Bill Debate · Second Reading

Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2025; Second Reading

Senate · Thursday 20 August 2026

Continued from Thursday 14 May 2026.

Official Hansard for this day (APH) · Read this debate on OpenAustralia

At a glance

The Senate debated the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2025, which sought to expand and make permanent ASIO's compulsory questioning powers. The Greens, One Nation, and the Liberal Party opposed the bill, citing threats to civil liberties, lack of judicial oversight, and vague definitions such as 'promotion of communal violence'. The Greens moved an amendment to reject the bill, while One Nation proposed naming radical Islam as a threat. The government defended the legislation as necessary for national security, noting the reinsertion of a sunset clause and a statutory review requirement. The debate was interrupted before a final vote was recorded in the transcript.

Outcome

The debate was interrupted before the conclusion of the second reading speech by the minister.

Summary in reported speech - not a transcript. AI-generated, so check the official record before quoting.

How the debate unfolded

Continued the debate

David Pocock (ACT) (Independent) Ind

Pocock opposed the bill, arguing it represented dangerous overreach and lacked sufficient justification for granting extraordinary powers to the government. Pocock cited concerns from constituents and experts, including the Law Council and the Australian Human Rights Commission, regarding the erosion of democratic rights. Pocock linked the bill to the absence of a human rights act, suggesting the legislation would be difficult to pass if such an act existed. Pocock urged the government to prioritise establishing a human rights framework rather than expanding security powers.

Government response

Nita Green (Assistant Minister for Tourism; Assistant Minister for Pacific Island Affairs; Assistant Minister for Northern Australia) ALP QLD

Green defended the bill, stating that ASIO requires these powers to address multifaceted and cascading security threats identified in the 2025 annual threat assessment. Green announced that the government would move amendments to reinsert a sunset clause and mandate a statutory review by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security two years after commencement. Green criticised the Greens for disrespecting parliamentary institutions and intelligence agencies while claiming to defend democracy. Green also challenged One Nation's voting intentions, suggesting they would undermine national security despite their rhetoric.

Opposition response

Alex Antic (SA) (Liberal Party) Liberal

Antic opposed the bill, arguing that it entrenched extraordinary powers that were originally intended to be temporary. Antic highlighted the removal of the sunset clause and the expansion of questioning warrants to include vague categories like 'promotion of communal violence'. Antic warned that these broad definitions could capture legitimate political speech and protest, blurring the line between criminality and dissent. Antic emphasised that compulsory interrogation without robust judicial oversight undermined the rule of law and the right to silence.

Malcolm Roberts (QLD) (Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) One Nation oppose

Roberts opposed the bill, arguing it failed to specifically identify radical Islamic ideology as a security threat. Roberts cited the Royal Commission on Antisemitism and Social Cohesion, which found no urgent legislative gaps following the Bondi attack. Roberts proposed an amendment to name radical Islam in the bill, stating One Nation would reconsider its opposition if this change was adopted. Roberts criticised the bill for expanding powers without addressing what Roberts described as the primary source of terrorism.
David Shoebridge (NSW) (Australian Greens) Greens oppose

Shoebridge opposed the bill, condemning the use of a guillotine to limit debate and scrutiny. Shoebridge argued the legislation allowed ASIO to detain and interrogate individuals without suspicion of crime, with warrants signed by the Attorney-General rather than an independent judge. Shoebridge highlighted the risks to civil liberties, citing a case of a woman who suffered trauma from compulsory questioning decades earlier. Shoebridge moved an amendment to reject the bill, describing the powers as a departure from the rule of law.
Steph Hodgins-May (VIC) (Australian Greens) Greens oppose

Hodgins-May opposed the bill, criticising the limited one-hour debate as an abuse of parliamentary process. Hodgins-May warned that the expanded powers could chill democratic participation and target legitimate political movements, including climate activists and Palestine solidarity campaigners. Hodgins-May noted that individuals could face prison sentences for refusing to answer questions and could not disclose their detention to family or lawyers. Hodgins-May highlighted the hypocrisy of the Prime Minister, who opposed similar powers in 2003.
Mehreen Faruqi (NSW) (Australian Greens) Greens oppose

Faruqi opposed the bill, arguing it undermined democracy and civil liberties by expanding Howard-era laws. Faruqi criticised the lack of judicial oversight and the potential for ASIO to act as a secret police force. Faruqi noted that the government had reinserted a sunset clause but maintained that the powers should lapse entirely. Faruqi warned that the vague definition of 'promotion of communal violence' could be used to suppress dissent and target marginalised communities.
Nick McKim (TAS) (Australian Greens) Greens oppose

McKim opposed the bill, describing it as part of a broader trend of expanding security powers at the expense of civil rights. McKim argued that the Attorney-General's role in signing warrants lacked independence, citing historical controversies involving previous attorneys-general. McKim warned that the legislation contributed to a surveillance state and eroded fundamental freedoms. McKim emphasised that the Greens stood for balancing security needs with democratic rights and transparency.

First speaker today

David Pocock (ACT) (Independent)

Ind

Bill

Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2025

Speeches

8 speeches, 5 other contributors

Topics

No tags

Debate Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2025; Limitation of Debate Bill Debate, 20 Aug 2026 · Same bill
Debate Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2025; Second Reading Bill Debate, 14 May 2026 · Same bill

About Senate debates

The Senate debates bills, motions, matters of public importance and the answers given in Question Time. Senators from all parties and the crossbench take part, and a minister or the minister representing them usually replies for the government. Summaries are in reported speech, not transcripts; always check the official record before quoting.