Review of Australia's National Security Offences and Foreign Interference Laws

We now have the full picture from both sides. Here's what the record shows.

---

ASIO Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2025 — Civil Liberties Criticisms

The PJCIS inquiry into this bill drew six submissions. The two most-cited critical voices — Liberty Victoria/NSW CCL/Queensland CCL (jointly) and the Law Council of Australia — raised substantive objections across four overlapping themes.

1. Administrative detention without judicial oversight

The joint civil liberties councils argued that questioning warrants constitute administrative detention of legally innocent people — including children as young as 14 — on executive authority alone, without court involvement [TA-260605-cwlth-c39404f59884:e001]. They noted a person can be arrested, searched, and subjected to up to 40 hours of coercive questioning on pain of five years' imprisonment, without being suspected of any offence. The Law Council similarly called for a "double lock" — requiring a judicial officer to confirm the Attorney-General's warrant decision before it takes effect, modelled on the UK Investigatory Powers Act 2016 [TA-260605-cwlth-c39404f59884:e001].

2. Scope creep and overbroad definitions

The CCLs argued that "politically motivated violence" is far broader than the "terrorism offence" standard that originally justified these powers post-9/11 — potentially capturing conduct as minor as throwing a punch at a protest [TA-260605-cwlth-084a6d81461d]. The Bill's proposal to extend questioning powers to all heads of security (including border integrity and sabotage) drew sharp criticism from the Law Council, which said this reverses earlier ASIO and departmental positions and extends extraordinary powers "well beyond what was originally intended" [TA-260605-cwlth-c39404f59884:e001].

3. Right to a fair trial and privilege against self-incrimination

The CCLs raised the derivative material provisions as a fundamental concern: answers given under compulsion can be used to obtain admissible evidence against the subject, effectively allowing ASIO to conduct "fishing expeditions" against people who could not otherwise be investigated under ordinary criminal procedure [TA-260605-cwlth-084a6d81461d]. They cited the High Court in X7 v Australian Crime Commission on the risk that coercive questioning prejudices a fair trial even where direct use of answers is prohibited.

4. Curtailed legal representation

Both the CCLs and the Law Council objected to provisions allowing a subject's lawyer to be given a redacted warrant, barred from intervening in questioning, and removed for being "disruptive" — leaving the lawyer, as the CCLs put it, "a bystander... reduced to a witness with legal training" [TA-260605-cwlth-084a6d81461d]. The Law Council recommended removing the discretionary removal power entirely [TA-260605-cwlth-c39404f59884:e001].

5. The sunset clause

Both the CCLs and the Law Council opposed removing the sunset provision — the Bill's most contested structural change. The CCLs noted only 20 warrants have ever been issued, none against a minor, and none between 2012 and 2021, arguing the powers are unnecessary and the incursion on liberty unjustified [TA-260605-cwlth-c39404f59884:e001]. The Law Council said the sunset clause "should remain as a critical oversight measure" [TA-260605-cwlth-c39404f59884:e001].

ASIO's counter-position was that the safeguards are robust — independent prescribed authorities, IGIS oversight, lawyer access, and reporting to the Attorney-General — and that the powers have been used "judiciously" [TA-260605-cwlth-3e7e476157d5]. ASIO argued the threat environment (espionage at "extreme and unprecedented levels", terrorism threat raised to PROBABLE in 2024) justifies making the framework permanent.

The PJCIS annual report notes the CIOR Act review lapsed with prorogation and was recommended for referral to a more appropriate committee — a parallel jurisdictional concern about whether national-security committees are the right venue for rights-heavy migration and detention legislation [TA-260605-cwlth-638e5238247f].

---

The fullest treatment of the civil liberties critique is in the CCL joint submission [TA-260605-cwlth-084a6d81461d] and the Law Council submission [TA-260605-cwlth-c39404f59884:e001]. The Commonwealth 4 June Note covers the PJCIS annual report context if you want to load it for the broader oversight picture.

What did the PJCIS ultimately recommend — did it back ASIO or the civil liberties groups on the sunset clause? Has the Human Rights Committee (Ms Mascarenhas's reports) separately commented on the ASIO Amendment Bill? What comparable concerns were raised about the Combatting Antisemitism bills that passed without committee scrutiny in January 2026?