{"id":"telecommunications-interception-act-2012","name":"Telecommunications (Interception) Act 2012","slug":"telecommunications-interception-act-2012","collection":"act","jurisdiction":"sa","status":"in_force","isInForce":true,"actNumber":null,"makingDate":null,"administeringDepartment":null,"currentVersion":{"id":110491,"registerId":"sa-telecommunications-interception-act-2012-current","compilationNumber":null,"startDate":"2026-04-03","status":"InForce","reasons":null,"registeredAt":null},"sections":[{"sectionNumber":"1","sectionType":"section","heading":"Telecommunications (Interception) Act 2012","content":"South Australia\nTelecommunications (Interception) Act 2012\nAn Act for enabling SA Police and the Independent Commission Against Corruption to be declared agencies for the purposes of the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979 of the Commonwealth; and for other purposes.\n\nContents\n1\tShort title\n2\tInterpretation\n3\tObligations of chief officer of eligible authority relating to records\n4\tObligations of chief officer of eligible authority to report to Attorney‑General\n5\tObligations and powers of review agency\n6\tObligations of Attorney‑General\n7\tRegulations\nLegislative history\n\nThe Parliament of South Australia enacts as follows:\n1—Short title\nThis Act may be cited as the Telecommunications (Interception) Act 2012.\n2—Interpretation\n\t(1)\tIn this Act—\nchief officer of an eligible authority means—\n\t(a)\tfor SA Police—the Commissioner of Police; or\n\t(b)\tfor the Independent Commission Against Corruption—the Independent Commissioner Against Corruption;\nCommonwealth Act means the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979 of the Commonwealth;\neligible authority means—\n\t(a)\tSA Police; or\n\t(b)\tthe Independent Commission Against Corruption;\nIndependent Commission Against Corruption means the Independent Commission Against Corruption under the Independent Commission Against Corruption Act 2012;\nIndependent Commissioner Against Corruption means the person holding or acting in the office of the Independent Commissioner Against Corruption under the Independent Commission Against Corruption Act 2012;\nin the possession of, in relation to a record, includes in the custody of or under the control of;\nofficer of an eligible authority means—\n\t(a)\tfor SA Police—a police officer or a police officer (however described) of another jurisdiction seconded to SA Police; or\n\t(b)\tfor the Independent Commission Against Corruption—an investigator under the Independent Commission Against Corruption Act 2012;\npremises includes—\n\t(a)\tland; and\n\t(b)\ta structure, building, aircraft, vehicle, vessel or place (whether built on or not); and\n\t(c)\tpart of such a structure, building, aircraft, vehicle, vessel or place;\nrestricted record means a record (other than a copy) obtained by means of an interception, whether or not in contravention of section 7(1) of the Commonwealth Act, of a communication passing over a telecommunications system;\nreview agency for an eligible authority means—\n\t(a)\tfor SA Police—the Inspector under Schedule 4 of the Independent Commission Against Corruption Act 2012; or\n\t(b)\tfor the Independent Commission Against Corruption—the Inspector under Schedule 4 of the Independent Commission Against Corruption Act 2012;\nSA Police means South Australia Police;\nwarrant means a warrant issued or to be issued to an eligible authority under Part 2‑5 of the Commonwealth Act.\n\t(2)\tExpressions not defined in subsection (1) but defined in the Commonwealth Act have, in this Act, the same meaning as in the Commonwealth Act.\n3—Obligations of chief officer of eligible authority relating to records\n\t(1)\tThe chief officer of an eligible authority must—\n\t(a)\trecord in writing particulars corresponding to those required to be recorded by the chief officer of a Commonwealth agency under section 81 of the Commonwealth Act as soon as practicable after the event to which they relate occurs; and\n\t(b)\tkeep, in the authority's records, records corresponding to those required to be kept by the chief officer of a Commonwealth agency in the agency's records under sections 80 and 81 of the Commonwealth Act; and\n\t(c)\tcause a restricted record that is in the possession of the authority to be kept in a secure place (except while it is being dealt with in accordance with this Act or the Commonwealth Act), being a place that is not accessible to persons other than those who are entitled to deal with the record; and\n\t(d)\tcause any such restricted record to be destroyed immediately if the chief officer is satisfied that the record is not likely to be required for a permitted purpose in relation to the eligible authority.\n\t(2)\tSubsection (1) applies to a restricted record whether made before or after the commencement of section 35 of the Commonwealth Act, but does not apply to a restricted record that is a record of a communication intercepted under section 7(2)(aaa) of the Commonwealth Act.\n\t(3)\tFor the purposes of subsection (1)(d), the definition of a permitted purpose in the Commonwealth Act is to be read as if it does not include an inspection by a review agency under section 5 or a report on the results of such an inspection and, consequently, a restricted record may be destroyed even though it has not been inspected.