The Crimes and Other Legislation Amendment (Omnibus No. 1) Bill 2026 bundles changes across criminal procedure, surveillance powers, extradition law, telecommunications oversight and prosecutorial governance. Key moves include extensions and structured wind‑down rules for account‑takeover, data‑disruption and network‑activity warrants, creation of statutory evidentiary certificates for serious drug matters, and a rework of the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) to create a Deputy Director role with new appointment and conduct rules.
The bill matters because it changes how law enforcement obtains and preserves digital and physical evidence, shifts courtroom proof mechanics in serious drug prosecutions, and centralises some prosecutorial back‑office authority under new appointment mechanisms. Compliance officers, defence counsel, telecommunications carriers, and prosecutors will need to adapt to new procedural notice periods, transitional rules for existing warrants, and altered oversight relationships for Victorian integrity bodies.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill extends the legal framework for certain intrusive warrants while fixing a firm repeal date (sunsetting) for account‑takeover, data disruption and network activity powers. It adds a new statutory form of evidentiary certificate in the Criminal Code, restructures the DPP’s senior roles and appointment rules, and inserts powers for police to enter premises under extradition and related warrants subject to limits.
Who It Affects
Commonwealth and state law enforcement agencies (including AFP, Customs, ACC and NACC), courts and prosecutors, telecommunications carriers and platform operators holding intercepted or disruption data, and the Office of the DPP and its staff. Victorian oversight bodies named in federal interception law are also directly affected.
Why It Matters
The bill alters both investigatory practice and trial proof: investigatory powers receive clearer expiry and transition rules that shut down in‑flight authorisations, while evidentiary certificates aim to streamline proof in serious drug cases but introduce new procedural notice and cross‑examination hooks. Organizational changes to the DPP change appointment and conflict management dynamics that affect prosecutorial independence and operational continuity.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill splits into five substantive clusters. First, it tidies police powers and search warrant procedure: Sydney West Airport is explicitly added to the list of designated airports for special police powers, and the law now permits written and electronic applications for search warrants and orders, with the issuing officer able to request further communications and record them.
The practical effect is a statutory move to modernise how magistrates and issuing officers receive warrant applications and to reduce the presumption that face‑to‑face applications are required.
Second, the bill sets a clear sunsetting regime for a suite of digital‑investigative powers. Account‑takeover warrants, data disruption warrants and network activity warrants are all given a fixed repeal point (end of 4 September 2029) with transitional rules: warrants in force at sunset cease on that date, pending applications that lack a judicial decision are treated as never made, and emergency authorisations likewise terminate.
Importantly, protections covering information obtained before sunsetting—such as secrecy and handling rules in the Surveillance Devices Act and Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act—continue to apply to covered material even after the statutory powers lapse.Third, the Criminal Code gains a new evidentiary certificate regime for serious drug offences. Designated senior officers across AFP, Customs, ACC, NACC, state police and prescribed classes can issue certificates that list acts or things performed in relation to seized substances (labels, seals, custody transfers, storage, assisting technicians).
A certificate is prima facie evidence of the matters it states, but the prosecution must serve the certificate and 42 days’ notice before tendering it; defendants have structured rights to seek production and cross‑examination subject to further notice and court approval.Fourth, the bill reconfigures the Office of the DPP. It replaces the Associate Director post with a Deputy Director, sets appointment processes (Governor‑General appointments limited to seven years), prescribes eligibility and remuneration procedures tied to the Remuneration Tribunal, and introduces an Attorney‑General authorisation mechanism allowing senior APS legal staff to exercise Director functions in conflict situations.
The measure also tightens disclosure obligations for pecuniary interests and restricts paid work outside duties unless approved.Finally, extradition law and telecommunications statutes are amended. Extradition provisions clarify that detained persons remain in custody until surrender or a release order, grant police powers to enter premises (including at night subject to restrictions) to effect extradition arrests and require officers to inform arrested people of the grounds.
Telecommunications law replaces references to the Victorian Inspectorate with Integrity Oversight Victoria (and related officers), aligning Commonwealth interception access rules with Victoria’s oversight structure.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill fixes 4 September 2029 as the repeal date for account‑takeover, data disruption and network activity warrant provisions and treats pending applications without a judicial decision as never made at sunset.
