ASIC Corporations (Consents to Statements) Instrument 2026/89

The instrument operates by inserting exceptions to consent requirements in specified parts of Chapter 6, 6D and Part 7.9 of the Corporations Act. The main legal concepts it introduces and the key definitional scaffolding are these.

1. Consent carve-outs tied to document class. The instrument creates parallel exceptions across five document classes: bidder’s statements (s 636 context, see s 7), target’s statements (s 638 context, see s 8), disclosure documents (s 716 context, see s 9), CSF offer documents (s 738M context, see s 10) and Product Disclosure Statements (s 1013K context, see s 11). Each insertion follows the same structure: an exception for official/publication material, an exception for historical geological report references, and an exception for trading data references.

2. Official/publication exception. The instrument permits inclusion of statements that "fairly represent what purports to be a statement made by an official person", or are a "correct and fair copy of, or extract from" public official documents or previously published material (see s 7(3A) and corresponding provisions in ss 8(5A), 9(2A), 10(2A), 11(1A)). That permission is conditional on the material not having been made or published in connection with the takeover, the person or property concerned, or the promotion the subject of the document. The statutory test uses language of fairness and correctness, requiring a “fair representation” or “correct and fair copy”.

3. Historical geological report reference. The instrument allows inclusion of a "historical geological report reference", defined to include a copy, extract or accurate representation of a geological report (s 7(3D)). The inclusion is allowed only when the previous report is available for inspection or acquisition from a governmental department, authority or agency of an Australian State/Territory or Commonwealth, or from an operator of a declared financial market (s 7(3B)(b)). Additional constraints are that the previous report was not prepared in connection with the relevant document and was not prepared or commissioned by specified persons with relevant connections to the tenement or to the bidder/target/offeror (see s 7(3B)(c)-(d)). The current report must state, near the historical reference, the preparer's name and that they have not consented to the use (s 7(3B)(e)).

4. Trading data reference. The instrument defines "trading data" and permits references to trading data where the data reflect trading on an “approved financial market” as listed at s 7(3D) (including an array of international futures and securities markets). The document must state, close to the trading data reference, the preparer’s name and that the preparer has not consented to the use (s 7(3C)). "Trading data" is further defined at s 7(3D) as quantitative data on prices and volumes.

5. Definitions and market list. The instrument provides a non-exhaustive list of approved financial markets, and refers to declared financial market and approved foreign market definitions in existing statutory provisions (s 7(3D) note). The geological report definition requires membership of either the Australian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy or the Australian Institute of Geoscientists and at least five years’ relevant experience (s 7(3D)).

6. Procedural specificity. The instrument specifies where the required statements must appear, using the phrase "states, close to the trading data reference" or "states, close to the historical geological report reference" (see, e.g., s 7(3B)(e) and s 7(3C)(b)). It also includes an efficiency mechanism: if the document includes multiple references from the same source, the required naming/consent-not-given language only needs to accompany the first occurrence, provided subsequent references are clearly from the same source (see s 7(3B) and s 7(3C) provisos).

7. Temporal and repeal limits. The instrument commences the later of registration and 1 April 2026 (s 2) and is automatically repealed at 1 April 2031 (s 12). Schedule 1 fully repeals the earlier instrument 2016/72.

These concepts structure the compliance task for document drafters: determining whether the statement falls within one of the three categories; verifying availability and provenance of any previous geological report; confirming whether trading data reflects an approved market; and ensuring proximity and wording of the preparer name and the statement that no consent was given.

The instrument affects multiple identifiable actors by changing when consent is required for including third-party statements in regulated documents.

1. Offerors, bidders and targets. Persons who prepare bidder’s statements (see s 7), target’s statements (see s 8) and accompanying documents are directly affected. They gain permitted uses of official/publication material, historical geological report references and trading data references without the need to obtain the original author’s consent, subject to the enumerated conditions. That changes the practical documentary requirements for takeover campaigns (Chapter 6), including the scope of material that can be relied upon and included without seeking third-party permissions.

2. Issuers and persons offering securities. Persons preparing disclosure documents under Chapter 6D (s 9), persons preparing CSF offer documents (s 10), and responsible persons preparing Product Disclosure Statements under Part 7.9 (s 11) are directly affected. The instrument harmonises exceptions across these document classes, therefore affecting capital raisings, crowd-sourced funding offers and managed investment products that must furnish PDSs.

