Continued the debate
Brockman opened the committee stage consideration of the bill and the government amendment to an opposition amendment. Brockman did not express a personal policy position but facilitated the procedural discussion.
Bill Debate · In Committee
Crimes and Other Legislation Amendment (Omnibus No. 1) Bill 2026; In Committee
Senate · Thursday 13 August 2026
Continued from Wednesday 12 August 2026.
Official Hansard for this day (APH) · Read this debate on OpenAustralia
At a glance
The Senate committee debated the Crimes and Other Legislation Amendment (Omnibus No. 1) Bill 2026, focusing on conflict of interest provisions and surveillance powers. The Shadow Attorney-General and the Greens raised concerns about potential conflicts within the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions and the erosion of civil liberties through expanded surveillance and drug quantity assessment changes. The government defended these measures as necessary for operational efficiency and national security, with Senator Green clarifying that conflict management provisions were designed for efficient justice delivery. Senator Collins questioned the scope of the Attorney-General's discretion, while the Greens opposed the changes due to their impact on vulnerable individuals.
Outcome
The committee reported progress on the bill.
Summary in reported speech - not a transcript. AI-generated, so check the official record before quoting.
How the debate unfolded
Government response
Green confirmed that the government does not perceive any conflict of interest for the CDPP in the Ben Roberts-Smith prosecution, citing the director's independence. Green explained that the new conflict management provisions allow the Attorney-General to authorise senior staff to exercise powers without the director taking leave, ensuring continuity. Regarding surveillance warrants, Green defended the three-year extension to 2029, stating it allows time for comprehensive reform of the electronic surveillance framework, including consideration of INSLM recommendations. Green argued that the drug law changes target serious organised crime by addressing the use of cutting agents to evade thresholds, and that evidentiary certificates improve efficiency without removing the right to challenge evidence.
Opposition response
Cash sought to establish on the record that the CDPP had previously advised the Office of the Special Investigator in the same war crimes matter now being prosecuted. Cash questioned whether the government's new conflict of interest provisions compromised prosecutorial independence by allowing the Attorney-General to select substitutes without consulting the director or providing public reasons. Cash argued that the government's position on the lack of conflict was inconsistent with the Prosecution Policy of the Commonwealth and raised concerns about the perception of political involvement in prosecutions.
-
Collins questioned whether the new provisions allowed the Attorney-General to create standing authorisations for all war crimes prosecutions if a conflict arose. Collins sought clarification on whether substituted persons would hold all CDPP powers and whether the director could be replaced by the Attorney-General without consultation, highlighting concerns about the scope of executive power.
-
Shoebridge moved an amendment to reduce the sunset extension for surveillance warrants from three years to twelve months. Shoebridge argued that the government had ignored INSLM recommendations for safeguards, such as requiring warrants to be issued by judges and establishing public interest monitors. Shoebridge contended that extending the powers without these protections eroded civil liberties and that the government was delaying necessary reforms.
-
Grogan resumed the committee consideration of the government amendment to the opposition amendment. Grogan did not provide substantive policy arguments but facilitated the continuation of the debate.
-
McKim raised concerns about the bill's move to use total weight for calculating drug amounts, arguing it disadvantaged low-level offenders and those with addiction issues by including cutting agents. McKim also opposed the evidentiary certificate regime, stating it reduced transparency in chain of custody matters. McKim framed these changes as part of a broader erosion of civil liberties and lack of fundamental rights protections in Australia.
-
minister
Senator Green stated that no specific conflict of interest had been identified, making the discussion hypothetical. Green explained that section 31B allows for authorisations to manage conflicts efficiently, particularly in serious criminal cases. Green emphasised that the system was not designed for conspiratorial purposes but to improve current arrangements for the efficient carrying-out of justice.
-
shadow minister
Senator Collins asked whether section 31B effectively granted the Attorney-General the power to establish an unlimited number of parallel Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions entities. Collins highlighted that appointments under this section would be subject to the absolute discretion of the Attorney-General.