David Shoebridge (NSW, Australian Greens) | Link to this | Hansard source

Part 3 of schedule 1 of this bill extends the sunset date for what are called network activity warrants, data disruption warrants, account takeover warrants and related authorisations under the Surveillance Devices Act and the Crimes Act, and it proposes to extend them by another three years to 4 September 2029. The Independent National Security Legislation Monitor, the INSLM, did a review and found that those powers had been rarely used, but they had been used, sometimes effectively, against some serious cyber-enabled and cyber-dependent crime. That's not in dispute; it's what's in the report. What is in dispute is whether they should be retained for another three years without the raft of stronger essential safeguards that the INSLM said—and said years ago, now—were needed if these powers were to remain on the statute books.

It's interesting to note the trigger for comprehensive reform of electronic surveillance goes back to 2019, and that was the Richardson review of the National Intelligence Community's legal framework. That's seven years of runway. The runway has been laid out for seven years for reforms that still haven't taken off. And extending the sunset to late 2029 effectively tells agencies that they can have these powers without safeguards—and the public can be the subject of them without safeguards—for years. This is why the Greens have put in an amendment to change that date to 1 July 2027. That is more than enough.

The Law Council's submission to the inquiry supported this. They made it clear with their recommendation that this is essential in order to give life to recommendations 6, 7 and 8 of the now longstanding INSLM review into these powers. And what the Law Council said is that we need a clear assurance from the government that the safeguards will be put in place this parliamentary term. It has already taken too long for this to happen.

Support in principle for modernising law enforcement administration doesn't mean waving through provisions that shift risk onto the people least able to bear it—whether it's a low-level drug courier facing an inflated gross-weight charge with no mistake-of-fact defence, or the public, who are waiting years longer for surveillance safeguards that were promised back in 2019.

Leah Blyth (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Defence Infrastructure) | Link to this | Hansard source

The coalition will not oppose the Crimes and Other Legislation Amendment (Omnibus No. 1) Bill 2026. Much of this bill is technical or procedural in nature. Where it modernises, clarifies and improves Commonwealth criminal justice, policing and prosecution laws, the coalition is supportive of those measures. The bill contains practical amendments dealing with AFP powers at Western Sydney International Airport, electronic warrant applications, ACT Policing, serious drug offence thresholds and conflicts involving the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions. It also covers extradition arrest powers and telecommunications interception legislation. The opposition is concerned about a number of aspects of this bill and will be moving amendments to ensure that significant changes to the operational capabilities of the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission receive the scrutiny they deserve and that expanded extradition arrest powers remain subject to the appropriate parliamentary review. The coalition will also ask questions in the committee stage about schedule 3 relating to the changes to the Director of Public Prosecutions Act 1983.

This bill exposes the Albanese government's continuing failure to deliver the comprehensive reform of Australia's electronic surveillance framework that it has been promising the Australian people for almost four years. Part 3 of schedule 1 extends account takeover warrants, data disruption warrants, network activity warrants and related emergency authorisations for a further three years until 4 September 2029. The coalition supports the continuation of these important cyber disruption powers. The former coalition government introduced these powers back in 2021 because serious organised crime, child exploitation networks, drug trafficking syndicates and other criminal enterprises were increasingly operating online and exploiting encrypted platforms and sophisticated digital technologies. The coalition saw the importance of increasing measures around these particular areas. These powers allow agencies to not simply observe serious criminal activity but intervene directly, identify offenders operating anonymously, disrupt criminal networks and prevent further offending. The Independent National Security Legislation Monitor found that the identity and disrupt powers provide effective operational capabilities in circumstances where other powers would have been ineffective and recommended that they should not be allowed to sunset.

The threats these powers address have not disappeared, and some would say that the online environment has become even more devious. Serious organised crime continues to adapt, and new technologies are continually exploited as they operate across jurisdictions not just here in Australia but globally. The need for the extension is a direct consequence of the government's failure to complete a comprehensive electronic surveillance reform—the same reform that they have been promising to deliver for the last four years. The government accepted the need for a modern coherent electronic surveillance framework, yet here we are almost four years after them taking office and there is still no comprehensive legislative package for this—no modern electronic surveillance act and no clear timetable for its reform. In the meantime, criminal networks continue to evolve and exploit technologies.

