This bill became law on Mar 13th, 2026.
Government & democracy
People can give secret intelligence or sensitive operational informationInformation about government operations that could cause harm if handled or disclosed in the wrong way. to a royal commissionA special public inquiry set up by government to investigate an important issue and make findings or recommendations., whether asked or voluntarily, with extra legal protections.
Secrecy laws left people at risk when giving intelligence or operationally sensitive information to royal commissions, a gap identified by the Defence and Veteran Suicide Royal CommissionA special public inquiry set up by government to investigate an important issue and make findings or recommendations. and the 2023 secrecy review. The bill expands protections, creates secrecy-offence defences, and lets royal commissions handle sensitive information through secure processes.
Royal commissions already faced a clash between their need to hear frank evidence and Commonwealth secrecy laws, a gap flagged by the Defence and Veteran Suicide Royal CommissionA special public inquiry set up by government to investigate an important issue and make findings or recommendations. and the Attorney-General’s Department’s 2023 secrecy review. After the Bondi Beach massacre in December 2025 put intelligence-agency evidence at the centre of a new royal commissionA special public inquiry set up by government to investigate an important issue and make findings or recommendations., and Dennis Richardson’s resignation sharpened concern about whether that inquiry could get the full story, the bill gave witnesses legal protection and secure ways to provide sensitive intelligence or operational information.
The main criticism was that the bill was too narrow and still left secrecy laws and security agencies able to limit what a royal commissionA special public inquiry set up by government to investigate an important issue and make findings or recommendations. could hear. The Greens opposed it on that basis, while some Coalition and crossbench speakers supported passage but warned it was rushed and may need stronger safeguards or later reform.
Michelle Rowland MP introduced this bill. It passed with support from Labor, Liberal Party, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party, Australia's Voice, some crossbench members; opposed by Greens.
Did it become law?
Yes
Became law 13 Mar 2026
Final passage
Recorded final vote
1 counted final-passage vote was recorded.
Passage speed
11 days
From introduction to the latest recorded parliamentary step
Meaning
People can give secret intelligence or sensitive operational informationInformation about government operations that could cause harm if handled or disclosed in the wrong way. to a royal commissionA special public inquiry set up by government to investigate an important issue and make findings or recommendations., whether asked or voluntarily, with extra legal protections.
People who follow the required handling rules are protected from criminal or civil actionLegal proceedings against a person, either for an offence or for a civil claim such as damages. for sharing this information with a royal commissionA special public inquiry set up by government to investigate an important issue and make findings or recommendations. or their lawyer.
A person cannot refuse to answer a royal commissionA special public inquiry set up by government to investigate an important issue and make findings or recommendations. only because giving the information would otherwise breach a secrecy lawA law that limits when certain information can be shared, often because it is sensitive or classified..
People get a defenceA legal reason a person can rely on to avoid being found guilty of an offence. to certain secrecy offences if they shared information for a royal commissionA special public inquiry set up by government to investigate an important issue and make findings or recommendations. and reasonably believed it was relevant.
Royal commissions can use agreed secure processes to receive, store and handle sensitive intelligence without undermining national security.
