This bill became law on Aug 26th, 2026.
Law, justice & rights
Australian Federal Police airport powers will apply at Western Sydney International Airport, including while it is still being developed.
The government said the bill would help police, prosecutors and related agencies work more efficiently while keeping existing safeguards and improving community safety. It said online investigative powers needed to remain available until 4 September 2029 while broader electronic-surveillance reforms were considered. It also argued that serious-drug prosecutions could be simplified because drugs are rarely trafficked in pure form, and that the Commonwealth approach should better match state, territory and overseas systems. The explanatory memorandum said the bill would have no financial impact.
Before the bill, Western Sydney International Airport was still being developed and expected passenger and cargo activity was seen as increasing exposure to transnational serious and organised crime, while temporary online-investigation powers were nearing sunset. The government responded with an omnibus package extending those powers to 4 September 2029, updating warrants, extraditionSending a person to another country for prosecution or punishment. and serious-drug procedures, and adding a review safeguard for expanded extraditionSending a person to another country for prosecution or punishment. arrests; Parliament passed it on 20 August and Royal Assent on 26 August 2026 made it law.
David Shoebridge (Australian Greens) argued that the online investigative powers should not continue until September 2029 without stronger safeguards recommended by an independent monitor; the Greens proposed an earlier end date of 1 July 2027. He also warned that calculating drug charges from the full weight of a mixture could inflate the charge faced by a low-level courier, with no defence based on an honest mistake about the substance. Michaelia Cash (Liberal) supported the bill overall but argued that removing the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission’s data-disruption power was a significant change that should receive specialist scrutiny through separate legislation. Liberal senator Leah Blyth also said the expanded powers to enter premises, use force and arrest people for extraditionSending a person to another country for prosecution or punishment. needed a later parliamentary review because they affect liberty and other basic rights.
Michelle Rowland MP introduced this bill. It passed with support from Labor, Liberal, One Nation, some crossbench members; opposed by Greens.
Did it become law?
Yes
Became law 26 Aug 2026
Final passage
Recorded final vote
1 counted final-passage vote was recorded.
Passage speed
168 days
From introduction to the latest recorded parliamentary step
Meaning
Australian Federal Police airport powers will apply at Western Sydney International Airport, including while it is still being developed. These include identity checks and directions to leave or avoid a flight when the legal tests are met.
Police can apply electronically or in person for search warrants and court orders requiring help to access data. Applications must still be in writing, and the officer deciding the application can ask for further communication or record it.
Federal Police powers to take over online accounts, disrupt data and investigate criminal networks are extended to 4 September 2029. The Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission loses the power to obtain data-disruption warrants, while rules protecting information gathered before the powers end continue to apply.
Australian Capital Territory police can continue using the Commonwealth scheme for detention and investigation before a person is charged. The Act removes provisions that would otherwise have ended that access.
In serious drug cases, authorised officials can use certificates as initial evidence of routine facts about how a substance was seized, labelled, stored or transferred. A copy and notice must be given to the accused, or a lawyer who has appeared for them, at least 42 days before prosecutors seek to use it. The accused can ask to question the certificate’s author or a named person after giving prosecutors at least 28 days’ notice and obtaining the court’s permission.
In serious drug cases, the full weight of a mixture containing a prohibited substance can be used as the drug quantity, rather than only the pure drug content. Prosecutors are allowed, but not required, to rely on the full weight and may prove a smaller quantity through other evidence in unusual cases. A single mixture cannot be counted towards more than one prohibited substance.
If the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions identifies an actual, possible or perceived conflict of interest, the Attorney-General can authorise a senior lawyer in the office to perform specified functions. The Act also renames the Associate Director as the Deputy Director and sets maximum seven-year appointments for the Director and Deputy Director.
A person who waives the formal extraditionSending a person to another country for prosecution or punishment. process remains in custody until surrendered to the requesting country or released by an appropriate order. Police executing specified extraditionSending a person to another country for prosecution or punishment. warrants can enter premises if they have the power to arrest the person and reasonably believe the person is there. They can use necessary and reasonable force, but entry to a home between 9 pm and 6 am is restricted to stated circumstances. Police must generally announce themselves, limit force and explain the arrest, but may enter without announcing themselves to protect someone’s immediate safety or prevent the warrant being frustrated. They need not explain the arrest if the person should already know the reason or their actions make an explanation impracticable.
A Senate committee must begin reviewing the new extraditionSending a person to another country for prosecution or punishment. powers within two years of their commencement and report after completing its inquiry. The review must consider unintended consequences.
