Allegra Spender (Wentworth, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Royal Commissions Legislation Amendment (Protections for Providing Information) Bill 2026. On 14 December, my community experienced a loss and trauma that will stay with us for, I think, as long as we live. The antisemitic terrorist attack that day was not only an act of violence; it was an attack on social cohesion, on trust and on the sense of safety that every Australian should feel in their own country, and it was an attack on the Jewish community. In the days that followed, I called for a royal commission. We must understand what led to the attack. We must examine the broader rise of antisemitism and erosion of social cohesion, and any institutional and systemic failures that have contributed to the awful act of hatred that we saw. I am glad that the royal commission is now underway, and I'm especially glad that the government is acting to strengthen protections so it can do its work effectively.

This reform does not arise in isolation. There have been multiple reviews highlighting shortcomings in protections for participants in royal commissions, including the 2023 Review of secrecy provisions conducted by the Attorney-General's Department, which examined protections for individuals providing information to royal commissions. That review recommended that the Royal Commissions Act be amended to 'clarify the application of secrecy offences to individuals providing information to royal commissions'. Importantly, the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide also identified serious concerns in this area. It highlighted that secrecy provisions across Commonwealth legislation were complex, fragmented and potentially inhibiting participation. The commission noted that uncertainty around secrecy offences could deter individuals from coming forward, even where protections technically existed.

The Attorney-General's Department discussion paper following the royal commission acknowledged that, while prosecutions for secrecy breaches in this context may not have occurred, the perceived risk alone could have a chilling effect. It also recognised that civil remedies and workplace protections for those cooperating with royal commissions may warrant further consideration.

Even where legal protections technically exist, the lived reality is different. If individuals believe that they may be exposed to sanctioned prosecution, career damage or retaliation, they may remain silent, and that risk is unacceptable. If we are asking intelligence officials, law enforcement officers, public servants and others to assist at a royal commission—particularly one examining national security, social cohesion and, potentially, institutional failings—then we must ensure they are properly protected while sharing relevant information. This is not only important for the protection of these individuals; it is fundamental to the effectiveness of the royal commission itself. The commission can only make sound findings and recommendations if it has access to complete and candid evidence. Given the seriousness of the issues at stake, including the terrorist attack on 14 December, we must remove barriers that could prevent critical information from being disclosed.

After hearing these concerns from experts and stakeholders, and after reviewing the findings of the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide and the 2023 secrecy review, I raised these matters directly with the Attorney-General. I am grateful for her engagement and responsiveness to these issues, and I know she engaged with others as well.

This bill amends the Royal Commission Act 1902 and related legislation to strengthen protections for individuals who provide information to royal commissions. It clarifies the interaction between secrecy provisions and disclosures made to the royal commission. In particular, it enables arrangements to be entered into between a royal commission and intelligence or law enforcement agencies so that protected information can be disclosed without breaching secrecy offences.

The bill also introduces a new defence within the criminal code framework for disclosures made in accordance with such arrangements. This is intended to provide greater certainty that individuals cooperating in good faith with the royal commission will not commit an offence under general secrecy provisions. These changes are important and welcome.

While I support the intention of the bill, there are several matters that warrant attention. I recognise the need for expedition, given the royal commission is already underway and an interim report is due shortly. I do not want to stand in the way of reforms that are necessary to ensure that this commission can operate effectively. However, we should also recognise that this may not and should not be the final word on secrecy reform. The government is undertaking broader work in reviewing secrecy provisions, and I encourage it to consider whether additional reforms may be required for future royal commissions.

The new protections rely on a royal commission entering into arrangements with intelligence or law enforcement agencies. I do not expect this to present difficulties with the royal commission that is currently underway. However, legislation must be future proofed. We must ensure that intelligence agencies are not, even inadvertently, equipped with a veto power to choose not to provide information to a royal commission. We do not know what future royal commissions may examine or what future circumstances may arise. Our intelligence agencies perform extraordinary work protecting Australians, but legislation should be robust enough to operate effectively in all scenarios, including in instances where the agency's own actions or performance may be under scrutiny. Access to relevant information should not depend on discretionary cooperation. It should be guaranteed by law.

Secondly, in terms of the focus on intelligence and law enforcement information, this bill primarily addresses intelligence and law enforcement information. There are protections for individuals who are compelled to provide information, but many who provide crucial evidence do so voluntarily. For example, officials in the Department of Education or the Attorney-General's Department may wish to come forward with information about institutional responses to rising antisemitism or broader social cohesion challenges. Many who choose to speak up will do so voluntarily, not because they have been formally compelled. Those who are compelled benefit from clearer protections. Those who come forward voluntarily may not. The new Criminal Code defence is helpful, but it applies only to a limited number of general secrecy offences. There are more than 850 secrecy provisions across Commonwealth legislation. The defence does not provide blanket immunity and does not resolve uncertainty across that broader landscape. If we want voluntary candour, we must ensure voluntary disclosures are adequately protected, and I think this is a really important point. We do want people to come forward in royal commissions. I think that's really, really critical. It is absolutely critical that these people have the same protections as those who are compelled to come forward.

Finally, on workplace and civil consequences, I understand that this bill provides protections against criminal and certain civil liability. However, this does not fully address the position of individuals who come forward voluntarily and may face workplace repercussions such as bullying, demotion or other forms of retaliation. Their only avenue may be to pursue employment claims through the Fair Work Commission or other general processes. That does not specifically address the royal commission context, and it remains largely untested. A criminal case for mistreatment following voluntary evidence provision would require an AFP investigation, as the Attorney-General's Department discussion paper following the veterans' royal commission noted, 'There is no evidence that such prosecutions have occurred, but the absence of prosecutions does not eliminate fear.' If someone provides important evidence to assist our country in uncovering the truth, we should not leave them exposed. We should not punish those who want to help.

I hope that these issues will be addressed in the broader reform package that the government is progressing. I also want to acknowledge that, to be honest, there is much more work to be done in relation to whistleblower protections more broadly across the parliament. This is something the government has acknowledge they do want to tack action on but which we do not have clear timelines on yet. Having spoken and engaged with those who support whistleblowers, what is very clear to me is that becoming a whistleblower and standing up for what you see as public good really comes from, in so many cases, a deep desire for our country to work as well as possible. It comes from a real sense of civic duty, but being able to be protected is complex. Individuals, people who do not have a high degree of understanding in these areas, can relatively easily make mistakes which make them open to criminal prosecution. We have recent examples such as David McBride and Richard Boyle, two people who have fallen foul of whistleblower protection laws. I think it is really critical that these are improved and the Commonwealth considers what it is trying to do when it takes on people such as Richard Boyle and the chilling effect that will have on any whistleblowing in the ATO in the future.

I do want to finally say that I thank the Attorney-General for her engagement on these issues, and I acknowledge that this bill is really needed and timely. I think it strengthens protection at a critical moment and helps ensure that the royal commission examining the offence of 14 December can operate smoothly and effectively. I note that the member for Berowra had some concerns in relation to the timing of the bill and opportunities for it to be reviewed. I think those have to be balanced against the needs of the royal commission to act really swiftly. I look forward to engaging with both the member for Berowra and the Attorney-General on this because the goal really is to enable the royal commission to do its incredibly important work and, at the same time, ensure that these protections are appropriate and will last through both this royal commission and subsequent royal commissions as well.

See this speech in context