Richard Colbeck (Tasmania, Liberal 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 to the Crimes and Other Legislation Amendment (Omnibus No. 1) Bill 2026. (Quorum formed)The question is that the amendment be agreed to.

Question agreed to.

Original question, as amended, agreed to.

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

by leave—I move amendments (1) to (7) on sheet 3790 together:

(1) Schedule 1, item 13, page 6 (line 7), omit "4 September 2029", substitute "1 July 2027".

(2) Schedule 1, item 14, page 6 (line 10), omit "4 September 2029", substitute "1 July 2027".

(3) Schedule 1, item 15, page 6 (line 20), omit "4 September 2029", substitute "1 July 2027".

(4) Schedule 1, item 19, page 8 (line 24), omit "4 September 2029", substitute "1 July 2027".

(5) Schedule 1, item 22, page 9 (line 3), omit "4 September 2029", substitute "1 July 2027".

(6) Schedule 1, item 23, page 9 (line 6), omit "4 September 2029", substitute "1 July 2027".

(7) Schedule 1, item 28, page 10 (line 3), omit "4 September 2029", substitute "1 July 2027".

These amendments together are designed to bring forward the sunset date for the account takeover, data disruption and network activity warrants. Under the government's bill, the proposal is to have that sunset provision which would otherwise kick in in a few months extended until the middle of 2029. As always with this parliament, the sun never seems to set on covert surveillance powers, on additional powers that are given to ASIO.

These powers are acknowledged by the INSLM, the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor, to be extraordinary powers. The INSLM has said that there is a small handful of cases where they can occasionally be of use to the AFP and ASIO. It delivered that report to parliament more than 12 months ago. But what the INSLM also said is that those powers absolutely should come with a raft of additional protections. Perhaps one of the most important protections, the INSLM said, is that when these applications are being assessed in chambers, not in open court, there needs to be someone to contest them and to test them. It should not just be done between a judge or retired judge or AAT tribunal member on one side and the AFP or ASIO on the other, all done in secret, all done on the papers, without anyone contesting it. The INSLM has said that someone needs to test this stuff.

From my experience at a state level in New South Wales, there are compelling reasons to ensure that this kind of material is tested. There was a five-year-long ombudsman investigation in New South Wales into a police bugging scandal. Under New South Wales state law, the police could apply to the New South Wales supreme court for a covert surveillance warrant, and they would produce affidavits. When they started doing these applications for covert surveillance warrants, initially the applications were 10 pages long, and then the affidavits became 20 pages long, and then they became 50 pages long. By the time it got to 2015 or 2016, there were 200 or 300 pages of affidavits of abstract technical data—long, meandering affidavits seeking to justify, on one occasion, from memory, some 60 individual people to be targeted with covert warrants in a single affidavit and a single application that went to be sighted by a Supreme Court judge in chambers with nobody testing it. What had developed was a tick-and-flick culture with a couple of judges that would just do these applications, feeling very comfortable with them—'I've read this affidavit before. No worries. Bang, tick and flick'—giving the New South Wales police the power to covertly bug, basically, 60 people in a single go.

The reason that became a scandal in New South Wales was because one part of the police force was using these secret bugging warrants to have a go at another part of the police force, and it ended up being used repeatedly to try and knock off contestants you thought might be going for your same deputy commissioner job. It was all happening in secret. The people who were being targeted by the covert warrants didn't even know it was happening. They'd turn up at a function with maybe 120 current and former police officers giving someone's farewell. Three people at the function might know that the covert warrants are happening and they're bugging 20 or 30 other police officers, all to try and knock off your opponent so you could be the next deputy commissioner. If you have an interest in this, you can have a look at Operation Prospect and the scandal that was the way in which those covert warrants operated.

With that kind of history, the INSLM has said you can't just have these things operating as a quiet, clubby engagement between the AFP and some member of the AAT or ASIO and some member of the AAT happening in chambers, nobody testing it, just this tick and flick. You can't do that. You need a public interest monitor—somebody who is there to test the applications, test whether or not the scope of what is being sought is reasonable and be willing to say to the police and the tribunal: 'Actually, hang on. You are going way too far. How could you possibly justify this affidavit targeting 60 or 70 people in a single warrant?' That's the experience that I've seen at a state level, and it's reflected in what the INSLM is saying here: put a public interest monitor in.

