Julian Leeser (Berowra, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Indigenous Australians) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Crimes and Other Legislation Amendment (Omnibus No. 1) Bill 2026. The coalition will not be opposing this bill in the House. However, I want to put on the record some important concerns about what this bill represents and, more tellingly, what it does not. This is an omnibus bill comprising five schedules that make a range of amendments to Commonwealth criminal justice, law enforcement and prosecution legislation. On the face of it, much of the bill is technical or procedural in nature. The coalition accepts that a modern parliament must maintain workable, up-to-date frameworks for policing and prosecution, and where these amendments do that we support them.

Schedule 1 clarifies AFP policing powers at Western Sydney International (Nancy Bird Walton) Airport; modernises how warrant applications are made, allowing electronic and telephone applications in place of cumbersome paper based processes; and makes sensible technical changes for ACT Policing. These are sensible, practical changes that the coalition supports. Schedule 2 moves certain serious drug offences to a mixed-weight approach for calculating drug thresholds, broadly aligning Commonwealth law and most state and territory frameworks. Schedule 3 creates a mechanism for managing conflicts of interest involving the Director of Public Prosecutions. Schedule 4 clarifies arrest powers and streamlines extradition procedures. Schedule 5 makes a minor consequential amendment to the telecommunications interception legislation following changes to the Integrity Oversight Victoria arrangements.

I want to turn to the element of the bill that deserves the most careful scrutiny. That is the extension of the cybercrime disruption powers under schedule 1. In 2021, the coalition government introduced the Surveillance Legislation Amendment (Identify and Disrupt) Act, the SLAID Act. It contained landmark reforms that gave law enforcement the tools to actively disrupt criminal networks operating online. It provided for data disruption warrants, network activity warrants and account takeover warrants. The powers were designed not merely to watch criminals operate but to stop them. Those powers are subject to a sunset clause set to expire on 4 September this year. This bill extends them for a further three years to 4 September 2029. The coalition supports extending these powers—of course we do; we created the powers—but here's the problem: we shouldn't be in a position where the parliament is scrambling to extend a sunset clause at the eleventh hour because this government has spent nearly four years failing to progress the broader electronic surveillance reform agenda.

The Independent National Security Legislation Monitor, or the INSLM, conducted a comprehensive review of these powers, and he made several recommendations in his report. The Comprehensive Review of the Legal Framework of the National Intelligence Community was clear: reform of electronic surveillance laws is becoming more urgent. The Albanese government received that review. It accepted the principle of reform and it did almost nothing. Nearly four years—that's how long this government has had to progress a comprehensive overhaul of our electronic surveillance framework. Instead, here we are today, extending a sunset clause because there's no broader reform legislation to replace it. This extension is not a policy achievement; it's an admission of failure.

We believe that this bill should be referred to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report. While much of this bill appears technical, several elements—including the change to mixed-weight drug thresholds, the DPP conflict-of-interest mechanism and the timing provisions for extradition warrants—warrant proper parliamentary scrutiny. The coalition believes in thorough oversight, and the Senate committee process provides just that. We don't oppose this bill—the law enforcement and prosecution powers contained in it are necessary, and our agencies deserve certainty—but we will not allow this government to quietly extend critical powers without accountability for its broader failure to deliver the comprehensive reform that Australia's national security community has been calling for. I thank the House.

Debate adjourned.

See this speech in context