This bill is currently before Parliament.
Law, justice & rights
Public servants and others handling government information face fewer criminal secrecy laws.
The government said Australia had accumulated a complex patchwork of secrecy laws, including outdated rules that were broader than necessary. A 2023 government review identified 168 provisions that no longer needed criminal penalties. After consulting more than 13 departments and agencies, the government proposed removing criminal penalties from almost twice that number. It also said the new offence would address gaps exposed when a former PwC partner allegedly shared confidential government information.
Commonwealth secrecy law had grown into a complex web of more than 860 provisions, while reviews in 2023 and 2024 found that its criminal offences were numerous, inconsistent and sometimes disproportionate, and an alleged disclosure of Treasury information exposed a gap in accountability. The bill responds by removing criminal liabilityLegal responsibility that can lead to punishment. from more than 300 provisions, retaining protection for the most sensitive information, creating a targeted misuse offence and adding press-freedom safeguards; the House passed it on 14 May 2026, before Senate consideration began.
Kate Chaney (Independent) argued that the word “improper” in the new offence was dangerously vague. She wanted prosecutors to prove harm to an essential public interestA major interest such as national security., such as national security or public health. Allegra Spender (Independent) said ordinary community groups discussing confidential draft laws could arguably be caught. She also criticised rules requiring journalists to produce evidence that their reporting served the public interest. Spender warned that giving the Attorney-General power over journalist prosecutions could appear political. Julian Leeser (Liberal) said the Coalition would not oppose the bill in the House, but still had questions about its scope, gaps and choices not recommended by independent reviewers.
Hon Michelle Rowland MP introduced this bill. Supportive speeches so far have come from Labor, LNP, some crossbench members.
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
128 days
Updated 07 Aug 2026.
Meaning
Public servants and others handling government information face fewer criminal secrecy laws. More than 300 offences lose criminal penalties, a reduction of over one-third.
People covered by most old confidentiality duties can still face workplace discipline or civil action, but not criminal prosecution. Criminal penalties remain for 16 duties.
Officials, contractors and service providers can face two years in prison for intentionally misusing government information to benefit someone or harm someone.
Paid and unpaid service providers can be covered by the new offence, even without a government contract.
Journalists and news organisations gain an extra safeguard. The Attorney-General must approve a secrecy prosecution before it proceeds.
Journalists and other people outside government face a maximum of three years for certain disclosures, down from five years. Simply receiving information is no longer an offence.
Australian Broadcasting Corporation and Special Broadcasting Service staff are not treated as government officials under these secrecy offences.
Existing section 122.4 of the Criminal Code provides that a current or former Commonwealth officer or person engaged to perform work for a Commonwealth entity commits an offence if they communicate information obtained in their official capacity and they are under a duty, arising under a law of the Commonwealth, not to disclose the information. The effect of this provision is to criminalise breaches of all non‑disclosure duties across the Commonwealth statute book, to the extent the relevant duty covers communication by a current or former Commonwealth officer or person engaged to perform workSecrecy Provisions Amendment (Repealing Offences) explanatory memorandum
The offence at section 122.4 was intended to be time-limited until such time as all of the duties could be reviewed to determine whether criminal liability could be removed. This review process has now been undertaken and the criminal liability imposed by existing section 122.4 has been determined to be unnecessary for all but 16 non-disclosure duties (which will be preserved by Part 3 of Schedule 1 to the Bill). As such, the repeal of existing section 122.4 will remove criminal liability from the vast majority of the more than 300 non‑disclosure duties currently on the statute book. AlthoughSecrecy Provisions Amendment (Repealing Offences) explanatory memorandum
New section 122.4 would provide that a person commits an offence if: a person uses or communicates information (paragraph 122.4(1)(a)) the information was made or obtained by reason of the person being, or having been, a Commonwealth officer or otherwise engaged to perform work for a Part 5.6 Commonwealth entity, or providing, or having provided, services (whether paid or unpaid) to a Part 5.6 Commonwealth entity (paragraph 122.4(1)(b)) the person uses or communicates the information with the intention of obtaining, or seeking to obtain, a benefit for the person or any other person, or causSecrecy Provisions Amendment (Repealing Offences) explanatory memorandum
