This bill is currently before Parliament.
Law, justice & rights
The bill would remove criminal liability from more than 300 Commonwealth secrecy provisions, which the explanatory memorandum says is more than one third of Commonwealth secrecy provisions that attract criminal liability.
The bill was introduced after official secrecy-law reviews found that Commonwealth secrecy offences had become numerous, inconsistent and too broad in places. The government says the bill responds by removing unnecessary criminal liability, replacing section 122.4A Criminal Code provision that currently makes some breaches of Commonwealth non-disclosure duties criminal offences. The bill would repeal and replace it. with a targeted offence for improper use of Commonwealth information, implementing most agreed INSLM recommendations for Part 5.6 of the Criminal CodeThe part of the Commonwealth Criminal Code that contains general secrecy offences dealing with Commonwealth information., and adding a safeguard before journalist prosecutions can proceed. The debate also linked the new targeted offence to gaps exposed by the alleged PwC tax confidentiality breach.
This bill is the main reform bill in a secrecy-law package. Its background is a long-running concern that Commonwealth secrecy laws had become too broad, complex and uneven, with criminal liability attached to many non-disclosure duties where civil, administrative or contractual consequences may be more proportionate. The bill also responds to press-freedom concerns, INSLM recommendations about Part 5.6 of the Criminal CodeThe part of the Commonwealth Criminal Code that contains general secrecy offences dealing with Commonwealth information., and the government's stated concern about misuse of confidential Commonwealth information for private benefit.
The main criticisms were not about whether secrecy law should be simplified. They focused on whether the bill went far enough, and whether parts of the replacement framework created new uncertainty. Crossbench members argued for stronger whistleblower and journalist protections and for a harm-based offence. Coalition speakers said they would not oppose the bill in the House but wanted Senate scrutiny of the undefined improper-use test, possible gaps and the broad journalist consent mechanism.
Attorney-General Michelle Rowland introduced this bill. Supportive speeches so far have come from Labor.
Did it become law?
Not yet
Final passage
Recorded vote so far
3 recorded amendment or procedural votes were found, but no counted vote on the bill itself was recorded.
Days since introduction
70 days
Updated 10 June 2026.
Meaning
The bill would remove criminal liability from more than 300 Commonwealth secrecy provisions, which the explanatory memorandum says is more than one third of Commonwealth secrecy provisions that attract criminal liability.
The bill would repeal existing section 122.4A Criminal Code provision that currently makes some breaches of Commonwealth non-disclosure duties criminal offences. The bill would repeal and replace it. of the Criminal Code, which currently attaches criminal liability to breaches of all Commonwealth non-disclosure duties, while preserving criminal liability for 16 non-disclosure duties in Commonwealth Acts.
The bill would create a new targeted secrecy offenceA criminal offence that applies to unauthorised use, disclosure or handling of protected information. for Commonwealth officers and other people connected to the Commonwealth who improperly use or communicate Commonwealth information to seek a benefit or cause detriment.
The bill would require the Attorney-General's consent before a journalist or related news-organisation administrative staff member can be prosecuted for a secrecy offenceA criminal offence that applies to unauthorised use, disclosure or handling of protected information., unless an exception applies.
The bill would also amend Criminal Code secrecy offences by removing security-classification labels as offence elements, raising thresholds for non-officials, reducing the non-officialIn this context, a person who is not a Commonwealth official but may receive or communicate Commonwealth information, such as a journalist or another outside recipient. communication offence penalty from five years to three years, and repealing the non-officialIn this context, a person who is not a Commonwealth official but may receive or communicate Commonwealth information, such as a journalist or another outside recipient. offence for merely dealing with information.
The bill would commence the day after Royal AssentThe final formal step after Parliament passes a bill. This bill would commence the day after Royal Assent if enacted. if enacted, but the local source bundle did not include final Act text, Royal AssentThe final formal step after Parliament passes a bill. This bill would commence the day after Royal Assent if enacted. details or an as-passed bill comparison.
The Bill would remove criminal liability from more than 300 secrecy offences - representing a reduction of more than one third of Commonwealth secrecy provisions that attract criminal liability.Explanatory memorandum
Schedule 1 of the Bill would repeal existing section 122.4 of the Criminal Code. This would have the effect of removing criminal liability for communications by certain Commonwealth officials that breach non-disclosure duties across the statute book, while preserving criminal liability for 16 non-disclosure duties in Commonwealth Acts.Explanatory memorandum
the person uses or communicates the information with the intention of: (i) obtaining, or seeking to obtain, a benefit ... or (ii) causing, or seeking to cause, detriment ... and ... it would be reasonable to conclude that the use or communication of the information is improper.Introduced bill text
Schedule 3 would introduce a new requirement for the Attorney-General’s consent to prosecute a journalist or administrative staff member of an entity in the business of reporting news for secrecy offences unless otherwise prescribed by regulations.Explanatory memorandum
amendments to the secrecy offences for non-officials at section 122.4A to ensure non-officials are subject to a higher threshold for criminal culpability than Commonwealth officials, including to increase thresholds to trigger criminal liability, reduce the penalty and repeal the offence for dealing with informationExplanatory memorandum
The whole of this Act: The day after this Act receives the Royal Assent.Introduced bill text
Context
This bill is the main reform bill in a secrecy-law package. Its background is a long-running concern that Commonwealth secrecy laws had become too broad, complex and uneven, with criminal liability attached to many non-disclosure duties where civil, administrative or contractual consequences may be more proportionate. The bill also responds to press-freedom concerns, INSLM recommendations about Part 5.6 of the Criminal CodeThe part of the Commonwealth Criminal Code that contains general secrecy offences dealing with Commonwealth information., and the government's stated concern about misuse of confidential Commonwealth information for private benefit.
