{"id":"F2009B00188","name":"Telecommunications (Interception) Act 1979 - Declaration of agency - Independent Commission Against Corruption","slug":"telecommunications-interception-act-1979-declaration-of-agency-independent-commission-against-corrup","collection":"legislative_instrument","jurisdiction":"commonwealth","status":"in_force","isInForce":true,"actNumber":null,"makingDate":null,"administeringDepartment":null,"currentVersion":{"id":121631,"registerId":"commonwealth-F2009B00188-current","compilationNumber":null,"startDate":"2026-04-03","status":"InForce","reasons":null,"registeredAt":null},"sections":[{"sectionNumber":"1","sectionType":"section","heading":"Telecommunications (Interception) Act 1979 - Declaration of agency - Independent Commission Against Corruption","content":"Telecommunications (interception) Act 1979\n\nSubsection 34 (1)\n\nDECLARATION OF THE INDEPENDENT COMMISION AGAINST CORRUPTION\n\nWHEREAS the Premier of the State of New South Wales has requested that the Independent Commission Against Corruption be declared an agency for the purposes of the Act, and\n\nWHEREAS I am satisfied that the law of New South Wales makes satisfactory provision in relation to the matters set out in subsection 35 (1) of the Act, and\n\nWHEREAS I am satisfied that the State of New South Wales has entered into an agreement as required by subsection 35 (2) of the Act,\n\nNOW THEREFORE I, Michael John Duffy, Attorney-General of the Commonwealth of Australia, hereby declare, under subsection 34 (1) of the Act, the Independent Commission Against Corruption to be an agency for the purposes of the Act.\n\nDated this 15th of May 1990.\n\nMICHAEL DUFFY\n\nAttorney-General\n\nN.N.—9053133","sortOrder":0}],"analysis":{"kimi_summary":{"content_quality":"ok","complexity_score":2,"scope_assessment":{"changed":false,"description":"This is a discrete statutory declaration made under specific delegated authority. It has not expanded beyond its original purpose of declaring a single state agency eligible for telecommunications interception powers. The instrument performs exactly the function contemplated by the parent Act's framework for state agency declarations."},"complexity_factors":["Single-purpose instrument: only performs one declaratory function","No defined terms within the instrument itself (relies on external Act definitions)","No conditional logic or nested exceptions in the declaration text","Straightforward procedural structure: three 'WHEREAS' clauses establishing preconditions, followed by the declaration","Extremely short: approximately 150 words of operative substance","No cross-referencing beyond citing the empowering provision (subsection 34(1))"],"plain_english_summary":"This is a formal declaration made in 1990 by the Commonwealth Attorney-General, Michael Duffy, under the Telecommunications (Interception) Act 1979.\n\n**What it does:**\nIt officially declares the **Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC)** — New South Wales' anti-corruption watchdog — as an \"agency\" under Commonwealth telecommunications interception laws.\n\n**What this means in practice:**\n- Being declared an \"agency\" allows ICAC to apply for warrants to **intercept telecommunications** (phone calls, messages, and other communications) as part of its corruption investigations.\n- This power is tightly controlled. The Attorney-General only made this declaration because:\n  - The NSW Premier requested it\n  - NSW law already had satisfactory safeguards protecting people's privacy (as required by section 35(1) of the Act)\n  - NSW had entered into a formal agreement with the Commonwealth about how these powers would be used (as required by section 35(2))\n\n**Who it affects:**\n- **ICAC investigators** — can now seek Commonwealth warrants for phone taps and communication intercepts\n- **People under ICAC investigation** — their communications may now be lawfully intercepted with proper judicial authorisation\n- **NSW and Commonwealth governments** — establishes a cooperative framework for corruption investigations crossing jurisdictional boundaries\n\n**Why it matters:**\nCorruption often involves sophisticated criminals using phones and digital communications. Without this declaration, ICAC would be limited in its ability to gather evidence from telecommunications networks, which are regulated at the Commonwealth level. This bridges a gap between state anti-corruption powers and federal communications infrastructure."