This bill did not become law and is no longer proceeding.
Government & democracy
Royal Commissions that are told to examine government actions would be allowed to use parliamentary material as evidence and draw conclusions from it.
Parliamentary privilegeThe rule that stops outside bodies from using parliamentary proceedings to draw conclusions, which the bill would override for certain royal commissions. seriously constrained the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran SuicideThe inquiry this bill is meant to help, by letting it use parliamentary material when examining how government and Defence handled veteran suicide issues. by blocking it from using parliamentary material to examine government actions and failures. This bill lets Royal Commissions examining government use that material and draw conclusions from it so they can investigate officials more fully.
Since 1987, parliamentary privilegeThe rule that stops outside bodies from using parliamentary proceedings to draw conclusions, which the bill would override for certain royal commissions. rules have stopped bodies outside Parliament from using parliamentary proceedings to draw conclusions, and the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran SuicideThe inquiry this bill is meant to help, by letting it use parliamentary material when examining how government and Defence handled veteran suicide issues. said those limits blocked it from testing how government agencies acted on material including a 2021 Defence cultural reform audit. After the commission was extended in April 2022 amid continuing delays in getting information from Defence and Veterans’ Affairs, the bill was introduced in September 2022 to implement the commission’s Recommendation 7The specific recommendation from the royal commission that called for an exemption from parliamentary privilege., but it later lapsed in July 2025 without becoming law.
The main criticism was that the bill cut into parliamentary privilegeThe rule that stops outside bodies from using parliamentary proceedings to draw conclusions, which the bill would override for certain royal commissions. too far, risking freer debate in parliament and weakening a basic constitutional safeguard just to help one royal commissionA formal public inquiry with strong powers to gather evidence and question people, used here to investigate government actions.. That objection came mainly from Coalition speakers, while Greens senator David Shoebridge said the change should be checked and tightly confined rather than left broader than necessary.
Senator Jacqui Lambie introduced this bill. Speeches supporting it came from Jacqui Lambie Network, Labor, Greens.
Did it become law?
No
The bill did not complete passage through Parliament.
Final passage
No final passage
The bill has not completed passage and is no longer proceeding.
Time before failure
1048 days
From introduction to the final recorded step before the bill stopped proceeding
Meaning
Royal Commissions that are told to examine government actions would be allowed to use parliamentary material as evidence and draw conclusions from it.
The Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran SuicideThe inquiry this bill is meant to help, by letting it use parliamentary material when examining how government and Defence handled veteran suicide issues. could more fully investigate what Australian Government officials did or failed to do by analysing evidence now protected by parliamentary privilegeThe rule that stops outside bodies from using parliamentary proceedings to draw conclusions, which the bill would override for certain royal commissions..
Royal Commissions examining government could question how ministers, departments and agencies responded to earlier parliamentary inquiries and reports instead of being blocked from following up those findings.
The change would also stop parliamentary privilegeThe rule that stops outside bodies from using parliamentary proceedings to draw conclusions, which the bill would override for certain royal commissions. and the old Bill of Rights rules from blocking this kind of evidence in Royal Commissions that must examine government conduct.
If passed, the new rules would start the day after Royal AssentThe step after Parliament passes a bill when the Governor-General signs it, which would start the new rules the next day., so Royal Commissions could use them straight away.
This bill seeks to remedy this issue for the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide and other Royal Commissions with terms of reference that require an examination of the actions and inactions of government. It does this by providing an exemption from paragraph 16(3)(c) of the Parliamentary Privileges Act 1987. The exemption would allow exempted Royal Commissions to draw, or invite the drawing of, inferences or conclusions wholly or partly from anything forming part of proceedings in Parliament.Parliamentary Privileges Amendment (Royal Commission Response) explanatory memorandum
The effect of this would be that Royal Commissions such as the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide could analyse evidence that is subject to parliamentary privilege and draw conclusions from it, allowing for a fuller investigation of the actions and inactions of officials in the Australian Government.Parliamentary Privileges Amendment (Royal Commission Response) explanatory memorandum
This leaves the Royal Commission unable to inquire into the work and outcomes of prior critical reports, despite its terms of reference requiring it to consider “the findings and recommendations of previous relevant reports and inquiries … including any assessment of the adequacy and extent of implementation of those recommendations”.Parliamentary Privileges Amendment (Royal Commission Response) explanatory memorandum
This item adds a provision to the Parliamentary Privileges Act 1987 to provide that neither paragraph 16(3)(c) nor the Bill of Rights 1688 shall be taken to prevent or restrict the admission of evidence before a Royal Commission with terms of reference that require an examination of government, for the purpose of drawing, or inviting the drawing of, inferences or conclusions wholly or partly from anything forming part of proceedings in Parliament.Parliamentary Privileges Amendment (Royal Commission Response) explanatory memorandum
2. Clause 2 provides a table setting out the commencement date of the new Act. This table provides that the provisions of the bill will commence on the day after the new Act receives Royal Assent.Parliamentary Privileges Amendment (Royal Commission Response) explanatory memorandum
Context
Since 1987, parliamentary privilegeThe rule that stops outside bodies from using parliamentary proceedings to draw conclusions, which the bill would override for certain royal commissions. rules have stopped bodies outside Parliament from using parliamentary proceedings to draw conclusions, and the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran SuicideThe inquiry this bill is meant to help, by letting it use parliamentary material when examining how government and Defence handled veteran suicide issues. said those limits blocked it from testing how government agencies acted on material including a 2021 Defence cultural reform audit. After the commission was extended in April 2022 amid continuing delays in getting information from Defence and Veterans’ Affairs, the bill was introduced in September 2022 to implement the commission’s Recommendation 7The specific recommendation from the royal commission that called for an exemption from parliamentary privilege., but it later lapsed in July 2025 without becoming law.
