David Pocock (ACT, Independent) | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to reaffirm my opposition to this terrible bill. The Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2025 is a deeply flawed bill. I set out my reasons when the bill was last considered by the Senate in May, and nothing since has changed other than the fact that I and, I'm sure, most of my colleagues in here have received a lot of calls and emails from people that they are here to represent, raising concerns about the overreach in this bill and raising concerns about the government, without enough justification, having extraordinary powers over Australian citizens.

I'd like to take some of the time I have left in my second reading speech to read out excerpts from some of the correspondence I've received from Canberrans. A concerned Canberran who lives in MacGregor told me, 'I object to the frightening level of overreach sought in the name of security with this bill.' A Canberran in Wanniassa said, 'Australia is not and has not and should not be violating our rights by stripping them away without oversight or access to representation if detained per due process.' A concerned Canberran in Gungahlin said, 'I do not believe powers this grotesque and dangerous should be available to any organisation within a democracy.' The views of Canberrans seem aligned with the Law Council, the Australian Human Rights Commission and so many experts and advocates raising alarm at this bill. This bill, in its current form, does not have a place in our democracy. Today, I'll be voting on behalf of Canberrans and experts against this bill.

Just today, I was at a press conference where Amnesty International and the Human Rights Law Centre and other organisations tabled a petition of over 50,000 Australians calling for a human rights act in this country. I thank the member for Clark, Andrew Wilkie, for his tireless work on a human rights act. He has introduced three bills that would establish a human rights act in this country. His latest attempt was modelled on the government's own work in the House committee that recommended a human rights act two years ago; that was unanimously backed by the parliament. In those two years, we've seen no moves from the government.

It's when you see bills like the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2025 come through that you realise why the Albanese government thinks a human rights act is a great thing in opposition but not so great in government—because it'd be very hard to ram this sort of legislation through via guillotine and not have Australians not only take exception but assert their rights in law. I think this is a time where we should be saying it is time for a human rights act in this country. It's one thing having egalitarian ideals and wanting people to be judged on their character rather than on the colour of their skin, their age or their gender—but that's not in the law in this country. A human rights act would do that.

I commend all those Australians who've been pushing for a human rights act, and I say to the government: you have 94 seats in the other place and you have a Senate crossbench urging you to get to work on a human rights act. Now is the time.

Malcolm Roberts (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus—all are victims of radical Islamic ideology and Islamic terrorism. More Muslims die at the hands of Islamic extremists than at the hands of any other ideology. Australia, Britain, America, Africa, Asia, India, Europe and other continents and countries are targets and victims of radical Islamic ideology. Iran sees tens of thousands of deaths at the hands of radical Islamic ideology, killing the Islamic caliphate's own citizens, yet this bill fails to mention Islam anywhere—and this bill is supposedly about terrorism and security.

The Royal Commission on Antisemitism and Social Cohesion, set up after the Bondi terrorist attack, recently delivered its interim report, saying on page 8 that there is no time urgency for any reforms in relation to the Bondi massacre:

No material or advice from any agency identified any gap in the existing legal and regulatory frameworks that impeded the ability for law enforcement, border control, immigration and security agencies to prevent, or respond to, an attack of the kind that occurred at Bondi on 14 December 2025. No Commonwealth or state intelligence or law enforcement agency has suggested that it was prevented from taking prohibitive actions before or on 14 December 2025 by the then current legislative and authorising framework. In these respects, no issue requiring urgent or immediate action has been identified.

Any attempts to tie this ASIO bill to the two Islamic extremists who perpetrated the Bondi terrorist attack should be dismissed with extreme prejudice.

The Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2025—this bill—originally sought to make extraordinary powers permanent, removing the sunset clause, thereby weakening important safeguards designed to protect civil liberties, accountability and parliamentary oversight. We acknowledge that Labor has agreed to restore the sunset provision as one step to making it less odious. That's a welcome first step from Labor. We acknowledge many, many constituents across our country—thank you to them—who've pleaded with us to oppose this bill, including its many powers. We hear you loud and clear. Government has three core roles: protect life, protect property and protect freedom. Everyone agrees on the importance of keeping Australians safe, and our intelligence agencies play a critical role in that. Omitting and ignoring extremist Islamic ideology, though, means the Albanese Labor government is ignoring all three core roles—especially protecting life.

Islam is an ideology, a way of structuring society—just like communism, socialism and Nazism. It's often used to control through being extremely punitive. It uses control of thought, belief and action using fear, violence or threats. Examples of punishment include the suppression and killing of women, killing non-believers, killing homosexuals, beheading, caning, female genital mutilation and stoning. Radical Islamic ideology goes against Australian values and Western civilisation. It is not compatible with civilised Western society.

Right now, in 2026, Iranians want civilisation. They want progress. They want an end to the Islamic caliphate and its Islamic ideology. Britain, France and many other countries are experiencing high crime rates, lawlessness, mass rapes, brutality and declining living standards due to Islamic enclaves that do not assimilate and that instead seem determined to change their new country into a British caliphate. Stop calling Islam what it is not. It is not a religion of peace. In fact, Islam is an ideology of punitive control rooted in fear. Tell the truth. Stop pandering to political correctness. Call it for what it is and restrict immigration. Protect Australian values, culture, laws and lives. Parts of Britain, France and Europe are now lawless.

We need to be proactive and stop Islamic mass immigration into Australia, and we need to specifically name radical Islam in this bill as a real and existential threat to the security of Australians. I'm reminded of Richard Dawkins's words:

Something you can convert to is not a race. A statement of simple fact is not bigotry.

Kicking out the 230 terrorists who are currently in Australia would be better than supporting legislation that impinges on law-abiding Australians' freedoms. Deport those 230. Send them home now. This is about protecting life, property and freedom, which are all vital for Australians' safety and for human progress. Yet many of this government's members of parliament, including its most senior ministers, actively encourage inhuman, anti-Australian radical Islamic ideology. This shows, clearly, that this bill is not about protecting Australians against the No. 1 terrorism threat to Australia, Australians and the world. It reveals, clearly, that this bill is about giving government agencies added control over Australians.

