Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Hansard source

In responding to the amendment, I thank the member for Warringah for both the content and the tone of the debate as well. I respect absolutely that everybody is coming to this place wanting to make sure that we get the right balance in terms of respecting everybody's rights and vulnerabilities while also making sure that we keep Australians safe. I don't for a minute think that that there's anything in this amendment where there is an intention to do otherwise than keep that balance. We just have different views on where that balance lies.

The government won't be supporting the amendment that's been moved by the member for Warringah. It's a deliberate decision of the government to remove the sunset provision. It's been reviewed multiple times. The member is right in saying that, when it was introduced, it was believed that it would be a last resort. It was not believed that we would be in the situation that we're in some 20 years later, where we are again in a situation of the threat-alert level being at probable and where we're in a situation where the pace of radicalisation can now happen online, can happen really fast and is increasingly targeting people who are young. The threat environment now is quite different. When you've gone through a situation of doing sunset after sunset, you do get to a point—which the government has arrived at—where there's a genuine belief that the need for this power is not about to go away.

There are multiple safeguards in both the act and the statement of procedures. Minors must only be questioned in the presence of a legal representative, and the minor does have the right to have their representative—a parent or guardian—present. ASIO does have to consider known vulnerabilities. It's highly unlikely that questioning would ever go beyond eight hours. But if there were a situation where that was realistically viewed as a matter of life and death for others, then the flexibility that is currently there should be there and needs to be there. The Attorney-General has to regard whether the warrant would be in the best interests of the minor as a primary consideration.

With respect to the issues of minors, can I give some context as to how the case load for counterterrorism has changed. On our National Support and Intervention Program, we have 230 participants. Half of them are under 24, and 31 per cent are under 18. Of those who were charged with related offences in 2025, 11 out of 19 were minors. Since 2020, operational activity against people under the age of 18—there have been 53 people who have been 17 or younger, with the youngest being 12. Obviously, 12- and 13-year-olds are not part of the powers of this act; it kicks in at 14. We are in a situation where the pace of radicalisation can now be really fast. Getting information as quickly as we can is absolutely essential. Sadly, that increasingly involves minors.

I wish these powers were not required. I wish what I believe the Howard government had genuinely thought 20 years ago—that this would be something required for a finite period of time—had turned out to be true. I wish the concept of having to compulsorily question minors never arose. The reality is that the arguments now for these powers are stronger than they have ever been, and I cannot pretend to the parliament that I think they're going to go away. Every indicator we have of the direction now is that these powers are more essential than they've ever been.

See this speech in context