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

Senator GREEN (Queensland—Assistant Minister for Tourism, Assistant Minister for Pacific Island Affairs and Assistant Minister for Northern Australia) (11:46): I didn't get a chance to make a very long contribution yesterday, so I want to put on record my thanks to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee for their report and engagement on this piece of legislation.

Thank you also to those opposite for the constructive way we've approached this bill. Your questions go to the changes around the DPP and the conflict of interest, and I'll respond to those in a minute. I want to put on record the response in relation to the amendment that Senator Cash has moved.

Just so it's clear for the chamber, I'll deal with that first and then I'll deal with the question around the DPP. Firstly, in relation to the amendment, the government supports a post-implementation review of the amendments made by schedule 4 of the bill to arrest powers in the Extradition Act. The government will move an amendment clarifying the scope of this inquiry by only requiring it to consider amendments by schedule 4 of the bill.

Our amendment is consistent with the recommendation of the opposition senators in additional comments to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee's report on the bill. The postimplementation review will complement ongoing oversight of these powers which occurs through established judicial, operational, legislative and accountability frameworks. Schedule 4 of the bill amends the Extradition Act to introduce powers enabling police to enter premises for the purpose of executing an arrest warrant.

The powers would broadly align the extradition provisions with the comparable arrest warrants of the Crimes Act 1914. That's just to put on the record that, while we support the review, the government will be seeking to amend the opposition's amendment to reduce the scope of that inquiry to schedule 4 of the bill. Regarding the DPP—I've just sought advice.

This bill has not been drafted in response to a particular conflict. It is a response, I think, to ensuring that there's a workable solution going forward. Currently, where an actual, potential or perceived conflict of interest arises, the director must take leave of absence from their duties entirely to allow an acting director to be appointed to perform or exercise the functions of powers, and that request of leave must be approved by the Attorney-General.

The measure that's in this bill—as you know very well, Senator Cash—creates a process where the functions or powers affected by the conflict of interest can be undertaken by a sufficiently senior person, and the director appropriately carries out performing duties or duties that are not so affected. It establishes a precedent where they don't have to take leave from their entire role or position, but those powers or duties or a particular proceeding that is affected by that conflict could be carried out by another senior member.