Julian Leeser (Berowra, Liberal Party, Shadow Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Royal Commissions Legislation Amendment (Protections for Providing Information) Bill 2026. This legislation proposes significant changes to the Royal Commissions Act. It aims to ensure that the Royal Commission on Antisemitism and Social Cohesion and future royal commissions can access intelligence and operationally sensitive information. From the outset, the coalition believes that it is critical that the Royal Commission on Antisemitism and Social Cohesion is given every opportunity to succeed.

The Bondi massacre on 14 December last year was the worst terrorist attack on Australian soil, an attack which directly targeted Jewish Australians celebrating Hanukkah. This attack was devastating to all Australians but particularly to the Jewish community. The terrorist attack didn't happen in isolation. Since 7 October 2023 Australia has witnessed a disturbing and sustained rise in antisemitism. Jewish Australians have reported intimidation, harassment, vandalism, threats and social exclusion. Synagogues have been attacked and have required heightened security. Jewish students have described feeling unsafe on university campuses. Families have removed religious symbols in public out of fear. For many in Australia's Jewish community, the past two years have not simply been uncomfortable; they've been frightening.

During that period, community leaders repeatedly warned that antisemitism was escalating. They called for decisive national action. The Prime Minister and his government ignored these warnings every step of the way. After the horrific massacre at Bondi, the Jewish community called for a royal commission. Victims' families wanted a royal commission. Yet when that call was first made, Prime Minister Albanese shamefully opposed it. Instead of committing immediately to a royal commission, the Prime Minister proposed a narrow departmental review. He questioned whether a royal commission was necessary. He raised concerns about timeframes. He suggested it might provide a platform for extremist views. He suggested that so-called actual experts opposed it. To many Jewish Australians, that hesitation was an insult. It hurt deeply. A royal commission's not just another inquiry. It compels evidence, it overrides secrecy barriers, and it signals that this is an issue of national significance.

Let me pause there to make a couple of observations about the royal commission in a more personal capacity. The royal commission has been given a timetable which has been set by the federal government. As I said, it is a government that didn't want to have the royal commission in the first place, and it didn't want to ensure that the commission has adequate time to do their job. Let me say something first about the inquiry into the security arrangements at Bondi, because the commission held its first hearings last week. It's now March, and the government has given them a timetable to report on the security elements by the end of April. This is not a fair timeframe. The commission has only been recently stood up. It will be nearly impossible for it to look at these matters with any thoroughness. The security matters before the royal commission deserve to be investigated thoroughly. If the commission needs to take more time to do it, it should be encouraged to take more time and take the time to do it right. There are 15 people dead, murdered in cold blood on our streets. My message to the government and to the royal commission is: do not rush this process.

The second matter relates to those things that the commission has been charged to investigate with respect to institutional and institutionalised antisemitism. The royal commission has made something of the need to report by the first anniversary of the Bondi massacre on 14 December. There were media reports last week suggesting that, in private meetings between the royal commissioner and the families of the victims and the survivors of the massacre that those survivors and families have told the royal commissioner to take more time if she needs to. As a Jewish Australian, I echo those calls to the royal commissioner. Take the time to get this right. There's nothing sacrosanct about the government's timetable. It's been set by the Albanese government, a government that did not want to hold a royal commission and had to be dragged kicking and screaming to call it.

As a Jewish Australian, I say that there will be only one opportunity to investigate the depth and depravity of antisemitism in our country. We will never get this opportunity again. It is really important to take this opportunity to get under the hood of the institutions in our society, especially the universities, the arts bodies and the school organisations. Antisemitism in education and arts organisations are mentioned in the recitals to the royal commission, and the commission will have failed if it does not look at those matters adequately. If the commission needs more time than the Albanese government has granted it, then it should be given additional time, and it should take advantage of actually asking for extra time.