Ironically, since the introduction of the original legislation in 2003, 23 years ago, only 20 questioning warrants have been issued. We know that ASIO did not use its full powers leading up to Bondi. We know that Liberal and Labor uniparty prime ministers Scott Morrison and Anthony Albanese together removed and stole basic human rights and freedoms during COVID and in loosely worded censorship bills as recently as last year. The suite of control bills and policies in which both have had a hand include the Identity Verification Services Bill 2023; the Digital ID Act 2024 for government digital ID; the Communications Legislation Amendment (Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill 2024, the censorship bill; internet controls for under-16s; and the massive curtailing of cash. Did I mention the Reserve Bank's work on developing digital currency linked to a global digital currency? It was in answer to my questions at Senate estimates. Combined, these six initiatives and bills enable a social credit system to control Australians.

To return to this latest bill, which reeks of control, if the Senate agrees to pass our One Nation amendment to specifically include and name radical Islam in the bill's provisions, we could reconsider our current position to oppose this legislation. Including radical Islam will show that Labor is fair dinkum about security. If not, Labor is not serious about security. Labor's real agenda is control of law-abiding Australians.

We have concerns about many of the bill's provisions. Let me name some: forced questioning without criminal charge; no independent judicial approval process; expanded questioning powers beyond the original terrorism focused rationale, broadening the circumstances in which these powers may be used to matters involving sabotage, promotion of the broadly defined 'communal violence', defence system attacks and territory security threats; and reduced transparency and limited public accountability. The inclusion of 'communal violence', to use your term, is especially concerning because the government's definition expands this beyond violence to say:

promotion of communal violence means activities that are directed to promoting violence between different groups of persons in the Australian community so as to endanger the peace, order or good government of the Commonwealth.

That definition is so vague and so open ended. Some commentators have said that One Nation's stance on immigration, being to the benefit of Australia, leads to fear and violence in the community—that we couldn't protect Australians. One Nation's amendment will remove this vague definition from the matters towards which these powers can be used.

There's another issue. Some aspects of compulsory questioning powers with minors as young as 14 have some merit, but I'll leave the last word to Prime Minister Anthony Albanese who, in his second reading speech on the original ASIO bill in the House of Representatives on 27 May 2003, quoted Hermann Goering, Hitler's Reich Marshal, at the Nuremberg trials:

Naturally, the common people don't want war, but after all, it is the leaders of a country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag people along whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. This is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in every country.

Anthony Albanese continued his speech with these words:

This legislation—

referring to the original ASIO bill—

is without precedent in Australia's post Second World War legal history. Its provisions potentially allow for the mistreatment of ethnic minorities, the suppression of dissent and the detaining and investigation of wholly innocent Australians …

This was Anthony Albanese talking about the basis of today's bill. He went on:

In fact what this legislation represents, indeed, is a threat from the inside. It represents a threat to the very democratic values which we say, quite rightly, distinguishes us from authoritarian, undemocratic regimes.

Yet now, as prime minister, he wants to add harsher powers to control law-abiding Australians—to control!

This bill erodes the rights of all Australians regardless of whether individuals have a desire to commit an act of terrorism. One Nation wants to protect all Australians. That requires specifically identifying and including radical Islamic ideology that drives Islamic terrorism. Once powers like those in this bill are introduced and made permanent, they're almost never wound back; they're here to stay. That's why we oppose it. What's the point of security with no personal freedom?

Alex Antic (SA, Liberal Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to oppose the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2025. This bill doesn't merely fine tune existing arrangements. It breaks in new powers and makes permanent extraordinary intrusions on the liberty of Australians which were always intended to be temporary. In doing so, it flies in the face of the rule of law.

Let's be clear about what is being proposed here, about what these powers actually are and what they do. Compulsory questioning warrants allow ASIO to compel a person who may never have been charged with an offence or may never be charged with an offence to appear and answer questions under threat of criminal penalty. Failure to answer in itself becomes a criminal offence. Telling your family, your friends, your wife or your husband about the situation becomes an offence. These are not ordinary investigative tools. They sit well outside the framework of the traditional criminal justice system.

The original incarnation was introduced in the shadow of 11 September 2001 as a temporary measure to fill a specific gap in our security services. Parliament since then has repeatedly extended them under successive sunset clauses precisely because they are so exceptional. As it currently stands, the bill removes that sunset clause entirely, and I understand there may be a push to return that sunset clause, which is a good thing, but it is also, in the framework of this bill, a very small thing. Powers that were meant to expire becoming a permanent feature of the legal landscape is a problem. Extraordinary powers should never become ordinary. History shows that temporary emergency powers have a long and chequered history and habit of becoming permanent features.

Worse still, the bill actually expands the reach of adult questioning warrants. Currently, that framework is limited to espionage, politically motivated violence and foreign interference, but the definition of an adult questioning matter will now be broadened under this bill to include sabotage and, most alarmingly, the promotion of communal violence. There are other categories of attacks on Australia's defence system and serious threats to territorial and border integrity. Some of these new categories are concerning in their breadth and vagueness. 'Promotion of communal violence' is particularly elastic. What does it actually mean? What does it capture? Does it capture passionate political speech, advocacy that offends certain groups, legitimate protest or religious expression that crosses an often ill-defined line?

In a free society, the state shouldn't be handed an open ended power to compel citizens to answer questions about speech or association that falls short of actual criminality. Vague drafting is the enemy of the rule of law. Citizens should be able to know with reasonable certainty where the line is drawn. This bill, on any measure, blurs that line and makes it very difficult for people to understand whether they could simply be detained and questioned against their will. The bill also retains the capacity to subject children as young as 14 to these processes. On its surface, that alone should give this chamber reason to pause.