Extending the sunset clause keeps necessary powers alive, but it is not a substitute for the comprehensive reform that is genuinely needed in this space that this Labor government promised to deliver. National security legislation cannot drift from one sunset extension into the next while governments postpone the difficult work of modernising the laws so that they can keep pace with technology and the threat environment. It's fair to say that Labor has been caught napping in this area. Labor haven't done anything to make sure that they are keeping pace with the technology that criminal networks and exploitation networks are using, and they haven't kept pace with the threat environment.

The opposition will move a second reading amendment concerning the removal of the ACIC's ability to apply for data disruption warrants. The coalition accepts the broader policy objective of refocusing the ACIC as a dedicated criminal intelligence agency responsible for collecting, analysing and disseminating intelligence about serious and organised crime. The concern is not simply about policy direction; it is the legislative vehicle chosen by the government and the level of scrutiny this significant change will receive. Removing the ACIC's data disruption warrant power is not a minor or incidental amendment. It changes the powers, the functions and the operational capabilities of one of Australia's principal criminal intelligence agencies. Data disruption warrants can interfere directly with data used by serious and organised criminals, disrupt criminal communications, degrade criminal platforms and undermine the ability of criminal networks to operate effectively here in Australia.

The Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission Bill 2026 is already before the parliament and is intended to establish a modern legislative framework for the ACIC and its proposed intelligence-focused role. That bill has been referred to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, parliament's specialist committee for scrutinising intelligence and national security legislation. The PJCIS is the appropriate forum to examine the future powers, functions and safeguards, as well as the accountability arrangements, that apply to the ACIC.

The coalition's second reading amendment will call on the government to incorporate part 3 of schedule 1 into the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission Bill 2026. This is not about opposing the continuation of cyber disruption powers or preventing the reform of the ACIC. It is about ensuring that significant national security reform is considered through the appropriate legislative vehicle and receives specialist parliamentary scrutiny, which is something I think the people of Australia expect to happen with legislation that comes through this place. Proper debate and proper scrutiny is something that the Australian people expect to see.

It has been this government's habit to constantly guillotine bills as they come through this place so that they are devoid of any kind of scrutiny. We end up with bills that are a mess and that create all sorts of unintended and, at times, intended consequences. Changes of this significance should not be bundled into an omnibus bill containing largely technical and procedural amendments, but that is something that we have seen from this Labor government, where they take a whole lot of normal, routine updates to bills, bulk them all together and then put quite extraordinary things in with them.

Schedule 4 of the bill aligns arrest powers under the Extradition Act 1988. This is aligned more closely with the general Commonwealth arrest powers available under the Crimes Act 1914. The Australian Federal Police advised the Senate inquiry that the amendments address the genuine operational difficulties that they encounter, including limits on entry to premises and the use of reasonable force when executing an extradition arrest warrant. It is undesirable for police to face avoidable operational barriers when a person sought for extradition is inside private premises and where a lawful arrest warrant is in force. The coalition supports giving police officers the practical powers they require to execute lawful extradition warrants safely and effectively. However, these remain significant coercive powers involving entry to a premises, the use of reasonable force and the deprivation of liberty. Whenever parliament expands coercive powers exercised by the state, it has a responsibility to ensure that those powers operate as they are intended to operate.

The opposition will move an amendment in Committee of the Whole requiring a parliamentary review of the schedule 4 amendments. The amendment will require the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee, or another committee constituted by a resolution of the Senate, to begin an inquiry into the operation of the amendments within two years of their commencement. The review will consider any unintended consequences arising from the expanded extradition arrest powers. The coalition's amendment would specifically require the inquiry to examine the operational effect of restricting the execution of arrest warrants issued under the Extradition Act and the Crimes Act to certain hours while search warrants issued under those acts are not subject to the same restrictions. The government has circulated an amendment seeking to remove that specific reference from the terms of reference. While it is the coalition's preference to retain that detail, we do not think its removal will limit the committee's ability to examine those issues and therefore will not oppose the government's amendment in this case.

