I present two reports of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, the Review of administration and expenditure No. 24 and the Advisory report on the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment Bill 2026. I move:

That the Senate take note of the reports.

I want to make a contribution this afternoon in the chamber about these two reports that the PJCIS has presented today to the Senate. As chair of that committee, I firstly want to talk to the Review of administration and expenditure No. 24 (2024-25)—Australian intelligence agencies. In doing so, I acknowledge that the annual report itself, whilst a very routine process, undertakes very important business, particularly when it comes to the oversight and the transparency of this parliament and reporting back to the Australian people, making sure that the taxpayer dollars that are attributed to our intelligence agencies are met with the most stringent level of scrutiny possible.

The annual report itself is undertaken in accordance with the committee's own statutory responsibilities established under the Intelligence Services Act 2001. It examines the administration, the expenditure and the financial statements of each of the 10 agencies that make up Australia's national intelligence community.

The committee's review is part of a strict oversight and accountability framework within which these agencies operate. Their public reporting is necessarily limited to protect sensitive information. As you could imagine, there'd be a lot of sensitive, very classified information. So this annual parliamentary review is an important mechanism by which the Australian people, through the parliament, through the representatives that they elect every election, are able to receive assurances on these agencies' governance and also, of particular note, on the resource stewardship and the administration of the agencies.

Through this review, which the committee conducts every year, the committee sought assurance on each agency's performance against its objectives—objectives that the committee sets and sends out before it conducts its A&E review. In addition, it also looks at the health and the integrity of the financial positions of the agencies themselves. This included examination of the strategic priorities, the organisational governance, the risk management practices, the workforce capability, security arrangements, and major ICT and information-sharing initiatives. These are all very relevant and very important, particularly in the day and age that we are in at the moment. There is a need to make sure that our intelligence agencies have the most up-to-date and most capable infrastructure and equipment possible to make sure that they are keeping Australians safe every single day.

The committee also invited submissions, as you would imagine, Deputy President, and submissions covered four key areas of focus, which I'll go through now. The first one was the 2024 independent intelligence review. The second one was the joint taskforces. The third one was the conflicts of interest, and the fourth one was the investigations and whistleblowers. Each of these four key areas of focus were covered as part of the submissions that were received.

The committee received very detailed material from these agencies as well as from the Australian National Audit Office and the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security. Classified hearings, as you can imagine, assisted the committee in discharging its obligations while ensuring national security was maintained.

The report itself, which I presented just before, highlights the dynamic environment in which intelligence agencies continue to operate and the importance of ensuring that administrative systems, governance structures and financial management remain robust. These are important elements that I think everyone would expect in this place and particularly the public.

Although much of the committee's work understandably occurs in classified settings—and for good reason—the outcomes reflected in this report demonstrate to the parliament and to the people of Australia that the committee continues to exercise a very strong bipartisanship when it comes to the oversight of intelligence administration and expenditure. This oversight is essential to maintaining the public's trust in agencies whose work, by necessity, is largely unseen.

The committee did note some inconsistencies between agencies in what information was provided publicly to the inquiry. In a security environment marked by increasing divisions and reduced social cohesion, maintaining public trust in institutions has never been more important. The committee encourages agencies to consider how they can increase communication of appropriately unclassified information with the committee and public.

The committee thanks all agencies, officials and oversight bodies for their cooperation throughout this review. Their engagement supports not only the committee's work but the broader accountability framework that underpins the operation of Australia's intelligence community.

The second report I presented, and which I will speak to in the remaining minutes I have left, is the Advisory report on the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment Bill 2026also reporting on the review of post-sentence terrorism orders: division 105A of the Criminal Code Act 1995. Work on this report commenced in the previous parliament, and it's worth noting that. But, when the committee had commenced a statutory review into the division 105A framework, which provides for post-sentence orders in relation to high-risk terrorist offenders, that information was able to be carried over, as has been the case on many occasions.

That review lapsed, and, when the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment Bill 2026 was referred to the committee earlier this year, it was agreed the committee would conduct the two reviews together and present a single report to the parliament covering both the lapsed statutory review and the bill inquiry. It's worth noting that the reason why we did this is that there was evidence, as well as a number of submissions, which we had received publicly and in a classified setting, that was still relevant and worthy of the current parliament and the assessing committee.

The report ultimately recommends the passage of the bill. However, it also makes recommendations to improve the high-risk terrorist offenders framework. There are some extraordinary powers within the framework, but the committee recognises that the terrorism threat continues to evolve and that the passage of the bill is critical to prevent parts of the framework sunsetting in December this year.

The bill contains a broad package of reforms across Australia's counterterrorism framework. In addition to extending the relevant sunset provisions, it would reduce duplication between post-sentence orders and control orders, strengthen information-sharing arrangements, preserve investigative capabilities used to assess the risk posed by serious terrorist offenders and clarify the framework for listing and delisting terrorist organisations.

The committee received a range of views on these measures. Stakeholders generally recognise the need for an effective legal framework to protect the community from terrorism, although several raised concerns about proportionality, procedural fairness and the application of these powers to young people. In particular, the committee carefully considered the proposal to increase the maximum duration of a control order imposed on a person aged between the ages of 14 and 17 from three months to 12 months. The committee was satisfied that the existing requirement for a court to treat the best interests of the young person as a primary consideration remains an important safeguard.

It's worth noting the critical timing of the passage of the proposed amendments of the bill, prior to the 7 December sunset date, and the committee does recommend that the bill be passed by this parliament. However, the other recommendations within the report constitute a larger body of work, and the committee would support that response to these recommendations may necessitate a further bill in the future to enable the adequate consideration of the amendments required and timely considerations.

I thank the deputy chair, Andrew Wallace in the other place; committee members; and all those who made a contribution. On that note, I wish to commend both reports to the Senate.

Question agreed to.