Media
|
News
June 18, 2026
New disclosures reveal that the Albanese government sought to block the royal commission into the Bondi attack from using documents revealing cabinet deliberations about counter-terror funding cuts because they were ''current and controversial''.
Documents published by the commission show the secretary of Prime Minister Anthony Albanese's department, Steven Kennedy, also wanted to block royal commissioner Virginia Bell from considering discussions between the leaders of national security agencies and between ministers and agency heads.
The Coalition accused the government of a failed attempt at a political ''cover-up'' through ''extraordinary'' secrecy overreach.
The Commonwealth's submissions in support of the unsuccessful claim for public interest immunity reveal the extent to which the Albanese government prizes the secrecy of cabinet deliberations. In them, government lawyers urged Bell not to force it to hand over documents about the proportion of agencies' budget spent on counter-terrorism unless a ''strong and compelling'' reason existed to do so.
Bell ultimately ruled against the Commonwealth regarding Finance Department and other documents relating to agencies' funding because she judged they were necessary to determine if agencies performed to ''maximum effectiveness'' in the leadup to the December 14, 2025, Bondi terror attack in which 15 people were killed at a Hanukkah event.
In submissions by three barristers led by Perry Herzfeld, SC, the Commonwealth noted Kennedy's view that ''breach of the confidentiality of the cabinet process would undermine the operation of cabinet decision-making and prejudice [its] effective and proper functioning''.
''Further, the contents of the cabinet documents sought by the royal commission are such that damage to the public interest is likely to result from their disclosure ... This is because the topic of the cabinet considerations recorded or revealed by those documents is both current and controversial.
''The documents in question relate to events and matters that have been the subject of extensive political and social debate and are of significant public interest including by reason of the present royal commission.'' In his statement, Kennedy urged cabinet secrecy should also extend to the secretaries committee on national security, composed of department and agency heads, who discuss matters before the national security committee of cabinet including agency budgets.
Coalition home affairs spokesman James Paterson said it was ''extraordinary'' the Albanese government claimed cabinet confidentiality for these meetings of a body ''which is not a committee of cabinet nor is it attended by any cabinet minister''.
''Had they been successful it would have impeded the work of the royal commission and kept the public in the dark about critical discussions about terrorism funding prior to Bondi. In opposition Labor promised more transparency but they are plumbing new depths of dubious secrecy claims even about our worst-ever terrorist attack. They should co-operate fully with the royal commission like the prime minister promised, not engage in a cover-up to protest their political interests.'' The Financial Review first revealed in May the Commonwealth had claimed public interest immunity over sections of Australian Security Intelligence Organisation director-general Mike Burgess' statement about funding.
A claim of public interest immunity allowed Bell to inspect the documents to decide if she needed them for her inquiry, but urged her not to formally accept them into evidence.
In her interim report, Bell said although overall funding for national intelligence community agencies increased in the five years to 2024-25, the inquiry's review of classified material revealed ''the proportion of funding allocated to counter-terrorism significantly declined across the NIC over the period from 2020 to 2025''. In rulings dated April 8 and 21, Bell ruled the Commonwealth had to hand over Finance Department and Australian Federal Police documents relating to counter-terrorism funding, but agreed to keep the documents out of the public eye. In a third ruling dated June 9, Bell similarly ruled against the Commonwealth with respect to redacted sections of Burgess' statement.
A government spokesman said the Commonwealth ''is supporting the royal commission to undertake its vitally important work'' including by providing redacted versions of witness statements.
''Redactions in statements are applied in some circumstances, for example where information is relevant to ongoing criminal proceedings, includes security classified information, and/or information relates to cabinet confidentiality,'' he said.
''It is not appropriate to comment on evidence that has been provided to the royal commission noting its ongoing examination.''