Parliamentary privilegeThe rule that stops outside bodies from using parliamentary proceedings to draw conclusions, which the bill would override for certain royal commissions. rules limited how outside inquiries could use parliamentary material
The Parliamentary Privileges Act 1987The Australian law that protects what is said and done in Parliament, and here it is the main barrier the bill wants to narrow. and the Bill of Rights 1688An old law that still supports parliamentary privilege, and the bill says it should not block evidence for certain royal commissions. were cited as barriers to Royal Commissions drawing conclusions from proceedings in Parliament when examining government conduct.
Parliamentary Privileges Amendment (Royal Commission Response) explanatory memorandum ↗Defence cultural reform audit became material the royal commissionA formal public inquiry with strong powers to gather evidence and question people, used here to investigate government actions. could not fully test
The explanatory memorandum says parliamentary privilegeThe rule that stops outside bodies from using parliamentary proceedings to draw conclusions, which the bill would override for certain royal commissions. stopped the commission from questioning Defence representatives in order to draw conclusions from the Auditor-General’s 2021 audit report on Defence’s implementation of cultural reform.
Parliamentary Privileges Amendment (Royal Commission Response) explanatory memorandum ↗Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran SuicideThe inquiry this bill is meant to help, by letting it use parliamentary material when examining how government and Defence handled veteran suicide issues. was extended by 12 months
The bill’s second reading speechThe speech explaining why the bill is being introduced, which gives the policy case and background for the change. said the extension came partly because the commission had trouble getting important information from the Department of Veterans’ Affairs and the Department of DefenceThe federal department responsible for defence, and one of the agencies the royal commission says delayed key information..
Hansard ↗Bill introduced to implement the royal commissionA formal public inquiry with strong powers to gather evidence and question people, used here to investigate government actions.'s Recommendation 7The specific recommendation from the royal commission that called for an exemption from parliamentary privilege.
The explanatory memorandum said the bill would exempt Royal Commissions examining government from privilege barriers so they could use parliamentary material and draw conclusions from it.
Australian Parliament House ↗Bill lapsed at the end of Parliament
Because the bill lapsed, the proposed change to let relevant Royal Commissions rely on parliamentary material did not take effect.
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.
Referred to Committee (28/09/2022): Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee; Committee report (17/11/2022)
Referred to committee
APH bill page notesThe bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
Key criticism
The main criticism was that the bill cut into parliamentary privilegeThe rule that stops outside bodies from using parliamentary proceedings to draw conclusions, which the bill would override for certain royal commissions. too far, risking freer debate in parliament and weakening a basic constitutional safeguard just to help one royal commissionA formal public inquiry with strong powers to gather evidence and question people, used here to investigate government actions.. That objection came mainly from Coalition speakers, while Greens senator David Shoebridge said the change should be checked and tightly confined rather than left broader than necessary.
Criticism focused on privilege protections and drafting scope, not on denying the veteran suicide inquiry answers.
Weakens parliamentary privilege
Opponents argued the bill would let royal commissions and similar bodies probe parliamentary proceedings in a way that undermines parliamentary privilegeThe rule that stops outside bodies from using parliamentary proceedings to draw conclusions, which the bill would override for certain royal commissions., which they said protects free debate and parliament's constitutional role.
Change needed tighter limits and review
David Shoebridge supported the bill but said it should be checked and tightly confined, so it solved the royal commissionA formal public inquiry with strong powers to gather evidence and question people, used here to investigate government actions. problem without creating a wider precedent against parliamentary privilegeThe rule that stops outside bodies from using parliamentary proceedings to draw conclusions, which the bill would override for certain royal commissions. than intended.
Further sources
Votes
No recorded votes were found before this bill stopped proceeding.