Item 1 would substitute a new, more targeted secrecy offence at section 122.4 of the Criminal Code. The new offence is intended to protect sensitive information held by the Commonwealth and ensure that Commonwealth officers and others with confidentiality obligations can be held to account when they use information inconsistently with the standards expected of them. The new offence has also been designed to address issues raised by the alleged disclosure of Treasury information by a then partner at a consulting firm in breach of confidentiality obligations. In particular, the new offence wouldSecrecy Provisions Amendment (Repealing Offences) explanatory memorandum
An important part of these amendments is the protection of press freedoms which is integral to the functioning of an effective democracy. The bill will also legislate a new requirement that the Attorney-General consent to the prosecution of a journalist for any secrecy offence. This will operate as an additional safeguard for press freedom, requiring proper scrutiny of a prosecution before it proceeds and complementing the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions requirement that the prosecution be in the public interest.Minister's second reading speech
There has been debate about whether requiring the Attorney-General's consent risks politicising prosecutorial decisions, and that concern should not be dismissed. The Law Council and the Alliance for Journalists' Freedom have raised legitimate points about the role of executive discretion in this space. But the contrary position also has force. The Human Rights Law Centre, Transparency International Australia and others have recognised that, in the current framework, a legislated consent requirement is a pragmatic safeguard. The Australian Press Council has also argued that legislative entrencSecond reading speech
Paragraph 122.4(1)(b) would adopt the definition of Commonwealth officer in existing section 121.1 of the Criminal Code, which includes APS employees, Commonwealth appointees, contracted service providers and others in an employment relationship with the Commonwealth. It would also adopt the new definition of Part 5.6 Commonwealth entity (at item 3 of Schedule 1 to the Bill) which is defined as any Commonwealth entity (as defined in the Dictionary to the Criminal Code) except for the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) and the Special Broadcasting Service Corporation (SBS). The applicatSecrecy Provisions Amendment (Repealing Offences) explanatory memorandum
Context
Commonwealth secrecy law had grown into a complex web of more than 860 provisions, while reviews in 2023 and 2024 found that its criminal offences were numerous, inconsistent and sometimes disproportionate, and an alleged disclosure of Treasury information exposed a gap in accountability. The bill responds by removing criminal liabilityLegal responsibility that can lead to punishment. from more than 300 provisions, retaining protection for the most sensitive information, creating a targeted misuse offence and adding press-freedom safeguards; the House passed it on 14 May 2026, before Senate consideration began.
The 2023 secrecy-law review prompts reform commitments
The government said it would respond to the wide-ranging review and promised stronger protections for journalists and whistleblowers.
ABC News ↗The independent secrecy-offences review identifies further problems
The Independent National Security Legislation Monitor’s review of Criminal Code secrecy offences provided further recommendations on their scope, consistency and proportionality.
Secrecy Provisions Amendment (Repealing Offences) explanatory memorandum ↗An alleged Treasury information disclosure exposes an accountability gap
The explanatory memorandum linked the proposed targeted offence to an alleged disclosure of Treasury information by a consulting-firm partner, saying it exposed a gap in existing confidentiality obligations.
Secrecy Provisions Amendment (Repealing Offences) explanatory memorandum ↗Hon Michelle Rowland MP introduces the bill
The bill began its parliamentary journey with its introduction and first reading in the House of Representatives.
Parliamentary timeline ↗House passes the bill
The House agreed to the second and third readings, completing the bill’s passage through that chamber.
Parliamentary timeline ↗The bill moves to the next chamber
The bill was introduced again and its second reading was moved, opening consideration in the next chamber.
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
Referred to Committee (01/04/2026): Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee; Committee report (19/06/2026)
Report tabled 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
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
Key criticism
Kate Chaney (Independent) argued that the word “improper” in the new offence was dangerously vague. She wanted prosecutors to prove harm to an essential public interestA major interest such as national security., such as national security or public health. Allegra Spender (Independent) said ordinary community groups discussing confidential draft laws could arguably be caught. She also criticised rules requiring journalists to produce evidence that their reporting served the public interest. Spender warned that giving the Attorney-General power over journalist prosecutions could appear political. Julian Leeser (Liberal) said the Coalition would not oppose the bill in the House, but still had questions about its scope, gaps and choices not recommended by independent reviewers.