So, Minister, firstly, is your government aware of that experience in New South Wales in covert warrants in the absence of a public interest monitor? Secondly, is this government committed to putting a public interest monitor in, or are you quite comfortable with this just being a clubby operation between the AFP, ASIO and the tribunal?

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

Thanks, Senator Shoebridge. For obvious reasons, I will keep my response pretty brief. I've answered the questions that Senator Shoebridge's questions go to. We don't support the amendment that's been put forward by the Greens. The government intends to further consider the framework for powers and recommendations of the INSLM's review as part of comprehensive reforms that the government is committed to. This bill seeks to extend the sunsetting date to 4 September 2029 to allow those very comprehensive and significant reforms to take place.

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

Just in relation to the amendment moved by the Australian Greens on sheet 3790, this amendment is aimed at cutting short the extension of the identity and disrupt powers.

Instead of allowing the account takeover data disruption and network activity warrant regimes to continue until 4 September 2029, it actually, as has been articulated, brings forward the sunset date to 1 July 2027. It does that across the relevant provisions in schedule 1, including the associated emergency authorisations and transitional provisions. It was actually the coalition that introduced these powers, because serious and organised criminals were increasingly exploiting encrypted platforms, online accounts and sophisticated digital technologies. In 2026, when you look at where the world now is, I don't think one can actually say that those threats have gone away. In fact, one might say that those threats have actually got worse. It is the opinion of the coalition that bringing the sunset forward to July 2027 would create unnecessary uncertainty around capabilities that law enforcement agencies continue to rely on to disrupt serious offending.

The coalition, of course, support proper scrutiny and safeguards, but we do not support arbitrarily shortening the life of effective national security and law enforcement powers. These warrant regimes were designed to give agencies the tools to intervene against serious criminal networks, and parliament should not force them back to the brink of expiry before, in particular, the broader electronic surveillance reform process is completed.

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

This is yet again an example of this government failing to get the necessary reforms drafted and before this parliament. Some of these changes proposed by the INSLM—'ensuring that current or retired judges do it, not tribunal members'—you could literally draft in an afternoon. The changes to put in place a public interest monitor—you can look to examples in other jurisdictions that have a public interest monitor, and we could import them into the Commonwealth law. Yet again we're told that 'no, sorry, can't do this without a reform program that has a horizon going to 2029', and it's unfortunate that the coalition is giving the Labor government whatever time they ask for for their never-ending, never-to-be-completed, no doubt active consideration of the INSLM's monitoring. This is another active consideration moment from the Labor Party. They're going to actively consider three not incredibly complex pieces of legislative reform for another three and a bit years. I think it's really unfortunate.

This is a moment where the coalition could have joined with the Greens to put some pressure on Labor to actually put in place a reform agenda that would complete within 12 months, but, instead, Labor's being given a 'get out of jail free' card by the coalition by not supporting this amendment. I think it's unfortunate, because the job is really to put some pressure on government when they're not doing their job. The job of this place is not just to do a tick and flick of what the government presents but to actually push back and put some pressure on them and say, 'If you want to have these extreme powers that the INSLM said should be limited, we're going to give you a horizon.'

This has pushed this into the next parliament. That's what this proposal from Labor does. It pushes this whole issue into the next parliament. That's the reality of what's going to happen with this vote between the coalition and Labor, no doubt joined by their mates in One Nation. You've said: 'Actually, this reform issue won't be dealt with by this parliament. The recommendations to improve people's rights and to put some checks and balances on covert state surveillance will not be done by this parliament.' You're going to wait until after the next election, and maybe, at some point, we'll see what happens. I think it's a failure of this chamber to give that government that 'get out of jail free' card.

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

Last week you told us that the current CDPP has not identified any conflicts of interest. Can you please give us some examples of where conflicts of interest have arisen in the past and any ways this act has not been optimal in the way it has functioned.

