Bill Debate · Second Reading

Secrecy Provisions Amendment (Repealing Offences) Bill 2026, Secrecy Provisions Amendment (Sunsetting Provision) Bill 2026; Second Reading

House of Representatives · Wednesday 13 May 2026

Continued from Tuesday 12 May 2026.

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

At a glance

The debate centred on reforms to Australia's Commonwealth secrecy framework, aiming to remove criminal liability from over 300 provisions and introduce a new targeted offence for improper use of information. Government members supported the bills as necessary modernisation that balances national security with transparency and press freedom. Opposition and independent members generally supported the reduction of secrecy offences but raised concerns about the vagueness of the new offence and the adequacy of whistleblower protections. An amendment moved by Andrew Wilkie calling for comprehensive whistleblower reforms was opposed by the Attorney-General.

Outcome

The amendment moved by Andrew Wilkie was opposed by the government; the bills were referred to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee.

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

How the debate unfolded

Continued the debate

Jo Briskey (Maribyrnong) (Australian Labor Party) ALP

Briskey argued that the bills balanced protecting sensitive information with public accountability by taking criminal liability off over 300 secrecy provisions. Briskey stated that the reforms put into effect recommendations from the 2023 Attorney-General's Department review and the 2024 Independent National Security Legislation Monitor review. Briskey highlighted that the new targeted offence would fix gaps revealed by a former consulting firm partner's misuse of confidential information. Briskey emphasised that the bill bolstered press freedom by mandating Attorney-General consent before prosecuting journalists.

Government response

Michelle Rowland (Attorney-General) ALP Greenway

Rowland stated that the bill delivered on the government's commitment to comprehensive secrecy reform by removing unnecessary barriers to transparency. Rowland noted that the government was proceeding with public consultation on second-stage reforms to the Public Interest Disclosure Act 2013. Rowland argued that the reforms balanced the need to protect sensitive information with democratic accountability. Rowland confirmed that the government would oppose the amendment moved by the member for Clark regarding whistleblower protections.

Opposition response

Andrew Wallace (Fisher) (Liberal National Party) LNP

Wallace supported the principle that criminal sanctions should be proportionate and acknowledged the merit in modernising the fragmented secrecy framework. Wallace argued that the new targeted offence appropriately addressed the misuse of information for personal gain, citing public anger over previous breaches involving consultants. Wallace emphasised that secrecy laws must remain robust to protect national security, privacy, and commercial confidence in a complex threat environment. Wallace questioned why temporary extensions were needed rather than establishing a permanent framework sooner.

Tom French (Moore) (Australian Labor Party) ALP support

French argued that the bill replaced the temporary section 122.4 of the Criminal Code with a more focused offence targeting intentional misuse of information. French stated that removing criminal liability from over 300 provisions ensured that criminal law was reserved for conduct warranting punishment. French highlighted that legislating Attorney-General consent for journalist prosecutions provided stronger safeguards than the previous ministerial direction.
Zaneta Mascarenhas (Swan) (Australian Labor Party) ALP

Mascarenhas reminded the chamber that a general debate was allowed covering both the Secrecy Provisions Amendment (Repealing Offences) Bill 2026 and the Secrecy Provisions Amendment (Sunsetting Provision) Bill 2026.
Andrew Wilkie (Clark) (Independent) Ind mixed

Wilkie supported the bill but moved an amendment calling for comprehensive reforms to whistleblower protections and the establishment of a Whistleblower Protection Authority. Wilkie argued that current laws were inadequate, citing cases where whistleblowers were prosecuted or lacked protection despite exposing misconduct. Wilkie urged the government to accelerate reforms to the Public Interest Disclosure Act and the Corporations Act.
Claire Clutterham (Sturt) (Australian Labor Party) ALP support

Clutterham argued that the bill struck a balance between protecting essential public interests and maintaining open government. Clutterham stated that the reforms removed criminal liability from provisions where civil or administrative sanctions were sufficient. Clutterham emphasised that the new targeted offence closed gaps identified in previous reviews while enhancing protections for press freedom.
Kate Chaney (Curtin) (Independent) Ind mixed

Chaney supported the repeal of over 300 secrecy offences but criticised the new general offence for using an undefined 'improper' test rather than a harm-based threshold. Chaney proposed amendments to replace the 'improper' test with a harm-based standard focused on essential public interests. Chaney also proposed a mandatory independent review of the Attorney-General's consent mechanism for journalist prosecutions every five years.
Allegra Spender (Wentworth) (Independent) Ind mixed

Spender commended the reduction of secrecy provisions but argued the new offence did not adopt a harm-based approach as recommended by independent reviewers. Spender supported Chaney's amendments to introduce a harm-based threshold and a five-yearly review of the consent mechanism. Spender also proposed an amendment to provide greater certainty for whistleblowers who did not meet every technical requirement of the Public Interest Disclosure Act.

First speaker today

Jo Briskey (Maribyrnong) (Australian Labor Party)

ALP

Bills

Secrecy Provisions Amendment (Repealing Offences) Bill 2026

Secrecy Provisions Amendment (Sunsetting Provision) Bill 2026

Speeches

9 speeches, 6 other contributors

Topics

Integrity & Parliament Law & Justice

Debate Secrecy Provisions Amendment (Sunsetting Provision) Bill 2026; Second Reading Bill Debate, 29 Jun 2026 · Same bill
Debate Secrecy Provisions Amendment (Sunsetting Provision) Bill 2026; Third Reading Bill Debate, 29 Jun 2026 · Same bill
Debate Customs and Other Legislation Amendment (Illicit Tobacco Enforcement Modernisation and Other Measures) Bill 2026; Second Reading Bill Debate, 17 Sep 2026 · Shared topic: Law & Justice
Debate Australian Parliament General Debate, 17 Sep 2026 · Shared topic: Integrity & Parliament
Question Time Senate Question Time 29 Jun 2026 · Shared topics: Integrity & Parliament, Law & Justice

About House of Representatives debates

The House of Representatives debates bills, motions and matters of public importance in its main chamber. Members from all parties can take part, and the responsible minister usually replies for the government. Summaries are in reported speech, not transcripts; always check the official record before quoting.