Yes, this legislation makes some amendments to prescribed authorities and reporting, but they're modest and they don't cure the fundamental problem, which is the absence of robust, independent judicial oversight. There always should be a tension between compulsory interrogation and the right to silence. That is something which underpins the very nature of our adversarial system of justice. National security is obviously vital, and I think no-one disputes that ASIO has a very difficult and a very important job. But security which is purchased at the price of permanent, expanded and coercive powers that can sweep up people who have committed no crime is a false bargain. The rule of law requires that the state's most intrusive rules remain exceptional, tightly confined, regularly scrutinised and subject to genuine sunset or renewal by the parliament, not just quietly normalised and not just quietly allowed to creep into the norm.

So I simply won't support a bill that entrenches extraordinary powers at the behest of becoming ordinary. Those powers expand the scope with vague language and treat the fundamental protections of the law as optional. Extraordinary powers should never become ordinary, and I simply will not support this bill.

David Shoebridge (NSW, Australian Greens) | Link to this | Hansard source

This is extraordinary, isn't it? We're seeing the Labor Party join up with the coalition to guillotine laws and ram them through this parliament without proper scrutiny on the last day of a sitting week. They're trying to hide it behind other business. They're ramming through laws that are going to supercharge the ability of ASIO to literally pluck you off the street, hold you in secret detention for 24 hours, interrogate you and force you to answer every question with a threat of going to jail if you don't. You don't even have to be suspected of anything. You just might be someone they want to talk to. They're ramming this legislation through to expand the reasons, almost indefinitely, for which ASIO can just pluck people off the street. They're ramming it through today with a guillotine to try and get their dirty business of the security state through and their dirty business of granting ASIO whatever power it wants. They want their dirty business rammed through under a guillotine while no-one's watching.

Do you know what? Look around this chamber, and look at the speakers list, there's no-one from Labor coming in to defend this. It's indefensible. The speaking list has collapsed from Labor because they know that coming in and talking to this is like going for a bath in toxic waste with the public. The coalition, the ones who come here and trumpet about individual liberty and fighting against the state, are in it up to their necks. They agreed to the guillotine, to ramming it through. This is a demonstration, exhibit A, in what is wrong with this place. We're meant to be here protecting democracy. We're meant to be here protecting freedoms. We're meant to be here protecting people on the street from, let's be frank, this place—what Labor does in this place and what the coalition does in this place. Instead, this place is doing a job on the people of Australia and trying to do it in the dark. That's what the guillotine's about. That's why no-one from Labor will come out and speak to it. They want it to go through without anyone watching what they're doing. It's a downright bloody disgrace.

The Greens voted against this legislation when the coalition and Labor first brought it in, in 2003. We voted against it when they tried to constantly have the sunset never set, to extend the sunset time after time after time, and we're voting against it today. We are the only party that has stood in this place not to back in ASIO and secret state and secret detention. We're the only party that stood in this place every single time and said: 'We're on the side of liberty. We're on the side of the Australian public.' We're doing it again today, and Labor and the coalition are on the side of secret detention powers. They're on the side of plucking you off the street and having you interrogated in the dark.

Get this: if this extension of the power goes through, they can pluck you off the street with a warrant. They call it a warrant, but let's be clear: it's a piece of paper. And do you know who's going to sign off on ASIO's powers? People might be thinking: 'Surely, there would be a judge there, right? Maybe even a magistrate. Surely, there's someone independent of government. Surely, this couldn't be done by a politician, could it?' But, no, the person who signs the bit of paper to have you plucked off the street by ASIO and put in a dark room for 24 hours is the Attorney-General, a politician. That's what's being proposed here. Politicians can have you plucked off the street and secretly interrogated for 24 hours by ASIO or the AFP, and they want to expand the reasons why ASIO can do that. They want to expand it to include this concept of 'promotion of communal violence'. Read the definition of 'promotion of communal violence' in the bill, and do you know what it says? It says 'whatever the bloody hell ASIO thinks it is'—that's what the definition says. You could drive a bus through the definition.

When we look at other countries, at history and at how we lost democracy and freedoms, it happens with actions like this. Governments say: 'We need to do this. We need this extreme power over you to protect you. We need to be able to decide whenever we want, however we want, whoever we want. We can just monster them to protect you. Don't you worry, it won't be you. Oh no, it's that lot over there.' Maybe this month, they're coming after people seeking freedom for the Palestinian people. Maybe next month, they'll come after some First Nations activists who are demanding their land back. Maybe next month, they'll decide to go full on against our neighbours and our friends in the Islamic community here. Maybe after that, they'll come after unionists. Maybe after that, they'll come after the Greens—maybe they'll put the Greens higher up the list. That's what's at stake here because that's what history shows us: you give governments these extreme powers, and they use them. You may not think they're coming after you first, but don't you worry; you're on the list. When will we say 'no' to this? When will this parliament not back in ASIO, the secret state, the security state—whatever the hell the government of the day wants. When will we back in the right of Australians to go about their lives and not fear their own government? If this legislation gets through, Australians will have a right to fear their own government—because whenever the government chooses to it can pluck you off the street.

What happens in these secret detentions? I gave a speech a few months ago in this place about a woman who finally felt that she could talk about her experience of being pulled off the street and compulsorily interrogated by the AFP because she'd attended a protest in the city. She had been fearing being put in jail if she told anyone about it—she'd been fearing this for over a decade. She'd been plucked off the street in 2003, and she'd been fearing that if she told anyone—her mum, her dad, her kids, her friends—she'd be put in jail. She could finally speak about it and tell me about it because she was going to take her own life, because she had terminal cancer—that's when she felt she could talk about it. She'd been keeping this fear inside of her for two decades that, if she told anyone about how she was pulled off the street and compulsorily interrogated by the AFP because she'd attended a protest, she'd go to jail. It was the only time she could speak about it—and in her last moments on this planet what was in her mind was telling the truth about what happened to her and being able to finally talk about it. She didn't fear the consequences, not because the law had gone away but because her life was about to end. And Labor and the coalition want to extend these powers and do that to even more Australians. That woman was never suspected of anything; she was just a witness they wanted to interrogate.

