Continued the debate
Colbeck moved the government amendment to opposition amendment 2 regarding the sunset date for surveillance powers. The amendment was agreed to, and the original question, as amended, was also agreed to.
Bill Debate · In Committee
Crimes and Other Legislation Amendment (Omnibus No. 1) Bill 2026; In Committee
Senate · Monday 17 August 2026
Continued from Thursday 13 August 2026.
Official Hansard for this day (APH) · Read this debate on OpenAustralia
At a glance
The Senate considered amendments to the Crimes and Other Legislation Amendment (Omnibus No. 1) Bill 2026. The government moved an amendment to extend the sunset date for account takeover and data disruption warrants to September 2029, which was agreed to. The Greens moved amendments to bring the sunset date forward to July 2027, arguing for stronger safeguards and a public interest monitor, but these were opposed by the government and coalition. One Nation moved amendments to restore the previous definition of hors de combat, which the coalition supported, citing concerns about the scope of earlier assurances. The Greens opposed the One Nation amendments, arguing the original changes aligned with international law. Significant debate also occurred regarding proposed changes to how conflicts of interest are managed within the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions, with opposition senators questioning transparency and appointment processes.
Outcome
The government amendment to extend the sunset date was agreed to; the Greens' amendments to shorten the date were not carried; the One Nation amendments regarding hors de combat were not determined due to procedural conflicts and time constraints.
Summary in reported speech - not a transcript. AI-generated, so check the official record before quoting.
How the debate unfolded
Government response
Green stated the government did not support the Greens' amendment to shorten the sunset date, arguing that extending it to September 2029 allowed time for comprehensive reforms based on INSLM recommendations. Green defended the proposed changes to CDPP conflict of interest management, stating they were more efficient than requiring leave of absence and did not change the fundamental method of managing conflicts. Green confirmed there were no new notification requirements for appointments under the proposed legislation.
Opposition response
Cash opposed the Greens' amendment to shorten the sunset date, arguing it would create uncertainty for law enforcement agencies relying on these powers. Cash supported the One Nation amendment to restore the previous definition of hors de combat, stating the coalition had relied on assurances from the former attorney-general that the previous change was a technical correction, which she now believed was inaccurate. Cash questioned the transparency of the new CDPP appointment processes.
-
Shoebridge moved amendments to bring the sunset date for surveillance warrants forward to July 2027. Shoebridge argued that the powers required additional protections, including a public interest monitor to contest applications in chambers, citing concerns from the INSLM and past scandals in New South Wales regarding unchecked covert surveillance.
-
Collins questioned the minister on conflicts of interest within the CDPP, asking for examples of past issues and comparing the appointment security of the CDPP versus parallel CDPPs. Collins argued that the new provisions lacked transparency, as there was no requirement to notify parliament when a parallel CDPP was appointed.
-
Bell moved amendments to restore the previous definition of hors de combat in the Criminal Code Act 1995. Bell stated the amendments applied to conduct on or after 26 September 2002 and legal proceedings commenced on or after that day.
-
McKim raised concerns about changes to serious drug offences, arguing that moving away from purity-based assessments violated natural justice by counting cutting agents in quantity calculations for absolute liability offences. McKim also criticised the removal of requirements for separate written witness accounts regarding chain of custody issues, citing access to justice issues.