Andrew Wallace (Fisher, Liberal National Party) Share this | Hansard source

The Secrecy Provisions Amendment (Repealing Offences) Bill 2026 and the Secrecy Provisions Amendment (Sunsetting Provision) Bill 2026 deal with an issue that sits right at the heart of responsible government and democratic accountability in this country. They are about how we protect sensitive information, uphold national security, preserve public trust and maintain confidence in our institutions. But they're also about ensuring governments remain accountable, transparent and respectful of democratic freedoms, including freedom of the press.

In the modern world, information is power. Governments hold enormous amounts of personal, commercial and national security information. Australians rightly expect that that information is to be protected—it is to be protected responsibly and securely. At the same time, Australians also rightly expect governments to be accountable and not hide behind secrecy unnecessarily. The challenge for this parliament is striking the right balance—especially under this Labor government—between those competing responsibilities.

Now, secrecy laws are not always the most headline-grabbing pieces of legislation debated in this chamber, but they are incredibly important to the functioning of good government and public confidence in our institutions, because, when governments fail to protect sensitive information, confidence in our institutions begins to erode. And, when confidence in institutions erodes, democracy itself is weakened. Equally, excessive secrecy can also damage democracy if governments overclassify information or overcriminalise disclosure. That's why these reforms matter and why they deserve the careful scrutiny of this place.

The government says these bills are intended to modernise and simplify the Commonwealth secrecy framework. To be fair, there is truth in that assessment. Over many decades, secrecy offences developed across the Commonwealth's statute book in an inconsistent and fragmented way. Different governments introduced different provisions at different times, often for very different purposes. The result has been a framework that became increasingly complex, patchwork, inconsistent and in some areas just simply outdated.

The government proposes removing criminal liability from more than 300 secrecy provisions across Commonwealth legislation. That is not a small administrative tidy up; it is a major restructuring of Commonwealth secrecy laws and how they operate across government. Because of that, this parliament has a responsibility to scrutinise these reforms carefully and responsibly. Let me say clearly that the coalition supports the principle that criminal sanctions should be proportionate to the seriousness of the conduct involved. Not every administrative mistake should attract criminal liability. That seems pretty axiomatic. Not every disclosure should result in imprisonment. Where protections can appropriately be maintained through administrative sanctions, disciplinary action or civil remedies, that should be considered by government. It should be considered by this place.

The explanatory memorandum itself acknowledges that many secrecy provisions no longer require criminal liability because alternative protections already exist. Some offences related to information that is now decades old; some related to agencies or frameworks that don't even exist anymore. Others duplicated protections already available elsewhere in the law. So there is genuine merit in modernising and simplifying parts of the framework.

But, while the coalition supports sensible reform, we also believe secrecy laws exist for a very important reason. That reason is protecting Australia's national interest and maintaining public confidence in government institutions because some information, if improperly disclosed, can cause significant harm—harm to national security, harm to law enforcement operations, harm to Australians' privacy, harm to commercial-in-confidence matters and harm to public trust in government itself. Australians expect their governments to handle sensitive information responsibly. That expectation is entirely reasonable. Once public confidence in the handling of sensitive information is lost, it is incredibly hard to get it back.

One of the most significant aspects of this legislation is the creation of a new targeted secrecy offence relating to the improper use or communication of Commonwealth information for personal gain or to cause detriment. Frankly, most Australians would assume this type of offence already existed. Australians expect that, if someone entrusted with sensitive information abuses that information for personal advantage, there should be serious consequences. The proposed offence specifically targets intentional misuse of information where somebody improperly uses or communicates information to obtain a benefit or cause detriment to another person or Commonwealth entity. Importantly, this offence is narrower and more targeted than the existing broader framework. It focuses on deliberate wrongdoing and genuinely harmful conduct rather than technical administrative mistakes. I think most Australians would see that as a reasonable and proportionate approach.