What happens under this law? ASIO decide your brother or sister might have gone to a protest, might have signed a petition or might have had a chat in the pub, and they think, 'Well, we don't suspect you of anything, but you might have some information about'—what is it—'promotion of communal violence', or whatever the hell ASIO says. Maybe you're thinking about doing some disruption for a climate protest. Maybe you're thinking about protesting ASIO—I don't know. But they think that there was a discussion there about promoting communal violence. They will go to the Attorney-General and say: 'Look, this is a problem. This person doesn't like ASIO; they're going to have a go at ASIO,' or, 'This person doesn't like Woodside; they're going to go at Woodside.' And they say to the Attorney: 'We want to drag him in and find out who they know, who they talk to. We want to get their emails. We want to get their socials. We want to drag them in.'

The Attorney-General signs a piece of paper and, bang, you get a knock on your door, or you get pulled out of work or you get pulled over on the street, and they take you into a room and they can question you for 24 hours. You can bring your lawyer in at the start, if you can contact them—they don't necessarily give you any time. But if they don't like what your lawyer's doing, they just boot your lawyer out. You are there without a lawyer. You might be worried that something you say could get you in trouble, because you're not sure what the hell—there are no charges in front of you; you haven't been told what it's about. You're just being questioned. You say, 'I don't want to answer that.' They say, 'If you don't answer it, we're going to charge you and put you in jail for up to five years.'

Then, after 24 hours of this—and I think they have to give you a little bit of sleep at some point, and they have to give you some water. They give you a bit of sleep, give you a bit of water, wake you up again and question you again, and they spit you out after 24 hours. You go home. Your partner comes out and says, 'Bloody hell, where were you?' You say, 'I can't tell you.' Your kids are saying: 'Dad, Mum, where were you? What's happened? You missed the soccer. What the hell happened?' You're shaken, you haven't had any sleep and you're in the same clothes you were in. 'I can't tell you. If I tell you, I go to jail. I can't tell you and I can't tell you why I can't tell you.' That's the law you're backing in here. Who the hell does that? Those are some of the most repressive laws you could do. Who could do that to a citizen? They don't even have to be suspected of anything. You lot want to extend this by extending the sunset clause, forever. You want to increase the grounds on which ASIO can come and do this. Is there any wonder you're trying to slip it in in a guillotine?

I look at the speaking list, and there's not a bloody Labor politician on it. The only coalition member who speaks on it is one of—

Karen Grogan (SA, Australian Labor Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Shoebridge, I'll ask you to mind your language in this chamber.

David Shoebridge (NSW, Australian Greens) | Link to this | Hansard source

I withdraw that word starting with 'b'. There's not a Labor member on the speaking list, and the only coalition member is one of them who has the actual guts to come up and say no. But the coalition machine is voting for this, and none of them are willing to even put their name to it and come and explain to the public why they're doing this. You can't explain; if you were to tell the truth, you'd say, 'We're craven, craven to the security state, and we'll do whatever the security state wants'. You've done it every time.

The Prime Minister, the great shrinking man of Australian politics who, in 2003, when this legislation first came here, said, 'Never do that', said:

This legislation is without precedent—

I'm quoting him here; it's on his website, even—

in Australia's post Second World War legal history. Its provisions potentially allow for the mistreatment of ethnic minorities, the suppression of dissent and the detaining and investigation of wholly innocent Australians.

That's why he voted against it in 2003. Those were his words. Then he went on and he said:

An ideological struggle in favour of democracy and freedom cannot be won by giving up democratic values, freedom and respect for civil liberties. This is not a new struggle. Way back in 1800, British parliamentarian Edmund Burke told parliament: 'Bad laws are the worst sort of tyranny'. That statement is as true today as it was when such a far-sighted legislator first uttered it.

Those were the words of the current Prime Minister, a person who has shrunk in office to a degree that he's hard to recognise. The same bloke who said that in 2003—that these laws are a threat to our civil liberties and that they are the worst of tyranny—is now leading a government that wants to supersize them. And no-one from Labor has the guts to explain how that happened; none of them.

Of course, their poodles in the coalition trot along behind them and say: 'Security state? No worries! We'll give it to you.' What's the point of you? Well, the point of you, it turns out, is to take freedoms from Australians, to take liberty from this country, to supersize the security state and to do it in the dark and under a guillotine. You haven't got the guts to actually have a committee discussion about this or to be interrogated in the parliament about your powers. You're happy to interrogate the people of Australia in secret and in the dark, but you won't even stand up in this place and answer questions in committee. That's what the guillotine does. What a disgraceful bunch of hypocrites you all are.

We will oppose this law today, like we opposed these supersized security laws in 2003, like we oppose them every time you tried to extend the sunset clause, because the Greens fundamentally believe that the people in this country deserve rights to protect them against their government. Not only do we say it; we vote that way, we vote on principle, we vote on our policies and we're going to do that today. I move:

Omit all words after "That", substitute "the Senate rejects the bill and is of the opinion that the compulsory questioning warrant scheme is a draconian and unjustified departure from the rule of law that should be repealed".

And I also seek leave to withdraw amendment (1) on sheet 3796.

Leave granted.

Steph Hodgins-May (Victoria, Australian Greens) | Link to this | Hansard source

First of all, I wish to associate myself with the comments made by my colleague Senator Shoebridge, who I think laid out exactly what is wrong with this complete power grab happening today under the cloak of darkness. Once again, this week, we are seeing Labor and the coalition team up to do a dirty deal to ram this bill, the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2025, through the Senate today, with debate being limited to just one hour. That's one hour to debate the biggest expansion to ASIO's coercive interrogation and detention powers in more than two decades. One hour! That is not democracy. This is an extraordinary abuse of parliamentary process, and people in this place, on both sides, should hang their heads in shame. I see they're not even in here to listen to this debate or to engage in this debate. If this legislation is so defensible—

Nita Green (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Tourism) | Link to this | Hansard source

On a point of order, the senator is reflecting on other senators' presence inside or outside of the chamber. Senator Shoebridge also made comments about people being on or off the speaking lists which were misleading the Senate. I'd ask the senator to withdraw.