Federal interception law is updated to recognise Victoria’s renamed oversight body, Integrity Oversight Victoria, and its Chief Integrity Inspector. The explanatory memorandum says this does not substantively change the body’s ability to receive interception information while overseeing Victoria Police and the Independent Broad-based Anti-Corruption Commission.
1 After paragraph 3UM(1)(k) (ka) Sydney West Airport; 2 At the end of section 3UM (3) For the purposes of this Division, Sydney West Airport is taken to be an airport at a particular time even if, at that time, it is: (a) merely intended to be developed for use as an airport; or (b) being developed for use as an airport.Crimes and Other Legislation Amendment (Omnibus No. 1) Act 2026
8 After Section 3Q 3QA Applying for a search warrant or an order for assistance (1) An application for the issue of a warrant under subsection 3E(1) or (2), or for an order under subsection 3LA(1), must be in writing and may be made: (a) in person; or (b) by electronic means. (2) The issuing officer may: (a) require further communication either in person, or by electronic means, to the extent that it is practicable in the circumstances; and (b) make a recording of the whole or any part of any such communication.Crimes and Other Legislation Amendment (Omnibus No. 1) Act 2026
13 Section 3ZZUMA Omit “ceases to have effect 5 years after it commences”, substitute “is repealed at the end of 4 September 2029”. 14 Section 3ZZUWA Omit “ceases to have effect 5 years after it commences”, substitute “is repealed at the end of 4 September 2029”. 15 Definitions In this Division: appropriate authorising officer has the meaning given by section 3ZZUM of the Crimes Act 1914. protected information has the meaning given by section 3ZZUK of the Crimes Act 1914. sunsetting time means the end of 4 September 2029.Crimes and Other Legislation Amendment (Omnibus No. 1) Act 2026
Measures to Combat Serious and Organised Crime Act 2001 35 Subsection 2(4) Repeal the subsection. 36 Item 10 of Schedule 4 Repeal the item.Crimes and Other Legislation Amendment (Omnibus No. 1) Act 2026
Documents purporting to be certificates (6) A document purporting to be a certificate issued under this section is, unless the contrary is established, taken to be such a certificate and to have been properly given. Certificate is prima facie evidence of the acts or things in it (7) The certificate is to be received in proceedings for an offence against this Part as prima facie evidence of the acts or things specified in the certificate.Crimes and Other Legislation Amendment (Omnibus No. 1) Act 2026
New subsection 312.1(2) would provide that, for the purpose of proving the quantity of the prohibited substance, the entire mixture is to be treated as consisting wholly of the prohibited substance. This removes the need for purity analysis and ensures that offenders cannot avoid higher penalty thresholds by diluting, adulterating or concealing the substance within other material. The Note to the provision would provide 2 examples to illustrate how the rule operates in practice: If a block of powder contains any amount of cocaine (a prohibited substance), the total weight of the block is thCrimes and Other Legislation Amendment (Omnibus No. 1) explanatory memorandum
31A Authorisation of persons in cases of conflict of interest (1) This section applies if the Director considers that it is not appropriate for the Director to perform a function or exercise a power of the Director under this or any other Act (other than a power of delegation under section 31) because of a conflict of interest, potential conflict of interest or perceived conflict of interest of the Director. Authorisation (2) The Attorney‑General may, in writing, authorise a person to perform the function or exercise the power if the person is: (a) a member of the staff of the Office; andCrimes and Other Legislation Amendment (Omnibus No. 1) Act 2026
12A Power to enter premises—extradition arrest warrants When this section applies (1) This section applies if a police officer: (a) has the power to arrest a person under an extradition arrest warrant; and (b) believes on reasonable grounds that the person is on any premises. Power to enter premises (2) Subject to subsection (3), the police officer may enter the premises, using such force as is necessary and reasonable in the circumstances, at any time of the day or night, for the purpose of searching the premises for the person or arresting the person. Note 1: See section 47A for limitCrimes and Other Legislation Amendment (Omnibus No. 1) Act 2026
4 Review of amendments made by Schedule 4 (1) The Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee, or such other committee constituted under a resolution of the Senate, must: (a) begin an inquiry into the operation of the amendments made by Schedule 4 to this Act, and any other related matters, before the end of the period of 2 years beginning on the day the Schedule commences; and (b) report the Committee’s recommendations to the Senate as soon as practicable after completing the inquiry. (2) Without limiting subsection (1), the inquiry must consider any unintended consequenCrimes and Other Legislation Amendment (Omnibus No. 1) Act 2026
Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979 1 Subsection 5(1) Chief Integrity Inspector means a person who is the Chief Integrity Inspector (within the meaning of the Integrity Oversight Victoria Act (Vic.). 2 Subsection 5(1) (paragraph (ec) of the definition of chief officer) Repeal the paragraph, substitute: (ec) in the case of Integrity Oversight Victoria—the Chief Integrity Inspector; or 3 Subsection 5(1) (paragraph (ba) of the definition of eligible authority) Repeal the paragraph, substitute: (ba) in the case of Victoria—the IBAC (Vic.) or Integrity Oversight Victoria;Crimes and Other Legislation Amendment (Omnibus No. 1) Act 2026
Context
Before the bill, Western Sydney International Airport was still being developed and expected passenger and cargo activity was seen as increasing exposure to transnational serious and organised crime, while temporary online-investigation powers were nearing sunset. The government responded with an omnibus package extending those powers to 4 September 2029, updating warrants, extraditionSending a person to another country for prosecution or punishment. and serious-drug procedures, and adding a review safeguard for expanded extraditionSending a person to another country for prosecution or punishment. arrests; Parliament passed it on 20 August and Royal Assent on 26 August 2026 made it law.