This is a sensible accountability measure. It does not deny police the powers they need or delay the commencement of the amendments. It ensures parliament returns to examine how the expanded powers have operated in practice and can address any unforeseen problems revealed by operational experience. There is nothing inherently wrong with omnibus legislation where amendments are genuinely technical, administrative in nature or consequential, but omnibus bills should not become a vehicle for reducing scrutiny, which is what we've seen from this government. They should not reduce scrutiny of significant policy changes involving intelligence agencies, law enforcement powers or the fundamental rights and liberties.

The coalition has consistently supported strong national security laws and backed Australia's intelligence, policing and prosecution agencies with the powers that they need to confront terrorism, serious organised crime, cybercrime, child exploitation, drug trafficking and other serious offending. Strong powers must also be accompanied by strong safeguards, by proper accountability and by rigorous parliamentary scrutiny. Those principles are not inconsistent. Proper scrutiny improves legislation, identifies unintended consequences and builds public confidence in the integrity and effectiveness of Australia's national security framework. Good legislation should be assessed against operational experience rather than enacted and then forgotten, particularly where it expands coercive powers.

The coalition supports the practical and operational improvements contained in this bill. We support the extending of cyber disruption powers because they remain necessary and effective, and we support ensuring that Australia's police, intelligence and law enforcement agencies have the capabilities they need to keep all Australians safe. But we also insist that significant changes to operational capabilities of the ACIC receive specialist parliamentary scrutiny and expanded extradition arrest powers be reviewed after the commencement of this bill. That is precisely what the opposition's amendments will seek to achieve.

The government must also finally deliver the comprehensive reform of Australia's electronic surveillance laws that the intelligence, security and law enforcement community has repeatedly called for. Extending a sunset clause cannot become a substitute for comprehensive legislative reform. For all of those reasons, the coalition will not oppose this bill and urges the government to support the opposition's amendments.

Pauline Hanson (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise in support of the Crimes and Other Legislation Amendment (Omnibus No. 1) Bill 2026. I'm also going to flag One Nation's amendment to the legislation. This amendment will correct a grave injustice imposed on veterans and serving members of the Australian Defence Force. This amendment is about fairness. It's about the proper application of the rule of law. It's about standing up for the men and women who were ordered to fight a war in Afghanistan. It's about a Labor government which has turned its back on brave Australians.

When our soldiers were deployed to Afghanistan, they were asked to fight an enemy who wore no uniform and who hid among civilians. Our people had a clear set of rules to follow when engaging this enemy, which in turn did not consider himself bound by the same rules. Our soldiers operated in hostile territory where almost anyone they encountered could be an enemy. I know this because I visited Afghanistan to see it for myself.

And then our soldiers came home. Forty-one of them did not return alive. Hundreds more were wounded. Many came back struggling with their experiences and the impact those had on their physical and mental health. Many of them still struggle today. And then, in 2024, Labor betrayed our veterans. Labor changed the rules under which our soldiers operated in Afghanistan. Years after our deployment was finished, Labor changed the definition of 'hors de combat' in the Criminal Code. Before this change, the law required a full set of conditions for someone to be considered hors de combat. Labor broke that test apart. Labor made it easier to prosecute our soldiers, and then Labor made this change retrospective. They went all the way back to 2002, when Australians were serving in combat under a different set of rules. They went back to cases still before the courts. This was wrong. It was wrong because it was completely unfair.

This betrayal sends a chilling message to every serving member of the ADF and every former member: serve your country, risk your life, do the job you were ordered to do, and many years later we'll rewrite laws to make it easier to prosecute you. Australians will not accept that. They know that our soldiers did not choose these wars. Our soldiers did not write foreign policy. They did not decide where to deploy. They obeyed their orders. They served Australia. They did the hard, dangerous work that politicians in this place asked of them. Yet Labor is happy to change the legal rules after the event.