3. Preparers of geological reports and trading data producers. The instrument identifies preparers by name in a document when their material is used without consent. Geological report authors and trading data compilers are affected because material they prepared may be reproduced without their consent, subject to prescribed preconditions. The instrument requires the user to state that the preparer has not consented to the use of the reference (e.g., s 7(3B)(e)(ii), s 7(3C)(b)(ii)). That mechanism imposes a disclosure obligation on the document drafter, not on the preparer.

4. Investors and recipients. Investors, shareholders and market participants reading bidders’ statements, disclosure documents, CSF offer documents or PDSs are affected because they may encounter third-party material included without the preparer’s consent. The instrument does not itself create a statutory cause of action or new statutory remedy; rather it relaxes consent requirements, subject to the continued operation of other statutory protections and civil law. The practical effect for readers is a changed provenance and possible absence of author endorsement accompanying certain reproduced data or historical geological references.

5. ASIC and regulatory decision-makers. The instrument is an ASIC legislative instrument made under specified powers (s 3) and implemented as exceptions to the Corporations Act. ASIC, as the regulator, remains the authority for enforcement of the Corporations Act provisions that are modified. The statutory text indicates these are legislative changes to how the Act applies, not administrative guidance, so oversight of compliance will be through the Act’s usual enforcement mechanisms.

6. Operators of declared financial markets and government departments. The instrument conditions the use of historical geological reports on the previous report being “available for inspection or acquisition” at or from a governmental department, authority or agency or an operator of a declared financial market (e.g., s 7(3B)(b)). Those entities thereby play an evidential and access role, since availability in those locations is an explicit gate for the historical geological exception.

7. Associates and related parties. The instrument explicitly excludes reports prepared or commissioned by specified related parties from the exception. The definitions in each clause list categories, including the bidder/target/offeror, their associates, persons with whom interests were shared, and sellers of tenements (e.g., s 7(3B)(d)). Consequently legal structures, shareholdings and past commercial relationships determine whether a previous report may be relied upon under the exception.

Who pays and who decides: the document preparer or offering person decides whether to rely on an exception and thus avoids the time and cost of obtaining consent; they also bear the obligation to ensure the statutory conditions are satisfied and to include the required proximate statements. The preparer’s decision affects the original report producers, who may find their work reproduced without consent but identified as having not consented.

This instrument creates and clarifies duties for document drafters and rights (or lack of rights) for third-party preparers through conditional exceptions to consent rules.

Duties imposed on the document preparer

1. Verify category and conditions. A preparer must determine whether the material they propose to include falls within one of the three permitted categories: official/publication, historical geological report reference, or trading data (see ss 7(3A)-(3C), and equivalents in ss 8-11). For historical geological references they must verify that the previous report is available for inspection or acquisition from a government department or operator of a declared financial market (s 7(3B)(b)), and that the previous report was not prepared in connection with the relevant document (s 7(3B)(c)).

2. Exclude connected-source reports. The preparer must ensure the previous report was not prepared or commissioned by the specified connected persons listed in each clause (e.g., s 7(3B)(d), replicated in ss 8-11). The lists are detailed and include bidders, targets, persons offering securities, issuers and various associates and parties sharing interests in tenements.

3. Include proximity statements. Where the historical geological or trading data exception is relied upon, the document must state, close to the relevant reference, the name of the person who prepared the previous report or trading data and that that person has not consented to the use of the reference (e.g., s 7(3B)(e), s 7(3C)(b)). The instrument allows a single occurrence to suffice for multiple references from the same preparer, provided it is "apparent" that subsequent references derive from that source.

4. Maintain correct and fair reproduction. For the official/publication exception the reproductions must be correct and fair or fairly represent the official statement (s 7(3A)). The duty to ensure correctness and fairness is expressed in the statutory language.

5. Ensure trading data is from an approved market. The preparer must confirm that the trading data reflects trading on an approved financial market as defined (s 7(3C)(a), s 7(3D) list).

Rights or permitted actions created by the instrument

1. Right to include specified material without consent. Where the statutory conditions are met the preparer is entitled to include the material without obtaining the preparer’s consent, overriding the original consent requirement in the relevant Corporations Act provisions (see ss 7-11).

2. Efficiency in repetition. If multiple references from the same source appear, the preparer need only include the proximity statement once for that source, reducing repetitive drafting (s 7(3B) and s 7(3C) provisos).

