Key points

• The Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2025 (ASIO Amendment Bill (No. 1)) amends the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979 (ASIO Act) to extend the current sunsetting date of Division 3 of Part III (compulsory questioning powers) for an additional 18 months, until 7 March 2027.
  • This will allow the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (ASIO) to continue to access Division 3 powers while more substantive reforms to Division 3 progress through Parliament. 
• As part of the more substantive reforms, the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2025 (ASIO Amendment Bill (No. 2)) amends the ASIO Act to make more comprehensive amendments to Division 3. These include:
  • removing the sunset provision, which is currently contained in section 34JF
    • The sunset provision has been extended five times since originally introduced in 2003.
  • expanding the scope of adult questioning warrants to include new grounds—including sabotage, and promotion of communal violence—on which individuals can be compulsorily questioned
  • amendments relating to ‘prescribed authorities’ (being persons who supervise the questioning process), including new disqualifying criteria, and
  • new requirements for compulsory questioning in circumstances where a person has been charged, or where such a charge is imminent.

Introductory Info

Date of introduction: 23 July 2025
House introduced in: House of Representatives
Portfolio: Home Affairs
Commencement: The day after Royal Assent

Purpose and Structure of the Bills

Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2025

The Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2025 (ASIO Amendment Bill (No. 1)) amends the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979 (ASIO Act) to extend the current sunsetting date of Division 3 (compulsory questioning powers) of Part III (referred to throughout the Digest as ‘Division 3’) for 18 months.

The sole Schedule in the ASIO Amendment Bill (No. 1) contains one item (Item 1) which extends the operation of Division 3 by 18 months, until 7 March 2027.

The extension of the sunsetting provision for Division 3 contained in the ASIO Amendment Bill (No. 1) provides ASIO with continued access to the compulsory questioning powers ‘while appropriate reforms to the framework are developed and progressed through Parliament’ (Explanatory Memorandum, p. 2). More comprehensive reforms to Division 3 are contained in ASIO Amendment Bill (No. 2).

Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2025

The Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2025 (ASIO Amendment Bill (No. 2)) provides more comprehensive amendments to Division 3. These include:

• removing the sunset provision contained in current section 34JF
• expanding the scope of adult questioning warrants to include new grounds—such as sabotage, and promotion of communal violence—on which individuals can be questioned, and
• amendments to requirements relating to ‘prescribed authorities’, including new grounds that would disqualify prospective prescribed authorities from being appointed, and amending when the Attorney-General can terminate the appointment of prescribed authority.

Additionally, ASIO Amendment Bill (No. 2) makes consequential amendments to the Intelligence Services Act 2001.

Background to Division 3, Part III of the ASIO Act

Brief overview of Division 3 Framework

Division 3 provides the framework for ASIO’s compulsory questioning powers, which were originally introduced in 2003. Among other things, Division 3 establishes:

• the process for the authorisation and issuing of a compulsory questioning warrant, which must be requested by the Director-General of Security of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (ASIO) and approved by the Attorney-General (Subdivision B)
• relevant apprehension and search powers of police officers as authorised by the compulsory questioning warrant, including apprehending persons, entering premises, the use of force, and the power to seize items (Subdivision C)
• the process and requirements for questioning persons who are subjects of a compulsory questioning warrant (Subdivision D)
• the authorisation, use and disclosure of material obtained during questioning to find other material (often referred to as ‘derivative material’), and how such derivative material may be used (Subdivision E)
• the rights of persons subject to a compulsory questioning warrant in relation to access to lawyers and, if the subject is a minor, access to a representative (Subdivision F) and
• offences for non-compliance with aspects of the Division 3 framework (Subdivision G).

Inclusion of sunsetting provision in originating legislation: 2003

Section 34JF of the ASIO Act provides that Division 3 of Part III of the ASIO Act ceases to have effect on 7 September 2027. Item 1 of the ASIO Amendment Bill (No. 1) would amend section 34JF to substitute a cessation date of 7 March 2027. This amendment would commence the day after the Bill receives Royal Assent. Item 1 of the ASIO Amendment Bill (No. 2) would repeal section 34JF, which would make Division 3 of Part III a permanent fixture of the ASIO Act.

