Question Time AU

Bill Debate · Second Reading

Royal Commissions Legislation Amendment (Protections for Providing Information) Bill 2026; Second Reading

House of Representatives · Tuesday 3 March 2026

Continued from Monday 2 March 2026.

Official Hansard for this day (APH) · Read this debate on OpenAustralia

At a glance

The debate concerned legislation to allow the Royal Commission on Antisemitism and Social Cohesion to access intelligence and operationally sensitive information by overriding certain secrecy provisions. The Shadow Minister for Indigenous Australians supported the bill's objective but called for a parliamentary inquiry to scrutinise the changes to national security laws. An independent senator welcomed the reforms but raised concerns about protections for voluntary witnesses and the need for broader secrecy law reform. The Attorney-General moved the second reading, and the bill was passed.

Outcome

The bill was read a second time and agreed to.

Summary in reported speech - not a transcript. AI-generated, so check the official record before quoting.

How the debate unfolded

Continued the debate

Julian Leeser (Berowra) (Liberal Party) Liberal

Leeser argued that the bill was necessary to ensure the royal commission could access critical intelligence regarding the Bondi massacre and institutional antisemitism. Leeser contended that the government had previously resisted establishing the commission and imposed an unrealistic timetable for its work. Leeser called for the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security to examine the bill to ensure secrecy overrides were properly balanced with national security safeguards. Leeser maintained that such scrutiny would strengthen the commission's legal framework without delaying its operations.

Government response

Michelle Rowland (Attorney-General) ALP Greenway

Rowland stated that the bill established a lawful pathway for individuals to provide intelligence and operationally sensitive information to royal commissions. Rowland presented the revised explanatory memorandum to the House. Rowland thanked colleagues for their contributions to the debate.