This Bill would amend the Royal Commissions Act 1902 (Royal Commissions Act) and Criminal Code Act 1995 (Criminal Code) to provide additional protections for people who provide intelligence or operationally sensitive information on a voluntary or compulsory basis where that information is subject to secrecy provisions.Royal Commissions Legislation Amendment (Protections for Providing Information) explanatory memorandum
The right to liberty and security is contained in Article 9(1) of the ICCPR. The Bill promotes the right to liberty and security of the person by ensuring that individuals who provide intelligence information or operationally sensitive information to a Royal Commission in accordance with arrangements are protected from criminal or civil liability for secrecy provisions. The Bill would also promote this right by providing a protection, subject to certain conditions, for communicating intelligence or operationally sensitive information with a legal representative.Royal Commissions Legislation Amendment (Protections for Providing Information) explanatory memorandum
The Bill would limit the right not to be compelled to testify against oneself or to confess guilt contained in Article 14(g) of the ICCPR. The Bill would provide that it is not a reasonable excuse to refuse or fail to produce a document, give information or statement, or answer a question to a Royal Commission on the basis that a person would be contravening a secrecy provision.Royal Commissions Legislation Amendment (Protections for Providing Information) explanatory memorandum
The Bill would also provide a defence to an offence under Division 122 the Criminal Code to insert a defence for information given to a Royal Commission if the person reasonably believes the information was relevant to that Royal Commission’s inquiry. This further promotes fairness in criminal proceedings.Royal Commissions Legislation Amendment (Protections for Providing Information) explanatory memorandum
This framework is designed to enable the Royal Commission to access intelligence information without undermining national security or the statutory responsibilities of intelligence agencies.Royal Commissions Legislation Amendment (Protections for Providing Information) explanatory memorandum
Context
Royal commissions already faced a clash between their need to hear frank evidence and Commonwealth secrecy laws, a gap flagged by the Defence and Veteran Suicide Royal CommissionA special public inquiry set up by government to investigate an important issue and make findings or recommendations. and the Attorney-General’s Department’s 2023 secrecy review. After the Bondi Beach massacre in December 2025 put intelligence-agency evidence at the centre of a new royal commissionA special public inquiry set up by government to investigate an important issue and make findings or recommendations., and Dennis Richardson’s resignation sharpened concern about whether that inquiry could get the full story, the bill gave witnesses legal protection and secure ways to provide sensitive intelligence or operational information.
Secrecy review calls for stronger witness protections
A review by the Attorney-General’s Department proposed updates to the Royal Commissions Act to resolve ambiguity around secrecy offences and establish clearer security protocols for witnesses.
Royal Commissions Legislation Amendment (Protections for Providing Information) explanatory memorandum ↗Royal CommissionA special public inquiry set up by government to investigate an important issue and make findings or recommendations. highlights legal barriers to evidence
An interim report from the Royal CommissionA special public inquiry set up by government to investigate an important issue and make findings or recommendations. into Defence and Veteran Suicide identified the need for a legal defenceA legal reason a person can rely on to avoid being found guilty of an offence. against secrecy offences to ensure witnesses can provide honest testimony without fear.
Royal Commissions Legislation Amendment (Protections for Providing Information) explanatory memorandum ↗Bondi Beach attack prompts calls for higher scrutiny
The antisemitic attack led to demands for a royal commissionA special public inquiry set up by government to investigate an important issue and make findings or recommendations. with the power to investigate the conduct and decision-making of police and national security agencies.
Second reading speech ↗Lawmakers warn secrecy laws could hinder investigation
Concerns were raised that existing criminal offences for sharing sensitive data might prevent intelligence officers from providing essential evidence to the upcoming inquiry.
Australian Financial Review ↗Government pledges immunity for intelligence staff
Federal authorities committed to providing legal immunity for security personnel to ensure they can share classified information during the royal commissionA special public inquiry set up by government to investigate an important issue and make findings or recommendations. without personal risk.
Australian Financial Review ↗Government introduces the bill
The legislation was presented to Parliament to establish a legal framework for the secure handling of sensitive information and to shield contributors from criminal or civil liability.
Parliamentary timeline ↗Dennis Richardson resignation signals inquiry tension
The departure of the former ASIO chief from the royal commissionA special public inquiry set up by government to investigate an important issue and make findings or recommendations. underscored the urgent need for witnesses from security agencies to have the legal confidence to provide full testimonies.
Second reading speech ↗Parliament passes the bill
The legislation passed both houses, formalising the new protections and secure processing methods required for sensitive evidence to be presented to royal commissions.
Parliamentary timeline ↗Legislative route
The bill was formally presented to the chamber and read a first time, which starts its parliamentary journey.
Introduced and read a first time
A minister or sponsoring member moved the second reading, opening the main debate on the bill's purpose and principles.
Second reading moved
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
The chamber agreed to the bill at second reading, meaning it accepted the bill in principle and allowed it to continue.
Second reading agreed to
The chamber agreed to the bill at third reading, which completed passage through that chamber.
Third reading agreed to
The bill was formally presented to the chamber and read a first time, which starts its parliamentary journey.
Introduced and read a first time
A minister or sponsoring member moved the second reading, opening the main debate on the bill's purpose and principles.
Second reading moved
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
The chamber agreed to the bill at second reading, meaning it accepted the bill in principle and allowed it to continue.
Second reading agreed to
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
Recorded vote: 34 to 10.
The chamber agreed to the bill at third reading, which completed passage through that chamber.