Karen Grogan (SA, Australian Labor Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Hodgins-May, can you please withdraw those comments.

Steph Hodgins-May (Victoria, Australian Greens) | Link to this | Hansard source

 I withdraw. Members of the coalition and the Labor Party know that these powers will alarm Australians. That is why we're not having a debate. That is why debate is being limited to one hour. That is why this bill isn't going to committee.

This overreach is exactly what parliament is supposed to prevent: governments accruing extraordinary powers without proper scrutiny or without public debate. They do it while the public's attention is elsewhere. The public are grieving the fact that 230,000 people are going to be kicked off the NDIS. The public are grieving the fact that, despite years and years of advocacy to strengthen gambling laws and gambling advertising laws in this country to keep people safe, they got a dog's breakfast that won't work. People are distracted. On the final hours of sitting, on the last day of the fortnight, the government and coalition are teaming up for another dirty deal. Shame on them.

This timing, of course, isn't incidental. They are trying to bury a deeply controversial expansion of secret state powers underneath other major political news. The substance of this bill should alarm everyone who cares about democracy and who cares about freedom of speech and the right to protest—fundamental principles to a healthy, functioning democracy. Under these laws, ASIO can detain and interrogate someone who has not been charged with a crime. They don't even need to be suspected of committing a crime. You cannot make this stuff up. You can be compelled to answer questions, and refusing to answer can carry a prison sentence of up to five years. That's five years in prison for failing to answer questions, and you haven't even been suspected of committing a crime.

As my colleague Senator Shoebridge articulated so clearly, you are prohibited from telling your family, your lawyer or anyone else about what happened—why you were plucked off the street, why you were detained. Imagine those powers being exercised against someone who has done absolutely nothing wrong. How intimidating. How terrifying. Imagine being taken away, interrogated by a secret intelligence agency, denied the opportunity to speak publicly about it and face five years in prison if you refuse to answer questions. That's not the Australia we know. That's not the Australia we're in here to protect. These are not minor administrative powers. They go directly to the relationship between the individual and the state. A 14-year-old could be detained and questioned by ASIO without a lawyer and without court oversight.

This should absolutely horrify us. The new politically motivated violence trigger makes that even more alarming. That phrase risks drawing legitimate political movements, protests and dissent into the national security apparatus. We've already seen the Palestine solidarity movement subjected to extraordinary political and national security scrutiny. Who knows where else this will go? Senator Shoebridge raised some examples, but what about welfare recipients? What about disabled people, who are the very people that this government has shown it is willing to beat down on time and time again? Well, let's see where these laws end up and who they end up interrogating.

People have a democratic right to march, to organise, to campaign, to criticise governments and to demand political change. Freedom of speech is not just the right to say things that the government likes. Freedom of speech matters most when people are saying things that governments find uncomfortable—thin skins. The right to protest matters most when people are protesting against those in power. If people start worrying about whether participation in a protest could put them on ASIO's radar, then you've already begun to chill democratic participation. If that power can be exercised secretly, with limited ability for the person affected to challenge it, of course that danger is even greater, and it is unacceptable.

This is why parliamentary scrutiny matters so much, and the fact that you've sidelined that today is an indictment. Today, Labor and the coalition have decided Australians deserve one hour of debate on this power grab. There is something deeply perverse about using the guillotine to rush through legislation that gives itself, the state, greater powers to restrict people's freedom. The government should be making the case for these powers in the sunlight, not passing them in the shadows.

There is a particular hypocrisy here. In 2003, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese spoke against the expansion of these sorts of ASIO powers—how much changes in 23 years. The Greens are trying to remove the worst elements of this bill, and we will oppose any expansion of these dangerous powers. National security should keep Australians safe. It should not become a back doorstep for suppressing dissent. The real test of democracy is not whether the government can exercise power; it's whether they're willing to constrain their own power. Today, Labor and the coalition are dismally failing that test, and Australians will remember this political cowardice, this power grab and this dodgy deal with the coalition—one of many this week—at the next election.

Mehreen Faruqi (NSW, Australian Greens) | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to add my voice to the chorus of opposition to the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2025. Community members, civil society and legal experts share the Greens' opposition to the major parties' continued efforts in this legislation to undermine our democracy and our civil liberties. I want to associate myself with the excellent speeches from Senator Hodgins-May and Senator Shoebridge. These two parties, the coalition and the Labor Party, were not satisfied by screwing over millions of people this week. They want to tighten the screws even further. All you can do and all you can think about is how we can harm more and more people who live in this country. Why are you here? What is your purpose? Pack up. Get out.

What we have before us are amendments that lock in and expand the worst of the extraordinary Howard-era laws that allow ASIO to force someone who isn't accused of any crime to immediately submit to secret questioning for up to 40 hours. If you're lucky, you're allowed a lawyer during questioning. But ASIO can get approval to strip you of that very basic right too. Where are we living now? Think about what you are doing. If you do get a lawyer these powers will still hamstring them. ASIO can redact their copy of the original warrant, prevent them from asking questions or boot them from the interrogation altogether. This is the gravity of what this legislation is going to do.

How much time do we have, Senator Shoebridge? We've got one hour to debate this. The two sides are very quiet on this because they just want to push it through. All of this is without any judicial oversight of the warrant issue. It's just the rubber stamp of whichever of Australia's notoriously compliant Labor or Liberal attorneys-general happen to be in government and on the ASIO director's speed dial at that particular time.

