{"id":"research-involving-human-embryos-regulations-2018","name":"Research Involving Human Embryos Regulations 2018","slug":"research-involving-human-embryos-regulations-2018","collection":"regulation","jurisdiction":"sa","status":"in_force","isInForce":true,"actNumber":null,"makingDate":null,"administeringDepartment":null,"currentVersion":{"id":236977,"registerId":"sa-research-involving-human-embryos-regulations-2018-current","compilationNumber":null,"startDate":"2026-04-06","status":"InForce","reasons":null,"registeredAt":null},"sections":[{"sectionNumber":"1","sectionType":"section","heading":"Research Involving Human Embryos Regulations 2018","content":"South Australia\nResearch Involving Human Embryos Regulations 2018\nunder the Research Involving Human Embryos Act 2003\n\nContents\n1\tShort title\n2\tCommencement\n3\tInterpretation\n4\tApplications for warrants (section 23(7) of Act)\n5\tCompensation for damage (section 26(2) of Act)\nSchedule 1—Revocation of Research Involving Human Embryos Regulations 2003\nLegislative history\n\n1—Short title\nThese regulations may be cited as the Research Involving Human Embryos Regulations 2018.\n2—Commencement\nThese regulations will come into operation on 1 September 2018.\n3—Interpretation\nIn these regulations—\nAct means the Research Involving Human Embryos Act 2003.\n4—Applications for warrants (section 23(7) of Act)\n\t(1)\tThe grounds of an application for a warrant under section 23 of the Act made personally must be verified by affidavit.\n\t(2)\tAn application for a warrant cannot be made by telephone unless, in the opinion of the applicant, a warrant is urgently required and there is not enough time to make the application personally.\n\t(3)\tIf an application for a warrant is made by telephone—\n\t(a)\tthe applicant must inform the magistrate of the applicant's name and identify the position that the applicant holds for the purposes of the Act, and the magistrate, on receiving that information, is entitled to assume, without further inquiry, that the applicant holds that position; and\n\t(b)\tthe applicant must inform the magistrate of the purpose for which the warrant is required and the grounds on which it is sought; and\n\t(c)\tif it appears to the magistrate from the information given by the applicant that there are proper grounds to issue a warrant, the magistrate must inform the applicant of the facts that justify, in the magistrate's opinion, the issue of the warrant, and must not proceed to issue the warrant unless the applicant undertakes to make an affidavit verifying those facts; and\n\t(d)\tif the applicant gives such an undertaking, the magistrate may then make out and sign a warrant, noting on the warrant the facts that justify, in the magistrate's opinion, the issue of the warrant; and\n\t(e)\tthe warrant is taken to have been issued, and comes into force, when signed by the magistrate; and\n\t(f)\tthe magistrate must inform the applicant of the terms of the warrant; and\n\t(g)\tthe applicant must, as soon as practicable after the issue of the warrant, forward to the magistrate an affidavit verifying the facts referred to in paragraph (c).\n\t(4)\tA magistrate by whom a warrant is issued must file the warrant, or a copy of the warrant, and the affidavit verifying the grounds on which the application for the warrant was made, in the Magistrates Court.\n5—Compensation for damage (section 26(2) of Act)\n\t(1)\tAny compensation under section 26(1) of the Act is payable by the Minister.\n\t(2)\tA person seeking compensation must make application to the Minister in a manner and form determined by the Minister.\n\t(3)\tThe Minister may require that an applicant provide such information as may be determined by the Minister in order to substantiate a claim for compensation, and that the information be verified by affidavit.\nSchedule 1—Revocation of Research Involving Human Embryos Regulations 2003\nThe Research Involving Human Embryos Regulations 2003 are revoked.\nLegislative history\nNotes\n\t•\tFor further information relating to the Act and subordinate legislation made under the Act see the Index of South Australian Statutes or www.legislation.sa.gov.au.\nPrincipal regulations\nYear\nNo\nReference\nCommencement\n2018\n195\nGazette 2.8.2018 p3013 \n1.9.2018: r 2\n","sortOrder":0}],"analysis":{"kimi_summary":{"content_quality":"ok","complexity_score":2,"scope_assessment":{"changed":false,"description":"The regulations remain tightly focused on their original purpose: operationalising two specific provisions of the parent Act (warrant applications under s.23 and compensation under s.26). They do not expand beyond these administrative procedures."},"complexity_factors":["Only 5 substantive sections plus a revocation schedule","Minimal defined terms (only 'Act' defined in interpretation section)","Straightforward procedural rules without nested conditions","Single cross-reference to parent Act (Research Involving Human Embryos Act 2003)","No exceptions to exceptions or complex conditional logic","Clear linear structure: warrants (with sub-rules) then compensation"],"plain_english_summary":"These regulations set out two practical rules for how South Australia's human embryo research law works in practice.