Kate Chaney (Curtin, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

by leave—I move amendments (1) and (2), as circulated in my name, together:

(1) Schedule 1, item 1, page 3 (lines 4 and 5), omit the item, substitute:

1 Section 34JF

Omit "2027", substitute "2030".

(2) Schedule 1, page 3 (before line 7), before item 2, insert:

1A Paragraph 29(1)(ce)

Omit "if the Committee resolves to do so—".

These amendments introduce important safeguards, and they do so in different ways by amending different parts of the bill. They could work together or separately to achieve the same policy objective, and, for the convenience of the House, I'll speak to both amendments together. The first amendment would retain the sunsetting clause of division 3 of part 3, the compulsory questioning powers, for an additional five years, until 7 March 2030. The second amendment provides for the mandatory review of these powers by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security.

This bill engages some of the most extraordinary powers in our law—compulsory questioning by ASIO. These powers are intrusive and profoundly interfere with multiple rights, including the right to silence, freedom of movement, access to legal representation and the privilege against self-incrimination. They must be paired with robust routine oversight. Since 2003, parliament has applied a sunset clause to ensure periodic rigorous review of these extraordinary powers. On six occasions, parliament has extended the sunset date, because successive parliaments have judged that renewal should be earned and not assumed. Removing this safeguard whilst simultaneously broadening the grounds on which an adult can be subject to compulsory questioning shifts the balance too far from accountability towards permanence.

We all accept that the security environment is challenging and that ASIO must have the effective tools it needs at its disposal, but the legitimacy of those tools depends on proportionality and transparency. The bill proposes to expand adult questioning matters to additional heads of security yet makes the questioning framework permanent by repealing the sunset clause. That combination warrants a more careful approach from us.

My amendments are straightforward—keep the sunset in place and/or mandate a periodic review. This is about maintaining trust in the way we exercise extraordinary powers, not about tying ASIO's hands. The first amendment would retain the sunset clause in section 34JF of the ASIO Act so compulsory questioning powers remain subject to regular renewal by parliament. This is the safeguard we've applied since these powers were first introduced, and it's functioned as intended, prompting scrutiny and public justification before each extension. The second amendment requires a mandatory statutory review of division 3 of part 3. At present, the PJCIS may choose to review these powers. My amendment would require it to do so, ensuring the parliament periodically tests whether the powers remain necessary and proportionate in light of contemporary risks and practice. This directly answers concerns that current safeguards are marginal, given the breadth of the regime and the proposed expansion.

These amendments do not alter warrant thresholds. They do not add operational friction to ASIO, and they no not dilute protections for investigations. They simply ensure that, as powers grow, oversight keeps pace. There's a clear signal from stakeholders that ongoing scrutiny strengthens rather than weakens our security framework. In a 2024 submission to the PJCIS, ASIO's preference was not to abolish sunsetting but to extend it by five years to 2030. While ASIO's 2025 submission favoured making the powers permanent, the organisation specifically recognised that for ASIO to fulfil its mission it must maintain the confidence and trust of the Australian people, parliament and government. Legal and civil society stakeholders, including the Law Council of Australia and state civil liberties councils, opposed making the powers permanent, especially alongside broader adult questioning matters. Their concerns focus on proportionality, human rights impact and the risk of normalising exceptional powers. Making the PJCIS review mandatory speaks directly to these concerns.

Parliamentary scrutiny committees have flagged issues that my amendments would help address. The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights also questioned, among a number of things, the necessity of repealing the sunset and the breadth of the expanded questioning matters, and suggested stronger safeguards, including clearer necessity and proportionality assessments. A regular mandated review is the practical way to ensure those questions are answered with evidence over time.

We want ASIO to succeed in keeping Australians safe. We also want Australians to have confidence that when parliament grants exceptional powers, we renew them deliberately, with eyes open, and only when they remain necessary and proportionate. These amendments would do that. I commend these amendments. (Time expired)

See this speech in context