Karen Grogan (SA, Australian Labor Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

The committee is considering amendment (1) on sheet TK115, moved by the government, to opposition amendment (2) on sheet 3803.

Nick McKim (Tasmania, Australian Greens) | Link to this | Hansard source

I appreciate that we are on the amendment that's just been detailed by the Chair for the chamber, but I do want to just take this opportunity to raise concerns that I have and that the Greens have around some of the provisions in this legislation. The bill makes two substantive changes to Commonwealth drug law. It creates a new evidentiary certificate regime and it shifts from a purity based method to a gross weight method for assessing drug quantities. It's the second of those changes that I want to raise some concerns about at this stage.

In lay terms, what this provision does is to provide for the weight of cutting agents to be counted as if those cutting agents were the drug itself. So, for the avoidance of doubt, here you have a quantity of a particular drug, and, at the moment, the quantity of the drug is the determinant in the assessment made. If these changes were to go through, it would be the case that it would not only be the drug itself but also the cutting agents, concealment materials or any other substance that would be assessed as the quantity of the drug is determined.

Now, let's be very clear about who this is going to disadvantage. This is going to disadvantage people at the bottom of supply chains. This is going to disadvantage people who are more likely to be possessing low-quality products. This is not going to disadvantage the people at the top of the chain, the people that are running organised crime, for example. This is going to overwhelmingly disadvantage people who may have health or addiction issues, people who are desperate for money, people from lower socioeconomic backgrounds. This is not a bill that's going to touch the organisers and profiteers at the top of drug operations. It's a bill that seeks to inflate the apparent seriousness of what low-level, often vulnerable people are caught with.

My question to the minister is: why is a Labor government doing this? It's fundamentally unfair that you want to include things like cutting agents when you determine the quantity of a particular drug that someone might have. That is just fundamentally unfair. If someone's cut a drug—I don't know what they cut it with; washing powder or whatever it might be—why would you want that washing powder to be included when you determine the quantity of the drug? Washing powder is not a drug; you can go to the supermarket and buy it. I don't know what cutting agents people use, but I'll just leave that as an observation, as an example.

I do want to take this chance, while I'm on my feet, to explain why this matters. There are a number of offences in part 9.1 of the Criminal Code which carry absolute liability elements tied to drug quantity. I understand there are at least 23 offences in part 9.1 of the Criminal Code that do carry absolute liability elements. Under an absolute liability offence, the prosecution does not have to prove any mental element about the quantity, and, critically, the defence of honest and reasonable mistake of fact is not available. This has ramifications for how our legal processes and our judicial processes work. Combine those matters with a gross weight approach, which is being proposed by this legislation, and you get people facing more serious absolute liability thresholds because of the weight of a mixture they had no real knowledge of and, under the law as it would stand, no defence to explain. Let's be clear. The defence of honest and reasonable mistake will be available to fewer people because of these provisions. The Law Council of Australia's submission to the inquiry into this bill said—sorry, I'll withdraw that.

I'll go to evidentiary certificates quickly, while I'm on my feet. Evidentiary certificates remove the requirement for individual written witness statements on chain of custody matters. Chain of custody is critical in legal cases because courts and juries, if juries are empanelled, need to be satisfied that the physical evidence that is being tendered has not been interfered with or manipulated on the way through the system. The changes that are proposed are to remove the requirement for individual written witness statements on chain of custody matters.

National Legal Aid has flagged the practical consequences, which are that defence practitioners lose early visibility of problems like improper storage or contamination risk, because those issues no longer have to be documented until they surface at trial. This is an access-to-justice cost and, again, it falls hardest on people who already have the least resources to identify and contest deficiencies in the evidence against them. The Law Council's submission to the inquiry said that the evidentiary certificate framework should not proceed in its current form and that, if it does, the bill should be amended so that it applies only to continuity of handling evidence, not as a broader substitute for proper witness evidence.

In the last minute or two that I have available for this contribution, I just want to take a step back and engage in a bit of a helicopter view about the kinds of amendments that we regularly see in this place. I offer the observation that these are almost always supported in a bipartisan way by the parties of government in this place, and I yearn for the day when that descriptor applies to more than just the Labor Party and the coalition.

