Senate debates

Thursday, 13 August 2026

Bills

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

11:08 am

Photo of David ShoebridgeDavid Shoebridge (NSW, Australian Greens) | Hansard source

Perhaps we can, after the break, have an answer to the riddle. It is a little bit confusing in the government's response as well. The government's response is that they agree to recommendation 1, which is dependent on having recommendations 6 to 8 implemented. But then, when they're dealing with recommendation 8 in the body of their response, they say that they 'note' recommendation 8. This is a riddle I'm trying to understand. On the one hand, you agree to it. Then, on the other hand, you note it in the government's response. So perhaps when we come back on this sometime after quarter past 11, Minister, you can get some advice from the department about whether the answer that your government does accept recommendation 1 is true or whether it is actually the answer that you give on recommendation 8, that you just note it and you're not really interested in putting in place the protections the INSLM says are needed before these covert warrants are extended.

One of the other key concerns the INSLM had was that, in a system where there's no-one checking, there's no independent check, there's no defendant contesting it, there's no-one testing what the police say and there's no-one testing what ASIO says, it's all just them and a judge or them and whichever officer is issuing the warrant, what are the checks and balances in place? The INSLM said that there needs to be a statutory duty of candour requiring disclosure of all matters of which the applicant is aware, both favourable and adverse. There's currently no such statutory duty. So my first question to you, Minister, is this. You're proposing to extend these powers for another three years. Does the government believe that the AFP and ASIO have a duty of candour in putting these applications? Do you believe that they have a duty to put before whoever is being asked to issue a warrant all the relevant material, both in favour of and not in favour of the application? Do you believe that obligation exists now?

Comments

No comments