Western Sydney International Airport was being developed
The airport’s expected passenger and cargo activity was identified as increasing the risk of transnational serious and organised crime, creating a case for AFP identity-check and move-on powers to apply there.
Crimes and Other Legislation Amendment (Omnibus No. 1) explanatory memorandum ↗Temporary online crime powers were nearing sunset
Network activity, data disruption and account takeover warrants were already available for serious technology-enabled crime, but the government said they needed to remain available while broader electronic-surveillance reforms were considered.
Minister's second reading speech ↗Michelle Rowland MP introduces the bill
Michelle Rowland MP introduced the omnibus bill to update crime laws and help law enforcement agencies work more effectively while retaining safeguards.
Hansard ↗Senate debate seeks review of extraditionSending a person to another country for prosecution or punishment. powers
The opposition supported most of the bill but proposed a parliamentary review of the expanded extraditionSending a person to another country for prosecution or punishment. arrest powers as a condition of its support.
Second reading speech ↗Parliament passes the bill
Both houses passed the bill in the same form, including the extension of online-investigation powers and the new extraditionSending a person to another country for prosecution or punishment. review requirement.
Parliamentary timeline ↗Royal Assent makes the changes law
The Governor-General gave Royal Assent, turning the bill into an Act and confirming the online powers’ continuation to 4 September 2029.
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
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step. For this bill, the Federation Chamber reported back later the same day and the House then completed its remaining formal steps that day.
Referred to Federation Chamber
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
Second reading debate
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step. The official House record shows the referral out and return both happened on the same day, before the House moved to its final formal votes.
Reported from Federation Chamber
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 agreed to the bill at third reading, which completed passage through that chamber. Later message exchanges with the other chamber were still recorded afterwards.
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
Considered by scrutiny committee (25/03/2026): Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills; Scrutiny Digest 5 of 2026
Scrutiny Digest 5 of 2026
APH bill page notesReferred to Committee (26/03/2026): Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee; Committee report (01/05/2026)
Report tabled 01 May 2026
APH bill page notesThe 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 bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
The chamber considered amendments before the bill moved to the next stage.
Committee of the Whole debate
Recorded vote: 33 to 9.
The chamber agreed to the bill at third reading, which completed passage through that chamber.
Third reading agreed to
The House dealt with Senate amendments or requests so both chambers could settle the bill in the same form. The main amendments were: Observed added text: "4 Review of amendments made by Schedule 4 (1) The Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee, or suc…".
Consideration of Senate message
Both houses passed the bill in the same form, completing parliamentary passage.
Finally passed both Houses
The Governor-General gave Royal Assent, turning the bill into an Act.
Key criticism
David Shoebridge (Australian Greens) argued that the online investigative powers should not continue until September 2029 without stronger safeguards recommended by an independent monitor; the Greens proposed an earlier end date of 1 July 2027. He also warned that calculating drug charges from the full weight of a mixture could inflate the charge faced by a low-level courier, with no defence based on an honest mistake about the substance. Michaelia Cash (Liberal) supported the bill overall but argued that removing the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission’s data-disruption power was a significant change that should receive specialist scrutiny through separate legislation. Liberal senator Leah Blyth also said the expanded powers to enter premises, use force and arrest people for extraditionSending a person to another country for prosecution or punishment. needed a later parliamentary review because they affect liberty and other basic rights.