\n4—Obligations of chief officer of eligible authority to report to Attorney‑General\nThe chief officer of an eligible authority must give to the Attorney‑General—\n\t(a)\twithin 3 months after a warrant issued to the authority ceases to be in force, a written report of—\n\t(i)\tthe use made by the authority of information obtained by interceptions under the warrant; and\n\t(ii)\tthe communication of that information to persons other than officers of the authority; and\n\t(b)\tas soon as practicable (but not later than 3 months) after each 30 June, a written report that sets out such information as Part 2‑8 Division 2 of the Commonwealth Act requires to be set out in the Commonwealth Minister's report under that Division relating to the year ending on that 30 June as can be derived from the records of the authority.\n5—Obligations and powers of review agency\n\t(1)\tThe review agency for an eligible authority—\n\t(a)\tmust, at least once in each period of 6 months, inspect the records of the eligible authority for the purpose of ascertaining the extent of compliance with section 3; and\n\t(b)\tmust, not later than 2 months after completion of such an inspection, report in writing to the Attorney‑General on the results of the inspection.\n\t(2)\tIf, in the course of conducting an investigation, the review agency forms the opinion that there has been non‑compliance with some other section of this Act or with the Commonwealth Act, the review agency must include details of the non‑compliance in the report on the results of the inspection.\n\t(3)\tThe review agency must, before including details of non‑compliance in a report, give the chief officer of the eligible authority an opportunity to make comments in writing and must submit any comments received with the report.\n\t(4)\tFor the purposes of an inspection, the review agency for an eligible authority, or a person authorised by the review agency for the purpose—\n\t(a)\tmay, after notifying the chief officer of the eligible authority, enter at any reasonable time premises occupied by an eligible authority; and\n\t(b)\tis entitled to have full and free access at all reasonable times to all records of the eligible authority; and\n\t(c)\tis, despite any other law, entitled to make copies of, and to take extracts from, records of an eligible authority; and\n\t(d)\tmay require an officer of an eligible authority to give the review agency or authorised person such information as the review agency considers necessary, being information that is in the officer's possession, or to which the officer has access, and that is relevant to the inspection.\n\t(5)\tIf the review agency has reason to believe that an officer of an eligible authority is able to give information relevant to an inspection, the review agency may, by written notice to the officer—\n\t(a)\trequire the officer to give the information, in writing, signed by the officer, at a specified place and within a specified period; and\n\t(b)\trequire the officer to attend before a specified person at a specified place and within a specified period or at a specified time on a specified day, in order to answer questions relevant to the inspection.\n\t(6)\tIf the review agency has reason to believe that an officer of an eligible authority is able to give information relevant to an inspection but does not know the officer's identity, the review agency may, by written notice to the chief officer of the eligible authority, require the chief officer or a person nominated by the chief officer to attend before a specified person at a specified place and within a specified period or at a specified time on a specified day, in order to answer questions relevant to the inspection.\n\t(7)\tDespite any other law, a person is not excused from giving information, answering a question, or giving access to a document, as and when required by or under this section, on the grounds that it would contravene a law, would be contrary to the public interest or might tend to incriminate the person or make the person liable to a penalty.\n\t(8)\tThe following are not admissible in evidence against a person except in proceedings for an offence against this section:\n\t(a)\tinformation or an answer given by the person under this section;\n\t(b)\tthe fact that the person has given access to a document under this section;\n\t(c)\tany information or thing (including a document) obtained directly or indirectly in consequence of the person having given information or an answer, or access to a document, under this section.\n\t(9)\tThe chief officer of an eligible authority must ensure that officers of the authority provide the review agency for the authority with such assistance in relation to an inspection as the review agency reasonably requires.\n\t(10)\tA person who is required under this section—\n\t(a)\tto attend before a person; or\n\t(b)\tto give information; or\n\t(c)\tto answer a question,\nand who, without reasonable excuse, refuses or fails to comply with the requirement is guilty of an offence.