This government calls it a technical correction. That is the usual Canberra excuse. But ordinary Australians know the difference between a typo and a law that makes prosecution easier. If the change has no real effect, why make it retrospective? Why reach back more than 20 years? Why apply it to proceedings already underway? The government cannot have it both ways. Labor cannot say the change is meaningless while insisting it must apply to past conduct and current cases.

This amendment restores the definition that existed before Labor changed it. It restores the legal framework which applied when Australian personnel served. It restores the basic principle of justice—that you do not change the rules after the game has been played. No-one is above the law. No-one is asking for immunity. Where there is credible evidence of wrongdoing, it should be tested properly. But the law must be fair. The process must be fair. The government must not tilt the scales after the fact against Australians who served in uniform. This is where Labor has failed.

This government is quick to talk about supporting veterans. It is quick to stand at memorials. It is quick to speak about service and sacrifice on Anzac Day. But words are cheap. Real support means standing by the people you sent into harm's way. Real support means ensuring that they are judged under the law that existed at the time. Real support means refusing to turn veterans into political targets. Instead, Labor has chosen to make prosecution easier. It has chosen retrospective law-making, and it has chosen to abandon the principle that Australians should have certainty about the laws that govern them. That is not support for veterans. That is a betrayal of veterans.

This amendment draws a line. It says that parliament should not change the rules after the fact to make it easier to prosecute Australian soldiers. It says that fairness matters. It says that the rule of law matters, and it says that this parliament must not turn its back on the people who put their lives on the line for Australia. I urge senators to support the amendment.

Jessica Collins (NSW, Liberal Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

I also rise to speak to the Crimes and Other Legislation Amendment (Omnibus No.1) Bill 2026. We heard from my colleague Senator Blyth before that, yes, much of this bill is technical or procedural and the coalition does support the modernisation, clarification and improvement of the Commonwealth criminal justice system policing and prosecution laws. This bill does have some practical amendments dealing with AFP powers at the Western Sydney airport, ACT policing, drug offence thresholds, arrest powers and other legislation. The coalition's position is always that we want to keep Australians safer. That has never, ever been more important. The threat environment is increasing here in Australia. This is the natural home of the coalition—the Liberals and the Nationals—who have a proud record of keeping this country safe. So when Labor steps up to the plate with an omnibus bill with national security measures we must scrutinise them absolutely and completely. We must be alert and alive to the fact that they might not all be technical or procedural measures. They might not all be non-controversial matters. Labor are very, very good at sneaking in measures that they've wanted for a long time but have never had the guts to make their intentions very clear on at all. So it deserves proper scrutiny, not guillotining. We must always understand the intention of every single part of bills, especially omnibus bills, and the unintended consequences.

Because of this, the opposition will move amendments to ensure significant changes to the operational capabilities of the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission get the scrutiny they deserve and need and that the expanded extradition arrest powers remain subject to appropriate parliamentary review. We must be able to continually examine the changes to ensure that there are no unintended consequences and that the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission is placed under the correct legislative instrument.

The coalition will also ask questions in the committee stage relating to schedule 3 and the changes to the Director of Public Prosecutions Act 1983 in relation to conflicts of interests. That's because changes of this significance should not be bundled into an omnibus bill containing largely technical and procedural amendments. Whenever parliament expands powers of ministers, those extra new powers must be properly rationalised and safeguarded. We don't just trust them; we scrutinise them.

Omnibus legislation is fine for amendments that are technical, administrative or consequential, but omnibus bills should not become a way to reduce scrutiny of significant policy changes involving important matters like intelligence agencies, law enforcement powers, ministerial powers or fundamental rights and liberties and they shouldn't make significant changes like these go unnoticed.

