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

Senator SHOEBRIDGE (New South Wales) (10:54): We're suggesting you take national security advice from the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor, the INSLM. These are the recommendations we're putting forward. I asked how it could possibly take three years to put in place an amendment that said these warrants should be considered by retired judges or current judges.

Instead, we get another word salad, political attack on me for daring to ask the question. Then we get this desperate effort to come up with a list of meaningful reforms that have come out of the Attorney-General's Department, and the one thing we get is the criminalisation of deepfakes. When that legislation passed, we said, 'Fine, pass that legislation.' I think it was maybe three pages long.

What the Greens said was: 'Criminalising it won't fix it. These things don't get prosecuted. Women don't feel safe coming to the police.

The police aren't properly trained. It's not really going to fix it. It's all a political play.

Show us the prosecutions.' After that so-called landmark reform from the Labor Party, do you know how many prosecutions there have been under that legislation for deepfakes? Last time I checked, one. One prosecution.

That's what you put forward as saying the Attorney-General's Department is some kind of meaningful reform agent. The legislation no doubt got some kind of political hit for the government, pretending to do something that was going to be meaningful. But in terms of protecting women, only one prosecution last time we looked.

One prosecution in the whole country. That's what you put forward as the meaningful reform coming out of the Attorney-General's Department. So I ask again: how could it possibly take three years to put an amendment in to say these warrants should only be issued by retired or current judges?

How can that possibly take three years?