\nPenalty: $5 000 or imprisonment for 1 year.\n\t(11)\tA person—\n\t(a)\twho, without reasonable excuse, hinders a person exercising powers under this section; or\n\t(b)\twho gives to a person exercising powers under this section information knowing it to be false or misleading in a material particular,\nis guilty of an offence.\nMaximum penalty: $5 000 or imprisonment for 1 year.\n\t(12)\tThe review agency may give information obtained under this section to the Commonwealth Ombudsman if the review agency is satisfied that the giving of the information is relevant to the performance of the Commonwealth Ombudsman's functions under the Commonwealth Act.\n\t(13)\tExcept as is required for the administration of this Act or authorised by this Act, the review agency and persons authorised by the review agency under this Act must not, directly or indirectly, divulge or communicate information acquired under this Act.\nMaximum penalty: $10 000 or imprisonment for 2 years.\n\t(14)\tWithout limiting when information or a question will be relevant to an inspection of an eligible authority's records for the purposes of this section, the information or question will be relevant if it is about—\n\t(a)\tthe location of a record; or\n\t(b)\tthe making, compilation or keeping of a record; or\n\t(c)\tthe accuracy or completeness of a record; or\n\t(d)\ta matter to which a record relates; or\n\t(e)\tif the review agency for the authority suspects on reasonable grounds that an officer of the authority has contravened this Act or the Commonwealth Act—a matter relating to the suspected contravention.\n6—Obligations of Attorney‑General\nThe Attorney‑General must, as soon as practicable after receiving a report under this Act, give a copy of the report to the Minister responsible for the administration of the Commonwealth Act.\n7—Regulations\nThe Governor may make such regulations as are contemplated by this Act or necessary or expedient for the purposes of this Act.\nLegislative history\nNotes\n\t•\tPlease note—References in the legislation to other legislation or instruments or to titles of bodies or offices are not automatically updated as part of the program for the revision and publication of legislation and therefore may be obsolete.\n\t•\tEarlier versions of this Act (historical versions) are listed at the end of the legislative history.\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.\nLegislation repealed by principal Act\nThe Telecommunications (Interception) Act 2012 repealed the following:\nTelecommunications (Interception) Act 1988\nPrincipal Act and amendments\nNew entries appear in bold.\nYear\nNo\nTitle\nAssent\nCommencement\n2012\n56\nTelecommunications (Interception) Act 2012 \n20.12.2012\n20.12.2012\n2016\n60\nPolice Complaints and Discipline Act 2016\n8.12.2016\nSch 1 (cl 34)—4.9.2017 (Gazette 29.8.2017 p3794)\n2018\n29\nStatutes Amendment (Attorney-General's Portfolio) Act 2018\n15.11.2018\nPt 6 (s 12)—15.11.2018: s 2(1)\n2021\n38\nIndependent Commissioner Against Corruption (CPIPC Recommendations) Amendment Act 2021\n7.10.2021\nSch 1 (cll 60, 61 & 76)—7.10.2021: s 2\n2023\n27\nStatutes Amendment (Attorney-General's Portfolio) (No 4) Act 2023\n21.9.2023\nPt 3 (s 4) & Sch 1 (cl 1(2))—21.9.2023: s 2\nProvisions amended\nNew entries appear in bold.\nEntries that relate to provisions that have been deleted appear in italics.\nProvision\nHow varied\nCommencement\nLong title\namended under Legislation Revision and Publication Act 2002\n4.9.2017\n\namended by 38/2021 Sch 1 cl 60\n7.10.2021\ns 2\n\n\ns 2(1)\n\n\nchief officer\namended by 38/2021 Sch 1 cl 61(1)\n7.10.2021\neligible authority\namended by 38/2021 Sch 1 cl 61(2)\n7.10.2021\nIndependent Commission Against Corruption\ninserted by 38/2021 Sch 1 cl 61(3)\n7.10.2021\nIndependent Commissioner Against Corruption\namended by 38/2021 Sch 1 cl 61(4)\n7.10.2021\nofficer\namended by 38/2021 Sch 1 cl 61(5)\n7.10.2021\nreview agency\namended by 60/2016 Sch 1 cl 34\n4.9.2017\n\namended by 29/2018 s 12\n15.11.2018\n\namended by 38/2021 Sch 1 cl 61(6), (7)\n7.10.2021\n\namended by 27/2023 s 4\n21.9.2023\nSch 1\nomitted under Legislation Revision and Publication Act 2002\n4.9.2017\nTransitional etc provisions associated with Act or amendments\nIndependent Commissioner Against Corruption (CPIPC Recommendations) Amendment Act 2021, Sch 1 Pt 21\n76—Savings and transitional regulations\nRegulations may be made under any Act amended by this Act (including under the Independent Commission Against Corruption Act 2012 as in force after the commencement of this Act) to make provisions of a saving or transitional nature consequent on the enactment of this Act or on the commencement of specified provisions of this Act.\nStatutes Amendment (Attorney-General's Portfolio) (No 4) Act 2023, Sch 1—Transitional provision\n1—Reviews\n\t(2)\tDespite section 5 of the Telecommunications (Interception) Act 2012, any review required to be conducted under that section after 31 August 2022 that has not been completed before the commencement of this clause is instead required to be conducted as part of the next review that occurs under section 5 after the commencement of this clause.