What we have been seeing in this country over many, many decades is the fundamental erosion of civil liberties in Australia. This has been delivered by Labor governments and it's been delivered by coalition governments. There have been hundreds of pieces of legislation just in the last couple of decades that erode the fundamental rights and freedoms that, back in the day, people, including ancestors of mine, fought and died for. We're just handing them away willy-nilly, because the security complex in this country demands ever more power, and ever more opportunities to surveil and ever more opportunities to control people's lives. I will leave thoughts on the role that the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security plays in that ongoing erosion of rights and freedoms until another opportunity, but it is time that we stopped eroding fundamental rights and freedoms in this country, which is something that this legislation does.

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

Thank you, Senator McKim. For completeness, I might just respond to a few comments that you've made so you have the government's view on record. I just want to begin with the issue you raised around purity of substances. The government doesn't accept the characterisation that you've put forward that this is somehow targeting what I would characterise as the personal use of illicit substances. Commonwealth drug offences are concerned with the importation, trafficking, cultivation or manufacture of commercial, marketable and trafficable quantities of illicit substances. Commercial, marketable and trafficable quantities of illicit substances are expressed to reflect the potency, form and scale of trafficking associated with those particular substances. These offences don't relate to someone who accidentally trafficked drugs. We're talking about serious organised criminal gangs. These are the types of drug offences that we are referring to and that this will apply to.

There are a few very good reasons we are doing this. One of the reasons the Greens political party is perhaps not aware of or you're personally not aware of is that we know that serious, organised criminal gangs are responsive to the laws that we put in place and, because of that, we are seeing those cutting agents being used on purpose to get substances under a particular threshold. The government's view is that that should not be a reason why particular thresholds should not be met when the harm to the public is the same.

Under the current regime, the prosecution must establish the purity level of the drug to determine which category of offence applies. There are a number of issues with this current model—one that I've taken you to. Practically, this means the AFP forensic examiners are required to break apart compressed powders, use toxic chemicals and extract drug material from concealed forms. This process is hazardous, resource intensive and contributes to investigation and prosecution delays given forensic examiners are required to undertake this work. The testing also fails to reflect the practical reality that illicit drugs are typically imported or trafficked in a mixed form. Mixtures often contain undisclosed hazardous components that pose serious risks to users and essential to the commercial model of organised crime.

I note your concerns for people who are not traffickers of drugs but users of drugs. We seek to protect those people too. In any event, nothing in this bill changes the ability for an offender to raise matters relating to purity of an illicit substance as a mitigation matter during sentencing. That maintains through this process. That is why the government has introduced this new scheme of considering the purity of drugs in relation to the size of the entire material that is trafficked, imported and of commercial value. Those are the reasons that the government is putting forward.

You dealt with evidence certificates, and I just wanted to put on the record some of the measures that are being put in place. Obviously, under the current arrangements, each individual officer who is engaged in the seizure, movement, tagging, cataloguing and transferring of substances may be required to provide a written statement setting out each step taken in relation to that seized substance. Additionally, each of those witnesses may have to be called to give oral evidence in a trial as to their interaction with the seized substance in order to prove every single step that was taken while the item was in custody or law enforcement.

The new certificate regime that's proposed in this bill, of which you've raised concerns, allows for one person to make a certificate and cover the actions of many. In most matters, information contained in these certificates is most likely to be a shared fact that is uncontroversial or unchallenged. But, to be clear, if there are any issues from a defence point of view, the new regime does not remove the ability for the accused to challenge chain-of-custody evidence. It also doesn't prevent the accused from being able to call each and every police officer involved in the chain of custody of said exhibit. The certificate provides efficiencies in circumstances where chain of custody is not in dispute. This new measure does not alter the burden of proof. The prosecution maintains the responsibility for proving each and every element beyond reasonable doubt.

What this measure seeks to do is ensure that our hard-working police officers and law enforcement agencies are focused on protecting people, keeping Australians safe and prosecuting the people who are accused of serious crimes. We think that is a reasonable step to take. It is not uncommon in the justice system across the country for this type of certificate to exist, but our proposal does not alter the ability of defendants to question that evidence in court.