Attorney-General Michelle Rowland (Labor) said the narrower offence responded to stakeholder concerns about a broader proposal. The government said approval by the Attorney-General would add scrutiny before a journalist could be prosecuted.
Unclear criminal threshold
The improper-conduct test was criticised as too vague, creating uncertainty about when using or disclosing Commonwealth information could attract criminal liabilityLegal responsibility that can lead to punishment.. Critics sought a clearer, harm-based threshold.
Incomplete disclosure safeguards
Critics argued that journalist protections should be reviewed regularly and whistleblower protections strengthened, including through an independent protection authority. The Coalition also questioned the expanded requirement for Attorney-General consent before prosecuting journalists.
Further sources
Votes
Recorded amendment and procedural votes grouped by chamber. Expand a vote to see the party breakdown.
House
Defeated 10 to 71. Support came from Greens, Centre Alliance, and minor parties and independents. Opposition came from Labor, Liberal, and minor parties and independents.
The defeat left the bill's second-reading motion unchanged, and the House then agreed to read the bill a second time.
Did not vote: Liberal Party, LNP, Nationals
Defeated 10 to 73. Support came from Greens and minor parties and independents. Opposition came from Labor, Liberal, Nationals, and minor parties and independents.
The defeat preserved the bill's broader harm threshold and did not add the proposed review requirement.
Did not vote: Liberal Party, LNP, Nationals
Defeated 9 to 69. Support came from Greens and minor parties and independents. Opposition came from Labor, Liberal, and minor parties and independents.
The defeat left the existing Public Interest Disclosure Act defence unchanged, after which the House agreed to the bill in detail.
Did not vote: Liberal Party, LNP, Nationals
These are amendment votes, not the final passage vote on the bill itself.
Parliamentary debate
Start here — lead voices
Rowland urges the House to pass the bill, arguing that it will make secrecy laws more proportionate by removing unnecessary criminal liabilityLegal responsibility that can lead to punishment. from over 300 provisions while retaining targeted penalties for serious misuse of sensitive government information.
Read in Hansard ↗Andrew Wilkie supports the bill as a worthwhile step to reduce secrecy and increase transparency, but says the government must also urgently strengthen whistleblower protections, protect public-interest journalismReporting intended to benefit the public. and establish an independent whistleblower protection authority.
Read in Hansard ↗Allegra Spender supports the bill as a significant reduction in excessive secrecy offences, but argues it still needs stronger protections for journalists and whistleblowers and clearer, harm based thresholds for criminal liabilityLegal responsibility that can lead to punishment..
Read in Hansard ↗Leeser says the coalition will not oppose the bill in the House, but will finalise its position after a Senate inquiry examines possible gaps, unclear offence thresholds and the expanded consent requirement for prosecuting journalists.
Read in Hansard ↗All speeches by bloc
6 speakers · 7 contributions · 5 support · 1 unclear
“Achieving the genuine purpose of secrecy laws is challenging because it involves a combination of secrecy, transparency and accountability. But that purpose must always be achieved, because if it is not then public confidence in the secrecy framework is eroded, and once this is damaged or gone the challenge to try to regain that trust is almost insurmountable. 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 and in the work that she has done revisiting Australia's secrecy laws. I commend the bill to the Chamber.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“The people of Moore expect government to protect sensitive information. They also expect the government to be accountable. Those expectations are not inconsistent. A mature legal framework should be able to do both. This bill moves us closer to that position. It is careful. It is practical. It is overdue. I commend the bill to the House.”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 urges the House to pass the bill, arguing that it will make secrecy laws more proportionate by removing unnecessary criminal liabilityLegal responsibility that can lead to punishment. from over 300 provisions while retaining targeted penalties for serious misuse of sensitive government information.
