12 Mar 2026 · 1:03 PM · Division 16
Royal Commissions Legislation Amendment (Protections for Providing Information) Bill 2026
- Official title
- Royal Commissions Legislation Amendment (Protections for Providing Information) Bill 2026 - Third Reading - Pass the bill
Third reading agreed to
- Aye
- 34
- No
- 10
- Not recorded voting
- 32
“Not recorded voting” is everyone eligible who isn't recorded as Aye or No, for example absent, paired, or presiding.
What was decided
The majority voted in favour of a motion to read the bill for a third time. In other words, they voted in favour of passing the bill in the Senate. Because the bill has already passed in the House of Representatives, it can now become law.
What does this bill do?
According to the bills digest, which is a nonpartisan document prepared by the parliamentary library:
*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.
Summary written by They Vote For You contributors. Read it with the debate
Votes by party
Votes by party as a table
| Party | Aye | No |
|---|---|---|
| Australian Labor Party | 24 | 0 |
| Australian Greens | 0 | 10 |
| Liberal Party | 4 | 0 |
| Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party | 4 | 0 |
| Australia's Voice | 1 | 0 |
| Independent | 1 | 0 |
How each member voted
Aye · 34
- Fatima PaymanWA · Australia's Voice
- Michelle Ananda-RajahVictoria · Labor
- Tim AyresNSW · Labor
- Carol BrownTasmania · Labor
- Anthony ChisholmQueensland · Labor
- Raff CicconeVictoria · Labor
- Dorinda CoxWA · Labor
- Lisa DarmaninVictoria · Labor
- Josh DolegaTasmania · Labor
- Richard DowlingTasmania · Labor
- Varun GhoshWA · Labor
- Nita GreenQueensland · Labor
- Karen GroganSA · Labor
- Jenny McAllisterNSW · Labor
- Malarndirri McCarthyNT · Labor
- Corinne MulhollandQueensland · Labor
- Helen PolleyTasmania · Labor
- Tony SheldonNSW · Labor
- Marielle SmithSA · Labor
- Glenn SterleWA · Labor
- Jana StewartVictoria · Labor
- Tammy TyrrellTasmania · Labor
- Charlotte WalkerSA · Labor
- Murray WattQueensland · Labor
- Ellie WhiteakerWA · Labor
- David PocockACT · Independent
- Jessica CollinsNSW · Liberal
- Jonathon DuniamTasmania · Liberal
- Sarah HendersonVictoria · Liberal
- Dave SharmaNSW · Liberal
No · 10
- Penny Allman-PayneQueensland · Greens
- Mehreen FaruqiNSW · Greens
- Sarah Hanson-YoungSA · Greens
- Steph Hodgins-MayVictoria · Greens
- Nick McKimTasmania · Greens
- Barbara PocockSA · Greens
- David ShoebridgeNSW · Greens
- Jordon Steele-JohnWA · Greens
- Larissa WatersQueensland · Greens
- Peter Whish-WilsonTasmania · Greens
Spotted a mistake? Report a correction.