\nHistorical versions\n4.9.2017\n\n15.11.2018\n\n7.10.2021\n\n","sortOrder":0}],"analysis":{"issue_detection":{"absurdities":[],"contradictions":[]},"flash_summary_failed":{"failed":true,"reason":"Unauthenticated. Configure AI_GATEWAY_API_KEY or use a provider module. Learn more: https://ai-sdk.dev/unauthenticated-ai-gateway","source":"analysis-cron"},"kimi_summary":{"content_quality":"ok","complexity_score":3,"scope_assessment":{"changed":true,"description":"The original 2012 Act only covered SA Police. Amendments in 2016, 2018, and particularly 2021 significantly expanded scope to include the Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) as a second eligible authority. The 2021 amendments also inserted new definitions and modified oversight arrangements when ICAC's structure changed. Additionally, the 2023 amendments added transitional provisions regarding review timelines. The Act has evolved from a single-agency police interception statute to a dual-agency framework covering both law enforcement and anti-corruption investigations."},"complexity_factors":["Short statute (only 7 sections plus interpretation)","Minimal defined terms (approximately 10 key definitions in section 2)","Heavy reliance on external legislation—most operational detail is in the Commonwealth Act (Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979), which this Act merely references","Simple conditional logic (primarily 'if X then Y' structures without nested exceptions)","No regulations or delegated legislation attached to this version","Straightforward administrative obligations (record-keeping, reporting, inspection) rather than substantive criminal offences or complex procedural rules"],"plain_english_summary":"This South Australian law allows two state agencies—SA Police and the Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC)—to legally intercept phone calls and other telecommunications under Commonwealth law.\n\n**What it does:**\n- **Enables phone tapping:** It declares SA Police and ICAC as 'agencies' under the federal *Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979*, which is the main national law governing when police and security agencies can listen in on phone calls, read texts, or access other communications.\n- **Sets record-keeping rules:** The heads of these agencies must keep detailed written records of any intercepted communications, store them securely, and destroy them when they're no longer needed.\n- **Requires reporting:** The agency heads must report to the Attorney-General every 6 months on how they're using intercepted information and whether they've shared it with anyone outside the agency.\n- **Creates oversight:** An independent 'review agency' (the Inspector under the ICAC Act) inspects these agencies at least twice a year to check they're following the rules. The Inspector can enter premises, demand documents, and require officers to answer questions.\n- **Protects officers giving evidence:** People who give information to the Inspector can't have that evidence used against them in court (except if they lie or refuse to cooperate).\n\n**Who it affects:**\n- SA Police officers and ICAC investigators who conduct surveillance\n- The Independent Commissioner Against Corruption and the Police Commissioner\n- The Inspector who oversees both agencies\n- Anyone whose communications might be intercepted by these agencies\n\n**Why it matters:**\nWithout this state law, SA Police and ICAC couldn't legally intercept communications under the federal scheme. The law also adds extra layers of accountability—requiring secure storage, regular inspections, and strict reporting—to prevent abuse of these powerful surveillance powers."},"flash_summary":{"complexity_score":4,"scope_assessment":{"changed":true,"description":"This Act has expanded in scope since the original State interception legislation. The principal objective remains enabling State agencies to be treated under the Commonwealth interception regime, but the set of State agencies covered has increased: the Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) and its Commissioner were added to the definition of 'eligible authority' by amendment (see legislative history entries for 2021 amendments). The definition of the review agency and inspection/reporting arrangements have also been varied by several amending Acts (2016, 2018, 2021 and 2023). The 2023 transitional provision altered the timing of required reviews under s.5. Those amendments broaden the Act from its earlier, narrower focus (originally directed to SA Police) to incorporate ICAC and to refine oversight and timing requirements, increasing the Act’s institutional scope and administrative footprint."},"complexity_factors":["Short Act (7 substantive sections) but substantive cross-references to the Commonwealth Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979 (see s.2(2); s.3 references to sections 80 and 81; s.4 references to Part 2‑8 Division 2)","Approximately 12 defined terms in the interpretation section (s.2) that shape how duties apply (e.g. 