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

Senator SHOEBRIDGE (New South Wales) (11:03): Minister, you get the advice that's been given to you by the Attorney and her office and by the department, and I find it incredible that they are not giving you the support you need for this debate, because one of the core issues with extending the sunset provision is that the INSLM said that these powers should only be extended if these protections are in place.

The INSLM said it in black and white. It said you should only extend the sunset provision, that these powers should only be continued, if they are subject to a raft of protections for the public and for those who are targeted by these powers. So it is absolutely relevant to the debate today to extend these to address the failure of your government to legislate the now longstanding recommendations from the INSLM.

I want to be clear: the Greens do not support giving you three years to spin your wheels and not deliver this reform. I'm surprised the coalition is agreeing to giving you three years to do this, to spin the wheels and not deliver the reforms and protections that the INSLM is doing. That's why I'm moving this amendment on behalf of my party, the Greens, to say a maximum of 12 months to the sunset.

It is absolutely critical to this debate to get an understanding of what the government's intention is and what the timeframe is for these INSLM recommendations. It looks like we'll have some time to come back and discuss this later today, so maybe in that time those who are advising you would be well minded to bring down the 300-page INSLM report and the six-page government response that's been tabled to the INSLM report and be able to answer questions that this parliament has about giving you a three-year get-into-jail-free card to extend this.

The other question that we have is: does the government support reforms to these warrants, which you want a three-year extension for? Do you support a mechanism to give access to independent technical advice about the warrants so that those issuing the warrants have an understanding about what the security agencies are proposing to do with their covert surveillance?

I've met a bunch of judges. They're nice people. Sometimes they have an interest in things; sometimes they don't.

In my experience, given their generation, they're not what I'd call tech savvy. They often have their associate print out their emails for them. Yet you're going to be asking them to issue warrants that have incredibly technical provisions in them that undertake really complex online surveillance and operate quite sophisticated hardware and software without any kind of technical advice.

Do you support the INSLM when the INSLM says, 'Whoever's issuing these warrants should have a mechanism to access independent technical advice so they can understand what they're doing'? Do you support that?