\n\n**What it does:**\n\n*   **Warrant applications (Section 4):** If inspectors need to enter premises to check compliance with embryo research laws, they usually need a warrant from a magistrate. These rules explain how to get one:\n    *   Normally, you apply in person with a sworn written statement (an **affidavit**) explaining why you need the warrant.\n    *   In urgent cases, you can apply by phone, but only if there's genuinely no time to apply in person. The magistrate can issue a warrant over the phone if the inspector promises to send a sworn statement afterwards confirming the facts.\n    *   The magistrate must keep the warrant and affidavit on file at the Magistrates Court.\n\n*   **Compensation for damage (Section 5):** If an inspector damages property during a search, the Minister must pay compensation. To claim it, you apply to the Minister in the form they require, and you may need to provide sworn evidence (affidavit) to back up your claim.\n\n**Who it affects:**\n\n*   **Inspectors** enforcing the Research Involving Human Embryos Act 2003\n*   **Magistrates** who issue warrants\n*   **Research facilities** that may be inspected and potentially damaged during inspections\n*   The **Minister** who handles compensation claims\n\n**Why it matters:**\n\nThese regulations balance effective enforcement of strict embryo research rules with protections for property owners. The telephone warrant provision allows urgent action when delays could mean evidence is destroyed, while the compensation rules ensure people aren't left out of pocket from lawful but damaging inspections."},"flash_summary":{"complexity_score":2,"scope_assessment":{"changed":false,"description":"The 2018 Regulations are procedural and administrative: they replace the 2003 Regulations and set how warrant applications are to be verified, how urgent telephone applications are handled, and how compensation claims are made and verified. They do not expand the substantive scope of the Act (the prohibitions/authorisations in the Act remain unchanged). The main changes are operational: a telephone-based urgent warrant route with post-issue affidavit verification, and explicit allocation of compensation payment responsibility to the Minister with ministerial discretion over claim form and evidentiary requirements (regs 4 and 5). These are process refinements rather than an enlargement of the law's subject-matter coverage."},"complexity_factors":["Short instrument: 5 substantive clauses plus a Schedule","Only one defined term in the interpretation section (Act) (reg 3)","Cross-references to two sections of the Act: s23 (warrants) and s26 (compensation) (reg 4 and reg 5)","Conditional/procedural nested steps for telephone warrants (reg 4(2) and reg 4(3)(a)–(g))","Ministerial discretion over application form and information for compensation (reg 5(2)–(3))","Affidavit verification required in multiple places (reg 4(1), reg 4(3)(c),(g), reg 5(3))","Revocation of prior Regulations (Schedule 1) — replacement but no substantive new policy provisions"],"plain_english_summary":"**What these regulations do, in brief**\n\n- These Regulations set out simple procedural rules needed to operate the Research Involving Human Embryos Act 2003 (the Act). They do not change the Act's core prohibitions or permissions; they prescribe how certain processes under the Act are to be carried out.\n\n**Key mechanical changes and rules**\n\n- Definitions: the Regulations treat \"Act\" as meaning the Research Involving Human Embryos Act 2003 (reg 3).  \n\n- Warrants (practical steps when an authorised person asks a magistrate for a warrant):\n  - If an applicant makes the warrant application in person, the grounds for the application must be verified by affidavit (a signed, sworn written statement) (reg 4(1)).\n  - Telephone applications are allowed only in urgent cases where there is not enough time to apply in person; the applicant decides whether urgency exists (reg 4(2)).\n  - If applying by phone, the applicant must give the magistrate their name and the role they say they hold under the Act; the magistrate may accept that statement without further checking (reg 4(3)(a)).\n  - The applicant must tell the magistrate why the warrant is needed and the grounds for it (reg 4(3)(b)).\n  - If the magistrate thinks there are proper grounds, the magistrate must state the facts that justify issuing the warrant and must not issue it unless the applicant undertakes to verify those facts by affidavit after the event (reg 4(3)(c)).\n  - If the applicant gives that undertaking, the magistrate may sign the warrant, and the warrant takes effect when signed (reg 4(3)(d)-(e)); the magistrate must tell the applicant the warrant's terms (reg 4(3)(f)).\n  - The applicant must, as soon as practicable after the warrant is issued, forward the verifying affidavit to the magistrate (reg 4(3)(g)).\n  - The magistrate who issues a warrant must file the warrant (or a copy) and the affidavit in the Magistrates Court (reg 4(4)).\n\n- Compensation for damage: any compensation payable under the Act is paid by the Minister (reg 5(1)). A person who wants compensation must apply to the Minister in whatever form the Minister requires; the Minister may ask for supporting information and require that information to be verified by affidavit (reg 5(2)-(3)).\n\n- The Regulations revoke the earlier 2003 Regulations and commenced operation on 1 September 2018 (Schedule 1; regs 1–2).\n\n**Who pays, who decides, and what behaviour changes**\n\n- Who pays: the Minister pays any compensation ordered under the Act (reg 5(1)). That is state-funded payment rather than payment by another agency or an individual party.