{"id":"F2009B00185","name":"Telecommunications (Interception) Act 1979 - Declaration as agency - Police Force of South Australia","slug":"telecommunications-interception-act-1979-declaration-as-agency-police-force-of-south-australia","collection":"legislative_instrument","jurisdiction":"commonwealth","status":"in_force","isInForce":true,"actNumber":null,"makingDate":null,"administeringDepartment":null,"currentVersion":{"id":121623,"registerId":"commonwealth-F2009B00185-current","compilationNumber":null,"startDate":"2026-04-03","status":"InForce","reasons":null,"registeredAt":null},"sections":[{"sectionNumber":"1","sectionType":"section","heading":"Telecommunications (Interception) Act 1979 - Declaration as agency - Police Force of South Australia","content":"---\nmeta-content-style-type: text/css\nmeta-content-type: application/xhtml+xml; charset=utf-8\nmeta-generator: Aspose.Words for .NET 20.2\ntitle: Commonwealth of Australia Gazette\n---\n\n?xml version=\"1.0\" encoding=\"utf-8\" standalone=\"no\"?>\n\n \n\nTelecommunications (Interception) Act 1979\n\n \n\nSubsection 34 (1)\n\n \n\nDeclaration of the Police Force of South Australia\n\n \n\n \n\nWHEREAS the Premier of the state of South Australia has requested that the Police Force of South Australia be declared an agency for the purposes of the Act, and\n\n \n\nWHERAS I am satisfied that the law of South Australia makes satisfactory provision in relation to the matters set out in subsection 35 (1) of the Act, and\n\n \n\nWHEREAS I am satisfied that the State of South Australia has entered into an arrangement as required by subsection 35(2) of the Act,\n\n \n\nNOW THEREFORE I, Michael John Duffy, Attorney-General of the Commonwealth of Australia, hereby declare, under subsection 34(1) of the Act, the Police Force of South Australia to be an agency for the purposes of the Act.\n\n \n\nDated 21 June 1991\n\n \n\n \n\n       Michael Duffy\n\n…………………………….\n\n      Attorney-General   \n\n \n","sortOrder":0}],"analysis":{"flash_summary":{"complexity_score":2,"scope_assessment":{"changed":false,"description":"This instrument does not amend the Telecommunications (Interception) Act 1979 or change its substantive provisions. It applies the Act to the Police Force of South Australia by declaring that body to be an \"agency\" under subsection 34(1), subject to the conditions referenced in subsection 35(1) and subsection 35(2). The declaration alters the statutory status of that police force but does not itself expand, narrow or otherwise modify the Act’s operative rules or allocate funding."},"complexity_factors":["Simple, single‑step legal effect: a declaration under subsection 34(1) changing the Police Force of South Australia’s statutory status.","Dependence on cross‑references: the declaration’s validity and consequences are tied to requirements in subsection 35(1) and subsection 35(2), which require consulting the Act for full effect.","Lack of operational detail: the instrument does not specify powers, duties, funding or administrative steps, so implementation detail is located in other provisions.","Decision is discretionary/factual: the Attorney‑General’s stated satisfaction is a factual/legal threshold that creates some administrative discretion at the declaration stage."],"plain_english_summary":"What this instrument does (mechanics)\n\n- This document declares the Police Force of South Australia to be an \"agency\" under the Telecommunications (Interception) Act 1979. The declaration is made under subsection 34(1) of that Act and is dated 21 June 1991 (subsection 34(1)).\n- The declaration follows a formal request from the Premier of South Australia and a statement by the Commonwealth Attorney‑General that two statutory conditions were met: that South Australian law made satisfactory provision for the matters listed in subsection 35(1), and that South Australia had entered into the arrangement required by subsection 35(2) (subsection 35(1), subsection 35(2)).\n\nWhy the instrument says it was done (official rationale)\n\n- The document records that the Premier requested the declaration and that the Attorney‑General was satisfied the statutory preconditions in sections 35(1) and 35(2) had been met. Those are the factual predicates the Attorney‑General relied on when making the declaration (subsections 34(1), 35(1), 35(2)).\n\nPlain description of effects, incentives and who decides\n\n- Decision: The Attorney‑General makes the declaration under subsection 34(1). The Premier initiated the request (subsection 34(1)).\n- Effect: By being declared an \"agency for the purposes of the Act,\" the Police Force of South Australia becomes subject to whatever powers, duties and restrictions the Telecommunications (Interception) Act 1979 attaches to agencies. The text of this instrument does not itself list those powers or obligations; it effects only the status change (subsection 34(1)).\n- Who pays / funding: This instrument does not allocate funding, fees or costs. It does not itself set out who bears any costs of compliance or of implementing the required arrangements.\n\nTrade‑offs, compliance burden, discretion and practical risks (source‑grounded)\n\n- Legal cross‑reference and administrative dependence: The declaration hinges on compliance with requirements set out in subsection 35(1) and on an arrangement required by subsection 35(2). To understand the precise legal effects and obligations that now attach to the Police Force of South Australia, one must read the substantive provisions of the Act referenced here (subsection 35(1), subsection 35(2)).