Australian Border Force (Alcohol and Drug Tests) Rules 2025

The Rules revolve around a small set of legal and operational concepts. Each is defined or implemented in express terms.

Authorised tester and authorised laboratory, and accredited analyst: The Rules define “authorised tester” by task in a table and allow the Secretary to authorise individuals or companies in writing for particular purposes (s6(2)-(3)). “Authorised laboratory” and “accredited analyst” are defined for the instrument as a laboratory authorised by the Secretary and an individual employed or engaged by such a laboratory respectively (s7(2)-(3)). The Secretary must issue certificates to authorised companies and officers (s6(4)-(5); s7(5)).

Approved device: The Rules create an explicit list of devices approved for use under the Act for specific tests (s8). The devices named in the table determine which instruments may be used for alcohol screening, alcohol breath testing and for in-field urine and oral fluid screening.

Types of tests and scope: The instrument implements the Act’s categories of tests, covering alcohol screening tests, alcohol breath tests, alcohol blood tests, and prohibited drug tests (s5 definition; s15). Part 4 applies to alcohol blood tests and prohibited drug tests of samples other than urine or oral fluid (s15). Part 5 governs prohibited drug testing where urine or oral fluid samples are used (s20).

Procedural safeguards: The Rules impose privacy and dignity requirements (s9(1)-(3)), set limits on the scope of information that may be collected from tests (s10), and mandate least‑painful techniques for hair sampling with clearly defined body areas to be avoided (s9(4)). They require certificates to be issued after breath tests (s13(5)-(6)) and after laboratory analysis (s18(1)-(2)), with specified content.

Chain of custody and analysis: For blood and non-urine/oral fluid prohibited drug samples the authorised tester must split the sample into approximately equal quantities in two sealed, labelled containers, send both to an authorised laboratory, and ensure an accredited analyst conducts the analysis on one container while keeping the second sealed for possible independent testing (ss16-17). Accredited analysts must provide signed certificates and inform workers of the option to obtain independent testing of the second container within six months (s18(1)-(4)).

Standards and training: Urine and oral fluid sample collection and analysis must follow mandatory Australian/New Zealand standards specified by the Rules (AS/NZS 4308:2023 and AS/NZS 4760:2019) (s20). The training unit required of Customs officers to conduct or supervise tests is HLTPAT005 - Collect specimens for drugs of abuse testing (s14, s21).

Retention, destruction and disclosure of data: Body samples and records must be kept secure (s11(1)). Destruction timetables differ by result: samples indicating presence of alcohol or prohibited drugs must be destroyed no later than two years from testing, whereas samples that do not indicate presence must be destroyed no later than 28 days after the test (s11(2)). Other records are to be destroyed as soon as practicable after the worker ceases employment, except that non‑identifying analytical information can be retained for a statistical database (s11(3)-(4)), and information may be retained for security vetting and organisational suitability assessments (s11(5)). Disclosure of test information is narrowly enumerated (s12).

Authorisation continuity and repeal: The instrument explicitly continues authorisations and certificates under the previous 2015 Rules (s22), transposes pending tests to the new procedures (s23), and repeals the 2015 Rules (s24).

These concepts form a tightly integrated operational architecture: Secretary discretion governs authorisation and device approval, while mandatory training, NATA-linked laboratory authorisations, split sampling and specific standards aim to standardise sample collection, analysis, recordkeeping and dispute resolution.

Primary subjects and stakeholders are identified and limited in the instrument.

Immigration and Border Protection workers: The tests authorised under the Act and implemented through these Rules apply to Immigration and Border Protection workers. The instrument applies where the worker is directed or required to undergo a test under ss34-36 of the Act, as referenced in the simplified outline (s4). These workers are the source of samples and the persons whose privacy, employment consequences and security vetting may be influenced by the testing regime.

Officers of Customs and authorised testers: Officers of Customs who will conduct and supervise tests are directly affected. To act as authorised testers, such officers must successfully complete the HLTPAT005 unit under the Australian Qualifications Framework; once authorised by the Secretary they must carry and show certificates on request (s6(2)(a)(i); s6(4)-(5); s14, s21). The Rules also commonly permit State and Territory police officers to act as authorised testers for certain tests (s6(2)(a)(ii)).