Nick McKim (Tasmania, Australian Greens) | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the minister for the response and take some of the points that she has made on board. But I do want to offer just a quick couple of responses to the minister's response. Firstly, to be clear, we're not suggesting that the government is targeting people who personally use drugs. The assertion that I believe I made in my previous contribution was that the impact of these changes will fall more strongly on people at the bottom of an organisation than it will people at the top. I made the point that people at the bottom of an organisation often do have a drug addiction or are from lower socioeconomic backgrounds.

Again, I'm not suggesting that you're targeting the personal use of drugs here. I do understand that the Commonwealth has responsibility, compared with states and territories. Nevertheless, the point remains that this is going to catch and disadvantage drug mules, drug runners, people at the bottom of the supply chains—people who are more likely to be carrying a low-purity product—and people who, let's face it, make up the majority of legal aid's Commonwealth drug clients. The burden will fall disproportionately less on the organisers and the profiteers at the top of those operations.

Also, to respond to the minister's point about the assertion that people are using cutting agents to get under a particular threshold, I'd ask why they don't just carry a quantity that's under the threshold. Why do they need to use a cutting agent to get it under the threshold? If you wanted to smuggle drugs and you wanted to have a quantity of drugs under a particular threshold, why would you cut it with a cutting agent and bulk it up and make it harder to conceal? I don't really understand the argument that's being put there. It's quite possible that, in attempting to cast my mind into the mind of someone who's smuggling drugs, I might have missed an obvious response to that! But that was my first response.

I also understand that people in compliance operations work hard, but I want to place on the record that we don't think that reducing someone's workload is a reasonable reason to propose changes such as this.

The last response I wanted to make was the obvious observation—which was stated, I might add, by the minister; I guess it's a concurrence—that pleas in mitigation are in relation to sentencing. They're not in relation to the way trials might be conducted, and the points I made were in relation to the defence of an honest and reasonable mistake of fact, and that's a matter that is at least considered in a trial. I think Senator Cash has—

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm happy for you to keep going if you want.

Nick McKim (Tasmania, Australian Greens) | Link to this | Hansard source

Okay. While I'm on my feet—and I do thank the minister for the response on those matters—I'll go to the surveillance warrant sunset extension; obviously this is an omnibus bill that contains a range of measures. I will take this opportunity to place on the record something I've spoken about repeatedly in my time in the Senate, and that's the erosion of fundamental rights and freedoms in this country over a long period and the role the security apparatus and the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security play in that.

What happens and what has happened repeatedly—and, unfortunately, I believe will continue to happen into the future—is that, whichever of the Labor or the coalition parties are in government, the security apparatus forms a view that they want more power to surveil people. They want more power to control people's lives. We're very close to living in a panopticon at the moment, even though most people remain unaware of that fact. After they form a view that they want more powers to surveil and to control people's lives, they go to the government and ask for those powers, and the government rolls over. We've seen that repeatedly, whether it be a Labor or a coalition government.

They basically bring a bill that effectively delivers the increase in powers to surveil and control. In this case, we are talking about surveillance. Then it goes into the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, which obviously is designed to specifically exclude the crossbench—with the one notable exception of the member for Clark, which was formerly Denison, in my home state of Tasmania when Mr Wilkie was in the balance of power a few parliaments ago. He was, as part of negotiations, permitted to enter through the normally closed doors of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security. But apart from that—and I do stand to be corrected here—I'm certainly not aware of any other crossbench member who's ever been invited into the inner sanctum there.

Anyway, what happens inside that room is generally that, once the government has proposed legislation, that committee will rasp off a few of the absolute roughest edges but make very few, if any, recommendations for material changes, and the legislation will come through this parliament and then it will get smashed through by the votes of the Labor Party, along with their partners—in terms of being parties of government—in the coalition, and so it goes. The losers are the Australian people and the fundamental rights and freedoms that so many Australians fought and died to protect through our history.

