Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2025: making ASIO's compulsory questioning powers permanent and what it means

The short answer

Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2025: making ASIO's compulsory questioning powers permanent and what it means

The Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2025 is a government bill that would make ASIO's compulsory questioning powers framework permanent, expand the scope of adult questioning warrants, and introduce additional safeguards including mandatory reporting to the Attorney-General and a requirement that post-charge questioning occur only before a retired judge. The bill, which falls within the Home Affairs portfolio, passed both Houses of Parliament on 20 August 2026 and now awaits Royal Assent. The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security reported on the bill on 5 February 2026, and multiple senators — including David Shoebridge (Greens), David Pocock (Independent), Malcolm Roberts (One Nation), and Ralph Babet (UAP) — have circulated proposed amendments.

This is a federal system guide. State constitutions, parliaments and local-government laws can allocate comparable functions differently.

The useful question is not only “what is the rule?” but also “who administers it, which document controls it, and when might it change?” That distinction prevents an accurate general explanation from becoming wrong advice in a particular election, chamber or policy setting.

Evidence review

What the bill does: making compulsory questioning permanent

The centrepiece of the bill is making ASIO's compulsory questioning powers framework permanent by removing the sunset clause that would otherwise cause the powers to expire. The compulsory questioning regime allows ASIO to seek a warrant to question a person who may have information relevant to a terrorism investigation.

Under the current framework, a person subject to a questioning warrant is compelled to answer questions and faces criminal penalties for non-compliance. The powers have existed since 2003 but have always been temporary, requiring periodic parliamentary renewal — typically every 12 months.

The bill removes the existing sunset provision, making the framework an ongoing feature of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979. The government argues that the threat environment warrants permanent powers and that periodic renewal creates unnecessary uncertainty for ASIO's operations.

Critics, including civil liberties organisations and crossbench senators, contend that removing the sunset removes an important mechanism for periodic parliamentary review of these intrusive powers. They argue that the compulsory nature of the powers — combined with criminal penalties for non-compliance — warrants ongoing legislative scrutiny.

Evidence review

Expanded warrant scope for adult questioning

The bill expands the scope of adult questioning warrants beyond their current parameters. Under the existing framework, warrants are limited to terrorism-related intelligence. The bill would broaden the grounds on which ASIO can seek a questioning warrant.

The precise expansion is detailed in the bill text and Explanatory Memorandum. This expansion has attracted significant scrutiny from civil liberties advocates and crossbench members, who have raised concerns about the breadth of the new warrant powers and the adequacy of safeguards.

The government maintains that the expansion is necessary to address evolving national security threats, including espionage, foreign interference, and politically motivated violence. The changing threat environment since the powers were first introduced in 2003 is cited as justification for broadening their scope.

The warrant expansion is one of the most contested elements of the bill. Crossbench senators have signalled through their circulated amendments that they regard the expanded scope as requiring stronger oversight and accountability mechanisms than the bill currently provides.

Evidence review

New safeguards: retired judges for post-charge questioning and Attorney-General reporting

The bill introduces two notable safeguards in response to concerns raised during previous renewals of the compulsory questioning regime. First, post-charge questioning — where ASIO questions a person who has already been charged with an offence — must occur only before a prescribed authority who is a retired judge.

This elevates the level of judicial oversight for the most sensitive form of questioning. Currently, post-charge questioning may occur before a broader category of prescribed authorities. The retired judge requirement adds a layer of judicial independence and experience to the oversight of questioning.

Second, the bill imposes additional reporting requirements to ensure the Attorney-General is made aware of any relevant information regarding the conduct of questioning under a compulsory questioning warrant. This is designed to improve ministerial accountability for the exercise of these intrusive powers.

The bill also amends eligibility and termination provisions for prescribed authorities — the officials who oversee questioning — to strengthen their independence and suitability. Together, these safeguards represent the government's attempt to balance the expansion of ASIO's powers with enhanced oversight.

Evidence review

PJCIS review mechanism

The bill amends the Intelligence Services Act 2001 to enable a further review of the compulsory questioning framework by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security (PJCIS). This creates a statutory mechanism for parliamentary oversight even after the sunset clause is removed.

The PJCIS tabled its report on the bill on 5 February 2026 — the same day the Senate debated multiple other national security matters, including the Defence Amendment Bill. The PJCIS operates on a bipartisan basis and its reports carry significant weight in parliamentary debate on national security legislation.

The committee's recommendations are an important input into the Senate's consideration of the bill. PJCIS reports typically include recommendations for amendments, and the government's response to those recommendations often shapes the final form of the legislation.

The inclusion of a PJCIS review mechanism reflects the political reality that removing the sunset clause required a countervailing oversight measure. However, some critics argue that a committee review is a weaker accountability mechanism than a sunset clause requiring active parliamentary renewal.

Evidence review

Where the bill stands in the legislative process

The bill was introduced in the House of Representatives on 23 July 2025. It progressed through the House between 11 and 12 February 2026: second reading debate occurred in the main chamber on 11 February, the bill was referred to the Federation Chamber for further debate, and on 12 February it was reported, the second reading was agreed to, and the bill passed consideration in detail and third reading.

Two divisions were recorded on amendments in the House: one on amendments moved by Zali Steggall (Independent, Warringah) and another on amendments moved by Kate Chaney (Independent, Curtin). Both were defeated, reflecting the government's majority in the House.

In the Senate, the bill was introduced and read a first time on 3 March 2026, with the second reading moved the same day. The second reading debate commenced on 14 May 2026, meaning the bill is actively being considered by the Senate.

The bill has been considered by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights (Report 4 of 2025) and the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills (Scrutiny Digest 4 of 2025), indicating the level of parliamentary scrutiny it has attracted.

Evidence review

Proposed amendments in the Senate

The Senate has seen a substantial volume of circulated amendments, reflecting the bill's contested nature. Senator David Shoebridge (Greens) has circulated at least eight sets of amendments, the largest number from any single senator.

Senator David Pocock (Independent) has circulated amendments on sheet 3787, and Senators Malcolm Roberts and Tyron Whitten (One Nation) have circulated amendments on sheet 3809. Senator Ralph Babet (UAP) has circulated amendments on sheet 3788. The government has also circulated amendments on sheet SV144.

The volume of proposed amendments indicates a robust committee-stage debate ahead. The amendments cover a range of concerns including the permanent nature of the powers, the expanded warrant scope, the composition and powers of prescribed authorities, and reporting and accountability mechanisms.

The crossbench composition of the Senate means the government may need to negotiate to secure passage. The outcome of these negotiations — and which amendments are adopted — will significantly shape the final form of the legislation.

Common questions

Before you rely on the answer