Medical practitioners and nurses: Collection of blood samples for alcohol or prohibited drug testing is limited to medical practitioners, registered nurses, or enrolled nurses when authorised (s6(2)(3)). These clinical professionals are required to meet the authorisation process and any relevant health regulation while collecting samples.

Contract testing companies: The Secretary may authorise companies to employ or engage people to conduct tests (s6(2)(b); s6(3)). Companies authorised for testing will have to maintain certificates of authorisation (s6(5)), meet procedural standards, and ensure staff training units have been completed. Companies that operate laboratories must be NATA-accredited to be authorised under s7(4).

Laboratories and analysts: Laboratories accredited by NATA are eligible to be authorised by the Secretary to analyse blood or prohibited drug samples (s7(4)). Individuals employed or engaged by those authorised labs are “accredited analysts” for the instrument (s7(3)). Accredited analysts must issue certificates of analysis and preserve second containers for independent testing (ss17-18).

Device manufacturers and suppliers: The list of approved devices in s8 limits which devices can be used for alcohol screening and breath tests and for urine and oral fluid prohibited drug tests. Suppliers of Alcolizer Le5, AlcoQuant 6020, Innoscreen Cup, Medvet Oral 7 and Quantisal will have direct market access for Border Force testing; other manufacturers are excluded unless the instrument is amended.

Departmental actors and the Secretary: The Secretary of the Department of Home Affairs has discretion to authorise individuals, companies and laboratories in writing and must issue certificates (s6(3)-(5); s7(4)-(5)). The Department is the custodian of the procedural and recordkeeping regime and will be responsible for implementing training, storage, destruction and disclosure processes (s11, s12).

Organisational processes affected: Human resources and security vetting units within the Department are affected because test results may be retained for security vetting and organisational suitability assessments (s11(5); s12(i)). Legal and compliance units will need to manage disclosure limits and litigation risk.

Indirectly affected parties: Independent accredited laboratories nominated by workers for dispute testing will face requests for independent analysis, with the worker entitled to have the sealed second container independently tested within six months (s18(3)-(4); s19). Health practitioners may be involved in medical treatment disclosures where workers lack capacity (s12(g)).

In sum, the instrument concentrates operational duties on trained Customs officers and authorised medical staff, centralises authorisation and device approval within the Department via the Secretary, and creates demand for NATA-accredited laboratories and training providers. The rules also embed the Department’s security and HR processes by permitting retention and use of some test information for vetting and suitability assessments (s11(5); s12(i)).

The Rules create discrete duties for authorised testers, laboratories, accredited analysts, the Secretary and the Department, and confer procedural rights to tested workers.

Duties of authorised testers and officers of Customs

• To be authorised in writing for the specified purpose by the Secretary before conducting tests as an individual or via a company (s6(3)). For officers of Customs, successful completion of the HLTPAT005 training unit is a precondition for authorisation to conduct alcohol screening or breath tests and to supervise sample provision (s6(2)(a)(i); s14; s21).
• To conduct tests respectfully, afford reasonable privacy, avoid unnecessary removal of clothing and limit visual inspection to what is necessary (s9(1)-(2)).
• To use a tester of the same sex as the worker where practicable (s9(3)).
• For hair sampling, to apply the least painful technique, collect only the necessary amount, and avoid genital, anal areas and buttocks (s9(4)).
• For blood and other non-urine/oral fluid prohibited drug samples, to split samples into approximately equal quantities, label and seal them, and arrange for their secure transmission to an authorised laboratory (s16).
• For alcohol breath tests, to use an approved device, provide certificates immediately afterwards with specified content, and if the worker requests blood testing on a positive breath result, take reasonable steps to contact an authorised blood tester (s13(1)-(6)).

Duties of authorised laboratories and accredited analysts

• To hold NATA accreditation to be eligible for Secretary authorisation to analyse blood samples or prohibited drug samples (s7(4)).
• To ensure accredited analysts employed or engaged by the authorised laboratory conduct analyses and to issue certificates to the worker and authorised person setting out named items including dates, results, analyst name, and observations (s17(1)-(2); s18(1)-(2)).
• To preserve the second sealed container for independent testing and make records available for re-examination if results are disputed (s17(3); s19).