“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. This represents a reduction of more than a third of Commonwealth secrecy provisions attracting criminal sanction.”Read this contribution in Hansard ↗
Second reading speech
Rowland supports the bill because it removes unnecessary criminal secrecy offences while retaining targeted protections for genuinely sensitive Commonwealth information and strengthening press freedom safeguards.
“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. Australia's secrecy laws are essential. Without them, sensitive information could be exposed in ways that could damage public trust in government, cause real harm to our national security or put lives at risk. But equally, transparency and accountability are vital features of our democracy. These comprehensive and considered reforms are about getting that balance right. I commend the bill to the House.”Read this contribution in Hansard ↗
“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. This represents a reduction of more than a third of Commonwealth secrecy provisions attracting criminal sanction.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“The scale of change is significant. The bill will remove criminal liability from more than 300 provisions, representing more than one-third of all Commonwealth secrecy provisions. The 2023 review identified 168 provisions that no longer required criminal liability. This bill goes further, almost doubling that number. No more tinkering around the edges; this is serious evidence based law reform.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“Question unresolved.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
2 speakers · 1 support · 1 mixed
“I rise to speak on the Secrecy Provisions Amendment (Repealing Offences) Bill 2026 and the Secrecy Provisions Amendment (Sunsetting Provision) Bill 2026. The repealing offences bill is a bill that reshapes where the criminal law ends and where civil liability begins in the protection of Commonwealth information. The coalition will not oppose this bill in the House. The government has the numbers and it will, of course, pass this chamber. 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. These are questions that must be examined by the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee, which is due to report next month. The coalition will finalise its position, including on whether amendments are necessary, once that process is complete.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“One of the most significant aspects of this legislation is the creation of a new targeted secrecy offence relating to the improper use or communication of Commonwealth information for personal gain or to cause detriment. Frankly, most Australians would assume this type of offence already existed. Australians expect that, if someone entrusted with sensitive information abuses that information for personal advantage, there should be serious consequences. The proposed offence specifically targets intentional misuse of information where somebody improperly uses or communicates information to obtain a benefit or cause detriment to another person or Commonwealth entity. Importantly, this offence is narrower and more targeted than the existing broader framework. It focuses on deliberate wrongdoing and genuinely harmful conduct rather than technical administrative mistakes. I think most Australians would see that as a reasonable and proportionate approach.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
3 speakers · 2 support · 1 mixed
“I won't detain the House any longer. I will just say in closing that, yes, minimising secrecy and maximising transparency are building blocks of a healthy democracy and are to be applauded. I say, through you, Deputy Speaker Mascarenhas, to the Attorney-General: this is a worthwhile bill, and I hope it has the unanimous support of everyone in this House and in the other place, but it's almost a clarion call to get moving on all the other stuff—the big stuff, the more important stuff, the more helpful stuff, the stuff that will show whether or not this government has real integrity and is committed to minimising secrecy and maximising transparency and to celebrating the people who speak up and speak truth to power. I rattled off about 10 examples here of particular individuals. We should also be mindful of the thousands of Australians who speak up in all sorts of ways, whether it be about the organisation they're a member of, about the business they're an employee of or maybe about their local council. There are any number of things where people speak up, and for many of those whistleblowers it ends in tears. They will be bullied in the workplace, they'll be managed out or they'll be blatantly sacked. They will be ridiculed and marginalised. It leads to financial troubles. It leads to relationship troubles. No wonder the suicide rate for whistleblowers is markedly higher than the baseline rate in our community.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“I rise in support of the Secrecy Provisions Amendment (Repealing Offences) Bill 2026. This is some of the most significant reform to Commonwealth secrecy law in decades. It draws on two major reviews: the Attorney-General's Department Review of Secrecy Provisions completed in 2023 and the subsequent independent statutory review by the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor. I commend the government for acting on these findings.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“I urge the government to consider my amendments in good faith—making the new test harm based and directed to essential public interests and including a five-yearly review to make sure that the Attorney-General's consent mechanism for journalist prosecutions is actually working as it should. These are reasonable changes, and, if the government agrees to them, I will happily support the bill.”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 · 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 Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee
Report tabled 19 Jun 2026
Referred to Committee (1 Apr 2026): Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee; Committee report (19 June 2026)
APH bill page notes
