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

Senator SHOEBRIDGE (New South Wales) (11:08): This isn't one that the government noted. This was a key safeguard that was an essential part of recommendation 1. This is recommendation 8 of the INSLM—that's one element of it, and you'll be pleased to know there are other elements to explore.

Recommendation 1 of the INSLM was: AFP should retain DDWs, subject to recommendations 6-8 being implemented. I'll read the first sentence from the government's response to that, which was: The Government agrees to this recommendation. Now, we're told that you're actually just noting recommendation 8, and— Senator Green: On a point of order, Senator Shoebridge is verballing my answers and it is misleading the Senate.

The Hansard is very clear. I do not have the report in front of me. I'm not quoting from it, but it is publicly available.

So, if you would like the answers on what is in that report, you can read it. The TEMPORARY CHAIR ( Senator Blyth ): Minister, that is a debating point. Senator Shoebridge, when you resume, could you just keep to the questions in the committee stage.

Senator SHOEBRIDGE: Perhaps we can, after the break, have an answer to the riddle. It is a little bit confusing in the government's response as well. The government's response is that they agree to recommendation 1, which is dependent on having recommendations 6 to 8 implemented.

But then, when they're dealing with recommendation 8 in the body of their response, they say that they 'note' recommendation 8. This is a riddle I'm trying to understand. On the one hand, you agree to it.

Then, on the other hand, you note it in the government's response. So perhaps when we come back on this sometime after quarter past 11, Minister, you can get some advice from the department about whether the answer that your government does accept recommendation 1 is true or whether it is actually the answer that you give on recommendation 8, that you just note it and you're not really interested in putting in place the protections the INSLM says are needed before these covert warrants are extended.

One of the other key concerns the INSLM had was that, in a system where there's no-one checking, there's no independent check, there's no defendant contesting it, there's no-one testing what the police say and there's no-one testing what ASIO says, it's all just them and a judge or them and whichever officer is issuing the warrant, what are the checks and balances in place?

The INSLM said that there needs to be a statutory duty of candour requiring disclosure of all matters of which the applicant is aware, both favourable and adverse. There's currently no such statutory duty. So my first question to you, Minister, is this.

You're proposing to extend these powers for another three years. Does the government believe that the AFP and ASIO have a duty of candour in putting these applications? Do you believe that they have a duty to put before whoever is being asked to issue a warrant all the relevant material, both in favour of and not in favour of the application?

Do you believe that obligation exists now?