The government said the online powers had been judged effective against serious technology-enabled crime, while removing the Commission’s data-disruption role would better match its focus as an intelligence agency. The final bill also includes a parliamentary review of the extraditionSending a person to another country for prosecution or punishment. changes within two years.
Votes
The chamber-passage votes come first. Expand a vote to see the party breakdown.
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.
Passed 33 to 9. Support came from Labor, Liberal, One Nation, and minor parties and independents. Opposition came from Greens.
Amendments grouped by chamber. These cards include amendment outcomes recorded without a counted division.
Senate
Defeated 25 to 34. Support came from Liberal, One Nation, and Nationals. Opposition came from Labor and Greens. Minor-party and independent votes were split.
Defeated 10 to 33. Support came from Greens and minor parties and independents. Opposition came from Labor, Liberal, and One Nation.
Defeated 25 to 35. Support came from Liberal, One Nation, Nationals, and Liberal Party. Opposition came from Labor, Greens, and minor parties and independents.
Passed 33 to 10. Support came from Labor, Liberal, and One Nation. Opposition came from Greens and minor parties and independents.
The Senate accepted, without a recorded count, the government amendment requiring the review to consider unintended consequences without separately requiring examination of different time restrictions for arrest and search warrants.
Carried on voices
The chamber decided this amendment without a counted division, so there is no list of individual Aye and No votes.
The Senate accepted, without a recorded count, the amended proposal for a committee to begin reviewing the extraditionSending a person to another country for prosecution or punishment. changes within two years and consider unintended consequences.
Carried on voices
The chamber decided this amendment without a counted division, so there is no list of individual Aye and No votes.
This list includes amendment votes, procedural votes and votes on the bill itself.
Parliamentary debate
Start here — lead voices
Rowland supports the bill, saying it modernises and clarifies crimes legislation so law enforcement, prosecution and related agencies can operate more efficiently while retaining appropriate safeguards.
Read in Hansard ↗David Shoebridge opposes the bill because it would extend intrusive surveillance powers for three years without essential safeguards and could expose low-level drug couriers to unfairly inflated charges.
Read in Hansard ↗Cash says the coalition will support the bill's practical criminal justice and law enforcement reforms, but will seek amendments and further scrutiny concerning extraditionSending a person to another country for prosecution or punishment. arrest powers, prosecution changes and the removal of the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission's data disruption warrant powers.
Read in Hansard ↗Blyth says the coalition will not oppose the bill because it supports its practical law-enforcement improvements and the extension of cyber disruption powers, but it will seek amendments requiring specialist scrutiny of changes to the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission and a review of expanded extraditionSending a person to another country for prosecution or punishment. arrest powers.
Read in Hansard ↗All speeches by bloc
5 speakers · 6 contributions · 5 support
“I rise to speak in support of the Crimes and Other Legislation Amendment (Omnibus No.1) Bill 2026. At its heart, this bill is about supporting law enforcement agencies to provide efficient and effective services to Australians to keep them safe. Law enforcement agencies play a critical role in the functioning of our communities and of our country and they need to be appropriately equipped to carry out their functions, with appropriate, reasonable and proportionate safeguards as well.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“I want to pay tribute to the Attorney-General, who is doing a lot of work dealing with crime. This is something that I know is incredibly important to my community and communities around Australia. The Albanese government is working incredibly hard. We have a no-nonsense approach to this kind of criminality. This is one of many reforms that the government is going through to ensure that we have a rigorous criminal justice process and that our law enforcement agencies have the powers, tools, clarity and certainty they need to do their jobs effectively. So I commend the Attorney-General, and I commend this bill to the House.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“It modernises, streamlines and clarifies important provisions, ensuring law enforcement and related agencies can efficiently and effectively perform their critical functions.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
Hansard records 2 separate contributions by Michelle Rowland on this bill. They are grouped here so the speaker is listed once.
Minister's second reading speech
Rowland supports the bill, saying it modernises and clarifies crimes legislation so law enforcement, prosecution and related agencies can operate more efficiently while retaining appropriate safeguards.
“Firstly, the bill will modernise law enforcement powers and procedures to allow our agencies to operate more efficiently, without reducing important safeguards on the use of these powers.”Read this contribution in Hansard ↗
Second reading speech
Rowland supports the bill, saying its updates will modernise and streamline criminal law frameworks and give law enforcement and related agencies the powers and processes needed to keep Australians safe.