Limits on third-party rights

1. No statutory veto by preparer in listed circumstances. The instrument removes the third-party consent veto where the conditions are satisfied. However, the instrument simultaneously requires the drafter to acknowledge that the third-party has not consented, by stating that fact close to the reference (e.g., s 7(3B)(e)(ii)).

Interaction with existing duties and liabilities

1. Not an express immunity. The instrument does not purport to create general immunity from other statutory or civil obligations. It modifies the application of specific sections of the Corporations Act (s 636, s 638, s 716, s 738M, s 1013K contexts) by inserting exceptions. Any other civil or criminal liability that arises from including material,for example for misleading or deceptive conduct under other statutory provisions or common law,remains outside the instrument’s text and operative scope unless otherwise provided in the Act.

2. Responsibility for provenance and accuracy rests with the drafter. The duty language to ensure "correct and fair copy" and to verify that historical reports were not prepared in connection with the document places primary responsibility on document drafters to perform due diligence before relying on the carve-outs (e.g., s 7(3A), s 7(3B)(c)).

Administrative duties and temporal constraints

1. Commencement, repeal and transitional considerations. Preparers must pay attention to the instrument’s effective date,commencement is the later of registration and 1 April 2026 (s 2),and the instrument’s repeal at the start of 1 April 2031 (s 12). The instrument also expressly repeals the 2016 instrument (Schedule 1), creating a temporal framework for when these rules apply.

In short, the instrument shifts specific duties onto document preparers to verify provenance, availability and non-connection, and to disclose the non-consent of preparers when relying on the carve-out. It creates a corresponding right to include certain third-party material without seeking consent where those duties are met.

The instrument itself does not create new penalty provisions. It operates by modifying how selected provisions of the Corporations Act apply to certain statements in specified documents, thereby altering the scope of existing statutory obligations and the circumstances in which consent is required. Enforcement therefore operates through the Corporations Act framework and ASIC’s existing enforcement mechanisms rather than by adding new sanctions in this instrument. Several enforcement-relevant implications follow directly from the instrument’s structure.

1. No additional penalty clauses in the instrument. The text contains no newly created criminal offences, civil penalties or infringement notice powers within this instrument. The instrument is a legislative modification made under ASIC’s delegated legislative powers (s 3).

2. Enforcement through existing Act provisions. Because the instrument modifies the application of specified Act provisions (for example s 636, s 638, s 716, s 738M, s 1013K contexts), any contraventions will be assessed against the statutory obligations as modified by the instrument. That means that behaviour which would previously have been non-compliant because consent was not obtained may become permissible when the statutory conditions of the carve-outs are satisfied; conversely, failure to satisfy those conditions may leave the preparer exposed to the original statutory prohibition.

3. Accuracy and “correct and fair” standards as enforcement touchpoints. The instrument’s text imposes qualitative standards such as "fairly represents", "correct and fair copy" and that the previous report "was not prepared in connection with" the relevant document (see, for example, s 7(3A) and s 7(3B)(c)). These qualitative elements are naturally enforcement touchpoints. Regulators or courts assessing compliance would need to examine whether the reproduction was indeed correct and fair and whether the previous report’s provenance meets the statutory tests.

4. Disclosure obligations as evidential markers. The instrument requires that the document "state, close to the trading data reference" or "close to the historical geological report reference" the preparer’s name and that the preparer did not consent (see, e.g., s 7(3B)(e), s 7(3C)(b)). Failure to include or to place these statements proximate to the reference removes the benefit of the exception and exposes the preparer to the original prohibition. Such failures are detectible and therefore enforceable.

5. Role of availability from government or declared market operators. The historical geological exception is contingent on the previous report being available from specified public or market operators (s 7(3B)(b)). A regulator could check availability as an objective criterion. If the prior report is not available as required, reliance on the exception fails and the preparer may be in breach.

6. ASIC’s statutory authority and oversight. The instrument is made under ASIC’s delegated powers (s 3). ASIC remains the enforcement authority for Corporations Act contraventions. The instrument does not change ASIC’s enforcement tools, but it changes the statutory landscape within which ASIC exercises those tools.

7. Time-limited operation. Because the instrument is repealed at the start of 1 April 2031 (s 12), any enforcement assessment must consider whether the conduct occurred during the instrument’s operative period. After repeal, the prior statutory regime (including any replacement instrument) would govern.