'chief officer', 'eligible authority', 'restricted record', 'review agency', 'warrant')","Several conditional rules and exceptions (e.g. s.3(2) applies to records before/after a specified Commonwealth change but excludes a specific class of intercepted communications; s.3(3) narrows 'permitted purpose' for destruction decisions)","Multiple operational duties with time limits and reporting deadlines (s.3 duties to record and destroy; s.4 reporting within 3 months after warrant ceases and annual reports by 30 June)","Extensive inspection and compulsion powers for the review agency with procedural safeguards (opportunity to comment, confidentiality limits) and criminal penalties for non-compliance (s.5(1)–(13))","Criminal penalties and evidentiary rules (penalties up to $5,000 or 1 year imprisonment for refusal/hindrance; confidentiality breaches carry higher penalties) which increase legal risk for individuals and agencies (s.5(10)–(13))","Dependence on the Commonwealth Act for many operative definitions and tests increases interpretive complexity and requires agencies to monitor Commonwealth legislative changes","Transitional and amendment history (multiple amending Acts 2016, 2018, 2021, 2023) add timing and procedural nuance, including a 2023 transitional provision changing review timing"],"plain_english_summary":"**What this law does (mechanically)\n\n- Declares that South Australia Police (SA Police) and the Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) can be treated as \"eligible authorities\" for the purposes of the Commonwealth Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979. The Act therefore brings certain Commonwealth interception rules and oversight arrangements to those State agencies by reference (see s.2 definition of \"eligible authority\" and \"Commonwealth Act\").\n\n- Requires the chief officer of each eligible authority (the Commissioner of Police for SA Police; the Independent Commissioner for ICAC) to keep specific written records, secure restricted material (intercepted communications), and destroy restricted records that are not likely to be needed for a permitted purpose (s.3). The record-keeping duties mirror parts of the Commonwealth Act (sections 80–81 of the Commonwealth Act are applied by reference) and apply to past and future restricted records with some exceptions (s.3(2)–(3)).\n\n- Obligates the chief officer to report to the State Attorney‑General about how each warrant’s interception information was used and shared within three months after a warrant ceases, and to provide annual reporting material matching what the Commonwealth Act requires for Ministerial reporting (s.4).\n\n- Establishes a local review agency (the Inspector specified in the legislation) to inspect records at least every six months, to report the results to the Attorney‑General, and to exercise inspection powers — including entering premises, accessing and copying records, requiring officers to give information or attend for questioning — with statutory compulsion and limited evidentiary protections for persons who provide information (s.5). The review agency must allow the chief officer an opportunity to comment before including findings of non‑compliance in its report (s.5(2)–(3)).\n\n- Requires the Attorney‑General to pass reports received under this Act to the Commonwealth Minister responsible for the Commonwealth interception law (s.6).\n\n- Allows the Governor to make regulations needed to support the Act (s.7).\n\n**Who this affects\n\n- Directly: SA Police and the Independent Commission Against Corruption, their chief officers, and their officers (s.2 definitions; s.3–5 duties).\n- Indirectly: the State Attorney‑General and the State review agency (Inspector), and — to the extent reports are forwarded — Commonwealth oversight bodies under the Commonwealth Act (s.6).\n- Individuals and entities whose communications have been intercepted are affected indirectly because the Act governs how restricted records are stored, inspected and destroyed (s.3).\n\n**Why it matters (stated purpose and practical implications)\n\n- Stated purpose: to enable SA Police and ICAC to be declared agencies under the Commonwealth interception regime so these State agencies operate under comparable interception record‑keeping and oversight arrangements as Commonwealth agencies (long title; s.2).\n\n- Practical implications and trade-offs:\n  - Compliance and administrative costs: chief officers must maintain detailed records, securely store restricted records, manage destruction decisions, and provide timely reports to the Attorney‑General (s.3–4). That requires personnel time, secure storage systems, and internal processes for review and destruction.\n  - Oversight and accountability: the review agency has regular inspection powers, can compel attendance and information from officers, and must report findings (s.5). That creates a formal inspection burden on the agencies and a potential behavioural incentive to improve record-keeping and legal compliance.\n  - Data-retention trade-off: the Act permits destruction of restricted records where not likely required for a \"permitted purpose\" but limits the definition of permitted purpose to exclude review‑agency inspections for the purpose of permitting destruction without prior inspection (s.3(1)(d) and s.3(3)). This reduces storage costs and legal exposure for the agency but narrows opportunities for later review of past intercepts.