It takes a certain kind of issue to unite the parliament's most conservative members with its most progressive members.
But that was what occurred last week, as figures like Liberal Senator Alex Antic and One Nation's Malcolm Roberts sat down with the Greens in the Senate to vote against prolonged powers for Australia's domestic spy agency.
The bill extended a contentious remit held by ASIO for more than two decades that essentially allows it, in certain circumstances, to force people to answer questions.
It was an idea introduced in the wake of the 2001 September 11 attacks, and the 2002 Bali bombing, to bolster ASIO's counter-terror tools.
They have been used sparingly since then — just 20 times in more than 20 years — but have been regularly extended, and even expanded since then.
Legislation that went before the Senate last week wound up passing with the broad support of both Labor and the Coalition.
But it was furiously opposed by some of the most progressive and conservative voices in federal parliament, including Senator Antic, a far-right figure who crossed the floor against his colleagues.
"In a free society, the state shouldn't be handed an open-ended power to compel citizens to answer questions about speech or association that falls short of actual criminality," he said.
It was a speech immediately followed by Greens Senator David Shoebridge, who had a similar message.
"If this legislation gets through, Australians will have a right to fear their own government — because whenever the government chooses to, it can pluck you off the street," he said.
A contentious power
ASIO itself describes its compulsory questioning tool as "unique and critical".
In effect, it allows the domestic spy agency to ask the attorney-general to agree to issue a warrant to require anyone over 14 years old to answer ASIO's questions.
The questioning itself is different to an ordinary police interview, and is supposed to be used as something of a last resort.
While a person is compelled to answer questions put to them by an ASIO agent, the answers cannot then be used as evidence against them.
It also has to take place with a very senior legal officer in the room, like a former judge or an experienced King's Counsel. Those being questioned can have a lawyer present, but there are limitations on when a lawyer can intervene during questioning.
Crucially, those questioned cannot tell anyone that the questioning took place.
ASIO says it has never sought a warrant for a person under 18, but has argued it needs to keep the power in place due to increasing concerns about radicalisation among minors.
It is a shift from a position the agency held a few years ago, when it argued its power to compulsorily question minors should be cancelled.
In a submission to a parliamentary inquiry into the bill, the agency said its limited use of the powers should be seen as evidence of its responsibility in using them.
"The sparing use of ASIO's compulsory questioning powers does not indicate a lack of utility, but rather that these are specific, carefully targeted powers, and that ASIO only uses them when less intrusive methods have been exhausted or would have been ineffective," a spokesperson said.
Sunset clause brought back
The legislation that passed parliament last week was actually somewhat weaker than what was originally proposed.
When the bill was first put to parliament, it included the removal of a 'sunset' clause.
The sunset clause had been included in the laws since they were first introduced — meaning they automatically expire every few years, and had to go back to parliament to be extended.
ASIO had argued that given they had been in place for more than two decades, and had been only infrequently used during that time, the parliament should feel comfortable making them permanent.
Parliament's powerful joint committee on intelligence and security, made up of Labor and Coalition MPs, agreed, but it was a step too far for some of the Coalition's most conservative and progressive MP's.
Conservative South Australian Liberal Senator Leah Blyth successfully argued in the partyroom that the sunset was an important check on the extraordinary powers and needed to stay.
Labor eventually agreed to the change, and added an amendment to the bill in the Senate that would see the powers return to parliament in three years' time.
But the changes were not enough for everyone in the Coalition.
The bill had the unusual effect of uniting the Liberal Party's most conservative senator, Alex Antic, with one of the party's most progressive figures, Andrew McLachlan.
Both voted against the bill when it came to a final vote, despite moves to accommodate them.
Many of those who opposed the bill this time supported relatively similar legislation the last time it came before the Senate in 2020 — including Malcolm Roberts, Alex Antic and Andrew McLachlan.
Broadening the scope of powers
Chris Taylor, an intelligence expert with the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, argued keeping the sunset clause was the wrong call.
"I was really disappointed. These are de facto permanent powers; they have been continually kicked down the road by the parliament since 2003," he said.
"Everyone pretends they're not permanent — they are, and the legislation should reflect that."
The bill that passed parliament last week contains more than just an extension of existing powers.
There is also a change to the grounds on which someone can be questioned, to try and reflect the evolving threats ASIO argues that Australia faces.
Before 2020, ASIO could only bring people in for questioning in relation to terrorism. That year, the powers were broadened to include espionage and foreign interference, responding to escalating concerns in those areas.
As of last week, the powers have been broadened again to reflect ASIO's broad definition of security — including politically motivated violence, sabotage and "promotion of communal violence".
Those changes do not appear to impact minors, who can only be questioned on "politically motivated violence".
In his annual threat assessment earlier this year, ASIO director-general Mike Burgess sought to outline how the ideologies motivating potential terror attacks are becoming less rigid, and harder to identify and counter.
"Instead of embracing fixed ideologies, radicalised individuals are increasingly embracing mixed ideologies," he said.
"Instead of being radicalised by associates in the real world, individuals are often being radicalised by strangers online.
"And, instead of spending time and resources planning sophisticated attacks, radicalised individuals are moving to low-capability attacks with little or no warning.
"These dynamics make the contemporary terrorism environment different — and in some ways, more difficult — than we saw with Al Qaeda and ISIL."
He pointed to real-world examples, like the Bondi terror attack and the attempted bombing of an Indigenous rally in Perth within just a few weeks, as illustrative of the varied ideologies motivating terror attacks.
Mr Taylor said changing those elements of the questioning powers makes sense.
"I think it's a reflection of the increasing level of security threat to Australian interests, including a real upsurge in phenomena like sabotage across the world," he said.
During debate in parliament, Greens senators raised concerns that the broader scope of the questioning powers could be used to target those involved in pro-Palestine rallies.
Greens Senator David Shoebridge said the expansion in ASIO's powers goes too far.
"People are deeply angered that ASIO has yet more scope to pluck you off the street, secretly detain you, question you for 24 hours, kick out your lawyer and then put a blanket of secrecy over it," he said.
"That's not how our government is meant to operate."
