What was debated in Parliament
Summarised using AI from the official Hansard transcript of the debate only. It is not a record of the debate and may leave things out. Read the Hansard below to check it.
This bill sets up a way for people to give intelligence and sensitive police information to royal commissions, including the Royal Commission on Antisemitism and Social Cohesion, without breaking secrecy laws. It also adds a new defence in the Criminal Code for people who share information with any royal commission. The debate focused on whether the protections go far enough, how much scrutiny the bill got, and how the current royal commission is being run.
Arguments made in support
The Government said secrecy laws can scare off witnesses, and the bill gives a clear, lawful path to share sensitive information with royal commissions.
The Government said the protections are targeted, follow published arrangements, and match defences that already exist for courts and integrity agencies.
The Coalition supported the bill, saying people who come forward about intelligence agencies need legal certainty about their protections.
Independent member Allegra Spender supported the bill as needed and timely, building on past reviews that found secrecy laws could deter witnesses.
A parliamentary intelligence committee said the bill strikes the right balance and recommended it pass as soon as possible.
Arguments made against, or for changes
The Coalition said the bill changes national security law and needed closer review, and said the Government had rushed the intelligence committee's work.
Ms Spender said the bill could let agencies decline to share information and may not fully protect people who come forward voluntarily or face workplace payback.
The Greens said the bill only covers a few of hundreds of secrecy laws and gives security agency heads a veto over what is shared.
The Greens backed a Lambie amendment to let royal commissions use parliamentary committee material; the Government opposed it to protect parliamentary privilege.
The Greens voted against the final bill after that amendment failed, saying the bill did not give witnesses enough protection.
18 speeches by 10 members in the House and Senate over 5 sitting days.
Hansard: House of Representatives, 2 Mar 2026 ›
The official Hansard (PDF), Parliament of Australia
Hansard: House of Representatives, 3 Mar 2026 ›
The official Hansard (PDF), Parliament of Australia
Hansard: Senate, 3 Mar 2026 ›
The official Hansard (PDF), Parliament of Australia
Hansard: House of Representatives, 12 Mar 2026 ›
The official Hansard (PDF), Parliament of Australia
Hansard: Senate, 12 Mar 2026 ›
The official Hansard (PDF), Parliament of Australia
Australia's Voice
1 Yes
0 No
The last column counts members who did not vote. Party counts are for current members.
2 votes were cast by people who have since left Parliament.
Every party member who voted went with the majority of their party.