This is happening not just here, by the way. A version of the same thing happens in state and territory governments, and we find ourselves with no fundamental protections in this country. We have no bill of rights in this country and no provisions in our Constitution that enshrine protections for ordinary, everyday people against this creeping invasion into their privacy by the state.

That's the context, and I well remember trying, when I held the justice portfolio for the Australian Greens, to get the numbers in this place for an inquiry into a bill of rights—just an inquiry into a bill of rights. This is when the Labor Party had in its platform support for a bill of rights. I don't know if it's still there, but it was back in the day. Mr Dreyfus was the shadow attorney-general at that stage. Could the Greens get the Labor Party's support simply for an inquiry into whether or not Australia should have a bill of rights? No, we couldn't. We couldn't even get the Labor Party to support an inquiry into a bill or charter of rights in this place, what form a bill or charter of rights might take, and what matters could and ought to be enshrined in a bill or charter of rights.

So the people of Australia have very little defence against this creeping erosion of their privacy and their freedom, and it is an indictment of the parties of government and, in fact, this parliament as a whole that those erosions continue apace. This legislation is yet another step down that path.

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

I can respond briefly. I know others have contributions to make. I just think it's important to recognise that the bill extends the sunsetting clause of current provisions which already contain safeguards. The government is considering recommendations from the INSLM review so that we can enact comprehensive reform of this system to deal with some of the things that Senator McKim raises. We'll seek to do that, but we can only do that if we are able to extend this sunsetting provision.

The only other comment I'd make is that I know the Greens political party have a position about this concept that our law enforcement agencies and intelligence agencies are just trying 'to control people's lives'—I think those are the words that you used—but I think the element that you miss is the demand from the community to keep the community safe. That is there too, and that is what the government responds to, not some conspiracy theory about controlling people's lives. I think even you, Senator McKim, would admit we can't ignore the increased threat that is present when it comes to terrorism, or the increased concerns that people have about online violence and the like. I'm really being very general in my commentary; I'm not referring to a particular provision. We are unapologetic about keeping Australians safe, and I think that these provisions in this bill do that.

Nick McKim (Tasmania, Australian Greens) | Link to this | Hansard source

Of course it's part of government's job to keep people safe. Let's be very clear about this, Minister: the biggest threat in the medium term to the safety of Australians is climate change. That's the biggest threat. And your government, the Labor political party's government, is opening new coal and gas mines just as fast as you possibly can. Through public subsidies, you are enabling the destruction of native forests in this country hand over fist—

Dorinda Cox (WA, Australian Labor Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister?

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

On a point of order, although I do love to debate Senator McKim on real action on climate change, which is what the Labor Party delivers, it's not relevant to this bill. I think he knows that, and he can make a contribution at a later time today. We need to focus on this bill, at least for the next 15 minutes.

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Senator McKim, I will remind you that relevance is pertinent to this debate, so could we keep it to the containments of what's in the bill.

Nick McKim (Tasmania, Australian Greens) | Link to this | Hansard source

I will attempt to do that. The minister did crack the door open a fraction there and I was attempting to gently wander through it, but I will confine my remarks to the provisions of the legislation.

The Law Council's submission to the inquiry into this legislation made it clear that their view is that the sunset extension shouldn't proceed without substantive implementation of recommendations 6, 7 and 8 of the INSLM review and that, if it does proceed, the committee should extract a clear assurance from government that those safeguard improvements are prioritised as part of the broader reform and not left to drift further.

I wonder if I could just ask you to respond to that, Minister. That seems, on the face of it, to be a quite reasonable request from the Law Council. Of course, the INSLM review is itself a very reasonable proposal, and I note that it would be quite reasonable to suggest that the government has by no means accepted all of the recommendations in that review. So could I ask you, please, to explain, in terms as detailed as you're able, why the government has ignored so many of those recommendations and, critically, why it is the view of the government that the sunset extension should proceed in the absence of the substantive implementation of recommendations 6, 7 and 8 of the INSLM review.