As somebody who, for the last 2½ years, has been calling for a judicial inquiry into antisemitism, this is absolutely vital. It is vital that the commission has a very good look at both those sectors—the arts and education—because they are the areas where antisemitism has become, to quote the words of the special envoy, 'engrained and normalised.' I particularly want to say something about the university sector. The commission will have failed in its job if it doesn't call the vice-chancellors and chancellors and put them on the stand. The fact that a group of university chancellors could issue a statement on antisemitism that didn't even mention the word 'Jew' or 'antisemitism' is a disgraceful abrogation of their leadership—absolutely disgraceful! The commission must put vice-chancellors and former vice-chancellors on the stand, particularly in those institutions, and especially in the Group of Eight, where antisemitism has been rife. They must put the chancellors on the stand as well. It must put student representative council presidents on the stand. It's their job to represent the views of all students and not make a select group of students feel ostracised.

It must put the NTEU leadership on the stand. There have been many Jewish academics who have resigned their membership of the NTEU simply because it failed to stand up for Jewish academics during this time. It must root out antisemitism among the administrators of universities and among those bodies that purport to represent the universities. It must go deeper and examine what's taught about Jews in the classroom. It's disturbed me that, ever since I became the shadow minister for education, when I've talked to vice chancellors, many simply believe that the encampments are gone, they stood up with complaints and procedures, and that's enough. In some institutions, they believe that, because they don't know that they've got a population of any Jewish staff or students, they don't need to worry about this issue.

The truth is that this issue is broader than whether you've got Jewish students or staff and it's broader than the Jewish community. It's about what's actually being taught in the classrooms about Jews, because what's being taught in the classrooms about Jews determines what the future of our society looks like. If we don't get this right, then we are setting our society up on a course for a future based on conspiracy, not on fact; on othering, not on personal responsibility; on social discord, not social harmony. What happens today on campus sets the tone for the Australia of tomorrow. That's why addressing antisemitism on campus is so vital. That's why the royal commission must look at these issues. That's why their task is so important. That's why the commission must be given the time that it needs to do this job thoroughly. If the commission fails in this opportunity to properly look at these matters, it will be failing the Jewish community and all Australians. The Jewish community has been calling for this government to take action for two and a half years. The government will disrespect the memory of those 15 people who were murdered on Bondi Beach if it doesn't look at these issues properly.

With that context in place, let me turn back to the Royal Commissions Legislation Amendment (Protections for Providing Information) Bill 2026. This bill amends three key laws: the Royal Commissions Act 1902, the Royal Commissions Regulations 2019 and the Criminal Code Act 1995. Its purpose is to ensure that the royal commission can access intelligence and operationally sensitive information, even where Commonwealth secrecy provisions would otherwise prevent disclosure. On its face, this is a practical reform. The bill inserts a new part 4A into the Royal Commissions Act. It makes clear that secrecy provisions cannot be relied upon as a reasonable excuse to refuse compliance with the royal commission's requirements. In other words, intelligence agencies and law enforcement bodies cannot withhold relevant material solely because another law contains a secrecy clause.

The bill also creates formal intelligence information arrangements and operationally sensitive information arrangements, which are structured agreements between the commission and the relevant agency heads governing how sensitive material is obtained, stored, accessed, used, disclosed and returned. It provides legal protections for individuals who provide such information in accordance with those arrangements. It ensures they are shielded from criminal or civil liability under secrecy provisions. It also amends the Criminal Code to create a defence for individuals who deal with classified information for the primary purpose of communicating it to a royal commission. On their face, these changes strengthen the royal commission's hand.

I want to turn to why this bill requires scrutiny. These are serious legal changes that the bill proposes. As Royal Commissioner Virginia Bell has noted, her inquiry is the first royal commission in nearly 50 years to investigate aspects of the work of the Australian intelligence community. We have a duty to ensure that she has all the powers required to conduct her investigations properly. It's precisely because of the gravity of Commissioner Bell's royal commission that the bill requires careful parliamentary scrutiny. It's precisely because of the seriousness of the changes proposed that this warrants closer examination.