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

I will have to take that on notice. I don't have in front of me, going back to the establishment of the DPP, where there have been conflicts of interest. What I can say to you is that I've been through, with you and Senator Cash, the current arrangements that are in place that would require the DPP to take leave. There is no conflict that has been currently recognised for that to occur, but, if it were to occur, that's the process that would be followed.

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

To be clear, there are no identified conflicts of interest that have arisen in the past where the act hasn't been able to deal with them, that you're aware of?

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

Perhaps it's better to answer the question in this way. I guess the proposition in your question is that there were conflicts that weren't able to be dealt with. I don't think that's the evidence that's been given to you or this parliament. I think what we've suggested that this is a more effective way to deal with conflicts of interest. Rather than requiring the Commonwealth DPP to take a leave of absence, enabling certain functions, powers or proceedings to be dealt with by someone else is a much more efficient way to deal with it. I'm not entirely sure whether or not there have been particular examples, but the most important thing is that the current system is to take leave from the role entirely. We just don't think that is effective. That's the evidence I've given to the parliament before.

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

The CDPP is appointed by the Governor-General for a fixed term, and now these new parallel CDPPs are appointed by the Attorney-General for as long as the Attorney-General wants them. Which of these appointment processes is less susceptible to political interference and why?

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

In the first instance, the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions would be appointed by the Governor-General on the advice of the minister. That's the normal way that those types of appointments are made, so I don't think there is a distinction between the two processes other than that there are provisions in the act that we're proposing to allow a variation to be made to a particular appointment—sorry; 'appointment' is the wrong word—where an arrangement has been made to allow for the performance of exercise of functions or powers by another senior member of the DPP to be altered or to be changed. That would obviously cease when that director ceases, because the conflict would cease. I hope that answers your question.

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

Under what conditions would a conflict of interest cease?

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

I'm not trying to be obstructive—I think the Caravonica State School fete probably got the best of me on Saturday—I'm trying to answer your questions in the most succinct way. A conflict would end in a number of ways. I'm sure that you're aware of how they arise. How they would end would be a proceeding would finish, or a particular issue around a conflict would end, if the term of the director ended. There are a number of ways. I think it's not really for me to hypothesise about that, other than to say the conflict would end when the conflict ceases. That seems like a bit of a circular way of putting it, but that is how the act envisions dealing with this. This is how conflicts are dealt with across a number of acts, through a number of agencies, and they are similar ways to the ways they are dealt with in corporate and legal life. We would make the point that, again, this doesn't change the fact that there's a method of managing conflicts; it just changes the way that they're managed.

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

To clarify the evidence that you've given, the CDPP is appointed for a fixed term. The parallel CDPPs can be revoked, at any point, when the minister decides that the conflict of interest is no longer applicable. That is your evidence—that the CDPP cannot have the appointment terminated before the fixed term is over?

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

Can you just put the question again, Senator Collins?

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

The CDPP is appointed for a fixed term. The parallel CDPPs are appointed for as long as the minister determines that they should be there. Can the CDPP be removed from the CDPP's position, before the end of the fixed term, by the minister?

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

Senator Collins, that's not relevant to this legislation. That would be a function under the act where—and I'm talking in very general terms across government now—there would be cause for someone to be removed from office. I don't have that information in front of me, but it would be something that would be referenced in the original act where the appointment has been made.

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

It is entirely appropriate because we are trying to compare the appointment processes of the CDPP and the parallel CDDPs that are not there permanently for a fixed term.

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

The question is that the amendments on sheet 3790 moved by the Australian Greens be agreed to. A division having been called for and it being after 6.30, we'll have to defer the vote to the next sitting day.

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

by leave—At the request of Senator Hanson, I move One Nation amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 3897, as circulated, together:

(1) Clause 2, page 2 (after table item 4), insert:

(2) Schedule 2, page 22 (after line 12), at the end of the Schedule, add:

Part 3 — Meaning of hors de combat

Criminal Code Act 1995

9 Dictionary in the Criminal Code (definition of hors de combat )

Repeal the definition, substitute:

hors de combat: a person is hors de combat if:

(a) the person is in the power of an adverse party; and

(b) the person:

(i) clearly expresses an intention to surrender; or

(ii) has been rendered unconscious or is otherwise incapacitated by wounds or sickness and is therefore incapable of defending himself or herself; and

(c) the person abstains from any hostile act and does not attempt to escape.