It's clear that these powers should never have existed in the first place. That's a view I know was shared on record by many Labor members in this place before they decided that they preferred the admiration of national security hawks and warmongers over protecting the democratic rights and civil liberties of ordinary citizens. The government's quiet move to reinsert the sunset clause is a symptom of their confused approach to these powers and this legislation. The Labor Party doesn't know who they are any more. That's pretty clear. It was reckless in the extreme to attempt to bake in the worst of the existing legislation's attacks on Australians' human rights by removing the sunset clause that should have seen these laws expire long ago. It's good that it will stay in, but we maintain that these laws should still be allowed to lapse and should be subject to rigorous parliamentary oversight and regular independent review in the meantime.

In this spirit of recklessness, the bill expands the list of matters on which people can be compulsorily questioned to include the very nebulous 'promotion of communal violence' and 'protection of Australia's territorial and border integrity from serious threats'. ASIO and Home Affairs told the government they didn't think the latter was necessary. We know who is going to be cracked down on by these laws. It is those fighting for justice for Palestine. It is those fighting for climate or for anything else that the government doesn't like.

The submission of the councils for civil liberties to the PJCIS inquiry puts clearly the alarming consequences of these changes, saying that they create 'an incentive for the executive to conduct fishing expeditions against individuals who could not otherwise be investigated under ordinary criminal procedure'. Given the breadth of the concept of political violence, the councils are concerned that the effect of the division is to transform ASIO from an intelligence agency into a secret police force. This is what is happening here. You are making a secret police force. The president of the New South Wales Council of Civil Liberties said a few weeks ago:

The expanded scope of ASIO powers proposed in this bill could theoretically capture activities related to political protest and represents a massive overreach of emergency anti-terror laws that has long been warned against.

But you guys never pay heed to any evidence or anything the experts tell you. You just do what the hell you want to, and, nine times out of 10, it is bad. It is bad for communities, it is bad for people, it is bad for migrants, it is bad for those who want to use their democratic right to protest, and it is bad for this country.

History teaches us that the only reliable way to prevent governments from using such powers to suppress political dissent is for them not to have them in the first place. We know that suppression always comes for the marginalised and people of colour first, and it will again this time around. I am opposed to any effort to infringe on the rights of people to associate, to organise or to protest.

The lack of transparency and accountability in this legislation falls far short of the basic democratic expectations. That Labor feel they can rush it through the Senate in just one day shows how confident Labor and the Liberals are in having normalised secrecy and national security excess over the last two decades, as they've marched in lockstep to the US drums of war. The Greens don't for one second buy the major party view that what is done in the name of national security should be done without criticism or care for the path down which the country is being led. So we will be vocal and we will be loud and proud against attacks on democratic rights for communities and people that live here. We will not shy away from that.

This bill is, of course, just another example of Labor's slide to the right on democratic freedoms. We see it in their willingness to cosy up to the United States and its far-right leaders. While we say Australia should be a voice for peace and justice not a lapdog for militarism, the government are all too happy to put the imperial interests of our so-called allies ahead of the civil liberties of Australians. We see Labor's slide to the right in the culture of secrecy that results in Labor teaming up with the Liberals to evade scrutiny on AUKUS. We see it in the deals they cut—at least three we've seen it just this week in the deals that they cut. We see it in the deals that they cut, again, with their pals—who but the Liberals—to rush through legislation that is chilling political debate, protest, civil rights and people speaking up about civil rights abuses across the world, especially justice for Palestine. We saw it as Australia fell in line behind the United States and Israel as devastating wars were waged on Gaza, Lebanon and Iran, killing and maiming tens of thousands, displacing hundreds of thousands and destroying entire communities. Instead of standing up instead of standing up for civil liberties at home and standing up for international law and human rights around the world, Prime Minister Albanese and his government toe the line for war-mongering countries and egomaniacal leaders. That's what the Labor Party of today is about.

What Australia's defence and intelligence organisations need is more transparency and accountability, not the impunity granted by this legislation. At their heart, these laws represent a threat—a threat to our democracy and civil liberties. I'm so proud to join my Greens colleagues in voting against these threats to communities who want to use their democratic right to protest and to speak out and in voting against this bill.

Nick McKim (Tasmania, Australian Greens) | Link to this | Hansard source

It's been a pretty dire week here in the Senate, and I dare say many of the people impacted by the events in this chamber this week would describe it as diabolical. We have got disabled people punched down on. We've seen pathetically weak gambling laws rammed through this place, and, now, we are seeing, again under a guillotine—the third in three days—a bill that massively increases the power of the intelligence and security apparatus in this country. What's the common theme between all these three things—punching down on disabled people, passing gambling laws drafted at the behest of the big gambling corporations and creating extraordinary new powers for the security industrial complex in this country? What is the common theme? That's right—the so-called parties of government in this place.

Let me give a warning to the parties of government. Firstly, if you rise to the head of a police force, a security group or an intelligence organisation like ASIO, you are primarily concerned with things like law and order, security and safety. That is an obvious statement. But let's be very clear about what our job is here in this place. Our job is to question when we get asked whether new powers are necessary. Our job is to ask the question. When we get told by the head of ASIO or the head of the AFP or the head of any of the other myriad law and order and security organisations that exist in our country that we have to give them new powers, our job is not to say, 'Of course, here you go,' as the parties of government do every single time in this place. Our job is to question the need and to balance a genuine need that people be kept as safe as possible in this country with the fundamental rights and freedoms that we used to go to war and fight and bleed and die to protect. That is our job in this place, and that job and that responsibility is being abrogated, as it is so regularly, by the so-called parties of government in this place.

So, of course, here the Greens find ourselves yet again standing for fundamental rights and freedoms—in the complete absence, I might add, of a charter or a bill of rights in this place, in the complete absence of the rights of citizens of this country being enshrined in the Constitution, which is where they actually should be enshrined in a country like Australia. In the complete absence of those things, it is left to the Greens, as we do every single time, to run the balance argument, to run the reasonable argument. I want to associate myself with the words of Senator Shoebridge in his excellent contribution to this debate, as well as Senator Hodgins-May's and Senator Faruqi's excellent words.

