Secrecy Provisions Amendment (Repealing Offences) Bill 2026; Consideration in Detail

Opened the debate

Chaney argued that the bill's reliance on an undefined 'improper' standard was dangerously vague and inconsistent with the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor's recommendation for a harm-based approach. Chaney moved amendments to replace this test with a requirement that communications harm, or intend to harm, essential public interests such as national security, public health, and financial stability, while explicitly protecting whistleblowing and journalism. Chaney also moved an amendment requiring an independent review of the Attorney-General's consent mechanism for journalist prosecutions every five years to ensure it balanced national security with press freedom.

Government response

Rowland stated the government would not support the amendments, noting that the proposed harm threshold was inconsistent with the Attorney-General's Department secrecy review recommendations. Rowland argued the existing bill addressed gaps identified after the PwC incident, whereas the amendments would not sufficiently close those gaps as the listed interests were already covered by other offences. Rowland also rejected the mandatory review, citing the infrequency of secrecy prosecutions and the cost of independent statutory reviews, while affirming the government's commitment to future press freedom protections.