Maria Kovacic (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister to the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Hansard source

At the request of Senator Dean Smith, I present Scrutiny digest2 of 2026 of the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills, dated 4 February 2026, together with ministerial correspondence. I move:

That the Senate take note of the report.

I seek leave to incorporate a tabling statement into Hansard.

Leave granted.

The statement read as follows—

Scrutiny Digest 2 of 2026

Chair's Tabling Statement

Wednesday, 4 February 2026

As Chair of the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills, I rise to speak to the tabling of the committee's Scrutiny Digest 2 of 2026.

This Digest contains the committee's consideration of 22 bills introduced between 24 November 2025 and 20 January 2026 and amendments agreed during this period. The committee has commented on 7 new bills and 1 amendment and concludes its examination of 11 previously introduced bills.

I wish to draw Senators' attention to the committee's examination of the exposure draftCombatting Antisemitism Hate and Extremism Bill, which was tabled out of session on 19 January 2026 in Scrutiny Digest 1 of 2026. Some of the measures proposed in that exposure draft bill were retained in the Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism (Criminal and Migration Laws) Bill 2026 and the Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism (Firearms and Customs Laws) Bill 2026, which were passed by the Parliament on 20 January 2026.

The committee has concluded its scrutiny of the exposure draft bill in this Digest, having received prompt responses from the Attorney-General and the Minister for Home Affairs prior to the passage of the legislation as introduced. The committee has, however, reiterated its concerns about the extremely truncated consideration of this legislation under guillotine; each bill being introduced and passed in under 12 hours.

The committee identified a statutory review of the proposed reforms as necessary, and I note that the government's inclusion of statutory reviews by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security in the legislation as passed.

I also wish to highlight an emerging trend that the committee has observed across several ministerial responses considered within this Digest. I refer to the inclusion of statements about the expected or intended operation of proposed legislation in accompanying explanatory materials or ministerial responses—which are often claimed to mitigate the committee's scrutiny concerns.

While such statements are of course helpful to improve the understanding and accessibility of the law, courts have held that they cannot correct deficiencies in the legislation or override the ordinary meaning of its text. Accordingly, the committee will rarely consider statements of intent or expectation alone to be a 'safeguard' for the purpose of moderating the committee's concerns.

In relation to the Freedom of Information Amendment Bill 2025, for example, the committee had previously queried why the Information Commissioner is not required to consider the skills, qualifications and training of a staff member to whom they may delegate their discretion not to investigate an FOI complaint. In their response, the Attorney-General referred to the explanatory memorandum having indicated an employee's experience and training will be considered and their own expectation that the Commissioner will exercise these powers appropriately.

Similarly, this advice outlined the Attorney-General's expectation that, in lieu of a statutory requirement to give reasons for refusing to deal with an FOI request that is considered frivolous, vexatious, harassing or intimidating, agencies will clearly explain their decisions. While these statements are welcome, they beg the question as to why such intentions are not manifested as safeguards in the text of the bill itself.

Finally, I would also address the committee's concluding examination of the ASIO Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2025. Thebill proposes to remove the existing sunsetting clause that applies to the extraordinary coercive powers in Division III of Part 3 of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979, which have been the subject of longstanding committee concern.

The minister has advised the committee that successive reviews and amendments to this framework over time have resolved earlier uncertainties, which now support the compulsory questioning powers framework being made permanent.

The committee takes a different view; that the proportionality of extraordinary powers cannot be assumed once and for all. By requiring Parliament to revisit and reassess measures to ensure they remain properly calibrated and constrained, sunset clauses provide an indispensable safeguard that should not be lightly removed. Accordingly, the committee has drawn these concerns to the attention of senators and has recommended that the sunset clause be retained.

With these comments, I commend the committee's Scrutiny Digest 2 of 2026 to the Senate.

I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.