Australians were rightly angered by the revelations involving confidential Treasury information being misused by consultants and private firms. That conduct damaged confidence in government processes and raised serious concerns about integrity and accountability. Australians expect integrity from those entrusted with sensitive information, whether they are public servants, consultants, contractors or advisers, and Australians rightly expect governments to act when that trust is breached. This legislation attempts to address some of the gaps exposed by those events. If privileged Commonwealth information is exploited for private gain, confidence in our entire system of government is undermined. Public trust in institutions is something we should never take for granted in this country.

Another significant aspect of these reforms is the expansion of secrecy obligations to persons providing services to the Commonwealth, including unpaid service providers in some circumstances. This reflects the reality of modern government, where governments increasingly rely on contractors, consultants, advisory panels and external expertise. Many people outside what we would consider the traditional public service now have access to highly sensitive government information. Where individuals are entrusted with that information, obligations should follow that access. Equally, these laws must be applied carefully, proportionately and fairly. Australians should not fear criminal liability for innocent mistakes or technical administrative issues where there is no harmful intent. The focus should always remain on genuinely harmful conduct that undermines public trust or national security.

These reforms also deal extensively with journalists and press freedom. We're honoured to have some of the Attorney-General's public servants in the chamber with us today, who, I might say, work very hard for the Commonwealth, and I thank them for their service. This bill introduces a requirement that the Attorney-General approve prosecutions against journalists or media staff before proceedings can continue for secrecy offences. The coalition supports a strong and independent media because a free press is absolutely fundamental to a healthy democracy. Yes, they can be a pain in the backside at times, but journalists play an important role in exposing wrongdoing, scrutinising governments and informing the public about matters of public interest. Freedom of the press must also exist alongside national security responsibilities. There is a very important difference between legitimate public-interest journalism and the reckless disclosure of highly classified information that could endanger lives or compromise security operations. This parliament must always maintain that distinction carefully and responsibly.

While many offences are being removed, the legislation still preserves criminal liability for particularly sensitive categories of information, including census data, healthcare information, commercial information and patent information. That is entirely understandable, because Australians expect highly sensitive personal and commercial in confidence information to remain protected. Australians expect their medical information to remain confidential—that shouldn't come as any surprise. Businesses expect commercially sensitive information provided to government to remain secure. Australians completing the census expect that the information they provide will remain protected and confidential. Without public trust, participation declines, and without participation, governments lose access to reliable information needed for policymaking and service delivery.

These reforms must also be viewed in the context of the modern strategic environment and the increasingly complex threats facing Australia today. Cyberthreats have increased dramatically over the past decade. Foreign interference operations are more sophisticated than ever. Hostile state actors actively seek to obtain sensitive government information and exploit weaknesses in systems and institutions. Critical infrastructure is increasingly vulnerable to cyberattack and malicious interference. That is why secrecy laws cannot simply be viewed as dry administrative legislation. They form part of Australia's broader national resilience and national security framework. They should be part of a national security strategy, if this government ever gets around to implementing one. As somebody who has spent considerable time working on intelligence and national security matters through the PJCIS, I understand how serious these issues are.

National security is not theoretical. The threats facing Australia today are real. They are growing more complex by the day. More than 103,000 Australians have died in service of this country, wearing our uniform with our flag on their left shoulder. We honour their sacrifice by ensuring this parliament takes Australia's national security responsibilities seriously. One thing the coalition will always stand for is proportionality and balance. We believe governments must have the powers necessary to protect Australia and protect Australians.

The companion legislation before the House, the Secrecy Provisions Amendment (Sunsetting Provision) Bill 2026, is much narrower in scope but still important. Its purpose is to extend the operation of certain secrecy offences for a further six months, until 29 December 2026, while broader reforms are being implemented. Effectively, it acts as a transitional measure designed to prevent legal gaps or unintended consequences during this transitionary phase. Transitional arrangements are sometimes necessary in complex legislative reform, but Australians are entitled to ask why temporary extensions continue to be required instead of finalising a permanent framework more quickly.

Good governance requires certainty, clarity and confidence in the law. Governments should always aim to finalise permanent frameworks wherever possible as reasonably quickly as possible. These bills raise important questions about secrecy, transparency, accountability and national security in modern Australia. They are not simple questions and there are no perfect answers.

See this speech in context