AGD secrecy review released
The Attorney-General's Department review found opportunities to reduce the number, inconsistency and complexity of Commonwealth secrecy offences, and identified provisions that no longer required criminal liability.
Explanatory memorandum and minister's second reading speech ↗INSLM reviews Criminal Code secrecy offences
The Independent National Security Legislation Monitor reviewed Part 5.6The part of the Commonwealth Criminal Code that contains general secrecy offences dealing with Commonwealth information. secrecy offences. The bill implements the government response to several INSLM recommendations, including changes to classification-based elements and non-officialIn this context, a person who is not a Commonwealth official but may receive or communicate Commonwealth information, such as a journalist or another outside recipient. offences.
Explanatory memorandum ↗Repealing-offences bill introduced
The government introduced the bill to remove criminal liability from more than 300 secrecy provisions, create a targeted offence for improper use of Commonwealth information and add journalist prosecution safeguards.
APH timeline and explanatory memorandum ↗Senate committee inquiry begins
The APH notes record referral to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee, with a report due on 19 June 2026.
APH bill page notes ↗House debate tests the reform balance
Members broadly supported reducing unnecessary secrecy offences but raised concerns about whistleblower protections, public-interest journalism, the undefined improper-use test and the Attorney-General consent mechanism.
House of Representatives Hansard ↗House rejects crossbench amendments
The House defeated Wilkie's second-reading amendmentA proposed change to the motion that a bill be read a second time. It usually records a view or calls for action rather than changing the bill text itself., Chaney's harm-threshold and review amendments, and Spender's Public Interest Disclosure ActA Commonwealth whistleblower law that can be relevant to defences for some secrecy offences when information is disclosed through protected channels. defence amendment, before agreeing to the bill at third reading.
House division records and APH 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 was referred to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee, with a report due on 19 June 2026.
Report due 19 Jun 2026
APH bill page notesThe bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
Referred to Federation Chamber
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
Reported from Federation Chamber
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 considered the bill in detail and dealt with amendments before the next stage.
Consideration in detail debate
The chamber agreed to the bill at third reading, which completed passage through that chamber.
Third reading agreed to
Key criticism
The main criticisms were not about whether secrecy law should be simplified. They focused on whether the bill went far enough, and whether parts of the replacement framework created new uncertainty. Crossbench members argued for stronger whistleblower and journalist protections and for a harm-based offence. Coalition speakers said they would not oppose the bill in the House but wanted Senate scrutiny of the undefined improper-use test, possible gaps and the broad journalist consent mechanism.
The government argued that the bill deliberately avoids a broader general secrecy offenceA criminal offence that applies to unauthorised use, disclosure or handling of protected information., targets conduct like improper use of confidential Commonwealth information for benefit or detriment, keeps criminal liability where necessary and will deal with public-sector whistleblower reform separately.
Undefined improper-use test
Kate Chaney argued that the new section 122.4A Criminal Code provision that currently makes some breaches of Commonwealth non-disclosure duties criminal offences. The bill would repeal and replace it. offence should be based on harm to essential public interests, rather than the undefined concept of improper use or communication.
Possible gaps and Senate scrutiny
Julian Leeser said the Coalition would not oppose the bill in the House but wanted the Senate committee to examine the bill's scope, gaps and choices not recommended by independent reviewers.
Journalist safeguards seen as incomplete
Allegra Spender said the bill improved press-freedom safeguards but left the public-interest journalism defence structured against journalists and relied on an Attorney-General consent mechanism with structural limits.
Whistleblower reform left unfinished
Andrew Wilkie moved a second-reading amendmentA proposed change to the motion that a bill be read a second time. It usually records a view or calls for action rather than changing the bill text itself. calling for broader public and private sector whistleblower reforms, stronger protections for public-interest journalism and media sources, a protection authority and a rewards scheme.
Further sources
Votes
Recorded amendment and procedural votes grouped by chamber. Expand a vote to see the party breakdown.
House
Moved by Andrew Wilkie (Crossbench). Defeated 10 to 71. Support came from Greens, Centre Alliance, and minor parties and independents. Opposition came from Labor, Liberal Party, and minor parties and independents.
The bill then proceeded at second reading without adding Wilkie's wider reform call to the House motion.
Moved by Kate Chaney (Crossbench). Defeated 10 to 73. Support came from Greens and minor parties and independents. Opposition came from Labor, Liberal Party, and Nationals. Minor-party and independent votes were split.
The new section 122.4A Criminal Code provision that currently makes some breaches of Commonwealth non-disclosure duties criminal offences. The bill would repeal and replace it. offence stayed in the government's introduced form for House passage.