Division 3 was originally introduced into the ASIO Act by the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Legislation Amendment (Terrorism) Act 2003. In the second reading speech for this legislation, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer described the warrants as ‘a measure of last resort’, noting that it was anticipated that Division 3 warrant powers ‘will be used rarely and only in extreme circumstances.’ (p. 10584).

The Human Rights Commissioner, Lorraine Finlay, has recently stated in relation to ASIO Amendment Bill (No. 1) and ASIO Amendment Bill (No. 2) that the compulsory questioning powers ‘were never intended to be permanent’. However, it appears that the Howard Government intended to make such measures a permanent fixture of the ASIO Act, as they did not wish to include a sunset provision in the original legislation. It was stated in the second reading speech (p. 10583) that the Howard Government did ‘not believe that a sunset clause is appropriate’. However, to secure Opposition support for the Bill, the Government included a 3-year sunset clause (which became then-section 34Y of the ASIO Act, which at the time required that Division 3 of Part III would cease to be in force on 23 July 2006).

Previous sunsetting extensions

Since the original sunset provision was introduced and set to expire on 23 July 2006, the sunsetting provision contained in Division 3 of Part III of the ASIO Act has been extended five times. These extensions are briefly discussed in the table below:  

Table 1:  Sunsetting history of Division 3, Part III of the ASIO Act.

Sunsetting extension	Year	Legislation and explanation
1st	2006	The ASIO Legislation Amendment Act 2006 amended section 34Y, which became section 34ZZ. Section 34ZZ provided that Division 3 would cease to be in force on 22 July 2016, extending the sunset provision by 10 years.
2nd	2014	The Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment (Foreign Fighters) Act 2014 amended section 34ZZ, extending the sunset date to 7 September 2018.
3rd	2018	The Counter‑Terrorism Legislation Amendment Act (No. 1) 2018 amended section 34ZZ, extending the sunset period to 7 September 2019. In February 2017 an Inquiry was commenced by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security (PJCIS) into ASIO’s questioning and detention powers, with a focus on reviewing Division 3. The PJCIS handed down its Inquiry Report in March 2018 (PJCIS 2018 Report), recommending the repeal of Division 3 and its replacement with a reformed ASIO compulsory questioning framework. To allow for the development and implementation of the new framework, the PJCIS recommended that the Division 3 sunset date of 7 September 2018 be extended by 12 months.
4th	2019	The Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Amendment (Sunsetting of Special Powers Relating to Terrorism Offences) Act 2019 amended section 34ZZ to extended the sunset date to 7 September 2020.
5th	2020	Finally, and in light of recommendations made in the PJCIS 2018 Report, the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Amendment Act 2020 repealed section 34ZZ and introduced the current section 34JF. This legislation, among other things, expanded the scope of questioning warrants, enabling their use in relation to espionage, politically motivated violence, and foreign interference investigations (Explanatory Memorandum, p. 2). The legislation also extended the sunset date to 7 September 2025, where it currently remains.

Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security: Review of Division 3 of Part III of the ASIO Act

In the 47th Parliament, the PJCIS commenced a review into the operation, effectiveness and implications of Division 3 of Part III of the ASIO Act. While ultimately the inquiry lapsed on the dissolution of the House of Representatives on 28 March 2025 for the 2025 federal election, the Inquiry provided a chance for stakeholders to comment on the operation of Division 3. Stakeholder comments, where relevant to provisions discussed below, have been included.

Regarding sunsetting, in its submission to the 2023–25 PJCIS Inquiry, ASIO requested that the sunsetting of Division 3 be extended for a further five years, to September 2030 (p. 8). The Department of Home Affairs recommended repealing the sunset clause entirely (Home Affairs submission to the 2023–25 PJCIS Inquiry, p. 12). Home Affairs noted however that should the sunset clause be repealed, ‘a regular independent or Parliamentary review is required’ (p. 12). The Law Council of Australia, in its submission, emphasised the need for ‘the ongoing, independent review of [Division 3, Part III of the ASIO Act] to ensure its continuing necessity and proportionality’ (p. 28). 

