"Australian spies would be able to arrest and question 14-year-old suspects under new laws introduced to parliament on Wednesday." https://www.9news.com.au/national/australian-spies-could-detain-14-year-olds/bc878815-66f8-42cd-aa8d-6ae606e590f7

My first impression is that this article is missing many significant changes proposed in this bill.

On the civil libertarian side, the bill proposes to remove ASIO's ability to detain people it wants to question, replacing that power with a "limited apprehension framework to ensure attendance during questioning".

But on the much less libertarian side, the bill proposes to remove the role of an independent issuing authority (like a retired judge) in issuing the warrants, and having the Attorney-General replace this role.

The argument would presumably be that the AG already issues other warrants for ASIO, such as for intercepting communications. But the argument made and accepted in the early 2000s (which I agreed with) was that the questioning warrants were an exceptional power...

... that therefore required greater oversight, by having an independent authority issue them rather than the Attorney-General.

I've only had a quick look at it, you can read it all in detail here: https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;page=0;query=BillId:r6554%20Recstruct:billhome and HT @miriamcosic

As I read it, by removing the role for an independent authority to approve the use of questioning powers, the bill proposes to remove one layer of oversight. There will still be AG approval, an independent authority overseeing the execution of the questioning power, and the...

... IGIS can still oversee the questioning. So the bill won’t turn it into an unrestrained power, but it will remove one level of oversight from it, at odds with the general principle that stronger powers require stronger oversight.