The coalition has consistently supported strong national security laws and backed Australia's intelligence, policing and prosecution agencies with the powers needed to confront terrorism, serious organised crime, cybercrime, child exploitation, drug trafficking and other serious offending—in other words, the scum of Australian society—and we will never apologise for that. Stronger powers keep Australians safe, but stronger powers need strong safeguards, proper accountability and rigorous parliamentary scrutiny. They must work together. They can consistently work together. Proper scrutiny is good. It makes for better legislation. We can identify the unintended consequences and we can build public confidence in the integrity and effectiveness of Australia's national security framework. Good legislation should be assessed against operational experience rather than enacted and forgotten, particularly where it expands coercive powers.

Let's remember that this government had over four years to do this. It failed to deliver on reform that it promised years ago, and here we are at the eleventh hour again rushing a massive bill through that hasn't had the proper scrutiny that it deserves.

The threat environment has rapidly changed, and serious and organised crime continues to evolve. Terrorism continues to evolve, child exploitation—the list goes on. Our government should be keeping pace well before the deadlines arise, but here we are. Again, the coalition is cleaning up their mess, having to tell them how to get their national security legislation right. The government has said that there is a need for a modern, coherent electronic surveillance framework, yet almost four years after taking office there is still no comprehensive legislation package and no clear timetable for reform. The extension of the sunset clause keeps the powers alive, but it does not substitute for comprehensive reform. We can't just sit here with the national security legislation going from sunset clause to sunset clause while the government postpones the hard work and the hard decisions of keeping laws modern and responsive to the threats—ahead of the threats—that we are facing.

The opposition will move an amendment in the Committee of the Whole requiring a parliamentary review of schedule 4 amendments. This is the scrutiny that it needs, and it means that the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee, or another committee appointed by resolution of the Senate, will begin an inquiry into the operation of the amendments within two years of their commencement. We need to understand if there are any unintended consequences of the legislation that this government is putting through, particularly in relation to the expanded extradition arrest powers. The coalition's amendment would require the inquiry to examine the operational effect of this particular schedule. This is an important and sensible accountability measure. Going through the inquiry doesn't delay the opportunity for the police and agencies to do the work but just makes sure that the parliament can examine the bill and how it's operating in practice.

The coalition supports extending the cyber disruption powers because they are needed and they are effective. We support Australia's police, intelligence and law enforcement agencies to have the capabilities that they need to keep Australians safe and protected from the scum that I referred to before, but we also require significant changes to the operational capabilities of ASIC to receive special scrutiny on the arrest powers that have been identified in this bill.

The government has to deliver on the comprehensive reform of Australia's national security legislation environment. Extending sunset clauses is not real reform. As Australia's national security challenges continue to evolve, our laws must evolve with them but also be ahead of the game. For those reasons and for the reasons of proper scrutiny of entire elements of this bill, the coalition urges the government to support the opposition's amendments. We will seek answers to questions on schedule 3 related to changes with the Director of Public Prosecutions in relation to conflicts of interest.

Matt O'Sullivan (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Choice in Childcare and Early Learning) | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Crimes and Other Legislation Amendment (Omnibus No. 1) Bill 2026. As my colleagues have indicated in their contributions, the coalition will not oppose the bulk of this bill.

While it mostly contains technical or procedural amendments to various legislation, the changes to the operational capabilities of the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission, ACIC, warrant further scrutiny. ACIC's current ability to apply for data disruption warrants enables it to interfere directly with data used by serious and organised criminals and disrupt criminal communications, degrade criminal platforms and undermine the ability of criminal networks to operate effectively. The removal of ACIC's ability to obtain these warrants is not a minor change. It should not just be bundled into an omnibus bill. That is why the opposition will move an amendment to this bill to ensure that major changes to Australia's peak national body for criminal intelligence are considered through the appropriate legislative vehicle and receive specialist parliamentary scrutiny. The amendment will call on the government to incorporate part 3 of schedule 1 into the targeted Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission Bill 2026, which is currently before the parliament. We will move amendments so that expanded extradition arrest powers for the police remain subject to appropriate parliamentary review.

Let's be clear: this bill further exposes the Albanese government's underdelivery of long-promised reform to Australia's electronic surveillance framework. Yet again, Australians have been left unnecessarily vulnerable because of a government that will only act in reaction, not in anticipation.