It creates section 300.7 certificates in the Criminal Code that issuing officers may use to certify seizure, labelling, custody transfers and related acts; such certificates are prima facie evidence unless contradicted.
The prosecution must give the defendant or the defendant’s lawyer at least 42 days’ written notice and a copy of any evidentiary certificate before seeking to admit it at trial.
The Office of the DPP gets a Deputy Director position with Governor‑General appointment terms capped at seven years, remuneration set by the Remuneration Tribunal, and an Attorney‑General power to authorise senior staff to act for the Director where conflicts exist.
Extradition arrest powers now expressly allow police to enter premises (or conveyances) at any time to search for and arrest a person, but prohibit night entry to dwelling houses between 9pm and 6am unless it would be impracticable otherwise or necessary to prevent loss or destruction of specified property.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Designating Sydney West Airport and modernising warrant applications
This item adds Sydney West Airport to the statutory list of airports subject to special divisions in the Crimes Act and clarifies that an intended or under‑construction airport counts as an airport for those purposes. It also inserts a new section allowing written and electronic applications for search warrants and orders and expressly permits issuing officers to request follow‑up communications (in person or electronic) and to record them. Practically, agencies can use remote application channels routinely, but issuing officers retain discretion to require additional interaction and may record those exchanges.
Sunsetting and transitional rules for digital warrants
The bill replaces earlier five‑year sunset language with a single fixed repeal date and a detailed transitional framework. Warrants and emergency authorisations in force at the sunsetting time cease to have effect; applications not decided by that time are treated as never made. At the same time, statutory protections that govern handling, secrecy and admissibility of information obtained before sunset are preserved so that data already gathered remain governed by the original statutory safeguards. The net result forces a clean policy break on the set date while keeping existing evidence usable under legacy rules.
Evidentiary certificates for serious drug offences
The Criminal Code now allows specified senior law enforcement personnel to issue certificates describing acts or things done in relation to seized substances—everything from seizure details and labelling to custody transfers and technical assistance. Those certificates are prima facie evidence in proceedings unless a contrary fact is proved, but admission is gated by a procedural regime that requires the prosecution to provide a copy and 42 days’ notice; defendants can then seek to call or cross‑examine the issuer or named persons subject to further timing and court permission. The provision also lets the AFP Minister prescribe additional issuer classes and types of acts that may be certified.
Treating mixtures as wholly consisting of the prohibited substance
The bill replaces the mixture quantity rule: where a prohibited substance appears in a mixture (for example, cocaine in a block of powder or psilocybin in a mushroom), the law treats the whole mixture as consisting entirely of the prohibited substance for quantity calculation. This rule simplifies prosecutorial proof of quantity but explicitly prevents using the same mixture to prove quantities of more than one prohibited substance.
DPP restructuring, authorisations and conduct limits
Across multiple amendments the Associate Director role is rebranded and functionally replaced by a Deputy Director. The bill prescribes appointment by the Governor‑General for up to seven years, minimum five‑year legal practice experience for appointees, remuneration processes tied to the Remuneration Tribunal, and prohibitions on outside paid work without Attorney‑General approval. It also creates a narrowly framed power for the Attorney‑General to authorise senior APS legal staff who are internal office members to perform Director functions where the Director has a conflict, and requires authorised persons to disclose pecuniary interests.
Extradition custody, entry powers and use‑of‑force limits
The Act clarifies that a person committed to prison pending surrender remains in custody until surrendered or released under a specific release order. It inserts explicit power for police to enter premises (and stop/detain conveyances) to execute extradition, indorsed New Zealand and provisional arrest warrants at any time, with a prohibition on entering dwelling houses between 9pm and 6am unless arrest at another time is impracticable or necessary to preserve certain evidential property. The bill also sets out limits on force—prohibiting actions likely to cause death or grievous bodily harm except in tightly defined life‑threatening circumstances—and requires informing arrestees of the grounds for arrest.
Telecommunications oversight: aligning Victorian integrity bodies
This Schedule replaces references to the Victorian Inspectorate in the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act with Integrity Oversight Victoria and its Chief Integrity Inspector, and inserts related definitions. The change broadens which Victorian oversight bodies and officers qualify as eligible authorities and prescribed investigators under Commonwealth interception and access rules, requiring carriers and agencies to treat Integrity Oversight Victoria under the same permitted‑purpose and investigation definitions previously keyed to the Inspectorate.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Criminal Justice across all five countries.
Explore Criminal Justice in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Federal and state investigative agencies (AFP, Customs, ACC, NACC): Gain clearer transitional rules and continued use of evidence collected before sunsets, and retain faster electronic channels to seek warrants and emergency authorisations during the statutory window.
- Prosecutors handling serious drug matters: Can rely on prima facie evidentiary certificates to streamline proof of chain‑of‑custody and seizure details, reducing dependence on multiple technical witnesses for routine factual matters.
- Office of the DPP senior management: Receives formalised Deputy Director role, explicit appointment and termination rules, and an Attorney‑General authorisation mechanism to manage conflicts and maintain operational continuity.
- Integrity Oversight Victoria and Victorian oversight bodies: Receive explicit recognition in Commonwealth interception law, clarifying their standing to access interception materials and conduct prescribed investigations.
- Courts and magistrates: Get statutory clarity on electronic warrant applications and recording authority, which may speed processing and create more auditable application records.
Who Bears the Cost
- Telecommunications carriers and platform operators: Face continued obligations to respond to data disruption and interception frameworks during the operational period and must integrate Integrity Oversight Victoria requests and compliance processes.
- Defendants and defence counsel in serious drug prosecutions: May confront stronger prima facie certificate evidence that shifts the evidentiary burden onto them to rebut certified facts and may need to engage forensic experts earlier to challenge certificate content.
- Smaller prosecutorial offices or state agencies: Must absorb administrative changes from the DPP restructure (new disclosure and appointment rules) and possible staffing or workflow adjustments where authorisations substitute for Director actions.
- Technology and cyber‑incident response teams: If subject to account‑takeover or data disruption warrants during the period before sunsetting, they face obligations and risks when warrants are abruptly terminated at sunset, including handling of partially executed technical measures.
- Courts and judicial officers: Face added procedural work managing certificate admissibility disputes, cross‑examination scheduling within the statute’s notice windows, and transitional litigation over pre‑sunset evidence handling.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is operational effectiveness versus procedural safeguards: the bill strengthens and streamlines investigatory and prosecutorial tools to speed investigations and trials, but many of those efficiencies (prima facie certificates, broader entry powers, electronic warrant procedures, and Attorney‑General authorisations) reduce traditional safeguards of live testimony, judicial oversight and perceived prosecutorial independence—forcing a trade‑off between speed and oversight that the statute addresses imperfectly through procedural notice requirements and preserved post‑sunset protections.
The bill tries to thread competing operational and rights‑protection goals but leaves practical tensions. The fixed sunsetting date simplifies legislative management of experimental surveillance powers, yet treating pending applications as never made creates abrupt legal nullities for in‑flight investigations — agencies must plan to conclude matters or risk losing authorisations and collected evidence may require careful chain‑of‑custody preservation to stay admissible under the preserved 'protected information' rules.
The procedural preservation of protected information helps, but administrative friction and legal challenges are likely as agencies and providers disentangle active operations from now‑defunct statutory powers.
Evidentiary certificates simplify prosecutions by making routine custody and handling statements prima facie, but they shift significant evidentiary weight from live, cross‑examined witnesses to documents signed by senior officers. The statutory 42‑day notice and the defendant’s conditional right to require live testimony are important safeguards, yet they depend on timely disclosure and robust court management; courts may see an uptick in tactical applications to compel witnesses or to argue that admission of certificates without live testimony is unfair.
Separately, the Attorney‑General’s new authority to authorise DPP staff to act where the Director has a conflict addresses continuity but raises governance questions: delegating substantive Director functions into senior APS ranks, authorised by a political officeholder, creates potential perceptions of executive influence that will require strict written authorisations and transparent disclosure to preserve prosecutorial independence.
Finally, aligning Commonwealth interception law with Integrity Oversight Victoria clarifies local oversight pathways but creates cross‑jurisdictional complexity: carriers and agencies operating across states must reconcile differing Victorian oversight mandates with Commonwealth access rules, and practical implementation will depend on Memoranda of Understanding and operational protocols that the bill does not supply.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.