\n  - Legal compulsion and evidentiary protection: officers can be compelled to give information despite other laws or self‑incrimination concerns (s.5(7)), but information provided under inspection is generally inadmissible against the provider except for offences under the Act (s.5(8)). This combination strengthens inspection powers while providing limited protection to compelled witnesses.\n  - Cross‑jurisdictional dependence: the Act heavily cross‑references the Commonwealth Act (for definitions, warrant rules, permitted purposes and reporting categories). That reduces duplication but requires State agencies to implement processes consistent with changing Commonwealth rules (s.2(2); references to Part 2‑5, sections 7, 80–81, Part 2‑8 Division 2 of the Commonwealth Act).\n\n**Who pays, who decides, and what behaviour changes**\n\n- Who pays: SA Police and ICAC bear the administrative cost of compliance (record systems, secure storage, staff time for reports and inspections). The State Attorney‑General’s office and the review agency incur costs for receiving, processing and inspecting records and preparing reports.\n- Who decides: chief officers decide on day‑to‑day compliance, destruction of restricted records (subject to the statutory test in s.3(1)(d) and the limited reading of \"permitted purpose\" in s.3(3)), and who attends or provides information to inspectors. The review agency decides when and what to inspect within the six‑monthly minimum and reports non‑compliance to the Attorney‑General (s.5).\n- Behaviour changes: agencies will need formal record-keeping and storage processes, more prompt internal reporting after warrants lapse, and preparedness for compulsory inspections and information requests. The ability to destroy certain restricted records may change retention practices and the evidentiary trail available for future inquiries.\n\n**Implementation risks and compliance burden (concise assessment)**\n\n- Implementation risk: reliance on Commonwealth definitions and amendments creates a maintenance burden to keep State procedures aligned with Commonwealth changes (s.2(2)). The Act requires systems for secure storage and timely destruction decisions which can be operationally complex (s.3).\n- Compliance burden: routine six‑monthly inspections, compulsory evidence requests, and required reporting cycles impose recurring administrative tasks on agencies (s.4–5).\n\n**Limited effect on markets and private enterprise\n\n- The Act regulates how State agencies handle intercepted telecommunications records; it does not directly regulate private businesses, prices, competition or ownership. Any effect on telecommunications providers would flow via the Commonwealth interception scheme rather than this State Act.\n\n**Concentrated benefits and costs\n\n- Concentrated benefits: the review agency and the Attorney‑General receive information and oversight powers that can improve internal compliance in the named agencies (s.5–6).\n- Concentrated costs: SA Police and ICAC absorb the administrative, storage and personnel costs of compliance. Individuals whose restricted records are destroyed may face reduced avenues for future review or redress (s.3)."},"summary":{"complexity_score":1,"scope_assessment":{"changed":false,"description":"No scope can be assessed. The document contains no legislative text — it is a website error page. No comparison between original and current legislative intent is possible."},"complexity_factors":["No legislative content was present in the document — only a website error page","Cannot assess complexity of an Act that could not be retrieved","The document contains only navigation links and a broken page notice"],"plain_english_summary":"**No legislation could be analysed.**\n\nThe link or document provided did not load any actual legislative content. Instead, it returned a **404 'Page Not Found' error** from the South Australian legislation website (legislation.sa.gov.au).\n\nThis likely happened because:\n- The URL or bookmark was created **before 24 March 2026** and is no longer compatible with the updated website\n- The page may have been moved, renamed, or removed\n\n**What this means for you:** There is no law to read or analyse here. If you're looking for South Australian telecommunications interception legislation, try:\n1. Visiting [legislation.sa.gov.au](https://www.legislation.sa.gov.au) directly and searching for the Act by name\n2. Checking the **Commonwealth** *Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979*, which is the primary federal law governing phone and internet interception in Australia\n3. Emailing OPCWeb@sa.gov.au to report the broken link"}},"importantCases":[],"_links":{"self":"/api/acts/telecommunications-interception-act-2012","history":"/api/acts/telecommunications-interception-act-2012/history","analysis":"/api/acts/telecommunications-interception-act-2012/analysis","conflicts":"/api/acts/telecommunications-interception-act-2012/conflicts","importantCases":"/api/acts/telecommunications-interception-act-2012/important-cases","documents":"/api/acts/telecommunications-interception-act-2012/documents"}}