“Finally, the bill will update terminology to modernise language and provide clarity and consistency across jurisdictions. The amendments in the Crimes and Other Legislation Amendment (Omnibus No. 1) Bill 2026 modernise, streamline and clarify important provisions, ensuring law enforcement and related agencies can efficiently and effectively perform their critical functions. This bill is vital to ensuring our crimes legislation remains up to date and adequately supports our agencies to keep Australians safe. I commend the bill to the chamber.”Read this contribution in Hansard ↗
“Crimes and Other Legislation Amendment (Omnibus No. 1) Bill 2026, and I do that because this is really important legislation. It's a practical bill that is going to reinforce the responsibilities of law enforcement in this country. As Chair of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Law Enforcement, I know and understand, along with all of my colleagues on that committee, how important this piece of legislation is. It is a time to acknowledge the tireless work of the Attorney-General, Michelle Rowland. At its core, this bill is about ensuring that institutions charged with protecting the Australian community have the powers, procedures and legal clarity that they need to do their jobs effectively, lawfully and safely.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
4 speakers · 4 support
“I rise to speak on the Crimes and Other Legislation Amendment (Omnibus No.1) Bill 2026. The coalition will not be opposing this bill; however, we will be moving an amendment to ensure that the expanded extradition arrest powers are subject to the appropriate parliamentary review. We will also be asking some questions, in the committee stage, in relation to schedule 3, relating to the changes to the Director of Public Prosecutions Act 1983.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“The government must also finally deliver the comprehensive reform of Australia's electronic surveillance laws that the intelligence, security and law enforcement community has repeatedly called for. Extending a sunset clause cannot become a substitute for comprehensive legislative reform. For all of those reasons, the coalition will not oppose this bill and urges the government to support the opposition's amendments.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“Extending the cyber warrant powers in schedule 1, part 3, of the omnibus bill is an important step to ensuring that criminals operating online understand they cannot exploit Australians without facing the full force of the law. The coalition supports the practical and operational improvements contained in this bill. We support extending the cyber disruption powers because they remain necessary and effective, and we support ensuring that Australia's police, intelligence and law enforcement agencies have the capabilities that they need to keep Australians safe. But we also insist that significant changes to the operational capabilities of ACIC receive specialist parliamentary scrutiny and that the expanded extradition arrest powers are reviewed after commencement.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“We believe that this bill should be referred to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report. While much of this bill appears technical, several elements—including the change to mixed-weight drug thresholds, the DPP conflict-of-interest mechanism and the timing provisions for extradition warrants—warrant proper parliamentary scrutiny. The coalition believes in thorough oversight, and the Senate committee process provides just that. We don't oppose this bill—the law enforcement and prosecution powers contained in it are necessary, and our agencies deserve certainty—but we will not allow this government to quietly extend critical powers without accountability for its broader failure to deliver the comprehensive reform that Australia's national security community has been calling for. I thank the House.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
1 speaker · 1 oppose
“Support in principle for modernising law enforcement administration doesn't mean waving through provisions that shift risk onto the people least able to bear it—whether it's a low-level drug courier facing an inflated gross-weight charge with no mistake-of-fact defence, or the public, who are waiting years longer for surveillance safeguards that were promised back in 2019.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
1 speaker · 1 unclear
“This amendment draws a line. It says that parliament should not change the rules after the fact to make it easier to prosecute Australian soldiers. It says that fairness matters. It says that the rule of law matters, and it says that this parliament must not turn its back on the people who put their lives on the line for Australia. I urge senators to support the amendment.”Read the full speech 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 · Reported from Federation Chamber
Reported from Federation Chamber
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 · 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 · Committee of the Whole debate
Committee of the Whole debate
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
Senate · Committee of the whole: amendments considered
Amendments agreed
The chamber considered amendments before the bill moved to the next stage.
Senate · Third reading agreed to
Recorded vote: 33 to 9.
Third reading agreed
The chamber agreed to the bill at third reading, which completed passage through that chamber.
House · Consideration of Senate message
House agreed to Senate amendments
The House dealt with Senate amendments or requests so both chambers could settle the bill in the same form.
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 Assent, turning the bill into an Act.
Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills
Scrutiny Digest 5 of 2026
Considered by scrutiny committee (25 Mar 2026): Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills; Scrutiny Digest 5 of 2026
APH bill page notesSenate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee
Report tabled 01 May 2026
Referred to Committee (26 Mar 2026): Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee; Committee report (1 May 2026)
APH bill page notes