Duties regarding standards and training

• To collect and analyse urine and oral fluid samples in accordance with AS/NZS 4308:2023 and AS/NZS 4760:2019 respectively (s20(1)-(2)).
• To ensure officers complete the HLTPAT005 unit, the defined training standard, before front-line testing duties (s14; s21).

Recordkeeping, security and destruction duties

• To keep body samples and other records in a secure location (s11(1)).
• To destroy body samples that test positive or indicate alcohol/prohibited drugs no later than two years after the test; to destroy non-indicating samples no later than 28 days after testing (s11(2)).
• To destroy other records as soon as practicable after the worker ceases to be an Immigration and Border Protection worker, subject to specified exceptions for statistical databases and security vetting (s11(3)-(5)).

Rights of tested workers

• Right to be tested in a respectful manner with reasonable privacy and minimal intrusion (s9(1)-(2)).
• Right to request an alcohol blood test after a positive alcohol breath test; the request and conduct of the blood test do not absolve the worker from the breath test obligation (s13(2)-(4)).
• Right to receive certificates following breath tests and laboratory analyses that set out specified identifying and procedural information (s13(5)-(6); s18(1)-(2)).
• Right to collect the sealed second container from the laboratory within six months and to have it independently tested at an accredited laboratory of their choosing (s18(3)(a); s19).
• A limited privacy-related right: only information relating to the detection of alcohol or prohibited drugs may be collected from tests (s10).

Disclosure constraints and exceptions

• Test information may only be disclosed by others than the tested worker in enumerated circumstances such as lawful public knowledge, permitted Part disclosures, criminal investigations, disciplinary actions under the Public Service Act 1999, proceedings for an offence, medical treatment with incapacity to consent, written consent, or for security vetting (s12(a)-(i)). This creates a controlled disclosure regime.

Secretary’s duties and discretions

• The Secretary must issue authorisation and certificates when authorising persons or laboratories, and retains discretion to authorise companies and individuals in writing (s6(3)-(5); s7(4)-(5)). This centralises the administrative duty of authorisation and record issuance.

Collectively, the Rules convert statutory powers in the Act into operational duties for testing agents, labs and the Department, while setting out procedural rights for workers to challenge or seek independent testing, and placing limits on what may be collected and disclosed.

The instrument itself is procedural and does not create new criminal offences or civil penalties within its text. Its enforcement operates within the statutory framework of the Australian Border Force Act 2015, which the instrument implements, so enforcement mechanisms arise from the Act rather than from the Rules. The Rules make reference to the Act as the authority under which tests are directed and required (s3; s4).

Enforcement pathways and administrative consequences as implied by the instrument

• Compliance with the Rules is required for tests conducted under ss34-36 of the Act; failure to follow the specified procedures may affect admissibility, internal disciplinary processes, or the Department’s ability to rely on results in employment or security vetting decisions, because the instrument prescribes the chain-of-custody, device and analyst standards for reliable results (ss13-19; s20).
• Section 12 permits disclosure of test information for investigation of offences, for decisions whether to institute proceedings, and for proceedings for an offence (s12(c)-(f)). This anticipates criminal or administrative enforcement action using test results where conduct reaches the threshold for relevant investigations or charges, though the Rules themselves do not specify penalties.
• Section 11(5) explicitly permits retention of test information for the purpose of security vetting and organisational suitability assessments, which signals that non‑compliance may be dealt with by internal security or employment processes administered in accordance with the Public Service Act 1999 and the Department’s internal policies (s11(5); s12(d)).
• Certificates and records: authorised testers and accredited analysts must issue certificates with detailed information (s13(5)-(6); s18(1)-(2)). These certificates will be central evidentiary documents for any enforcement action. The Rules prescribe required content, which could be used to judge procedural compliance; deficiencies in certificates may affect the evidentiary value of results in enforcement contexts.

