Key points

• The purpose of the Royal Commissions Legislation Amendment (Protections for Providing Information) Bill 2026 (the Bill) is to facilitate the provision of intelligence or operationally sensitive information to a Royal Commission.
• The Bill will amend the Royal Commissions Act 1902 to:
  • provide immunity from Commonwealth secrecy offences where a person provides intelligence or operationally sensitive information to a Royal Commission (as prescribed in the regulations) or their legal representative and
  • clarify that it is not a reasonable excuse to fail to provide intelligence or operationally sensitive information where required by a Royal Commission because it would contravene a secrecy provision.
• The Bill will also amend the Criminal Code Act 1995 to make it a defence to an offence under Division 122 (which deals with secrecy of information) where a person communicates or deals with information for the primary purpose of providing it to a Royal Commission and the person has a reasonable belief that the relevant information was relevant to the Royal Commission’s inquiry.
• The need to protect people engaging with Royal Commissions despite being subject to secrecy provisions has been raised previously, including by the Australian Law Reform Commission and by the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide.
• The Attorney-General’s Department also considered the need for reform in its 2022 review of confidentiality protections in the Royal Commissions Act and its 2023 review of Commonwealth secrecy provisions.
• At the time of writing, the Bill had not been referred to or reported on by any parliamentary committees.

Introductory Info

Date of introduction: 2 March 2026
House introduced in: House of Representatives
Portfolio: Attorney-General
Commencement: The day after Royal Assent

Purpose of the Bill

The purpose of the Royal Commissions Legislation Amendment (Protections for Providing Information) Bill 2026 (the Bill) is to facilitate the provision of intelligence or operationally sensitive information to a Royal Commission.

The Bill will amend the Royal Commissions Act 1902 to:

• provide immunity from Commonwealth secrecy offences where a person provides intelligence or operationally sensitive information to a Royal Commission (as prescribed in the regulations) or their legal representative and
• clarify that it is not a reasonable excuse to fail to provide intelligence or operationally sensitive information where required by a Royal Commission because it would contravene a secrecy provision.

The Bill will also amend the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Criminal Code) to make it a defence to an offence under Division 122 (which deals with secrecy of information) where a person communicates or deals with information for the primary purpose of providing it to a Royal Commission and the person has a reasonable belief that the relevant information was relevant to the Royal Commission’s inquiry.

Background

Review of confidentiality protections in the Royal Commissions Act

The Royal Commissions Act has been amended a number of times to provide greater protections for witnesses. This has included allowing for Royal Commissions to hold private sessions and restrictions on how information given for the purposes of a private session may be used and stored. Specific amendments have also been introduced to ensure the confidentiality of certain information given to the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse and the Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability (see sections 60N and 60P).

During the passage of the Royal Commissions Amendment (Protection of Information) Bill 2021, the then Morrison Government agreed that the Attorney-General’s Department (AGD) would review the existing protection provisions in the Royal Commissions Act to examine any impediments to people coming forward and sharing information with a Royal Commission (p. 3). AGD published its report in March 2022, which contained 10 recommendations, including:

Recommendation 10: The department further considers the interaction between the way in which information is provided to a Royal Commission (both under a Royal Commission’s coercive powers and where people wish to provide information voluntarily) and secrecy provisions in other Commonwealth legislation. (p. 31)

Interim Report of the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide

On 8 July 2021, the Government announced the formal establishment of the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide (DVSRC) to examine systemic issues and common themes in past deaths-by-suicide of Australian Defence Force (ADF) personnel and veterans.

The DVSRC delivered its Interim Report on 11 August 2022, and its Final Report, containing 122 recommendations, was delivered on 9 September 2024. In its interim report (p. 259), the DVSRC raised three significant issues that were impacting on its work:

• lack of protections for serving and ex-serving ADF members and others, including public servants who wish to engage with the DVSRC
• constraints placed on its work by parliamentary privilege and public interest immunity claims made by the Australian Government
• access to information held by the Department of Defence and Department of Veterans' Affairs by serving and ex-serving ADF members and their families.

The DVSRC acknowledged that the need to protect people engaging with Royal Commissions and other inquiries is not a new issue and had previously been raised with the Government:

The Australian Law Reform Commission has considered it twice through the 2008 Secrecy laws and open government inquiry and the 2010 Royal Commissions and official inquiries inquiry. Both reports considered how targeted and tailored protections might be offered for individuals to provide the necessary information for an inquiry despite being subject to secrecy provisions. (p. 264).