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

We dealt with this a little bit earlier, but if I can, I will put it in the most succinct way possible. The government's position on that review was contained in a government response which was tabled in the parliament. Senator Shoebridge asked me some questions about recommendation 1, and I can confirm that the government response to recommendation 1 is clear that we agree to extend the sunsetting date, which is currently 4 September 2026, in the first instance to allow recommendations 6 and 8 to be further considered as part of comprehensive reforms to the electronic surveillance framework. This will ensure that the recommendations relating to how warrants are issued can be considered in the context of the framework as a whole. This will ensure that the issuing arrangements and safeguards for the powers introduced by the SLA(ID) Act align with the arrangements for other electronic surveillance warrants. The government response continues throughout to make clear reference in subsequent recommendations that further work contemplated in recommendation 6 and 8 be undertaken as part of that reform.

I'm not going to pre-empt what that reform is. It's extensive, complex and significant. We're going through that process at the moment and it will be, I'm sure, a bill that is scrutinised very heavily by our colleagues at the end of the chamber when it is introduced. To be clear, the bill implements parts of recommendation 1, not the whole recommendation. That includes that the ACIC not retain the ability to use data disruption warrants, which is also part of the provisions of this legislation.

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) | Link to this | Hansard source

I'll just close off the previous line of questioning that I was pursuing. I have also been looking at answers to questions on notice that we have received via the budget estimates of 2026-2027. These are questions on notice BE26-124. They were questions put to the Office of the Special Investigator. They were kind enough to respond to them in quite some detail. When I look at the timeline, they confirm that, on 1 April 2026, the current CDPP and Mr Moraitis, the current OSI director-general, met with the Attorney-General to discuss the consent to prosecute the submission. That consent referred to the now prosecution of Ben Roberts-Smith. A number of other documents were provided to us, including media releases and drafts of media releases, pursuant to the OSI taking these on notice. A media release dated 7 April 2026 also clearly states:

The OSI and AFP are investigating allegations of criminal offences under Australian law related to breaches of the Laws of Armed Conflict by Australian Defence Force personnel in Afghanistan between 2005 and 2016.

I just want to go back to this given we are currently discussing the change in law to how a conflict is now managed by the CDPP and just in terms of your evidence given on behalf of the Attorney-General. Raelene Sharp previously served, as we've established, as counsel assisting the Office of the Special Investigator. We know that was in relation to alleged breaches of the laws of armed conflict by Australian Defence Force personnel in Afghanistan between 2005 and 2016. Her previous role as special counsel providing advice to the OSI was also acknowledged in the press release that was released by former attorney-general Mark Dreyfus when he announced her appointment. She subsequently obviously became the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions. As we already established at a previous Senate estimates hearing and as we've again referred to today, in the capacity of CDPP, the consent of the Attorney-General was sought to prosecute Mr Roberts-Smith. As I said, the OSI themselves provided the answer that on 1 April 2026 the CDPP and the OSI director-general met with the Attorney-General in relation to this.

We've also discussed an actual conflict of interest and a perceived conflict of interest. The actual conflict of interest would arise, I would put to you, if Ms Sharp's previous involvement affected or was capable of affecting the exercise of her prosecutorial functions. But, of course—and again you acknowledged this in particular when Senator Shoebridge put questions to you yesterday in terms of actual and perceived conflicts of interest—a perceived conflict is obviously different. It's different at law. It concerns whether the circumstances could reasonably give rise to a perception that the CDPP's independence or even impartiality might be affected, even if there were no actual conflict in fact.

Again, I want to get this on the record. Given Ms Sharp's prior role advising the OSI, her subsequent position as head of the prosecuting authority—this is all on the record at Senate estimates, but also now we've got the answers to the questions on notice, as I said, from the OSI, saying that on 1 April 2026 the CDPP and the OSI director-general met with the Attorney-General to discuss the consent to prosecution submission. Ultimately, that was actually given that same day, on 1 April, by the Attorney-General. I'm going to again ask: is the Attorney-General satisfied that Ms Sharp's involvement gives rise to no actual, potential or perceived conflict of interest in relation to the prosecution of Mr Roberts-Smith?

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

Yes.

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

If the CDPP identified a conflict of interest in the matter of war crimes, could the Attorney-General create a standing authorisation for someone to prosecute all war crimes?