Moved by Allegra Spender (Crossbench). Defeated 9 to 69. Support came from Greens and minor parties and independents. Opposition came from Labor and Liberal Party. Minor-party and independent votes were split.
The bill proceeded without the proposed extra public-interest pathway for defendants relying on that defence.
These are amendment votes, not the final passage vote on the bill itself.
Parliamentary debate
Start here — lead voices
Rowland says the bill reduces unnecessary criminal secrecy offences, replaces a broad section 122.4A Criminal Code provision that currently makes some breaches of Commonwealth non-disclosure duties criminal offences. The bill would repeal and replace it. framework with a targeted offence for improper use of Commonwealth information, and adds safeguards for journalist prosecutions.
Read in Hansard ↗Wilkie supports reducing secrecy offences but moves a second-reading amendmentA proposed change to the motion that a bill be read a second time. It usually records a view or calls for action rather than changing the bill text itself. calling for stronger whistleblower protections, public-interest journalism protections, a whistleblower protection authority and a rewards scheme.
Read in Hansard ↗Leeser says the Coalition will not oppose the bill in the House, but wants the Senate committee to examine the undefined concept of improper use, possible gaps for sensitive leaks, and the broad Attorney-General consent mechanism for journalist prosecutions.
Read in Hansard ↗Clutterham supports the bill, saying secrecy laws need to be justified and proportionate, while also defending careful treatment of whistleblower reform and backing the Attorney-General consent safeguard for journalist prosecutions.
Read in Hansard ↗All speeches by bloc
5 speakers · 6 contributions · 4 support · 1 unclear
“The Secrecy Provisions Amendment (Repealing Offences) Bill seeks to strike that balance between secrecy, transparency and accountability, and I stand with the Attorney-General in bringing this bill before the parliament.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“It removes unnecessary criminal liability, it replaces a temporary and broad provision with a more targeted offence, it better protects public interest journalism, it implements important recommendations from recent reviews, and it makes the Commonwealth secrecy framework clearer than it is now.”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 says the bill reduces unnecessary criminal secrecy offences, replaces a broad section 122.4A Criminal Code provision that currently makes some breaches of Commonwealth non-disclosure duties criminal offences. The bill would repeal and replace it. framework with a targeted offence for improper use of Commonwealth information, and adds safeguards for journalist prosecutions.
“Key among these is the repeal or removal of criminal liability from more than 300 secrecy provisions across the statute book, where it is no longer necessary.”Read this contribution in Hansard ↗
Second reading speech
Rowland closes debate for the government, saying the bill balances protection for genuinely sensitive information with transparency, and that the government will oppose Wilkie's second-reading amendmentA proposed change to the motion that a bill be read a second time. It usually records a view or calls for action rather than changing the bill text itself. while pursuing public-sector whistleblower reform separately.
“This bill to reform secrecy laws and the government's considered and methodical approach to whistleblower reform are critical to supporting integrity and the rule of law. For these reasons, the government will be opposing the amendment.”Read this contribution in Hansard ↗
“The bill will remove criminal liability from more than 300 provisions, representing more than one-third of all Commonwealth secrecy provisions.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“Question unresolved. As it is necessary to resolve this question to enable further questions to be considered in relation to this bill in accordance with standing order 195, the bill will be returned to the House for further consideration.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
2 speakers · 2 mixed
“The coalition will not oppose this bill in the House. But that's not the end of the matter. The coalition has questions about the bill's scope, about its gaps and about choices the government has made that no independent reviewer recommended.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“Let me say clearly that the coalition supports the principle that criminal sanctions should be proportionate to the seriousness of the conduct involved.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
3 speakers · 3 mixed
“Minimising secrecy and maximising transparency are obviously building blocks of a healthy democracy and are to be applauded, so the Secrecy Provisions Amendment (Repealing Offences) Bill 2026 is a worthwhile bill and is obviously supportable.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“These are real reforms. They reduce criminal liability, raise thresholds and lower penalties. I do not want to diminish what this bill achieves. Reducing 875 secrecy provisions to fewer than 600 is a genuine accomplishment. Removing the absurdity of journalists facing prosecution for receiving unsolicited documents is a genuine improvement. But genuine improvement is not the same as adequate protection.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“But replacing them with an offence that turns on whether the use of information was improper is dangerously vague. It's not consistent with the harm based approach or the focus on essential public interests, advocated by the INSLM and the Law Council, which the government agreed with in principle.”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 · Referred to Federation Chamber
Referred to Federation Chamber
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
House · Second reading debate
Second reading debate
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
House · Reported from Federation Chamber
Reported from Federation Chamber
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 · Consideration in detail debate
Consideration in detail
The chamber considered the bill in detail and dealt with amendments before the next stage.
House · Third reading agreed to
Third reading agreed
The chamber agreed to the bill at third reading, which completed passage through that chamber.
Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee
Report due 19 Jun 2026
The bill was referred to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee, with a report due on 19 June 2026.
The bill was referred to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee on 1 April 2026, with a report due on 19 June 2026.
APH bill page notes