10 Application provision

(1) The definition of hors de combat in the Dictionary in the Criminal Code, as inserted by this Part, applies in relation to:

(a) any conduct engaged in on or after 26 September 2002; and

(b) any legal proceedings that are commenced on or after that day, if the proceedings have not been finally determined before the commencement of this item.

(2) In this item, legal proceedings include any proceedings before a court or tribunal, and include proceedings that are pending.

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

The coalition will be supporting the amendments moved by Senator Bell on behalf of One Nation, and I would like to put the context on the record. In 2024, the coalition supported the government's amendment to the definition of 'hors de combat' on the basis of clear assurances by the then attorney-general, Mark Dreyfus, about what that change was intended to do. We sought assurances from the then attorney-general's office about precisely what the amendment would do, and, in my second reading contribution, I put those assurances expressly on the record, and I said:

We have been assured that the changes avoid a potential unintended consequence but do not otherwise change the intended operation or effect of the definition.

I also made clear in my second reading contribution that the coalition, in supporting that amendment, was expressly relying on the advice provided by the office of the former attorney-general, Mark Dreyfus, about the intent and the effect of that change. The assurances mattered. The amendment was supported on the basis that it was a technical correction and, as I said, did not otherwise change the intended operation or effect of the definition.

Sadly, as I have come to learn under this government, it has now become apparent that its effect was broader than the assurance clearly provided to us by the then attorney-general, and the coalition believes the appropriate course of action is to now restore the previous definition, which is what this amendment will do. Given that the assurances were given to me by the then attorney-general—and, as I said, I specifically referred to this in my second speech—it will greatly surprise me if the government has now come to a different view and the actual effect of the amendment put forward by the government at the time that was carried is actually inconsistent with what the former attorney-general put forward. It is on that basis that the coalition will be supporting Senator Hanson's amendment.

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

Unlike, it appears, either the opposition or One Nation, in 2024 the Greens read the legislation that has come before the Senate. We read the second reading speech and the explanatory memorandum, and we looked at the law. The proposed legal changes were clarifying the way in which the Criminal Code Act 1955 works and the definition of hors de combat, and they were clarifying it consistent with longstanding international legal practice. Having read the bill, having looked at what the international law provided and wanting to ensure that the original intent of these criminal law provisions met our international obligations, we voted for the legislation.

I find it remarkable that the opposition come in here and say they contracted all their thinking out to the Labor attorney-general. They didn't go through that onerous process of actually reading the law and looking at how the international legal framework applied. They didn't do any of that difficult stuff. They had a little chat with the former attorney-general and decided that was enough. That's how they legislate. How bloody remarkable!

That's seriously the basis upon which they're supporting One Nation's amendment. That's the basis on which One Nation are coming down. One Nation haven't even said why they're doing it. They haven't even explained it, but the coalition are coming in here and saying: 'Oh, look, we forgot to read it. We had a little chat with somebody from the government, they said something, and we didn't bother ourselves with reading it. That was too onerous and a bit tricky. We didn't phone up anybody and get any advice, we didn't look at international legal precedents, and we just did a tick and flick.' That can't seriously be what they're saying, can it?

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

The question is that the amendments on sheet 3897 moved by One Nation be agreed to. A division has been called for and, it being after 6.30, it shall be deferred to the next sitting day. I inform senators that we cannot at this point proceed with the amendments on sheet 3791 because they are in conflict with those on sheet 3897. If senators have questions of a general nature for the minister, we will proceed with those.

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

I want to compare the CDPP appointment process with the parallel CDPPs that will be set up under the new act. The CDPP is appointed for a fixed term and the parallel CDPPs are appointed for as long as the Attorney-General wants them. Which of these appointments is less susceptible to political interference?