\n- Compliance burden: The instrument does not specify operational or administrative steps. However, the declared agency will have to operate within the Act’s framework; any concrete compliance costs therefore depend on the Act’s substantive rules rather than on this declaration itself (subsection 34(1)).\n- Bureaucratic discretion: The Attorney‑General’s declaration is triggered by a satisfactions test in the Act (the Attorney‑General states he is satisfied about the matters in s.35). The document records that satisfaction but does not describe the tests or evidence used. That creates factual discretion at the stage of the declaration (subsection 34(1), subsection 35(1), subsection 35(2)).\n- Implementation risk and durability: The declaration rests on the existence of state law and an intergovernmental arrangement. If those underlying arrangements change, the basis for the declaration may be affected; the instrument itself does not address how changes would be handled (subsection 35(1), subsection 35(2)).\n\nEffects on private actors and markets (limited, source‑grounded)\n\n- This instrument does not by itself regulate private businesses or set penalties, prices, contracts or licensing conditions. Its practical impact on private communications, businesses or speech depends entirely on how the Act applies to an \"agency\" once declared. Those substantive consequences are not contained in this declaration and must be sought in the Act’s operative provisions (subsection 34(1)).\n\nWho benefits and who bears costs (as stated or implied in the document)\n\n- The direct, immediate beneficiary of the instrument is the Police Force of South Australia, which gains the legal status of an agency under the Act. Any obligations, operational effects or burdens that follow from that status are not enumerated here and are carried out under the framework of the Act (subsection 34(1)).\n\nShort summary sentence\n\n- In short: the Attorney‑General formally declared the Police Force of South Australia to be an agency under the Telecommunications (Interception) Act 1979 after the Premier’s request and after stating that the statutory prerequisites in subsections 35(1) and 35(2) were satisfied; the declaration changes legal status but does not itself set out the Act’s operational rules, costs or funding arrangements (subsection 34(1), subsection 35(1), subsection 35(2))."},"kimi_summary":{"content_quality":"ok","complexity_score":2,"scope_assessment":{"changed":false,"description":"This is a standard administrative declaration made under the original framework of the 1979 Act. It performs exactly the function intended: authorising a state police force to access interception powers after compliance with statutory preconditions. There is no scope creep or expansion beyond the Act's original purpose."},"complexity_factors":["Single-purpose instrument: only declares one agency under one subsection","No defined terms within the instrument itself (relies entirely on external Act)","No conditional logic or exceptions within the declaration","Straightforward recitals (WHEREAS clauses) followed by operative clause","Total length: approximately 150 words","No cross-referencing beyond naming the parent Act and specific subsections"],"plain_english_summary":"This is a formal declaration made in 1991 by the federal Attorney-General, Michael Duffy, under the **Telecommunications (Interception) Act 1979**.\n\n**What it does:**\nIt officially designates the **Police Force of South Australia** as an \"agency\" under this federal law. Being declared an \"agency\" means the South Australian police can apply for warrants to **intercept (tap) phone calls and other telecommunications** for criminal investigations.\n\n**Why this matters:**\nIntercepting private communications is a serious invasion of privacy. Federal law strictly controls who can do this and under what conditions. This declaration is the gateway that lets state police forces access these powerful surveillance tools—but only after their state laws meet federal standards and they sign an agreement with the Commonwealth.\n\n**The safeguards mentioned:**\nBefore making this declaration, the Attorney-General had to be satisfied that:\n- **South Australian law** properly regulates how interception warrants are issued and managed (subsection 35(1))\n- **An arrangement** exists between the Commonwealth and South Australia ensuring cooperation and proper oversight (subsection 35(2))\n\n**Who it affects:**\nPrimarily the South Australia Police, who gain legal authority to seek telecommunications interception warrants. It also affects anyone in South Australia whose communications might be intercepted under warrant."}},"importantCases":[],"_links":{"self":"/api/acts/telecommunications-interception-act-1979-declaration-as-agency-police-force-of-south-australia","history":"/api/acts/telecommunications-interception-act-1979-declaration-as-agency-police-force-of-south-australia/history","analysis":"/api/acts/telecommunications-interception-act-1979-declaration-as-agency-police-force-of-south-australia/analysis","conflicts":"/api/acts/telecommunications-interception-act-1979-declaration-as-agency-police-force-of-south-australia/conflicts","importantCases":"/api/acts/telecommunications-interception-act-1979-declaration-as-agency-police-force-of-south-australia/important-cases","documents":"/api/acts/telecommunications-interception-act-1979-declaration-as-agency-police-force-of-south-australia/documents"}}