Administrative controls, not criminal sanctions in the Rules

• The instrument’s primary enforcement mechanism is procedural: controlling who is authorised, what devices are approved, what standards govern collection and analysis, and how samples and records are to be secured and destroyed. The Secretary’s continuing authorisation power and the requirement that laboratories be NATA-accredited operate as regulatory constraints on providers (s6(3); s7(4)).
• The Rules do not provide fines, imprisonment, or administrative penalty provisions within their text. Any criminal liability arising from tampering, unauthorised disclosure, or similar conduct would therefore be governed by other statutes (for example privacy laws, the Criminal Code, or provisions of the Act), none of which are amended or created by the instrument itself.

Practical enforcement implications

• For disputes over results the mechanism is evidentiary and administrative: the second sealed container must be made available for independent testing and all records of the original test made available for re‑examination (s19). This creates a remedy that does not itself impose sanctions but provides a path to challenge evidence relied on in enforcement.
• Departmental enforcement of internal conduct issues is contemplated directly in s12(d), which allows disclosure of results to enable handling under the Public Service Act 1999 and for any action by the Secretary. This ties the testing regime to internal disciplinary pathways rather than to penalties within the Rules.

In short, the Rules prescribe procedures, recordkeeping and authorisation controls that support enforcement under other legal regimes and departmental processes, but they do not themselves create a schedule of penalties or an independent enforcement regime within their text. Enforcement consequences will therefore arise through the Act-linked powers and other applicable statutes or through internal administrative processes referred to in the Rules (s4; s12(d)).

The instrument is expressly subordinate to, and made under, the Australian Border Force Act 2015, and it operationalises parts of that Act. It also interacts with other bodies of law through standards and statutory references.

Primary statutory interaction with the Act

• Authority and scope: The Rules are made under the Australian Border Force Act 2015 and apply to tests conducted pursuant to ss34-36, 38, 39, and 58 of the Act as described in the simplified outline (s3; s4). The Act supplies the power to require tests, and the Rules supply the manner in which tests are to be conducted.
• The Rules do not alter the substantive powers or thresholds set out in the Act; they provide the procedures, authorised personnel definitions, and device approvals that must be used to implement the Act’s testing powers (s4).

Interaction with standards and accreditation regimes

• Laboratory accreditation: The Rules make Secretary authorisation for laboratories contingent upon NATA accreditation (s7(4)). This embeds the Australian testing accreditation regime into the Act’s implementation and ties legal authorisation to an external technical accreditation process.
• AS/NZS sampling and analysis standards: Urine and oral fluid sampling and analysis are required to comply with AS/NZS 4308:2023 and AS/NZS 4760:2019 respectively (s20(1)-(2)). These standards are external instruments of technical regulation that the Rules incorporate by reference. Compliance thus requires alignment with standards bodies and possibly updates when standards are amended externally, noting the Rules specify the version “as in force on the day this section commences”.

Interaction with employment and public service laws

• The Rules permit disclosures for managing conduct under the Public Service Act 1999 and for action by the Secretary (s12(d)). This explicitly integrates the testing regime with public service disciplinary and suitability pathways. Consequently, test results may trigger administrative actions, separate from criminal processes.
• Records retention for security vetting and organisational suitability assessments is authorised (s11(5); s12(i)). This interacts with security vetting frameworks and personnel suitability assessments that operate under separate legal and administrative regimes.

Interaction with privacy and medical confidentiality norms

• The Rules limit the information that may be collected from tests to detection of alcohol or prohibited drugs (s10). They also restrict disclosure to defined situations (s12). Nonetheless the Rules permit retention of analytical information for security vetting and statistical databases (s11(4)-(5)). These provisions will interact with statutory privacy regimes, such as the Privacy Act 1988, and with professional obligations for medical practitioners and nurses. The instrument does not itself state how privacy law compliance is to be ensured; entities must comply with applicable privacy obligations when handling samples and disclosing information.

Interaction with criminal investigation and proceedings

• The Rules permit disclosure for the investigation of offences, decisions to institute proceedings, and proceedings for offences (s12(c)-(f)). This allows test-derived information to be used in criminal investigations, subject to evidentiary rules and procedural safeguards outside the instrument. The Rules provide the evidentiary chain and certificates that may be necessary to support admissibility.