The net effect for enforcement practitioners is that compliance assessments require careful attention to the instrument’s conditions. The most salient enforcement risks for preparers are misclassification (believing material fits an exception when it does not), failure to meet provenance tests (availability and non-connection), and failure to include the required proximate statements or to ensure reproductions are correct and fair.

This instrument functions by amending the operation of particular sections of the Corporations Act; it therefore interacts principally with the Act itself and with the legal landscape that governs false statements, misleading conduct and proprietary rights. The instrument’s text references other statutory definitions and external entities, creating interaction points that document drafters must consider.

1. Modifies application of specified Corporations Act provisions. The instrument inserts exceptions into the way s 636 (bidder’s statements), s 638 (target’s statements), s 716 and s 738M (disclosure documents and CSF offer documents under Chapter 6D) and s 1013K (PDSs under Part 7.9) apply to persons (ss 7-11). The amendments are explicit: they operate "as if" the named sections were modified to include the inserted subsections. Therefore, the primary legal interaction is internal to the Corporations Act.

2. Cross-reference to declared financial market and approved foreign market definitions. The instrument refers to "declared financial market" and "approved foreign market" concepts and notes that the definition of approved foreign market is notionally inserted in s 9 by a separate instrument (s 7(3D) note). It also directs attention to a transitional rule in s 1705F regarding markets previously prescribed under Corporations Regulations. Practitioners must therefore reconcile the instrument’s list of approved markets with statutory definitions under the Act and related legislative instruments.

3. Interaction with proprietary and moral rights. The instrument permits copying or extracting previously published material without consent in defined circumstances. The instrument does not address copyright, moral rights or other intellectual property regimes. That means that while the instrument modifies consent requirements under the Corporations Act, drafters still need to consider whether reproduction of material without consent might infringe copyright or moral rights under the Copyright Act 1968 or applicable privacy laws. The instrument is silent on these laws, so compliance requires parallel clearance under those regimes.

4. Interaction with misleading or deceptive conduct provisions. The instrument permits inclusion of third-party material without consent if correct and fair. It does not create defences to other causes of action, including misleading or deceptive conduct under the Australian Consumer Law or general law. If reproduced material is misleading in context, other statutory or common law causes of action may remain available against the preparer. The instrument does not remove or alter those liabilities.

5. Evidential interaction with disclosure regimes. The instrument’s proximate statement requirement creates an evidential layer within disclosure documents; it interacts with the Act’s broader disclosure and disclosure-timing obligations for market participants. For example, inclusion of trading data from approved markets may satisfy a source-disclosure rule but does not remove obligations to disclose material information under continuous disclosure regimes where applicable.

6. Administrative interaction with operators and government repositories. The historical geological exception conditions on availability at government departments or declared market operators. That creates an interface between Corporations Act compliance and public record/access systems administered by government agencies and market operators. The legal status of what counts as "available for inspection or acquisition" may interact with administrative law determinations about access, fees, and retention policies of those repositories.

7. Temporal interaction with earlier and future instruments. The instrument repeals ASIC Corporations (Consents to Statements) Instrument 2016/72 in full (Schedule 1). It also has a scheduled repeal date (s 12). Practitioners must therefore track what regime applies at relevant dates and whether successor instruments amend definitions of approved markets or other linked provisions.

In sum, while the instrument’s immediate legal effect is to adjust consent requirements under the Corporations Act, compliance requires concurrent consideration of intellectual property law, misleading conduct and other civil liabilities, archival/access arrangements at government repositories and market operators, and related legislative instruments that define financial markets. The instrument does not displace non-Act legal obligations.

The instrument contains its own limited amendment history and expressly repeals an earlier ASIC legislative instrument. Key dates and amendment actions are as follows.

1. Making and authority. The instrument is made by Amanda Zeller as a delegate of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission under subsections 655A(1), 741(1) and 1020F(1) of the Corporations Act 2001 (see s 3). The instrument is dated 23 March 2026 (cover page).

2. Commencement. The instrument commences on the later of registration on the Federal Register of Legislation and 1 April 2026 (s 2). The instrument therefore takes effect no earlier than 1 April 2026 and only once registered.

3. Repeal of earlier instrument. Schedule 1 expressly repeals the whole of ASIC Corporations (Consents to Statements) Instrument 2016/72 (Schedule 1). The instrument thereby replaces the previously existing ASIC instrument on consents to statements in the contexts covered.

