The response addressed recommendations aimed at reforming the nation’s secrecy laws
The Law Council of Australia has expressed strong support for the federal government’s response to the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor’s (INSLM) report, Secrecy Offences: Review of Part 5.6 of the Criminal Code Act 1995.
The response, tabled in Parliament on 27 November, addressed recommendations aimed at reforming the nation’s secrecy laws.
Law Council President Greg McIntyre SC described the INSLM’s review as a critical step toward achieving a better balance between protecting essential public interests and promoting government transparency and accountability. The Law Council has advocated for changes to Australia’s secrecy regime, which currently makes it a criminal offence to deal with or disclose certain government information, often using broadly defined terms and without requiring proof of harm.
The INSLM’s findings highlighted the deficiencies in the existing framework, which the Law Council argued undermines key rule of law principles. In a statement, McIntyre pointed out that the ambiguous language and unclear scope of current secrecy offences create uncertainty, diminish transparency, and hinder the important work of the free press and civil society organisations. The Law Council has called for an explicit harm requirement in secrecy offences to ensure criminal sanctions are only applied when disclosures cause or are reasonably likely to cause, actual harm to essential public interests.
In its response, the government indicated agreement, either fully or in part, with 12 of the INSLM’s 15 recommendations. Among these is a commitment to repealing provisions in the Criminal Code that rely on administrative security classifications to establish offences, narrowing the scope of information covered by secrecy laws, and removing offences related to “dealing with” information for individuals who are not government employees. The government has also agreed to reconsider the legal framework surrounding journalists, suggesting the existing defence for public interest journalism may be recast as an exception rather than a defence.
The Law Council expressed particular support for the INSLM’s recommendation to replace the current general secrecy offence under section 122.4 of the Criminal Code with a more narrowly tailored framework. Such a change would streamline secrecy laws and reduce redundancy across Commonwealth legislation, a reform the Law Council views as essential.
McIntyre praised the INSLM’s comprehensive review process, which included detailed submissions from the Law Council and other civil society organisations. He commended the government’s commitment to implementing many of the report’s recommendations and expressed hope that this collaborative approach would result in a more effective and balanced secrecy framework.