Of relevance to the DVSRC was the disclosure of information from serving and ex-serving members ‘whose lived experience is intrinsically linked to classified or operationally sensitive information’:

If they disclose this information to us without the appropriate approvals, whether voluntarily or where compelled by coercive powers, they may be exposed to criminal liability for a secrecy offence. (p. 261).

The DVSCRC Interim Report recommended that the existing defences to the offences contained in Part 5.6 of the Criminal Code (which deal with the protection of Commonwealth information) be extended to cover information communicated to a Royal Commission. The DVSCRC also advised the Government to consider amending other Commonwealth Acts which contain secrecy offences to include such a defence (p. 264).

Review of Commonwealth Secrecy Offences

On 22 December 2022, the then Attorney-General, Mark Dreyfus, requested AGD to undertake a review of Commonwealth secrecy provisions. The review responded to recommendations made by the Australian Law Reform Commission in its report ‘Secrecy Laws and Open Government in Australia’ report, as well as the growth in the ‘number, inconsistency, appropriateness and complexity of Commonwealth secrecy offences’ (p. 4).

The Government publicly released the Final Report of the review of secrecy provisions in November 2023. Recommendation 7 of the Final Report reiterates the recommendations made by the DVSCRC in its interim report that protections be improved for individuals providing information to Royal Commissions by:

The Final Report noted that consideration of these proposed reforms by the Government is ongoing.

Policy position of non-government parties/independents and key stakeholders

At the time of writing this Digest, there was limited published commentary on the Bill from non-government parties, independents, or key stakeholders. During the debate on the Bill in the House of Representatives, the Shadow Minister for Education, Julian Leeser, indicated that while the Opposition does not oppose the Bill’s objective, the Bill should be the subject of an inquiry by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security:

… 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.

The Member for Wentworth, Allegra Spender, also spoke on the Bill. While indicating her support for the urgent passage of the Bill, she raised concerns regarding the need to future-proof arrangements to ‘ensure that intelligence agencies are not, even inadvertently, equipped with a veto power to choose not to provide information to a royal commission’. She also questioned whether those compelled to appear before a Royal Commission benefit from clearer protections than those who do so voluntarily.

Key issues and provisions

Schedule 1—Amendments to the Royal Commissions Act

Schedule 1 of the Bill inserts proposed Part 4A into the Royal Commissions Act which introduces new requirements with respect to the provision of intelligence information or operationally sensitive information to a Royal Commission. These provisions only apply to a Royal Commission prescribed under the Royal Commissions Regulations 2019.

For the purposes of Part 4A, ‘intelligence information’ means any information:

• that was acquired or prepared by or on behalf of an Australian intelligence entity in connection with its functions
• that relates to the performance by an Australian intelligence entity of its functions or
• that identifies a person as being, or having been, a staff member (within the meaning of the Intelligence Services Act 2001) or an agent of the Australian Secret Intelligence Service or the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation.

The Replacement Explanatory Memorandum states that the term ‘intelligence information’ is defined in the same terms as the Intelligence Services Act and the National Anti-Corruption Commission Act 2022 (p.11).

‘Operationally sensitive information’ means information:

• about information sources or operational activities or methods available to a law enforcement or security agency
• about particular operations that have been, are being or are proposed to be undertaken by a law enforcement or security agency, or about proceedings relating to those operations or
• information provided by a foreign government, or by an agency of a foreign government, where that government does not consent to the public disclosure of the information.

The definitions of ‘Australian intelligence entity’ and ‘law enforcement or security agency’ will include the ten National Intelligence Community Agencies, along with the ADF and the Department administered by the Minister administering the Australian Border Force Act 2015 (currently the Department of Home Affairs).

Proposed section 6PC provides that it is not a reasonable excuse to fail to provide intelligence or operationally sensitive information where required by a Royal Commission because it would contravene a secrecy provision. This would include producing a document or answering questions from a member of the Commission where it relates to intelligence or operationally sensitive information.