\n- Who decides: magistrates decide whether to issue warrants and set the terms of the warrants (reg 4); the Minister decides the form and information required for compensation applications and whether an application is properly made (reg 5(2)-(3)).\n- Behaviour required of authorised applicants: they must verify warrant grounds by affidavit when applying in person (reg 4(1)); if using an urgent telephone route they must undertake to provide a later affidavit and must forward it as soon as practicable (reg 4(3)(c),(g)). Applicants for compensation must follow the Minister's specified application form and provide any evidence the Minister requires, verified by affidavit if asked (reg 5(2)-(3)).\n\n**Purpose claims and practical implications**\n\n- The Regulations are presented as procedural refinements to allow urgent warrant applications while keeping a written, sworn record (see reg 4). Mechanically, they permit a magistrate to issue a warrant on a telephone undertaking but require later verification by affidavit and filing in the Magistrates Court.\n  - Trade-offs and risks: the telephone route reduces delay where urgency is claimed, but it depends on the applicant's post-event verification; the magistrate may accept the applicant's stated role without independent verification (reg 4(3)(a)), which reduces administrative friction but creates operational reliance on the applicant's honesty and the later affidavit. The filing and affidavit requirements (reg 4(3)(g), 4(4)) reintroduce a paper/signed record after the urgent step.\n\n- On compensation, the Regulations put the financial burden on the Minister (reg 5(1)) and give the Minister broad administrative control over how claims are made and what evidence is required (reg 5(2)-(3)).\n  - Incentives and costs: centralising payment with the Minister concentrates fiscal responsibility on government budgets and gives the Minister discretion that can streamline or delay claims depending on administrative design. Requiring affidavits creates a verification burden for claimants (time, possible legal assistance) but also creates a sworn evidentiary record for decision-making.\n\n**Compliance and implementation burdens**\n\n- For applicants seeking warrants: preparing affidavits (either before attendance or promptly after a telephone application) and ensuring the Magistrates Court filing will be routine administrative tasks (reg 4(1), (3)(g), (4)).\n- For compensation claimants: complying with an unspecified ministerial form and any evidence requirements, including sworn affidavits, is a discretionary administrative process that may impose time and cost on claimants (reg 5(2)-(3)).\n\n**Net effect on private choice and institutions**\n\n- These Regulations mainly affect how authorised officials and claimants document requests and claims: they reduce friction for urgent warrant issuance (phone route) while imposing post-event verification, and they put compensation claims into the normalised administrative channel controlled by the Minister. They do not change substantive permissions or prohibitions in the Act; they regulate process, record-keeping, and who bears payment responsibility.\n\n(References: regs 3–5; Schedule 1.)"},"issue_detection":{"absurdities":[],"contradictions":[]},"flash_summary_failed":{"failed":true,"reason":"A positive credit balance is required for all requests, including BYOK, so fallback providers remain available. Add credits at https://vercel.com/d?to=%2F%5Bteam%5D%2F%7E%2Fai%3Fmodal%3Dtop-up to continue.","source":"analysis-cron"},"summary":{"complexity_score":0,"scope_assessment":{"changed":false,"description":"Scope assessment is not possible as the legislation text could not be retrieved. The page returned a website error rather than the regulatory content. No comparison between original intent and operative provisions can be made."},"complexity_factors":["Legislation text was not retrievable — a 'Page Not Found' error was returned instead of the actual legal content","No substantive provisions, definitions, schedules, or operative text were available for analysis","Complexity cannot be meaningfully assessed without access to the actual document","Subject matter (human embryo research regulation) is inherently complex in other jurisdictions, suggesting this would likely score 7-9 if content were available"],"plain_english_summary":"These regulations would set the legal and ethical framework for scientific research using human embryos in South Australia, specifying who may conduct such research, the approvals or licences required, and what is permitted or prohibited. They matter to researchers, IVF clinics, universities and patients because they determine legal compliance, ethical safeguards and the scope of permissible reproductive and stem‑cell studies."}},"importantCases":[],"_links":{"self":"/api/acts/research-involving-human-embryos-regulations-2018","history":"/api/acts/research-involving-human-embryos-regulations-2018/history","analysis":"/api/acts/research-involving-human-embryos-regulations-2018/analysis","conflicts":"/api/acts/research-involving-human-embryos-regulations-2018/conflicts","importantCases":"/api/acts/research-involving-human-embryos-regulations-2018/important-cases","documents":"/api/acts/research-involving-human-embryos-regulations-2018/documents"}}