and unnecessary laws. We can empower intelligence agency while preserving parliamentary oversight, and protect national security without breaching children's rights. Ultimately, Australia's laws must be fair and proportional. They must keep our nation secure but also protect our democracy and its most vulnerable people—children. For these reasons, I will oppose the bill.

See this speech in context