Telecommunications and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2025; Second Reading

Shoebridge argued that the bill significantly expanded surveillance powers without adequate safeguards or accountability, contrary to claims that it contained only technical amendments. Shoebridge cited concerns from the Internet Association of Australia regarding function creep and the lack of public consultation or regulatory impact analysis. Shoebridge noted that the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor had recently raised concerns about proportionality and oversight, which had not been addressed. Shoebridge expressed particular concern about Schedule 1 expanding disclosure powers and Schedule 3 allowing access to private messages for testing purposes. Shoebridge also criticised Schedule 4 for increasing data flows to the United States amidst political changes there. Shoebridge moved an amendment to postpone the bill until proper consultation and review of the INSLM report were completed.

Chisholm stated that the bill remedied defects that prevented agencies from exercising powers as parliament intended. Chisholm explained that Schedule 1 ensured the Commonwealth could comply with court disclosure duties while maintaining the confidential character of network activity warrants. Chisholm noted that the amendments would permit the admission of evidence from network activity warrants where necessary for fair trials and to target vulnerable individuals. Chisholm concluded that the bill addressed operational issues across the Telecommunications Act, Surveillance Devices Act, and Crimes Act. Chisholm commended the bill to the Senate.