This article was originally published by The Canberra Times on November 8 2026
Find out which 50 public servants could soon be given the powers of their minister
By Dave Allen
Dozens of top-ranked public servants will be eligible for ministerial powers, including authority to override state and territory and even some federal laws under a controversial new defence bill that hit Parliament late last month.
The bill’s expansion of ministerial powers is a signal the Albanese government is preparing for the prospect of war, national security and legal experts say.
Presented by the Albanese government as protecting defence bases from escalating drone incursions, the Defence Legislation Amendment (Accelerating Capability and Protecting Bases) Bill 2026 passed the House of Representatives during the last sitting week, going largely unnoticed during a busy Senate estimates.
But experts have expressed grave concerns to this masthead about the powers and secrecy provisions proposed for the defence department, especially the minister, and limited efforts for oversight.
Associate Professor Danielle Ireland-Piper from the Australian National University’s National Security College warned the complex bill – which amends at least 14 other acts – and its rapid progress meant sector experts had not had time to read it or analyse its consequences, putting it at risk of future legal challenges.
It is understood the government expects the bill to pass the Senate before the end of the year.
Policy strategist and human rights lawyer Rita Jabri Markwell said the bill represented an “extraordinary expansion of executive power over settled Australian law”.
“It’s basically giving the power to defence officials to ignore Australian laws,” she said.
But Assistant Defence Minister Peter Khalil, who presented the bill on behalf of Defence Minister Richard Marles, said its measures were vital to protect defence bases from drones.
“Modern threats demand modern laws,” he said.
In its current form, the bill hands Mr Marles powers to declare a wide definition of defence activities, assets, digital operations and personnel – ‘defence capabilities’ – exempt from state, territory and some Commonwealth laws using non-parliamentary legislation.
Which laws is not stated within the bill.
The defence minister could also designate publicly and privately owned buildings, land, sea, sky and even moving vehicles as off-limits “defence zones”, backed by jail time of up to seven years and fines of more than $150,000 for incursions.
Defence Secretary Meghan Quinn and senior leaders of the Australian Defence Force (ADF) could also give authorities usually kept to Australian soldiers and public servants – “defence officials” – to personnel from other countries’ militaries, governments, as well as employees from arms manufacturers and tech corporations.
Defence department public servants ranked Senior Executive Service (SES) band 2 and higher would be eligible to be assigned ministerial powers, including the authority to declare a “temporary defence capability”, which overrides state and territory laws.
The officials would have 24 hours after making a declaration to inform the minister to ratify them.
Dr Ireland-Piper said the move was aimed at preparing the public service leadership for an armed conflict by closing legal gaps between Commonwealth and state laws and clarifying lines of decision-making.
“That is indicative of preparing for the potential of armed conflict in our region and the need to make sure those decisions are done in very close contact with our armed forces,” said Dr Ireland-Piper.
“Obviously we all hope that we don’t end up in an armed conflict but if we do there are laws that will need to change for practical reasons, including the reasons articulated in this bill,” said Dr Ireland-Piper.
“It’s pretty clear to me that this is a step in the direction of preparedness,” she said.
The Department of Defence’s most recent annual report identified 50 public servants above SES band 2, including Ms Quinn, Associate Secretary Cath Patterson, and acting National Armaments Director Nadine Williams.
Ms Jabri Markwell called for a delay of at least three months to give legal and national security experts time to assess the consequences of the bill on the defence establishment and Australia’s human rights commitments.
“There’s no requirement in any of this that the minister must consider Australia’s obligations under international law, whether it’s the arms trade treaty, any of the nuclear non-proliferation treaties, any laws to do with nuclear weapons or nuclear waste, the genocide convention, or the Geneva convention,” said Ms Jabri Markwell.
Powers for Mr Marles, Ms Quinn and senior ADF leaders to declare “defence officials” could give defence companies and controversial tech giants like Palantir or Cellebrite “the ability to override state criminal laws, some federal laws … and also the power to enforce defence security zones”.
The government needed to “exhaustively list” the state, territory and Commonwealth laws it expected a defence capability declaration to displace to prevent the law’s misuse, Ms Jabri Markwell said.
Dr Ireland-Piper said she encouraged “anyone with an interest in civil liberties, to read this legislation very closely because Australia doesn’t have a charter of human rights that would necessarily intervene to limit it”.
Mr Marles did not respond to The Canberra Times’ questions about the swathe of powers he will receive when the bill passes or risks its defence zones could inadvertently capture civilian protesters.
“These laws are not about protesters, they are about protecting Defence personnel, critical infrastructure and sensitive capabilities,” responded Mr Khalil.
“This has never been more important,” he said.
Mr Khalil said the bill gave the new oversight powers to the Inspector-General of the Australian Defence Force (IGADF) and the parliamentary joint statutory committee on defence (PJCD).
Parliament can also disallow delegated legislation, but the bill authorises the defence minister to withhold information if it could endanger national security.
The IGADF is the sole avenue of review in those cases.
Mr Marles referred the bill to the PJCD – which is made up of Coalition and Labor politicians only – before its appearance in the Senate.
The committee held its first hearing on October 30 and closed off submissions after just five days, having received 10, four of which appear to have been withheld from publication.
Opposition defence spokesman James Paterson signalled Coalition support.
Greens leader David Shoebridge was contacted for comment.
