Question Time AU

Bill Debate · In Committee

Crimes and Other Legislation Amendment (Omnibus No. 1) Bill 2026; In Committee

Senate · Wednesday 12 August 2026

Official Hansard for this day (APH) · Read this debate on OpenAustralia

At a glance

The debate focused on two main issues: a proposed post-implementation review of extradition arrest warrant powers and the rationale for new conflict of interest provisions for the Director of Public Prosecutions. The government moved an amendment to narrow the scope of the opposition's proposed review to focus solely on unintended consequences of Schedule 4, which the opposition accepted. A significant portion of the debate involved questioning whether the new conflict of interest provisions were drafted in response to the prosecution of Ben Roberts-Smith, which the minister denied. The Greens indicated support for the government's amendment regarding the review.

Outcome

The government's amendment to the opposition's amendment was agreed to, and progress was reported.

Summary in reported speech - not a transcript. AI-generated, so check the official record before quoting.

How the debate unfolded

Opened the debate

Michaelia Cash (WA) (Liberal Party) Liberal

Cash moved amendments to require the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee to conduct an inquiry into the operation of Schedule 4 amendments within two years. The inquiry was to examine the operational effect of restricting arrest warrant execution hours compared to search warrants, as well as any unintended consequences. Cash also questioned the minister on whether the new conflict of interest provisions in Schedule 3 were created to address a specific conflict involving the current Director of Public Prosecutions and the war crimes prosecution.

Government response

Nita Green (Assistant Minister for Tourism; Assistant Minister for Pacific Island Affairs; Assistant Minister for Northern Australia) ALP QLD

Green stated the government supported a post-implementation review but moved an amendment to limit the inquiry's scope to unintended consequences of Schedule 4, removing the specific reference to arrest warrant hour restrictions. Green denied that the bill was drafted in response to a specific conflict of interest or the Ben Roberts-Smith case, describing the changes as a streamlining of administrative processes. Green confirmed that the new provisions would apply prospectively and that the current Director of Public Prosecutions would be subject to the new process if a conflict arose, regardless of when proceedings commenced.