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

I reject the implication in your question. I don't think the comparison is correct or even related to what we are seeking to do here, but I draw your attention to proposed sections 31A and 31B, which go through the requirements and functions of the appointment of authorised persons in place of the CDPP. That will step you through, Senator, all of the requirements that are in place.

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

You've told us there's no current conflict of interest and you can't recall any previous ones. So why are you trying to change the act? Why is this such a priority for the government?

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

First of all, it's been indicated by the coalition previously that they support this bill and these provisions. We have answered this question many times. We are seeking to make the process of dealing with a conflict of interest more effective for the purposes of the administration of the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions—a very important independent agency that does excellent work. We want to ensure that the powers and functions are performed adequately without a conflict interfering with that. This enables that to happen without a leave of absence occurring, which is the current definition. I've also put it on the record to Senator Cash previously that this change is not in response to any particular conflict or any particular proceeding that is on foot. We look forward to your support.

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

If a parallel CDPP is instructed to initiate a prosecution, when will that be reported to the parliament?

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

Senator Collins, would you mind rephrasing the question so it relates to what the functions of the CDPP are. You said the word 'instructed', which obviously has a connotation. We want to make sure we get the right answer for you. You'll have to be more specific with your question.

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

Minister, let me rephrase it this way: parallel CDPP is instructed to initiate a prosecution; will that be reported to the parliament?

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

The CDPP doesn't instruct proceedings. They're an independent prosecution agency. If they commence a proceeding—perhaps that's the wording you're looking for, Senator Collins—they do that independently. They're not instructed by government. They don't give instructions to anyone else.

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

If a parallel CDPP is appointed by the minister regarding a conflict of interest, will that be reported to the parliament?

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

There's no requirement under the provisions in front of us for that to occur. Of course, that doesn't preclude the CDPP from being asked questions through the normal parliamentary processes, including estimates or questions through the chamber.

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

So, if it is not tabled at parliament, will we ever come to know if a parallel CDPP is appointed?

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

I've just answered that question. Yes, we will, because I imagine senators in particular will ask that question of the CDPP, and they will answer it.

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

So your evidence is that at every estimates we have to ask the CDPP if the CDPP has appointed a parallel prosecutor because of a conflict of interest that the CDPP has identified themselves.

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

No. My evidence to you, Senator Collins, is that there's nothing in what we are proposing that requires that to be made publicly available. I'm not going to repeat my previous answer other than to say that all of the requirements for the authorisation are in the legislation. That's what we're proposing.

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

What is the current process for notifying people?

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

You'll have to be more specific: notifying who of what?

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

I think the point of the question is that, when a conflict is currently declared by the CDPP and another person is appointed in that place to discharge those particular duties, is there a current notification process whereby the parliament finds out or the public find out? And, in relation to the new notification process whereby it's the Attorney-General who's making the appointment, at the point in time when that is made, is there a requirement to notify the parliament and the public et cetera, or is it just something the Attorney-General appoints and, as you said, three times a year at estimates, we might find out that there was an actual conflict that the CDPP declared to the Attorney-General and the Attorney-General has now formally appointed another person to take on the duties of the CDPP in relation to that matter? How do we find out?

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

There are no current notification requirements and there are no new notification requirements being proposed. The system is the same under what we are proposing.

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

I note, Chair, your previous advice to the chamber that the amendments that are standing in the name of the Australian Greens on sheet 3791 are in conflict with amendments moved by the One Nation party on sheet 3897, which are unable to be determined at the moment because we are in a period in which the Senate has previously agreed that no divisions should occur. I want to be very clear that I do understand that. I also acknowledge that I raised some of the matters that are addressed, or that the amendments moved by the Australian Greens seek to address. I, again, thank the minister, who's the same minister who has the unfortunate short straw here today in relation to her chamber duty. I thank the minister for her responses to those concerns that I raised, and I acknowledge that she did, indeed, respond to a number of those concerns.