Third reading agreed to
Both houses passed the bill in the same form, completing parliamentary passage.
Finally passed both Houses
The Governor-General gave Royal Assent, turning the bill into an Act.
Key criticism
The main criticism was that the bill was too narrow and still left secrecy laws and security agencies able to limit what a royal commissionA special public inquiry set up by government to investigate an important issue and make findings or recommendations. could hear. The Greens opposed it on that basis, while some Coalition and crossbench speakers supported passage but warned it was rushed and may need stronger safeguards or later reform.
Most criticism targeted scope, safeguards and scrutiny, not the aim of protecting witnesses who assist royal commissions.
Protections may be too narrow
Critics argued the bill did not go far enough to protect people who want to give evidence, especially where secrecy laws, prosecution risks or workplace retaliation could still discourage voluntary witnesses from coming forward.
Security agencies may retain too much control
The strongest opposition case was that secure handling arrangements could still let intelligence and security agencies decide what sensitive material reaches a royal commissionA special public inquiry set up by government to investigate an important issue and make findings or recommendations., weakening its ability to find the full truth.
Rushed scrutiny of secrecy-law changes
Some supporters warned that the bill overrides secrecy laws and affects criminal liability, so it should be properly examined by the intelligence committee and corrected if legally unsound.
Further sources
Votes
The chamber-passage votes come first. Expand a vote to see the party breakdown.
House agreed to the bill's third reading on the voices, so there is no list of individual Aye and No votes for final passage in that chamber.
Passed on the voices
In a voice vote, members call out Aye or No and the presiding officer judges which side has it. Individual names are only recorded if a formal division is called.
Passed 34 to 10. Support came from Labor, Liberal Party, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party, Australia's Voice, and minor parties and independents. Opposition came from Greens.
These are votes on the bill itself rather than amendment votes.
Parliamentary debate
Start here — lead voices
Rowland supports the bill and wants it passed because it will let people give information to royal commissions without fear of secrecy offences, while setting safeguards for handling sensitive material.
Read in Hansard ↗Shoebridge opposes the bill because he says it is a half-baked and very limited response that leaves most secrecy laws untouched and gives security agencies too much control over what evidence can reach a royal commissionA special public inquiry set up by government to investigate an important issue and make findings or recommendations..
Read in Hansard ↗Cash says the coalition will support the bill because it gives intelligence and security officials legal protection to provide sensitive information needed for the royal commissionA special public inquiry set up by government to investigate an important issue and make findings or recommendations. to find the truth.
Read in Hansard ↗Spender supports the bill because she says it is needed now to help the royal commissionA special public inquiry set up by government to investigate an important issue and make findings or recommendations. get full evidence and work effectively, though she argues it is only a first step and wants stronger future protections for voluntary witnesses and against agency vetoes or workplace retaliation.
Read in Hansard ↗All speeches by bloc
3 speakers · 4 contributions · 3 support
“The government acknowledges the review conducted by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, and I thank the committee for its work and for the report that was tabled today. Given the importance of these matters to the royal commission, the government agrees with the sole recommendation of the committee that the bill be passed as soon as possible.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“The Royal Commissions Legislation Amendment (Protections for Providing Information) Bill 2026 establishes an important framework for Royal Commissions to receive and handle operationally sensitive and intelligence information.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
Hansard records 2 separate contributions by Michelle Rowland on this bill. They are grouped here so the speaker is listed once.
Minister's second reading speech
Rowland supports the bill and wants it passed because it will let people give information to royal commissions without fear of secrecy offences, while setting safeguards for handling sensitive material. She says the changes provide certainty and protections needed for the Royal CommissionA special public inquiry set up by government to investigate an important issue and make findings or recommendations. on Antisemitism and Social Cohesion and for future royal commissions.
“The Royal Commissions Legislation Amendment (Protections for Providing Information) Bill 2026 establishes an important framework for royal commissions to receive and handle operationally sensitive and intelligence information.”Read this contribution in Hansard ↗
Second reading speech
Michelle Rowland supports the bill and says it will create a clear lawful way for people to give intelligence and other operationally sensitive information to royal commissions, including the current Royal CommissionA special public inquiry set up by government to investigate an important issue and make findings or recommendations. on Antisemitism and Social Cohesion.