We should be really scared about what these powers allow ASIO to do. You can be literally dragged off the street for secret questioning, no crime required. You don't get a lawyer of your choice and you don't get a right to silence. This can apply to children as young as 14—kids! They get dragged out when they're walking home from school and dragged into ASIO for questioning. They don't get a lawyer that they might choose or that their family might choose. In fact, they may well not be allowed to tell their family what's happened. Certainly if you're an adult you won't be able to tell your family what happened. It'll be a crime to tell your family what happened, where you were and what you were asked. These are draconian, coercive questioning powers. It is a disgrace that in a so-called liberal democracy like Australia we are even thinking about creating and extending powers like these.

Of course, the Prime Minister, back in the day, was right when he opposed these coercive questioning powers when they were first introduced and said:

Its provisions—

the provisions that underpin the provisions that we are debating today—

potentially allow for the mistreatment of ethnic minorities, the suppression of dissent and the detaining and investigation of wholly innocent Australians.

He was right about that. But I'll tell you what—the office of Prime Minister empowers some people and diminishes others, and this current prime minister is someone who has been abjectly diminished by the office of Prime Minister. He has shrunk in office, as Senator Shoebridge said. He's a deeply unimpressive Prime Minister. A mediocre—

Karen Grogan (SA, Australian Labor Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Shoebridge, I'll ask you to be mindful of reflecting on other members of this parliament.

Nick McKim (Tasmania, Australian Greens) | Link to this | Hansard source

On the basis that you were directing that towards Senator McKim—

Karen Grogan (SA, Australian Labor Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

My apologies.

Nick McKim (Tasmania, Australian Greens) | Link to this | Hansard source

I will indeed consider that.

We need to understand what some of the detail is in this legislation. Let's be clear about who can sign the warrants here. The warrants can be signed by the Attorney-General. The warrants don't have to be signed by a judge, as is overwhelmingly usual in our justice system. To make the obvious point, the Attorney-General—so that I don't fall foul of reflecting on a particular person I'll say any Attorney-General—is a political appointment. The Attorney-General is a political appointment made by the Governor-General on the advice of the Prime Minister. That's how we end up with an Attorney-General. They're not an independent person who is going to dispassionately and reasonably apply the law; they're a political appointment. And yet it's the Attorney-General who can sign warrants. The Attorney-General—give me a break!

We've seen what attorneys-general have done over the years. Without even casting my mind very far back, we can look at the case of Witness K—a prime example. We can look at the case of Mr Collaery—another example.

And, as Senator Shoebridge reminds me, more recently Mr David McBride. And what about when we bugged the Timor-Leste embassy, which of course gave rise to the circumstances that Witness K and Mr Collaery found themselves in. Australian history is literally littered with examples of attorneys-general behaving in a highly questionable ways.

Yes. As Senator Shoebridge also reminds me, they're doing the government's dirty work. Our history is littered with it. And then you bring in a bill that's going to let the Attorney-General sign a warrant.

They don't have to suspect that you did anything wrong; they could just be putting the shakes on you. Shaking you down, squeezing you for information. This is absolutely police state stuff, surveillance state stuff. And people know that they are living in a surveillance capitalist society where you get surveilled by corporations like Coles when you go to the supermarket. They've got a contract with Palantir, one of the most evil corporations that exists anywhere in the world—one of the most dangerous corporations that exists anywhere in the world. They know they're going to get surveilled, that digital recognition software will be deployed. They get you in the aisles; they get you in the check-outs. People understand that's happening in the capitalist parts of our society, the big corporate controlled parts of our society, and people need to understand it's happening with regard to the state.

Do you remember the absolute uproar when a former Labor government tried to introduce the Australia card? How far down the road to a surveillance state have we travelled since those days? Quite rightly, Australians back then were concerned about the government centralising information that the state held on individual people. There was an absolute uproar about it. Well, here we find ourselves, because of the curtailment of these debates by the so-called parties of government, where these laws are being smuggled through this parliament. There was no committee, no public inquiry and no opportunity for these laws to be scrutinised even in the committee stage of the Senate. Here we are, again, where fundamental rights and freedoms that Australians, fought, bled, killed and died to protect back in the day, including family members of mine and ancestors of mine who died in wars against totalitarian and fascist states. Here we are becoming one. It's pathetic.

It's mostly pathetic from the so-called parties of government in this place, where we have a Labor Party that has completely lost its way, captured by fossil fuel interests, captured by Zionist interests, captured by the Five Eyes security—

James Paterson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Defence) | Link to this | Hansard source

Really? In the middle of an antisemitism crisis?

Nick McKim (Tasmania, Australian Greens) | Link to this | Hansard source

Mate, you're captured by Zionist interests as well.

Karen Grogan (SA, Australian Labor Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Kovacic.

Maria Kovacic (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Women) | Link to this | Hansard source

Those remarks must be withdrawn.

Karen Grogan (SA, Australian Labor Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

Feel free to put the point of order. My issue is the disorder—yelling across the chamber.

Maria Kovacic (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Women) | Link to this | Hansard source

My point of order is on the comments made by Senator McKim.

Karen Grogan (SA, Australian Labor Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator McKim, will you please withdraw those comments?

Nick McKim (Tasmania, Australian Greens) | Link to this | Hansard source

I withdraw the comment I made about Senator Paterson—

Karen Grogan (SA, Australian Labor Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

No, I don't think that was quite the point.

Nick McKim (Tasmania, Australian Greens) | Link to this | Hansard source

Well, I don't know what the point was.

Maria Kovacic (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Women) | Link to this | Hansard source

It was both. It was in relation to what is occurring now in our country and the comments in relation to Senator Paterson.

