Criminal Code Amendment (State Sponsors of Terrorism) Bill 2025; Second Reading

Continued the debate

Shoebridge stated that the Greens supported the bill's core intent to list the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps as a terrorist organisation, citing community advocacy and human rights concerns. Shoebridge argued that the government had previously delayed action despite calls from civil society and the Greens. Shoebridge expressed concern that the rushed scrutiny process failed to adequately address the impact on humanitarian aid delivery in conflict zones. Shoebridge proposed amendments to protect non-government organisations providing relief in areas controlled by listed entities. Shoebridge also argued that the bill's criteria could apply to the Israel Defense Forces, citing harm to Australian citizens, and called for consistent application of the law.

Government response

Green affirmed that protecting the community from foreign state actors was a top priority for the government. Green explained that the bill provides law enforcement with powers equivalent to those used against non-state terrorist acts. Green opposed a second reading amendment moved by Senator Thorpe, arguing it was inappropriate to use the amendment to criticise law enforcement agencies. Green urged the Senate to reject the amendment and support the bill to demonstrate resolve against threats to sovereignty.

Opposition response

Collins supported the bill as sensible legislation to protect national security and address state-sponsored terrorism. Collins criticised the government for rushing the referral to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, noting limited time for submissions. Collins called for further punitive actions against those responsible for attacks on Australian soil, including Interpol Red Notices. Collins advocated for the establishment of a national technical assistance centre to improve intelligence sharing and coordination among security agencies.