“This bill creates a clear, lawful pathway for people to provide intelligence and operationally sensitive information to a royal commission, including the current Royal Commission on Antisemitism and Social Cohesion. I thank all my parliamentary colleagues for their contributions to this debate, and I present the revised explanatory memorandum to the House.”Read this contribution in Hansard ↗
2 speakers · 1 support · 1 mixed
“Let me be clear. We do not oppose the bill's objective; on the contrary, we want to ensure that this gets it right. The coalition wants this royal commission to be effective. We need it to be effective. It is recognition that legislation touching intelligence, national security and criminal liability demands rigorous examination, because the integrity of both national security frameworks and royal commissions depends on clarity and balance. As I said, the Jewish community deserves a royal commission that is powerful, effective and legally sound. They deserve a framework that cannot later be challenged as rushed or poorly constructed. They deserve a bill where all parties have confidence in that drafting and where there are no unintended consequences. Parliamentary scrutiny is responsible. It helps ensure that legislative architecture supporting the commission is sound. The royal commission must have access to the information it needs, but, in granting that access, we must preserve the integrity of secrecy law, the rights of individuals and the balance between transparency and security. That balance is parliament's responsibility.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“That is why the coalition supports this bill. We support its objectives, and we also support the legal framework it establishes to protect individuals who provide intelligence and operationally sensitive information to a royal commission. These protections are, of course, necessary because, without them, officials within Australia's intelligence and security agencies could themselves face legal risk for disclosing information that is critical to the royal commission's work.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
1 speaker · 1 oppose
“Only after pressure was put on them from my party and from commentary in the media—only after pressure has been put on them do they bring this half-baked bill in. This half-baked bill goes nowhere near giving the protections that the veterans royal commission said were necessary for royal commissions. First of all, it does nothing about the parliamentary privilege. The Greens will be supporting amendments drafted by Senator Lambie that go to that core issue. We hope that the government, having read the interim report from the veterans royal commission, will support those amendments to say that royal commissions can have access to parliamentary reports and can use parliamentary reports and committee reports to do the work they need to do. We'll support that amendment. It's well drafted, and I want to thank Senator Lambie for bringing it to the Senate.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
1 speaker · 1 support
“I do want to finally say that I thank the Attorney-General for her engagement on these issues, and I acknowledge that this bill is really needed and timely. I think it strengthens protection at a critical moment and helps ensure that the royal commission examining the offence of 14 December can operate smoothly and effectively. I note that the member for Berowra had some concerns in relation to the timing of the bill and opportunities for it to be reviewed. I think those have to be balanced against the needs of the royal commission to act really swiftly. I look forward to engaging with both the member for Berowra and the Attorney-General on this because the goal really is to enable the royal commission to do its incredibly important work and, at the same time, ensure that these protections are appropriate and will last through both this royal commission and subsequent royal commissions as well.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
Record
House · Introduced and read a first time
Introduced
The bill was formally presented to the chamber and read a first time, which starts its parliamentary journey.
House · Second reading moved
Second reading opened
A minister or sponsoring member moved the second reading, opening the main debate on the bill's purpose and principles.
House · Second reading debate
Second reading debate
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
House · Second reading agreed to
Second reading agreed
The chamber agreed to the bill at second reading, meaning it accepted the bill in principle and allowed it to continue.
House · Third reading agreed to
Third reading agreed
The chamber agreed to the bill at third reading, which completed passage through that chamber.
Senate · Introduced and read a first time
Introduced
The bill was formally presented to the chamber and read a first time, which starts its parliamentary journey.
Senate · Second reading moved
Second reading opened
A minister or sponsoring member moved the second reading, opening the main debate on the bill's purpose and principles.
Senate · Second reading debate
Second reading debate
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
Senate · Second reading agreed to
Second reading agreed
The chamber agreed to the bill at second reading, meaning it accepted the bill in principle and allowed it to continue.
Senate · Committee of the Whole debate
Committee of the Whole debate
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
Senate · Third reading agreed to
Recorded vote: 34 to 10.
Third reading agreed
The chamber agreed to the bill at third reading, which completed passage through that chamber.
Parliament · Finally passed both Houses
Passed both houses
Both houses passed the bill in the same form, completing parliamentary passage.
Assent · Assent
Assent
The Governor-General gave Royal Assent, turning the bill into an Act.