The Australian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) recommended that Division 3 be permitted to sunset on 7 September 2025 (AHRC Submission to the 2023–25 PJCIS Inquiry, p. 5).

Policy position of non-government parties and independents

At the time of publication, it appears that only members of the Greens have provided public comments on ASIO Amendment Bill (No. 1) and/or ASIO Amendment Bill (No. 2).

The Greens

On 23 July 2025, the Senate Selection of Bills Committee met and agreed its Report No. 3 of 2025. In that report the Committee deferred consideration of ASIO Amendment Bill (No. 1) and ASIO Amendment Bill (No. 2) to its next meeting. On 24 July 2025, a motion was moved in the Senate to have the report incorporated into Hansard.

At the request of Senator Nick McKim, Senator David Shoebridge moved an amendment to the motion, which sought to add at the end of the motion:

but, in respect of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2025, the provisions of the bill be referred immediately to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 28 October 2025.

Senator Shorebridge stated that the reason the Greens sought to move this amendment was because

we have already been contacted by multiple stakeholders who are deeply concerned about the expansion of Howard-era secret interrogation powers, on which the sun was meant to set in 2005, but which keep being renewed and renewed and renewed.

The Senate did not agree to this amendment and both Bills were deferred for consideration at the Selection of Bills Committee’s next meeting.

Key issues and provisions

Amending the definition of ‘adult questioning matter’

The existing grounds for which a person can be subject to Division 3 compulsory questioning are set out in the definition of ‘adult questioning matter’ in section 34A of the ASIO Act. It provides that a person may be questioned on a ‘matter that relates to the protection of, and of the people of, the Commonwealth and the several States and Territories’ from any of the following:

• espionage
• politically motivated violence, and
• acts of foreign interference

whether directed from, or committed within, Australia or not.

Item 3 of ASIO Amendment Bill (No. 2) repeals and replaces the definition of ‘adult questioning matter’. In doing so, it includes four new grounds on which an adult can be questioned under Division 3, being:

1. sabotage (which is not defined in the ASIO Act, but is criminalised in Division 82 of the Criminal Code)
2. promotion of communal violence (defined in section 4 of the ASIO Act)
3. attacks on Australia’s defence system (defined in section 4 of the ASIO Act), and
4. protection of Australia’s territorial and border integrity from serious threats (not defined in the ASIO Act).

These 4 terms are derived from the definition of ‘security’ contained in section 4 of the ASIO Act.

In its submission to 2023–25 PJCIS Inquiry, ASIO proposed that the questioning warrant framework be extended to enable the Attorney-General to issue questioning warrants in relation to all elements of the definition of ‘security’ under section 4 of the ASIO Act, with the exception of ‘protecting Australia’s territorial and border integrity from serious threats’ (p. 5). ASIO stated it ‘does not consider the use of questioning warrants in relation to our border security activities to be necessary or reasonable.’ (p. 5). The Department of Home Affairs, in its submission (p. 9–11) to the 2023–25 PJCIS Inquiry, also recommended expanding Division 3, Part III to include all heads of security in Section 4 of the ASIO Act, except for the border integrity aspect. Despite both recommending against including this head of security, it has been included at proposed paragraph (b) of the definition of adult questioning matter (Item 3, ASIO Amendment Bill (No. 2)).

ASIO has provided generalised case studies demonstrating the ‘significant value of the compulsory questioning power’ (p. 5) and provided case study examples of these new grounds (listed on p. 7) including attacks on Australia’s defence system, sabotage, and the promotion of communal violence.

Termination of appointment of a prescribed authority

A ‘prescribed authority’ is a person appointed by the Attorney-General under subsection 34AD(1). To be eligible to be appointed as a prescribed authority an individual must have extensive judicial or legal experience, as the prescribed authority plays a crucial role in ensuring compliance with the law and protecting the rights of the person being questioned. The prescribed authority supervises the questioning, informs subjects of their rights and makes directions about the execution of the warrant. A prescribed authority has the same protection and immunity as a Justice of the High Court when performing of their duties under Division III.