Parliamentary debate
Start here — lead voices
Jacqui Lambie supports the bill because she says it will remove a parliamentary privilegeThe rule that stops outside bodies from using parliamentary proceedings to draw conclusions, which the bill would override for certain royal commissions. barrier that is stopping the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran SuicideThe inquiry this bill is meant to help, by letting it use parliamentary material when examining how government and Defence handled veteran suicide issues. from fully examining government conduct.
Read in Hansard ↗Michaelia Cash says the coalition will not support the bill because it would weaken parliamentary privilegeThe rule that stops outside bodies from using parliamentary proceedings to draw conclusions, which the bill would override for certain royal commissions. by letting royal commissions and other tribunals probe proceedings in parliament.
Read in Hansard ↗Shoebridge supports the bill and says the Greens commend Senator Lambie for bringing it forward, but he wants a brief committee inquiryA short parliamentary review process that some speakers wanted before changing the law, to keep the bill tightly focused. to make sure the change is narrowed to the right balance between fixing the royal commissionA formal public inquiry with strong powers to gather evidence and question people, used here to investigate government actions. problem and protecting parliamentary privilegeThe rule that stops outside bodies from using parliamentary proceedings to draw conclusions, which the bill would override for certain royal commissions..
Read in Hansard ↗Scarr says he will oppose the bill because parliamentary privilegeThe rule that stops outside bodies from using parliamentary proceedings to draw conclusions, which the bill would override for certain royal commissions. is a fundamental safeguard of the Australian parliament and should not be weakened quickly just to help the royal commissionA formal public inquiry with strong powers to gather evidence and question people, used here to investigate government actions..
Read in Hansard ↗All speeches by bloc
1 speaker · 1 support
“Senator Lambie also says that parliamentary privilege should not stand in the way of the proper role of a royal commission. And I agree. I want to note, in respect of that, that the particular protection given to proceedings in parliament, the subject of section 16(3)(c) of the Parliamentary Privileges Act and of this bill, is quite confined, and that provision reads:”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
2 speakers · 2 oppose
“Members of parliament, witnesses before committees and the reports of committees are subject to parliamentary privilege to ensure the parliament can access all information required for its deliberation and processes. This protection is important to ensure that those participating in parliamentary processes can engage without hesitation, and it ensures the primacy of the parliament in our democracy. On that basis, the coalition will not be supporting the bill.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“I rise to speak in relation to this private members' bill, the Parliamentary Privileges Amendment (Royal Commission Response) Bill 2022. I am speaking against it, but I want to make some very clear preliminary comments.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
1 speaker · 1 support
“Our party is very aware of how essential parliamentary privilege is, and adopts in whole that observation in Odgers'. We do, however, commend Senator Lambie for bringing on this bill, and we do think that there is a powerful argument to explore it in detail, in a brief committee inquiry, in order to check if we can get that balance right. And we don't have forever to wait. This royal commission's time is running out. Veterans can't wait. If we are going to do this, we should act with some haste.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
1 speaker · 2 contributions · 1 support
Hansard records 2 separate contributions by Jacqui Lambie on this bill. They are grouped here so the speaker is listed once.
Second reading speech
Jacqui Lambie supports the bill because she says it will remove a parliamentary privilegeThe rule that stops outside bodies from using parliamentary proceedings to draw conclusions, which the bill would override for certain royal commissions. barrier that is stopping the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran SuicideThe inquiry this bill is meant to help, by letting it use parliamentary material when examining how government and Defence handled veteran suicide issues. from fully examining government conduct. She argues the change is necessary to let the commission get to the truth quickly, even though she recognises it is a serious exception to privilege.
“That's why we're moving to enact recommendation 7 of the Royal Commission's interim report.”Read this contribution in Hansard ↗
Second reading speech
Lambie supports the bill and wants it passed because she says it is needed to let the royal commissionA formal public inquiry with strong powers to gather evidence and question people, used here to investigate government actions. do its job without parliamentary privilegeThe rule that stops outside bodies from using parliamentary proceedings to draw conclusions, which the bill would override for certain royal commissions. blocking evidence and findings. She argues the change follows the commission's own recommendation and is urgent if the inquiry is to produce answers on veteran suicide.
“That's why we are moving to enact recommendation 7 of the royal commission's interim report. The provisions of this bill follow the royal commission's recommendation precisely to exempt royal commissions from section 16(3)(c) of the Parliamentary Privileges Act where their terms of reference require examination of government—exactly what the royal commission asked for.”Read this contribution in Hansard ↗
Record
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 · Lapsed at end of Parliament
Lapsed at end of Parliament
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee; Committee report (17/11/2022)
Referred to committee
Referred to Committee (28 Sept 2022): Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee; Committee report (17 Nov 2022)
APH bill page notes