4. Time-limited operation. Section 12 provides that the instrument is repealed at the start of 1 April 2031. The instrument therefore has an explicit five-year operative horizon from its scheduled commencement date. No mechanism for further extension is contained within the text; any continuance would require a subsequent instrument or legislative change.

5. Substitution and harmonised drafting. The instrument adopts a harmonised structure across ss 7 to 11, inserting near-identical exceptions into multiple statutory contexts (bidder/target/disclosure/CSF/PDS). The repeating structure suggests a deliberate consolidation and standardisation of earlier policy choices. The instrument’s s 5 simplified outline acknowledges that the instrument “modifies the Act to allow” the specified documents to include statements by persons without consent in the categories described.

6. Definitions and cross-references. The instrument inserts a specific list of approved financial markets into the relevant subsection (s 7(3D)). It also refers to an instrument that notionally inserts the definition of "approved foreign market" into s 9 and references s 1705F for transitional treatment of previously prescribed markets. Those cross-references indicate that the instrument operates within a broader regulatory architecture of ASIC instruments and Corporations Act definitions.

7. No further amendments indicated in text. The instrument itself contains no schedule of amendments beyond the repeal of the 2016 instrument and its own insertion of exceptions into the relevant sections. Any further amendment to its terms, extension of the repeal date, or changes to the list of approved financial markets would depend on subsequent legislative or legislative-instrument action by ASIC or Parliament.

For practitioners, the amendment history is both minimal and significant: minimal in that the present instrument replaces the 2016 instrument and standardises exceptions; significant in that the instrument’s repeal date and the repeal of the 2016 instrument create a clear temporal framework requiring monitoring for any successor instruments.

The instrument itself does not record litigation nor name any cases. Its text does not refer to judicial decisions or administrative determinations. The instrument is an ASIC legislative instrument and the legislative history in this document is limited to its making and the repeal of a prior instrument (see Schedule 1).

Practical litigation considerations that follow from the instrument’s provisions, grounded strictly in the instrument’s text, are:

1. No cases named in instrument. There are no judicial authorities cited in the instrument, and no prior litigation history is recorded in the instrument text. The instrument is therefore a regulatory change without embedded case law.

2. Anticipated disputes will be about statutory construction and factual predicates. Given the instrument’s reliance on qualitative standards,"fairly represents", "correct and fair copy", "states, close to",litigation arising from the instrument’s application would likely focus on factual questions about whether reproductions are “correct and fair”, whether prior reports were “prepared in connection with” the relevant document, whether a previous report is “available for inspection or acquisition” at the prescribed places, and whether a trading data reference indeed "reflects trading on an approved financial market" (see ss 7(3A)-(3C), definitions at s 7(3D)).

3. Evidentiary issues likely to arise. The instrument’s exceptions place evidential weight on availability of prior reports at government or declared market repositories and on the presence of proximate statements identifying preparers and stating non-consent. Disputes could therefore involve the availability records of government departments or declared market operators and whether the required proximate statements were clearly placed in the document.

4. Enforcement and misconduct claims remain possible under other laws. Although the instrument allows inclusion of certain material without consent, it does not address claims under other statutory provisions or general law that might be based on misleading or deceptive conduct, negligent misstatement, copyright infringement, or moral rights. Litigation under those regimes is not precluded by the instrument’s text.

5. Temporal window for potential disputes. Any litigation about conduct that relied on the instrument will have to take account of the instrument’s commencement and repeal dates (s 2 and s 12). The instrument’s five-year operative period is an important contextual datum for any dispute about documents published during that timeframe.

Because the instrument itself contains no litigation history, parties and advisors must prepare for disputes grounded in the factual application of qualitative statutory tests and in the interaction with other statutory or common law causes of action.

This instrument’s practical traps for the unwary are concentrated in the conditional nature of the exceptions, the qualitative tests, and the cross-legal issues that remain unchanged by the instrument. Below are concrete operational pitfalls drawn from the instrument’s text.

1. The “not made, or published, in connection with” limitation is fact-sensitive and broad. Each official/publication exception requires that the statement "was not made, or published, in connection with the takeover bid or the bidder or target" or, for disclosure/CSF/PDS contexts, "in connection with any or all of the persons, their business, or the promotion the subject of the disclosure document" (see s 7(3A) and ss 9(2A), 10(2A), 11(1A)). Determining whether a source was "in connection with" a transaction is fact-dependent and may require tracing timing, commissioning, distribution and promotional links. Misjudging this link means the exception does not apply.