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

I will address the question by responding to the provisions that are in front of us. I gave this evidence to Senator Cash before. I will speak in general terms, because you're referencing a particular type of crime, not a particular proceeding. The provisions that we've put forward enable the Attorney-General to make an authorisation in relation to a particular proceeding—in relation to a particular function—or a standing authorisation. That authorisation can be revoked or varied at any time. That's a very abbreviated version of the provisions that are in the bill.

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

Sorry, can I just get clarification. If the CDPP identified a conflict of interest in the matter of war crimes, then could the Attorney-General create a standing authorisation for someone to prosecute all war crimes?

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

It's a hypothetical question.

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) | Link to this | Hansard source

No, actually directly to—

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

No, no—Senator Cash, hold on. Let me just answer.

Dorinda Cox (WA, Australian Labor Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The minister has the call, and she's on her feet, so interjections are disorderly. Can we give her the opportunity to provide an answer.

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

The current arrangements allow for a conflict of interest to be identified and for an arrangement to be put in place to manage that conflict. The new arrangements change the way that the conflict would be managed. It's not that it's identified, but it would be managed in a different way. It would be a matter for the DPP to identify what that conflict is and what it relates to, and then it's a matter for the Attorney-General to make an appropriate authorisation.

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

Would that authorised person have all the powers of the CDPP?

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

Senator Collins, proposed section 31A(3) on page 23 of the bill steps out that, without limiting subsection (2), an authorisation may authorise a person to perform a function or exercise a power in relation to specified proceedings, in relation to a specified act or omission, or in specified circumstances. So it would depend on what the authorisation says.

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

Just to clarify, not all of the substituted CDPPs will have all of the powers of the CDPP. And is it possible that a person substituted in for the CDPP will have all of the powers of the CDPP?

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

It's getting a little repetitive. The functions—

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) | Link to this | Hansard source

You're not answering.

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

No, it is, because the answer is in the bill.

Dorinda Cox (WA, Australian Labor Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

Order!

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) | Link to this | Hansard source

Then read it out.

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

I'll read it out. You could just read it yourself, but I'm going to read it out for you.

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Senator Cash, I've already called the chamber to order and I've already said, while the minister is on her feet, interjections are disorderly. Could you please allow her to complete her answer. If you have a question, you may seek the call.

The authorisation may authorise a person to perform a function or exercise a power in relation to a specified proceeding, in relation to specified acts or omissions, or in specified circumstances. The current arrangement requires the Director of Public Prosecutions to take a leave of absence, in which case none of those powers would be performed by the Director of Public Prosecutions.

This proposal is a way of dealing with the need for a conflict to be managed by an authorised person undertaking those functions that are under section 6 of the DPP Act, such as instituting prosecutions on indictment and the power to consent to the commencement of prosecutions as required under certain legislation. The DPP has current delegation powers, but not for these types of powers and exercises of functions. The bill seeks to establish a system that allows a senior member of the DPP to perform those functions and exercise those powers because, in that case, delegation is not really appropriate.

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

Under section 31B(1), could the CDPP, for war crimes, be switched out for another person by the Attorney-General?

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

Senator Collins, it is, in a sense, hypothetical. I don't have the facts in front of me. I'm not the Attorney-General. I'm not making an authorisation today. There has been no conflict that's been identified. But it is possible, under the authorisations that are listed under 31B, to allow a certain function or exercise a certain power in relation to certain proceedings.

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

So it is possible. Does section 31B effectively give the Attorney-General the ability to create an unlimited number of parallel CDPPs whose appointment is subject to the absolute discretion of the Attorney-General?

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

No, Senator Collins. This is about managing conflicts of interest in an appropriate way for the efficient carrying-out of justice, which is incredibly important, particularly for serious criminal allegations. There is a system in place; this improves the current arrangements in a way that is efficient. It's not been designed or motivated to be used in that sort of conspiratorial way. This is not about a particular proceeding. I already put that on the record yesterday when you weren't in the chamber. This is not in response to a particular conflict, because there has been none identified.

Progress reported.