These changes should be the subject of an inquiry by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security. It's common sense, it's good governance, it's in Australia's interests and it's the coalition's position. We need to hear from security experts, legal experts, our security agencies and law enforcement agencies, the royal commission itself and other stakeholders about how these laws will work, because this legislation overrides secrecy provisions across Commonwealth law. It's not a minor adjustment; it reshapes the interaction between national security frameworks and public inquiries. Parliament must examine whether the scope of the override is appropriate. It must ensure the definitions of 'intelligence', 'information' and 'operationally sensitive information' are precise and appropriate. It must ensure the arrangements governing the handling of classified information are sufficiently robust. We must ask: Are the safeguards adequate? Are the oversight mechanisms strong enough? Is transparency balanced appropriately with the security? The bill requires the secretary to publish intelligence information arrangements as notifiable instruments. It's appropriate that the parliament scrutinise what level of detail is made public and how variation of those arrangements will be monitored.

We must also examine the evidentiary protections. The bill provides that information given in accordance with the arrangements is not admissible in evidence against the person in secrecy related proceedings. That is an important protection, but it must be carefully calibrated so that it doesn't unintentionally shield misconduct unrelated to lawful cooperation with the commission. Similarly, the Criminal Code amendment creates a new defence to certain secrecy offences where information is dealt with for the purpose of communicating it to a royal commission. Parliament must ensure that this defence is fit for purpose. If there are failings of intelligence practice or national security policy relevant to this royal commission, we need informed insiders to come forward. It is appropriate that the parliament satisfy itself that the bill allows intelligence officials to safely, securely and lawfully disclose information to the royal commission on a voluntary basis and that any underlying arrangements are properly designed and fit for purpose.

Let me be clear. We do not oppose the bill's objective; on the contrary, we want to ensure that this gets it right. The coalition wants this royal commission to be effective. We need it to be effective. It is recognition that legislation touching intelligence, national security and criminal liability demands rigorous examination, because the integrity of both national security frameworks and royal commissions depends on clarity and balance. As I said, the Jewish community deserves a royal commission that is powerful, effective and legally sound. They deserve a framework that cannot later be challenged as rushed or poorly constructed. They deserve a bill where all parties have confidence in that drafting and where there are no unintended consequences. Parliamentary scrutiny is responsible. It helps ensure that legislative architecture supporting the commission is sound. The royal commission must have access to the information it needs, but, in granting that access, we must preserve the integrity of secrecy law, the rights of individuals and the balance between transparency and security. That balance is parliament's responsibility.

As I said, on its face, this bill strengthens the commission. It removes barriers to evidence and it protects those who cooperate. But, because it overrides secrecy provision and amends the Criminal Code, it must be examined thoroughly, it must be debated openly and it must be refined where necessary. A PJCIS inquiry will not delay the commission. I want to take a moment to say this. The commission has operated effectively for seven weeks so far, and the Attorney-General's Department has confirmed that it will be able to continue its work uninhibited while the parliament scrutinises this bill. A PJCIS inquiry does not delay the commission. Indeed, it serves a more important purpose: it shores up confidence that we have the arrangements right and that the commission can receive the evidence it ought to hear. That does not occur, though, if the parliament passes permanent changes to the national security legislation improperly or in a rush. So let us use the scrutiny provisions of this parliament to support and strengthen the commission. I thank the House.

Allegra Spender (Wentworth, Independent) Share this | Link to 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.

Michelle Rowland (Greenway, Australian Labor Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This bill creates a clear, lawful pathway for people to provide intelligence and operationally sensitive information to a royal commission, including the current Royal Commission on Antisemitism and Social Cohesion. I thank all my parliamentary colleagues for their contributions to this debate, and I present the revised explanatory memorandum to the House.

Sharon Claydon (Newcastle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour. The member will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed.