This bill became law on Oct 24th, 2024.
Law, justice & rights
Police can now seize cryptocurrency and similar digital assets under Commonwealth search warrants, including by accessing a digital walletThe software or account used to hold cryptocurrency or other digital assets, which police may access to seize those assets. and moving the assets into law enforcement control.
Criminals’ growing use of cryptocurrency exposed gaps in Commonwealth powers to seize digital assets, freeze funds at digital currency exchanges, and keep penalties effective. The bill clarifies crypto seizure and freezing powers, raises penalty units, and shifts existing telecom security functions to Home Affairs without creating new carrier obligations.
Commonwealth search, seizure and proceeds-of-crime laws were already in place, but the growing use of cryptocurrency by criminals exposed uncertainty about how police and corruption investigators could seize digital assets and freeze funds at digital currency exchanges. The bill was introduced to update those systems, raise the Commonwealth penalty unitThe standard value used to calculate Commonwealth fines, so when the unit rises the dollar amount of many offences rises too. to $330 from 7 November 2024, and shift existing telecommunications security coordination functions from the Attorney-General’s Department to Home Affairs without creating new carrier obligations.
The main criticism was that the bill expanded police and agency powers over digital assets and communications, and increased Commonwealth fines, without enough human rights scrutinyThe parliamentary review process that checks whether a bill may interfere with rights such as privacy or fair treatment. or fairer safeguards for people on low incomes. These concerns were raised most clearly by Lidia Thorpe and, on penalty units, by the Greens, while the Coalition still supported the amended bill.
Mark Dreyfus MP introduced this bill. It passed on the voices.
Did it become law?
Yes
Became law 24 Oct 2024
Final passage
Passed without a counted vote
3 recorded amendment or procedural votes were found, but no counted vote on the bill itself was recorded.
Passage speed
211 days
From introduction to the latest recorded parliamentary step
Meaning
Police can now seize cryptocurrency and similar digital assets under Commonwealth search warrants, including by accessing a digital walletThe software or account used to hold cryptocurrency or other digital assets, which police may access to seize those assets. and moving the assets into law enforcement control.
Proceeds of crime powers now reach digital currency exchanges, so investigators can freeze accounts, demand information and stop suspected criminal funds being moved before court restraint action starts.
Maximum Commonwealth fines increased because one penalty unitThe standard value used to calculate Commonwealth fines, so when the unit rises the dollar amount of many offences rises too. rose to $330, and the higher amount applies only to offences committed on or after 7 November 2024.
The National Anti-Corruption CommissionThe federal anti-corruption body that investigates serious corruption issues in Commonwealth public administration. can now seize digital assets when they may be evidence about a corruption issue the National Anti-Corruption CommissionerThe person who leads the National Anti-Corruption Commission and decides how its investigations and hearings are run. is investigating.
National security telecom functions under Part 14 moved from the Attorney-General’s Department to a new Communications Security CoordinatorThe Home Affairs role that now handles certain telecommunications security functions that used to sit in the Attorney-General's Department. in Home Affairs, without creating new powers or changing carriers’ legal obligations.
The proposed amendments to the Crimes Act, the POCA and the NACC Act would expressly clarify that a warrant may authorise the seizure of digital assets and that an executing officer is able to access a person’s digital wallet and transfer its contents as a means of ‘seizing’ the digital asset.Crimes and Other Legislation Amendment (Omnibus No. 1) explanatory memorandum
These amendments will ensure that freezing orders, notices to financial institutions, and monitoring orders can be made in relation to accounts held with digital currency exchanges.Crimes and Other Legislation Amendment (Omnibus No. 1) explanatory memorandum
Schedule 3: The 14th day after this Act receives the Royal Assent. The amendments made by this Schedule apply in relation to offences committed on or after the commencement of this Schedule.Crimes and Other Legislation Amendment (Omnibus No. 1) Act 2024 final Act text
“(ii) evidential material in relation to an offence that is an indictable offence, or to a corruption issue that the Commissioner is investigating; or”Crimes and Other Legislation Amendment (Omnibus No. 1) as-passed bill text
The Bill does not introduce any new powers or responsibilities. While some decision making and administrative functions will now be performed by the CSC, the material obligations and rights available for telecommunications carriers and carriage service providers will remain unchanged.Crimes and Other Legislation Amendment (Omnibus No. 1) explanatory memorandum
Context
Commonwealth search, seizure and proceeds-of-crime laws were already in place, but the growing use of cryptocurrency by criminals exposed uncertainty about how police and corruption investigators could seize digital assets and freeze funds at digital currency exchanges. The bill was introduced to update those systems, raise the Commonwealth penalty unitThe standard value used to calculate Commonwealth fines, so when the unit rises the dollar amount of many offences rises too. to $330 from 7 November 2024, and shift existing telecommunications security coordination functions from the Attorney-General’s Department to Home Affairs without creating new carrier obligations.
Government introduces a bill to update Commonwealth powers for cryptocurrency and penalties
The second reading speech said the bill would clarify how existing search, seizure and proceeds-of-crime powers apply to cryptocurrency, keep fines effective after the penalty unitThe standard value used to calculate Commonwealth fines, so when the unit rises the dollar amount of many offences rises too. rise, and move telecommunications security coordination to Home Affairs; the final Act set the penalty-unit schedule to commence after assent.
Hansard ↗House passes the bill with government amendments
After debate, the House agreed to amendments and passed the bill, with ministers describing the changes as modernising law enforcement powers for cryptocurrency and other digital assets.
Parliamentary timeline ↗Parliament passes the bill
The Senate passed the bill in the same form, completing its parliamentary passage after scrutiny and negotiated amendments mentioned in debate.
Parliamentary timeline ↗Royal AssentThe final step that turns a passed bill into an Act of Parliament. makes the changes law
Royal AssentThe final step that turns a passed bill into an Act of Parliament. turned the bill into an Act, allowing the new digital asset seizure, exchange-freezing, penalty and telecommunications coordination amendments to take legal effect under the commencement rules.
Parliamentary timeline ↗Legislative route
The bill was formally presented to the chamber and read a first time, which starts its parliamentary journey.
Introduced and read a first time
A minister or sponsoring member moved the second reading, opening the main debate on the bill's purpose and principles.
Second reading moved
Referred to Committee (11/04/2024): Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security; Committee report (12/08/2024)
Referred to committee
APH bill page notesThe bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
Referred to Federation Chamber
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
Second reading debate
The chamber agreed to the bill at second reading, meaning it accepted the bill in principle and allowed it to continue.
Second reading agreed to
The chamber considered amendments before the bill moved to the next stage.
Consideration in detail debate
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
Reported from Federation Chamber
The chamber agreed to the bill at third reading, which completed passage through that chamber.
Third reading agreed to
The bill was formally presented to the chamber and read a first time, which starts its parliamentary journey.
Introduced and read a first time
A minister or sponsoring member moved the second reading, opening the main debate on the bill's purpose and principles.
Second reading moved
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
The chamber agreed to the bill at second reading, meaning it accepted the bill in principle and allowed it to continue.
Second reading agreed to
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
The chamber agreed to the bill at third reading, which completed passage through that chamber.
Third reading agreed to
Both houses passed the bill in the same form, completing parliamentary passage.
Finally passed both Houses
The Governor-General gave Royal AssentThe final step that turns a passed bill into an Act of Parliament., turning the bill into an Act.
Key criticism
The main criticism was that the bill expanded police and agency powers over digital assets and communications, and increased Commonwealth fines, without enough human rights scrutinyThe parliamentary review process that checks whether a bill may interfere with rights such as privacy or fair treatment. or fairer safeguards for people on low incomes. These concerns were raised most clearly by Lidia Thorpe and, on penalty units, by the Greens, while the Coalition still supported the amended bill.
Criticism was real but limited, with most parliamentary speakers backing the bill overall.
Human rights and privacy safeguards
Critics argued the bill should not pass until human rights and privacy concerns about expanded police and agency powers over digital assets and communications had been properly reviewed. The worry was that stronger seizure and access powers were being widened before the Parliament had completed adequate scrutiny of their effects on rights.
Penalty increases seen as unfair
A separate criticism was that lifting Commonwealth penalty units would make fines harsher in a way that falls disproportionately on people with low incomes. The proposed alternative was a fairer fines system that better reflects a person's capacity to pay, rather than relying on a flat increase.
Further sources
Votes
The bill passed both chambers on the voices. The counted divisions below were about amendments or procedure, not final passage.
House agreed to the bill's third reading on the voices, so there is no list of individual Aye and No votes for final passage in that chamber.
Passed on the voices
In a voice vote, members call out Aye or No and the presiding officer judges which side has it. Individual names are only recorded if a formal division is called.
Senate agreed to the bill's third reading on the voices, so there is no list of individual Aye and No votes for final passage in that chamber.
Passed on the voices
In a voice vote, members call out Aye or No and the presiding officer judges which side has it. Individual names are only recorded if a formal division is called.
Amendments grouped by chamber. Where APH reports aggregate counts, the package card summarizes the matching public amendment sheets by source theme.
House
Government amendments tighten commencement and sunsetting dates, update a ministerial definition, and clarify the new hors de combat definition across the bill.
Passed on the voices
The chamber agreed to this amendment package without a counted vote. APH records the agreed count by amendment, while the source documents are grouped into amendment sheets.
Senate
Moved by David Shoebridge (Australian Greens). Defeated 12 to 27. Support came from Greens. Opposition came from Labor, Liberal Party, Nationals, UAP, and minor parties and independents. Minor-party and independent votes were split.
It was a position-taking vote on whether the Senate wanted the bill accompanied by a call for income-based fines rather than a simple flat-penalty approach.
Moved by Lidia Thorpe (Crossbench). Defeated 12 to 25. Support came from Greens. Opposition came from Labor, Nationals, Liberal Party, UAP, and minor parties and independents. Minor-party and independent votes were split.
It was a second-reading statement vote, not a direct change to the bill text, so the key issue was whether the Senate wanted the bill delayed for a human rights examination.
Defeated 18 to 26. Support came from Greens, Australia's Voice, One Nation, UAP, and minor parties and independents. Opposition came from Labor and Liberal Party. Minor-party and independent votes were split.
The defeat of this amendment package meant the bill did not gain a broader public-hearing power for NACCThe federal anti-corruption body that investigates serious corruption issues in Commonwealth public administration. proceedings.
Senator Lambie's proposal would have let a House impose fines for offences against that House and barred those fines from being paid from public funds. It was decided on voices in the Senate.
Defeated on voices
The chamber decided this amendment without a counted division, so there is no list of individual Aye and No votes.
Senator Lambie's proposal would have let a House impose fines for offences against that House and barred those fines from being paid from public funds. The Senate recorded the motion as defeated on voices.
Defeated on voices
The chamber decided this amendment without a counted division, so there is no list of individual Aye and No votes.
These are amendment votes, not the final passage vote on the bill itself. The bill passed both chambers on the voices.
Parliamentary debate
Start here — lead voices
Mark Dreyfus supports the bill and says it will improve the administration of law enforcement, oversight and regulatory processes by clarifying powers over digital assets, penalty units and telecommunications oversight arrangements.
Read in Hansard ↗Thorpe opposes the bill, arguing it expands police and agency powers over digital assets and communications without a proper human rights assessment.
Read in Hansard ↗Michaelia Cash says the coalition will support the bill, because it contains sensible changes to criminal law investigation powers and the coalition worked with the government to improve it.
Read in Hansard ↗Watt supports the bill and says it will update and clarify a range of Commonwealth laws to improve administration, remove doubt and inconsistency, and strengthen law enforcement and oversight processes.
Read in Hansard ↗All speeches by bloc
3 speakers · 5 contributions · 3 support
Hansard records 2 separate contributions by Murray Watt on this bill. They are grouped here so the speaker is listed once.
Second reading speech
Watt supports the bill and says it will update and clarify a range of Commonwealth laws to improve administration, remove doubt and inconsistency, and strengthen law enforcement and oversight processes. He also backs the secrecy and telecoms amendments as necessary to protect sensitive information and preserve the intended operation of the legislation.
“The Crimes and Other Legislation Amendment (Omnibus No.1) Bill 2024 makes amendments which will support the proper administration of regulatory, law enforcement and oversight processes. These changes will improve the everyday operation of government agencies by creating efficiencies and removing doubt and inconsistencies in certain provisions.”Read this contribution in Hansard ↗
Second reading speech
Watt supports the bill, saying it updates criminal law, penalty settings and oversight powers so agencies can better deal with digital assets, secrecy protections and telecommunications functions. He argues the changes are needed to keep law enforcement effective and protect the community as crime and technology evolve.
“In conclusion, the Crimes and Other Legislation Amendment (Omnibus No.1) Bill 2024 will support the proper administration of regulatory and oversight processes, assist law enforcement agencies, deter criminal behaviour to enhance the protection of the Australian community and ensure Australia is able to uphold its international obligations.”Read this contribution in Hansard ↗
“The bill before us updates important aspects of our legislative framework for addressing these new types of crime. I commend them to the House.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
Hansard records 2 separate contributions by Mark Dreyfus, including an amendment-moving contribution. They are grouped here so the speaker is listed once.
Moved amendment
Mark Dreyfus supports the bill and says it will improve the administration of law enforcement, oversight and regulatory processes by clarifying powers over digital assets, penalty units and telecommunications oversight arrangements.
“The Crimes and Other Legislation Amendment (Omnibus) Bill (No. 1) 2024 makes amendments which will support the proper administration of regulatory, law enforcement and oversight processes.”Read this contribution in Hansard ↗
Second reading speech
Dreyfus supports the bill and says it will update and clarify key laws, modernise law enforcement powers over digital assets, and improve oversight and secrecy provisions. He argues it is needed to help regulatory and oversight processes run properly and to protect the community.