2. “Correct and fair” and “fairly represents” are qualitative thresholds. The instrument requires that copies be "correct and fair" or that the reproduction "fairly represent" an official statement (see s 7(3A)). That requires judgement about completeness, context, and whether extracts mislead by omission. Failure to meet that standard removes the exception.

3. Historical geological availability test is specific about location. The previous report must be available for inspection or acquisition "at or from" a government department, authority or agency, or an operator of a declared financial market (s 7(3B)(b)). Reports hosted privately or on commercial research platforms not falling into those categories may not qualify. The instrument also permits availability "with or without payment of a fee", so even feeed access can qualify, but the precise repository matters.

4. Connected-party exclusions are detailed. The lists of persons whose preparation or commissioning of the previous report disqualifies reliance are long and context-specific (see s 7(3B)(d) and equivalents). For mining and tenement transfers, shared-interest histories, previous purchasers or sellers, and associate relationships must be examined. A single overlooked connection will negate the exception.

5. The requirement to state the preparer’s name and that they have not consented must be proximate. The instrument requires the name and the statement that the preparer has not consented to be stated "close to" the reference (see s 7(3B)(e), s 7(3C)(b) and equivalents). Placement matters: burying the information in a note far from the reference risks the exception being inapplicable.

6. Multiple references efficiency has a caveat. If multiple references derive from the same source, the preparer need only comply with the naming/consent-not-given statement for the first occurrence "provided it is apparent that the subsequent references are from the same source" (see s 7(3B) and s 7(3C)). What counts as "apparent" is context-dependent and could invite challenge if the linkage is not explicit.

7. Approved financial markets list is specific and includes many international exchanges. Trading data will only qualify where it "reflects trading on an approved financial market" as listed in s 7(3D). Practitioners must confirm that their data source is on that list or otherwise falls within the declared/approved definitions referenced in the instrument’s notes.

8. The instrument does not displace intellectual property or other legal obligations. Although consent under the Corporations Act context is waived where conditions are satisfied, copyright or moral rights concerns remain. The instrument is silent on these regimes, so users must still secure appropriate clearances or assess risk under the Copyright Act 1968 and related laws.

9. Risk of inconsistent application across documents. The instrument inserts parallel exceptions into multiple sections of the Act. However, different document types have slightly different connective language (for example, the "in connection with" phrasing varies by document class). Drafters must ensure they apply the correct clause for the document type in hand.

10. Time-limited nature requires attention. The instrument’s repeal at 1 April 2031 (s 12) demands monitoring. Documents published close to the repeal date must be analysed for whether the instrument was operative at the time of publication.

11. Repeal of 2016 instrument may change prior practice. The full repeal of the 2016 instrument (Schedule 1) removes whatever exemptions or guidance that instrument provided; practitioners must not assume continuity of substance without checking the new, detailed text.

12. No automatic immunity from misleading conduct claims. Inclusion of third-party material without consent does not eliminate potential claims under misleading or deceptive conduct laws or other civil liabilities if the material is misleading in context. The instrument does not provide a statutory defence to such claims.

Each of these points is grounded in the instrument’s wording. The combined practical lesson is that drafters cannot rely on a mechanical checkbox; they must document provenance, repository availability, absence of disqualifying connections, the correct placement of statements, and the correctness and fairness of any reproduced materials.

This section sets out a practical compliance checklist and procedures for counsel, compliance officers and document drafters who intend to rely on the instrument’s exceptions. Each step maps to the statutory conditions in ss 7-11 and the definitions at s 7(3D).

1. Confirm instrument operative dates. Verify that the instrument has been registered and that the conduct will occur on or after the later of registration and 1 April 2026 (s 2). Track the repeal date of 1 April 2031 (s 12) for long-dated document programmes.

2. Identify the document class and applicable subsection. Determine whether the document is a bidder’s statement, target’s statement, disclosure document, CSF offer document or Product Disclosure Statement. Apply the corresponding inserted subsection: s 7 for bidder’s statements, s 8 for target’s statements, s 9 for disclosure documents, s 10 for CSF offer documents and s 11 for PDSs.

3. Categorise the third-party material. For each third-party statement or extract, classify it as:

   • official/publication (statements by an official person or from a public official document or book/journal), or
   • historical geological report reference (as defined), or
   • trading data reference (quantitative prices and volume reflecting an approved financial market).

