Anti-terrorism laws are often enacted in haste and in response to particular events, often during a time of actual or perceived crisis. This has produced legislation that not only tests the boundaries of human rights compliance, but also has the enduring capacity to alter the legal landscape and change parliamentary and public perceptions of legislative norms. However these laws have not gone unchecked. The controversial and pervasiveness nature of the laws has given rise to the establishment of a number of post-enactment review mechanisms, in particular, offices of independent oversight. This paper compares and contrasts the role and impact of the offices of Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation in the UK and Independent National Security Legislation Monitor in Australia. It does so to assess whether offices of independent oversight can provide truly meaningful review of anti-terrorism laws.