“In conclusion, the Crimes and Other Legislation Amendment (Omnibus No. 1) Bill 2024 will support the proper administration of regulatory and oversight processes, assist law enforcement agencies to deter criminal behaviour to enhance the protection of the Australian community and ensure Australia is able to uphold its international obligations. I commend the bill to the House.”Read this contribution in Hansard ↗
3 speakers · 3 support
“As such we are pleased to support the bill. (Time expired)”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“It is a bill that the coalition is pleased to support subject to those recommendations.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“I rise to speak in support of the Crimes and Other Legislation Amendment (Omnibus No. 1) Bill 2024. Sometimes we debate enormous transformational and historic pieces of legislation in this place. They top the news headlines for days, weeks and sometimes months. They define elections and determine the future of our nation. Other times, the changes we debate are small but necessary changes. They clean up ambiguities, clarify grey areas and address those, shall we say, small things that create legal nightmares when the rubber hits the road. This bill is one of those latter examples. Simply put, we are introducing minor changes to ensure our law enforcement agencies have the tools they need to keep pace with the fast-evolving world of digital crime. We need to ensure there is no room for confusion or misinterpretation in the law. It also allows us to better maintain the integrity of our telecommunications systems.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
1 speaker · 1 mixed
“That is why I move a second reading amendment that's been distributed:”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
1 speaker · 2 contributions · 1 oppose
Hansard records 2 separate contributions by Lidia Thorpe on this bill. They are grouped here so the speaker is listed once.
Second reading speech
Thorpe opposes the bill, arguing it expands police and agency powers over digital assets and communications without a proper human rights assessment. She says the Senate should not pass it until the underlying laws are scrutinised and the human rights problems are fixed.
“Until this is done, it is reckless to move forward with these bills that haven't been scrutinised by the human rights committee. Expanding powers in areas that continue to breach human rights is a breach of human rights. Giving more powers to the cops to go through peoples' phones, giving more powers to the cops to take peoples' assets—it's disgusting. What are you saying? Who runs this country, the cops or the government? There are serious systemic problems within the police force. We know that. They target innocent people too. So, unless those human rights issues are dealt with, we cannot pass this bill.”Read this contribution in Hansard ↗
Second reading speech
Thorpe opposes passing the bill now and moves to delay further consideration until the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human RightsThe committee that examines bills and laws for possible human rights problems before or after they are passed. has reported on the affected laws. She says the bill still raises unresolved human rights and privacy concerns.
“(c) further consideration of the bill be made an order of the day for the first sitting day after the PJCHR has presented a report of its examination of the above Acts to the Senate".”Read this contribution in Hansard ↗
Record
House · Introduced and read a first time
Introduced
The bill was formally presented to the chamber and read a first time, which starts its parliamentary journey.
House · Second reading moved
Second reading opened
A minister or sponsoring member moved the second reading, opening the main debate on the bill's purpose and principles.
House · Second reading debate
Second reading debate
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
House · Referred to Federation Chamber
Referred to Federation Chamber
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
House · Second reading debate
Second reading debate
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
House · Second reading agreed to
Second reading agreed
The chamber agreed to the bill at second reading, meaning it accepted the bill in principle and allowed it to continue.
House · Consideration in detail: amendments considered
Amendment packages agreed
The chamber considered amendments before the bill moved to the next stage.
House · Reported from Federation Chamber
Reported from Federation Chamber
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
House · Third reading agreed to
Third reading agreed
The chamber agreed to the bill at third reading, which completed passage through that chamber.
Senate · Introduced and read a first time
Introduced
The bill was formally presented to the chamber and read a first time, which starts its parliamentary journey.
Senate · Second reading moved
Second reading opened
A minister or sponsoring member moved the second reading, opening the main debate on the bill's purpose and principles.
Senate · Second reading debate
Second reading debate
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
Senate · Second reading agreed to
Second reading agreed
The chamber agreed to the bill at second reading, meaning it accepted the bill in principle and allowed it to continue.
Senate · Committee of the Whole debate
Committee of the Whole debate
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
Senate · Third reading agreed to
Third reading agreed
The chamber agreed to the bill at third reading, which completed passage through that chamber.
Parliament · Finally passed both Houses
Passed both houses
Both houses passed the bill in the same form, completing parliamentary passage.
Assent · Assent
Assent
The Governor-General gave Royal AssentThe final step that turns a passed bill into an Act of Parliament., turning the bill into an Act.
Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security; Committee report (12/08/2024)
Referred to committee
Referred to Committee (11 Apr 2024): Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security; Committee report (12 Aug 2024)
APH bill page notes