4. For official/publication materials apply the fairness and connection tests.

   • Ensure the reproduction is a "correct and fair copy" or "fairly represents" the official statement (s 7(3A) style language).
   • Confirm that the statement was not made or published in connection with the relevant takeover, promotion, person or property; document the provenance to show lack of connection (see s 7(3A) and equivalents).

5. For historical geological report references satisfy availability, non-connection and non-commissioning tests.

   • Confirm the previous report is available for inspection or acquisition either at or from a governmental department, authority or agency of an Australian State or Territory or of the Commonwealth, or from an operator of a declared financial market (s 7(3B)(b)). Obtain and retain evidence of availability (copies of repository indexes, access receipts or links).
   • Verify the previous report was not prepared in connection with the preparation of the document (s 7(3B)(c)).
   • Verify that the previous report was not prepared or commissioned by any of the disqualifying persons listed (bidders/targets/issuers, associates, persons who shared an interest in the tenement, purchasers of the tenement, or certain associates in the securities-offer context) (s 7(3B)(d)).
   • Ensure the current report includes, "close to" the historical geological report reference, the name of the person who prepared the previous report and a statement that that person has not consented to the use (s 7(3B)(e)). Place these statements proximate to the first occurrence; if multiple references come from the same source ensure it is "apparent" that subsequent references are from the same source.

6. For trading data references confirm market source and include proximate attribution.

   • Confirm the trading data reflects trading on an approved financial market listed at s 7(3D) or otherwise meets the definitions referenced (s 7(3C)(a)). Retain evidence of the data source, including screenshots, data vendor contracts or exchange identifiers.
   • State, close to the trading data reference, the name of the person who prepared the trading data and that that person has not consented to the use (s 7(3C)(b)). For multiple references from the same preparer the first occurrence suffices if the source is apparent.

7. Document the due diligence trail.

   • Preserve contemporaneous records: repository indexes, communications showing that the prior report was not commissioned by a disqualifying person, data vendor records, screenshots of public availability, archive receipts and internal sign-offs.
   • Record factual findings on whether material is “correct and fair”, including cross-checks against originals and redaction logs if extracts are used.

8. Check for intellectual property and other legal risks.

   • Even if the Corporations Act consent is not required, run copyright and moral rights clearance processes under the Copyright Act 1968 and any applicable contract law limitations. Secure licences or waivers where necessary or document risk acceptance.
   • Consider privacy and confidentiality obligations: confirm the previous report or data is not subject to confidentiality arrangements that would bar public reproduction.

9. Place required language and format proximate to references.

   • The instrument requires the preparer’s name and that they have not consented to appear "close to" the relevant reference. Draft style guides should fix a standard placement rule (for example, immediate footnote or inline parenthetical) and ensure the statement is easily seen on the same page or screen. Avoid burying the attribution in a general disclosures section remote from the reference.

10. Adopt internal checklists and approvals.

• Require legal sign-off for any use of third-party material without consent. Use a two-tier sign-off for historical geological references and trading data: legal plus technical expert to confirm the geological or market provenance.
• Ensure the team understands the connected-party exclusion lists and runs searches for relevant associates, shared interests in tenements and prior tenement vendor histories.

11. Maintain consistency across document types.

• Where the issuer is preparing multiple forms of documents (for example a bidder’s statement and a disclosure document), harmonise treatment of the same source material to avoid inconsistency that could be challenged.

12. Monitor definitions and market lists.

• Track any amendments to the list of approved financial markets and to the declared financial market regime referenced in the instrument’s notes. Re-assess data sources if market status changes.

13. Prepare fallback positions.

• If any of the statutory conditions cannot be satisfied, prepare to obtain consent from the author or exclude the material altogether. Maintain alternative wording strategies to summarise or paraphrase key information that does not constitute a copy or extract where possible, while observing the instrument’s correctness and fairness tests.

14. Consider consumer or investor perception.

• Although not a statutory requirement, consider including an explanatory note where third-party data are used to assist readers in assessing provenance and reliability. The instrument requires identification but does not forbid further explanatory qualifiers.

Following these steps maps directly to the statute’s conditions in ss 7-11 and the definitions in s 7(3D). The compliance task is primarily documentary and evidential: show the repository availability, the absence of disqualifying connections, the correct and fair reproduction, and place required proximate acknowledgements in the published document.