In general terms, I want to, again, restate some of the concerns that are held by the Australian Greens about this legislation, specifically the changes to serious drug offences. I did say last week that I do understand that Commonwealth law, as it applies to serious drug offences, falls in a different area to state or territory law. However, the principles of natural justice ought to apply, whether or not we are dealing with Commonwealth law, state law or, indeed, territory law. I want to place on the record that the Greens believe that moving away from a purity based assessment is contrary to the principles of natural justice. Moving away from a purity based assessment means that the weight of cutting agents, concealment materials or any other substance that might be in the mixture get counted as if they were the drug itself. Cutting agents, concealment materials or any other substances that are cut into drugs are not the drugs themselves. This matters because there are absolute liability elements tied to drug quantity. Under an absolute liability offence, the prosecution doesn't have to prove any mental element about the quantity. Critically, the defence of honest and reasonable mistake of fact is not available.

I heard part of the minister's response to this when I raised it last week. The minister, in part, responded to me raising these concerns on behalf of Senator Shoebridge and others in the Australian Greens by saying that some of these matters can be raised in a plea for mitigation. It is abundantly clear to anyone who knows their way around criminal law that a plea for mitigation is not made during a trial. A plea for mitigation is made after a trial. It is a sentencing matter, not a matter that can be raised. The fact that, under an absolute liability offence, the defence of honest and reasonable mistake of fact is not available and that the prosecution doesn't have to prove any mental element about the quantity gives rise to the possibility of a miscarriage of justice here. By miscarriage of justice, I mean a miscarriage of natural justice. This is fundamentally unfair.

We all know how this goes. I've been in this place for 10-plus years. I've seen it time after time after time. People in law enforcement agencies or in agencies that sit within the security and intelligence complex in this country always want more powers. They always want more powers to surveil, they always want more powers to control, and they always want the scales tilted in favour of their agencies and their agendas.

It is the people in this place who have a responsibility to stand up for natural justice and to acknowledge that, when the inevitable happens and people in law enforcement agencies security and intelligence agencies come to the government and, ultimately, to this parliament, and ask for an increase in their powers, our responsibility is to ask the questions: Is this a reasonable increase? Is this an increase that is in the best interests of the Australian people? Are the increases in powers that are being requested fair? Are they in line with the legitimate expectation of Australian people that the government will not take unreasonable powers through this Senate that will lead to a denial of natural justice? But, unfortunately, that is what is happening today, as happens so often in this place. It is the parties of government who always collude to remove fundamental rights and freedoms in Australia.

While we have the opportunity, we will continue to raise concerns around the approach of moving away from purity based assessments, just as we will continue to raise concerns about the government's proposal, again, contained in this legislation to remove the requirement for individual written witness statements on chain of custody matters. I do refer the government to National Legal Aid's view on these matters and raise the issue that this is an access-to-justice matter, and access to justice matters fall hardest on the people who can least afford it, because, for many people in this country, hiring a good lawyer is a minor inconvenience, but, for far, far more people in this country, hiring a good lawyer is somewhere between very, very difficult and impossible. Although there are outstanding lawyers working in the legal aid sector, they are overworked because the government underfunds legal aid. Money will buy you a lawyer who can focus their time and who has enough time to focus. When you are forced into the legal aid system, although there are many, many outstanding lawyers and practitioners working in that system, the sad reality is that, because that system is so grossly underfunded, those lawyers are under a lot of pressure. We have seen that in the community legal centres for far too long, not only during my time in this place but since well before I arrived.

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

We've established that there is no transparency when it comes to when these new powers will be used to appoint parallel CDPPs, and you've pointed us towards Senate estimates in order to ask whether these new powers have been used to appoint the parallel CDPPs. If the CDPP uses, for example, a public interest immunity claim to reject questions about conflicts of interest at Senate estimates, will the public ever find out if the minister is using these powers?

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

That's a hypothetical. I can't answer that question without knowing—it's something that might happen in the future, and I don't have the facts in front of me to be able to give the senator an appropriate answer.

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

To be clear, Minister, there is no recourse other than asking at Senate estimates as to whether these new powers have been used?

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

I refer you to my previous answer.

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

As there are no other contributions from senators and as the bill cannot proceed until votes can be taken I shall now report to the Senate.

Progress reported.

Further consideration of the bill in Committee of the Whole made an order of the day for the next day of sitting.