Currently, the Attorney-General may terminate the appointment of a prescribed authority for a range of reasons set out in subsection 34AD(9). Item 5 of ASIO Amendment Bill (No. 2) repeals and substitutes subsection 34AD(9) to specify circumstances where the Attorney-General may terminate an appointment (discretionary), and where the Attorney-General must terminate the appointment of a prescribed authority (non-discretionary).

Where the Attorney-General ‘may’ terminate the appointment of a prescribed authority

The Bill proposes that the Attorney-General may terminate a prescribed authority:

• for misbehaviour; or
• if the prescribed authority is unable to fulfil their role because of physical or mental incapacity.

Where the Attorney-General ‘must’ terminate the appointment of a prescribed authority

The Bill proposes that the Attorney-General must terminate the appointment of the prescribed authority if the prescribed authority:

• becomes bankrupt
• engages in paid or unpaid work that conflicts with the proper performance of the duties, or there is a relevant conflict of interest
• has ceased to be eligible for appointment under subsection 34AD(1) (this is a newly included ground not currently contained in the legislation), or
• fails, without reasonable excuse, to comply with subsections 34AD(6)–(8) (being a duty on prescribed authorities to disclose certain interests).

Reports provided by the Director-General to the Attorney-General for each Questioning Warrant

For every questioning warrant, the Director-General must give the Attorney-General a written report containing listed details (section 34HA). Item 6 of ASIO Amendment Bill (No. 2) inserts a new paragraph into subsection 34HA(1), which provides additional reporting requirements for such reports. These are details of any action taken in relation to the warrant that:

• did not comply with guidelines given by the Minister of Home Affairs under section 8A
• contravened a written statement of procedures in force under section 34AF
• contravened the warrant
• contravened a condition or restriction in the warrant, or
• contravened a direction given by a prescribed authority in connection with the warrant.

This appears to respond to some stakeholder concern, including from the Law Council of Australia (submission to 2023–25 PJCIS Inquiry, pp. 23–24), regarding the lack of legislative requirements for ASIO to inform the Attorney-General of warrant breaches.

Post-charge and related questioning warrants

Section 34BD of the ASIO Act sets out what a questioning warrant must (subject to any specified restrictions or conditions) authorise and require. Section 34BE sets out other things that a questioning warrant may authorise, if the Attorney-General considers that the requirement is reasonable and necessary in the circumstances.

Items 7 to 10 of the ASIO Amendment Bill (No. 2) amend section 34BD and section 34BE, for warrants in circumstances where:

• the warrant is a post-charge questioning warrant (meaning, the warrant is issued after someone has been formally charged with a related offence and that charge is still to be resolved; or such a charge is imminent) or
• the person who is the subject of the warrant has been charged, but where such charge is unresolved, or
• such a charge is imminent.

In these circumstances, ASIO can:

• only question the person before a prescribed authority who is a former judge of a superior court (proposed subsection 34BD(3A), item 8), and
• if the warrant requests the subject to produce a record or thing, have that thing produced only before a prescribed authority who is a former judge of a superior court (proposed subsection 34BE(4), item 10), and

As described in the Explanatory Memorandum, the purpose of this amendment is to provide an additional safeguard for an accused (or potential accused), 'noting the potential for post-charge questioning to otherwise affect the fair trial of a questioning subject’ (p. 10).

Directions while subject is before a prescribed authority

Currently, paragraph 34DE(1)(e) of the ASIO Act states that a subject of a questioning warrant can be given a direction to further appear before ‘the prescribed authority’. This may be interpreted as requiring the person to further appear before the same prescribed authority. Item 11 amends paragraph 34DE(1)(e) to allow a prescribed authority to give a direction requiring the subject of a questioning warrant to further appear before a prescribed authority. This will ensure a direction can be given in relation to any prescribed authority.