As shadow minister for child protection and the prevention of family violence, I want to say that I support part 3 of schedule 1 of the bill, which would extend agency account takeover warrants, data disruption warrants, network activity warrants and related emergency authorisations for a further three years, until 4 September 2029. In light of recent horrific high-profile cases of child sexual abuse, the importance of these matters cannot be overstated. I'm proud to say that it was the former coalition government who introduced these powers in 2021 because serious organised crime, child exploitation networks, drug-trafficking syndicates and other criminal enterprises were increasingly operating online and exploiting encrypted platforms and sophisticated digital technologies. It was occurring.

The amendments in this section of the bill would give effect to aspects of the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor's review of the Surveillance Legislation Amendment (Identify and Disrupt) Act 2021. The monitor outlined in its report how SLA(ID) Act warrants are 'used in circumstances where other warrants would have been ineffective and where regulatory action would have been insufficient'. With significant technological advancements since the SLA(ID) Act came into effect, including in artificial intelligence, there is more need than ever for effective and efficient action to respond to cybercriminals, who are a threat to vulnerable Australians, especially our most vulnerable: our children.

Recent cases have shown these threats not only exist online but can reach into the very places to which families entrust the care of their children. The recent allegations have been a stark reminder that the threat of child exploitation can reach well beyond the online world into those very trusted settings, which include child care. No parent should have to spend their working day wondering whether their child is safe in child care, yet, after a series of horrific allegations, that fear is now very real for families across Australia.

Two weeks ago, opposition leader Angus Taylor called for a national childcare perpetrator register. He joined Bruce and Denise Morcombe, the parents of Daniel Morcombe, and Childcare Choice in writing to the Prime Minister, urging the government to establish one. Right now, parents can be left piecing together media reports and social media posts to determine whether an alleged offender ever worked in their child's childcare centre. This is, of course, a very distressing time. Parents see that there's a media report about a childcare centre that their child may have been in and it correlates and lines up with the time their child was potentially in that childcare centre.

Of course, for the vast majority, almost 100 per cent, of families that would have intersected with the alleged perpetrator's time working at that childcare centre, the police would have been in touch with that family already. But for those that are unaware of police processes and what occurs, they simply see the media reporting. They see that the childcare centre where their child has been is listed, and then that anxiety that they experience and feel is through the roof because they are worried about whether their child's time intersected with this worker's time in that childcare centre.

As I said, almost 100 per cent of those families have not needed to have worried because the police would have already been in touch, but they don't know that. What Mr Taylor has asked for, and what the Morcombe Foundation and Childcare Choice have asked for, is a national register of perpetrators to be available that parents can see very clearly. If there's a media report, they can go online—on a trusted, government website—and see whether or not the timing of their child being in a childcare centre where this alleged perpetrator has been working correlates at all, and their fear would be allayed. It's a way of dealing with it in a very timely and quick way.

Under the current system, what we're left with is a situation where parents are just left with media reports. They've got to wait until the morning so they can ring the childcare centre, and time goes on before they actually realise. For the childcare centre, for the parents and for everyone involved, it's an inefficient way of dealing with that anxiety and that stress that has occurred. No family should have to go through that. No family should have to deal with the fear of whether or not their child was involved with one of these perpetrators that exist. We think it's something the government could do very simply. It's not something that would take a great deal of time to implement, and we'd encourage the government to do it.

Families that I've spoken to are stunned that such a system does not already exist. Simply relying on media reports or on social media to get information out there is not okay, and the government could take the steps that are necessary to ensure that it was very, very clear. Australians agree. A Daily Telegraph poll recently found that 73 per cent of Australians support the call for a transparent public childcare perpetrator register. Parents deserve this transparency about who has been entrusted with the care of their children, and the coalition stands ready to work with the government. We understand that it would need to be designed in a way that was ensuring the presumption of innocence was clear and that it didn't in any way impede law enforcement's ability to prosecute and go through what they need to through the courts. We think that an individual with a serious charge of a child exploitation crime should have their name listed on a website so that parents can have that understanding of exactly where they have worked. This is something that we encourage the government to consider and something the coalition stands ready to work with the government on.