Nick McKim (Tasmania, Australian Greens) | Link to this | Hansard source

I have withdrawn the comments made in relation to Senator Paterson.

Karen Grogan (SA, Australian Labor Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator McKim—

Nick McKim (Tasmania, Australian Greens) | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm entitled to say that Zionist interests—

Karen Grogan (SA, Australian Labor Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

You are, but you are entitled to have an orderly debate within this chamber, and it is my role here to keep that order. There have been wide-ranging comments so far this morning, some of which have been offensive to others. You are entitled to your opinion, and you are entitled to continue on this debate, but I will ask you to do it in a respectful and inoffensive fashion. If you can withdraw those comments, please.

Nick McKim (Tasmania, Australian Greens) | Link to this | Hansard source

I have withdrawn the comments I made in regards to Senator Paterson. I'll leave it there. I will make—

Karen Grogan (SA, Australian Labor Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

I feel like you are completely missing the point intentionally. Senator Paterson.

James Paterson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Defence) | Link to this | Hansard source

In the interest of being helpful, to assist Senator McKim so he has the time to reflect on this, we have a royal commission right now into antisemitism. Standing up in this chamber and accusing other people of being 'captured by Zionist interests' is a dangerous and reckless thing to do. I encourage him, in the spirit of good debate in this chamber, to reflect on the consequences of language like that.

Karen Grogan (SA, Australian Labor Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator Paterson, this is not a further debate. I am conscious that you have time left and you have a right to continue your contribution. For the orderly conduct of this chamber, I would ask you to consider withdrawing those comments so that we can proceed.

Nick McKim (Tasmania, Australian Greens) | Link to this | Hansard source

If I might address the point of order, then, if you're going to make such a ruling. I'm not certain what standing order Senator Paterson is alleging that I've broken—

James Paterson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Defence) | Link to this | Hansard source

Good judgement, class, taste, decency.

Nick McKim (Tasmania, Australian Greens) | Link to this | Hansard source

Good judgement? I'm not aware of that being part of the standing orders. I'm happy to reflect on what Senator Paterson has asked me to reflect on.

Karen Grogan (SA, Australian Labor Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

That would be much appreciated.

Nick McKim (Tasmania, Australian Greens) | Link to this | Hansard source

In the very short time I have left, because of the dirty deal between the Labor Party and the coalition—by the way, I will provide the minister with two or three minutes before the 1.15 guillotine because I am genuinely curious at how the indefensible is going to be defended by this minister or at least the attempt to defend the indefensible will be rolled out. I will make the point again: these are bad laws, they're bad for the country, they're bad for the values—they offend the values—of this country, and they are bad for the people of Australia. They not only offend the values of this country now, they offend the values that we used to go to war for and fight to protect and enhance. Here we find ourselves actually becoming the very thing that we fought against for so long in this country.

The Labor Party should stand condemned for being captured by so many vested interests in this place, including the military industrial complex. The coalition should and does stand condemned for the same thing. The Australian Greens will proudly vote against these terrible provisions. We will proudly stand up for the people of Australia against a political duopoly that is determined to turn this country into a police state and a surveillance state.

Nita Green (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Tourism) | Link to this | Hansard source

In the 4½ minutes left for this debate, I was hoping to address the content of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2025 in depth. I was hoping to also talk to the government amendments that have been moved with regard to the sunsetting clause and the PJCIS. I'm going to address the nature of the debate first, though, because we have allowed Greens members to be added to the list to speak today and we haven't closed off debate, but the commentary from that end of the chamber has been not just misleading of the Senate but wilfully misleading of the Senate. To say that there are no government speakers on the list is wrong and untrue and wilfully misleading. To say that this is the only opportunity to debate is wrong. The bill was debated in May. It's been on the list since 2025. To say there's no committee process while also taking up time to avoid a committee process is not just wrong; it is disrespectful to the Senate. And it was said that we have quietly introduced amendments. I wouldn't call providing something with notice in the Hansard, with detailed information about why we're introducing those amendments, 'quietly'.

The truth is the Greens political party seek to talk about the lack of transparency, the lack of accountability and the erosion of democracy while at the same time disrespecting this institution and disrespecting democratic institutions, the Public Service and our intelligence agencies in a way that erodes democracy. You cannot, on one hand, talk about the fact that democracy is being eroded while you are actually actively seeking to do that. That is what the Greens political party do every single time they come into this chamber, and they should be held accountable for that behaviour. That's why I wanted to address that debate now before moving on to the substantial notion of the bill.

There is one other political comment that I need to make before I move on, and that is the voting intention of One Nation. We have heard so much commentary from One Nation, particularly the leader, Pauline Hanson, but also other members of One Nation, about how they are so black and white when it comes to supporting national security and protecting Australians from terrorism. But today what they will do is seek to water down this bill and, if they don't get their amendments up, they will vote against a piece of legislation designed to protect our national security. That's exactly what One Nation does. They say one thing outside of this chamber, and then they come in here and do the exact opposite, every single time. And now we have them here again doing exactly the same thing.

The government will be seeking to move amendments that ensure that a sunset clause exists for these powers and to ensure that the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security statutory review of operational effectiveness and the implications of the compulsory questioning powers occurs two years after the commencement of this bill. On the nature of the rest of the amendments, I won't go into them, but I will remind my colleagues that the Director-General of Security stated in his annual threat assessment in 2025:

Australia is facing multifaceted, merging, intersecting, concurrent and cascading threats.

ASIO need the powers to ensure that they can protect Australians from the threats to security.

We heard comments about the Prime Minister from these people at the end of the chamber, and I want to put on the record that the Prime Minister is a man of integrity. He is the person who has spoken and met with people who have been harmed by extremist violence in our country. He has met those victims and he has talked to them personally. The Prime Minister is committed, above all else, to protecting Australians and keeping them safe and ensuring that our national security agencies have the powers that they require to do that exact thing—keep Australians safe.

Debate interrupted.