Division
The majority voted in favour of a [motion](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?id=2026-03-12.61.1) 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](https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd2526/26bd051), 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 protection
Senate, 2026-03-12. affirmative: ayes 34, noes 10.
Question
The majority voted in favour of a [motion](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?id=2026-03-12.61.1) 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](https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd2526/26bd051), 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 protection
How each member voted
Per-member votes are not present in this static export. Consult the original division record.
Related bills
Only formal divisions leave a per-member record. A procedural vote is not necessarily a vote for or against a bill.