Back to this legislation, extending these powers for another three years is necessary, but a sunset extension is not a substitute for comprehensive reform. Some of the recent cases of abuse occurred while these warrant powers were in effect. It's clear that a holistic approach is required. We must ensure that childcare workers receive proper training and fair compensation. Screening must be thorough to identify and prevent from working anyone with a relevant history or who may pose a risk to children's safety. There must continue to be swift intervention and strong justice responses for offenders, and there must be robust reporting to allow childcare providers and parents to make informed decisions about childcare safety.

Extending the cyber warrant powers in schedule 1, part 3, of the omnibus bill is an important step to ensuring that criminals operating online understand they cannot exploit Australians without facing the full force of the law. The coalition supports the practical and operational improvements contained in this bill. We support extending the cyber disruption powers because they remain necessary and effective, and we support ensuring that Australia's police, intelligence and law enforcement agencies have the capabilities that they need to keep Australians safe. But we also insist that significant changes to the operational capabilities of ACIC receive specialist parliamentary scrutiny and that the expanded extradition arrest powers are reviewed after commencement.

This is precisely what the opposition amendments seek to achieve. We hope that the government will support these amendments. The coalition will not oppose the bill but urges the government to support these very practical amendments to ensure the long-term sustainability and truth of this bill.

Helen Polley (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

I'd like to speak in support of the Crimes and Other Legislation Amendment (Omnibus No. 1) Bill 2026, and I do that because this is really important legislation. It's a practical bill that is going to reinforce the responsibilities of law enforcement in this country. As Chair of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Law Enforcement, I know and understand, along with all of my colleagues on that committee, how important this piece of legislation is. It is a time to acknowledge the tireless work of the Attorney-General, Michelle Rowland. At its core, this bill is about ensuring that institutions charged with protecting the Australian community have the powers, procedures and legal clarity that they need to do their jobs effectively, lawfully and safely.

In supporting this bill, I want to place on record my sincere thanks to the officers, the investigators, the analysts, the prosecutors and the law enforcement leaders who work tirelessly every single day to keep Australians safe. We ask a great deal of them. They confront organised crime; illicit-drug trafficking; online exploitation of the most precious members of our community, our children; technology enabled offending; and cross-border criminal enterprises that are so much more sophisticated, well resourced and relentless. Yet day after day, often without recognition, they continue to work with professionalism, courage and determination. They deserve not only our gratitude but also a legislative framework that supports them to do this very important work.

This is especially true of the work undertaken to seize illicit drugs and keep drugs off our streets and out of the hands of criminal gangs. Every major drug seizure matters. Every shipment that is intercepted at the borders, every distribution network that is disrupted, every criminal syndicate that is dismantled means less harm in our suburbs, less violence in our communities and fewer families living with the devastating consequences of addiction and organised crime. Organised crime affects too many people in our communities.

I'm proud to be part of a government that has worked to bring about this bill—to bring about the changes that are needed so that our law enforcement can actually do their job to keep Australians safe. There is no more important time than right now to support this bill, and I'm proud, as I said, to be part of a government that is leading the charge on this. There's so much more I could talk about, but it is important that we proceed to the next level of debate around this bill. I commend the bill to those opposite, because we on this side are a government that delivers real change for Australians.

Nita Green (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Tourism) | Link to this | Hansard source

As my fellow colleagues in the government have said, this piece of legislation, the Crimes and Other Legislation Amendment (Omnibus No. 1) Bill 2026, is critical to supporting law enforcement related agencies to keep the community safe. I understand there's a second reading amendment for discussion, and there'll be a committee stage with further amendments. So, given I'll have an opportunity to speak more about this bill, hopefully, over the next couple of days, for the efficiency of the chamber I'm going to commend this bill to the Senate.

(Quorum formed )

Raff Ciccone (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

The question that is currently before the chair is that the amendments that have been moved by Senator Cash be agreed to. There is more than one voice calling for a division. It being after 6.30, we'll have to defer that division.