‘Secrecy provision’ is defined to mean a provision of a law of the Commonwealth (or anything done under such a provision) that purports to prohibit:

• the use of information or a document
• dealing with information or a document
• making a record of information, or a copy of a document
• the disclosure or publication of information
• the production of, or the publication of the contents of, a document or
• access to information or a document.

This would include any law that commenced prior to the commencement of this definition, or which is expressed to apply despite any other law. By not specifying individual secrecy provisions, the Government has left it open to interpretation as to whether specific provisions would constitute a secrecy provision for the purposes of proposed Part 4A.

Proposed section 6PD sets out the new protections which will apply to a person who provides intelligence or operationally sensitive information to a Royal Commission. A person will not commit an offence and not be liable to any penalty where they have provided intelligence or operationally sensitive information to a Royal Commission in accordance with proposed section 6PD. The information, and the giving or communication of the information, will also not be admissible in evidence against the person in any civil or criminal proceedings in any court of the Commonwealth, or a state/territory, in relation to a contravention of a secrecy provision.

The evidential burden rests on the person to adduce or point to evidence that suggests a reasonable possibility that:

• the person voluntarily gave information or a document to a Royal Commission and at the time was of the reasonable belief that the information or document was relevant to the matters into which the Commission is inquiring, or the person was compelled to provide or make available information or a document to a Royal Commission
• the information or document is or contains intelligence or operationally sensitive information and
• the information or document is provided or made available consistent with procedures established in accordance with an intelligence or operationally sensitive information arrangement.

If the person meets this evidential burden, the prosecution is then required to meet its legal burden to disprove these matters beyond reasonable doubt.

In order to qualify for these protections, the disclosure of the information must be consistent with any ‘intelligence information arrangement’ or ‘operationally sensitive information arrangement’ that is in place. These arrangements provide a mechanism through which intelligence information or operationally sensitive information may be shared with the Royal Commission while maintaining appropriate protections for obtaining, storing, accessing, using and disclosing the information. Intelligence information arrangements will be made between the relevant Royal Commission and the heads of Australian intelligence entities. Operationally sensitive information arrangements will be made between the Royal Commission and the Commonwealth. The Secretary must, by notifiable instrument, publish a copy of any intelligence information arrangement or operationally sensitive information arrangement, including any such arrangement as varied (proposed section 6PG).

Similar protections will apply where a person provides intelligence or operationally sensitive information to a legal practitioner for the primary purpose of obtaining or providing legal advice or legal representation in relation to the application of any right, privilege, immunity, defence or obligation under the Act in connection with a Royal Commission (proposed section 6PE).

Schedule 2—Amendment of the Royal Commissions Regulations 2019

Schedule 2 of the Bill prescribes the Royal Commission on Antisemitism and Social Cohesion in the Royal Commission Regulations 2019 for the purposes of the new Part 4A provisions.

On 9 January 2026, the Governor-General, Sam Mostyn, issued Letters Patent, which established the Royal Commission on Antisemitism and Social Cohesion. Former High Court Justice Virginia Bell has been appointed as the Royal Commissioner. The Commissioner is required to produce an interim report by 30 April 2026 and a final report by 14 December 2026.

Schedule 3—Amendment of the Criminal Code

Division 122 in Part 5.6 of the Criminal Code establishes serious secrecy offences, targeting the unauthorised communication, dealing with, or handling of Commonwealth information by current or former public officials and, in some cases, members of the public. Section 122.5 sets out a number of defences that apply to these offences.

Schedule 3 of the Bill amends section 122.5 to provide a defence to an offence under Division 122 where a person communicates or deals with information for the primary purpose of providing it to a Royal Commission and the person has a reasonable belief that the relevant information is relevant to the Royal Commission’s inquiry. The defence will only apply where a person can point to evidence that suggests a reasonable possibility that the primary purpose for handling or disclosing the information was for the purpose of providing it to a Royal Commission with the reasonable belief that it was relevant to the Royal Commission’s inquiries.

The defence would cover preparatory acts before the person communicated the information to a Royal Commission and would apply regardless of whether information was provided voluntarily or in response to a summons. However, as stated in the Replacement Explanatory Memorandum:

The defence would not be available for disclosures to state or territory royal commissions (unless it is a joint Commonwealth Royal Commission), nor would it apply to protect a person if they made a speculative disclosure in advance of a Royal Commission being established or a retrospective disclosure after a Royal Commission had concluded. (p. 22)