},"flash_summary":{"complexity_score":2,"scope_assessment":{"changed":true,"description":"This declaration expands the set of entities treated as ‘agencies’ under the Telecommunications (Interception) Act 1979 by adding the New South Wales Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC). The instrument effects that change by invoking the Attorney‑General’s power under subsection 34(1) and records that required conditions in subsections 35(1) and 35(2) were met at the time of declaration."},"complexity_factors":["Very short instrument with a single operative act: a declaration under s34(1).","Relies on satisfaction of two preconditions referenced to subsections 35(1) and 35(2).","Requires an intergovernmental agreement (s35(2)) and a legal‑compliance check (s35(1)), introducing an external dependency.","Does not itself set out operative consequences or procedures — must be read with the Act (cross‑reference complexity)."],"plain_english_summary":"What this instrument does (mechanically)\n\n- This is a formal declaration made by the Commonwealth Attorney‑General under subsection 34(1) of the Telecommunications (Interception) Act 1979. It declares the New South Wales Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) to be an “agency for the purposes of the Act” (see subsection 34(1) as cited in the instrument).\n\nWho asked and why the Attorney‑General acted\n\n- The Premier of New South Wales requested the declaration (instrument text). The Attorney‑General records that he is satisfied (1) that the law of New South Wales provides satisfactorily for the matters listed in subsection 35(1) of the Act, and (2) that New South Wales has entered into the agreement required by subsection 35(2) of the Act. Those satisfactions are the stated conditions allowing the declaration.\n\nWho is affected and what changes for them\n\n- The named organisation affected is the Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) in New South Wales. Mechanically, the declaration changes ICAC’s legal status so that it is treated as an “agency” under the Telecommunications (Interception) Act 1979. The instrument itself does not list the operational consequences that flow from being an “agency”; it records only the change of status.\n\nWhat the instrument requires or relies on (implementation mechanics)\n\n- The Attorney‑General’s power to make the declaration is exercised under subsection 34(1) of the Act (instrument cites s34(1)). The declaration is conditional on the Attorney‑General being satisfied about two things referenced to subsections 35(1) and 35(2): that NSW law makes satisfactory provision for the matters in subsection 35(1), and that NSW has entered into the agreement required by subsection 35(2). The instrument records that those conditions were satisfied when the declaration was made.\n\nWho pays, who decides, and compliance points (source‑grounded)\n\n- Who decides: the Commonwealth Attorney‑General makes the declaration under s34(1) (as recorded in the instrument).\n- Who requested the change: the Premier of New South Wales (instrument text).\n- Compliance point shown in the text: New South Wales had to enter into the intergovernmental agreement required by s35(2); the Attorney‑General must be satisfied about the state law matters in s35(1) before declaring an agency (instrument text).\n- Who pays: the instrument does not specify any funding, costs, or who bears them.\n\nLimits on what can be concluded from the instrument\n\n- The declaration statement itself records the change of status and the basis for making it (the Premier’s request and the Attorney‑General’s satisfactions). The instrument does not specify the practical consequences, administrative procedures, costs, enforcement mechanisms, or any operational detail that follows from ICAC’s new status as an “agency” under the Act; those consequences, if any, would be determined by the operative provisions of the Telecommunications (Interception) Act 1979 and related regulations or agreements, which are not reproduced in this instrument."}},"importantCases":[],"_links":{"self":"/api/acts/telecommunications-interception-act-1979-declaration-of-agency-independent-commission-against-corrup","history":"/api/acts/telecommunications-interception-act-1979-declaration-of-agency-independent-commission-against-corrup/history","analysis":"/api/acts/telecommunications-interception-act-1979-declaration-of-agency-independent-commission-against-corrup/analysis","conflicts":"/api/acts/telecommunications-interception-act-1979-declaration-of-agency-independent-commission-against-corrup/conflicts","importantCases":"/api/acts/telecommunications-interception-act-1979-declaration-of-agency-independent-commission-against-corrup/important-cases","documents":"/api/acts/telecommunications-interception-act-1979-declaration-of-agency-independent-commission-against-corrup/documents"}}