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

Senator CASH (Western Australia—Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (10:20): I'm actually not sure how asking questions about a provision in a piece of legislation that your Attorney-General is asking us to vote on—and I can tell you now it may not be today, as far as the coalition's concerned, based on the evidence that you have just given—is an attempt to politicise this.

We are establishing on the record that your Attorney-General has now formally put on the record, via you, that she does not believe that there is any actual or perceived conflict in the fact that the current CDPP, Raelene Sharp, was counsel assisting the Office of the Special Investigator in relation to war crimes that had allegedly been committed. This was actually disclosed in the press release that was issued by your former Attorney-General, Mark Dreyfus, when he then appointed her as the now Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions.

But, on top of that—seeing as we do now need to clearly get things on the Hansard record—can I therefore confirm this. On 26 May 2026, in our Senate estimates proceedings, the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions, Raelene Sharp, appeared before us. I was there and you were there.

I asked questions of her and she gave evidence—it is on the Hansard record—about the process followed by the CDPP before the charges were commenced with. Her evidence was that the CDPP, Ms Sharp, sent advice to the Attorney-General on 30 March 2026 seeking the Attorney-General's consent in relation to the proposed prosecution of Mr Roberts-Smith. The contemporaneous record of the estimates hearing records that the CDPP had sent advice to the Attorney-General requesting consent to charge Ben Roberts-Smith on 30 March.

She then gave evidence about what was contained in that material. Her evidence was that the brief to the Attorney-General essentially contained the information explaining why she as the CDPP considered that the charges were warranted. Then, as you know, on 1 April, a day or two later, the Attorney-General gave that consent.

So can I again confirm, given we are going to actually now change the law apparently in relation to conflicts of interest when they involve the CDPP, that the Attorney-General of Australia does not believe that there is any actual or perceived conflict of interest in relation to the current CDPP, who provided the brief of evidence and requested the consent to go ahead with the charges from your Attorney-General—and that consent was provided—and the fact that she was directly involved, as is set out in your former Attorney-General's press release, with the Office of the Special Investigator, who investigated the alleged war crimes?