Transitional and repeals

• The instrument expressly continues authorisations and certificates from the Australian Border Force (Alcohol and Drug Tests) Rule 2015 (the old rule) so that authorisations in force immediately before commencement are taken to continue under the new Rules (s22(2)-(7)). It also provides that tests required or taken under the old rule are taken to be required under the new instrument (s23(1)). Finally, it repeals the 2015 Rule (s24). This demonstrates that the instrument is designed as a procedural replacement for an earlier framework rather than an independent new regime.

Administrative law implications

• The Secretary’s discretionary power to authorise persons and labs in writing (ss6(3); 7(4)) situates administrative discretion at the heart of operational implementation. Decisions to authorise or to issue certificates will be administrative acts, subject to any applicable review mechanisms in general administrative law, but the Rules do not themselves specify review or appeal mechanisms.

In sum, the Rules interlock with the Act, with technical accreditation and standard-setting bodies (NATA and AS/NZS standards), with public service disciplinary and security vetting regimes, and with privacy and criminal law frameworks. The instrument prescribes procedures while relying on these other laws and standards to supply substantive constraints, evidentiary weight, and disciplinary or prosecutorial effects.

The instrument itself contains limited internal amendment history because it is presented as a freshly made instrument that repeals the previous 2015 Rules and provides transitional continuity. The body of the Rules records the repeal of the Australian Border Force (Alcohol and Drug Tests) Rule 2015 (s24) and establishes continuation mechanisms to convert existing authorisations and certificates from the old rule to the new instrument (Part 6, ss22-23). Specific features of the amendment approach are:

• Repeal and continuity: Section 24 repeals the 2015 instrument outright. Sections 22 and 23 provide mapped continuity. Authorisations of individuals and companies under subsection 6(3) of the old rule, laboratory authorisations under subsection 7(4) of the old rule, and certificates previously given under provisions of the old rule are continued in force as if issued under the corresponding new provisions (s22(2)-(7)). This is a transitional preservation mechanism, intended to avoid administrative gaps on commencement day.
• Test transposition: Tests required or undertaken under the old rule for the purposes of section 9 of the old rule are on and after commencement taken to be required under section 9 and Part 5 of the new instrument (s23(1)). Disputed test arrangements under the old rule are transposed to the new section 19 regime (s23(2)). More generally, the instrument declares that things required under the old rule for corresponding sections are required under the new instrument on and after commencement (s23(3)).
• Commencement scheduling: The instrument specifies that the whole instrument commences on 1 October 2025 (s2(1) table). Column 3 indicates the table is not part of the instrument and may be edited in published versions (s2(2)). There are no staggered commencements or phased entries; the entire instrument commences on the single date.
• No recorded incremental amendments: The instrument text provided contains no schedules of prior amendments or a history of changes to the 2015 rules beyond repeal and transposition. It is therefore presented as a replacement instrument with transitional carryover of existing authorisations and certificates.
• Standards versions fixed at commencement: The Rules incorporate particular versions of the AS/NZS standards for urine and oral fluid testing “as in force on the day this section commences” (s20(1)-(2)). This freezes the referenced versions at commencement. Any future changes to those standards would not automatically change the Rules unless the Rules are themselves amended, or unless the Rules’ wording allows future version incorporation (it does not). That has the administrative consequence that updating to new versions requires legislative amendment or replacement of the instrument.

Because the instrument repeals the 2015 Rules and carries authorisations forward, the amendment history relevant to implementing agencies will be primarily administrative: reissuance of certificates under the new provision references, re-mapping of authorised companies to the new Secretary authorisations, and operational changes pursuant to the standards and device lists. The Rules themselves show an explicit transitional design rather than incremental amendments.

The instrument as presented contains no references to litigation, judicial decisions, or precedent. It does not name any cases, nor does it reproduce any judicial interpretations, appeals or challenges to the previous 2015 Rules. The text supplies no litigation history, and there are no internal annotations indicating contested provisions or court rulings.

Implications of the absence of litigation history in the instrument

• Lack of judicial gloss: Practitioners should note there is no statutory or annotated case law embedded in the instrument to clarify how particular provisions have been applied or interpreted. For example, discrete terms such as “reasonable privacy”, “as soon as practicable”, or the Secretary’s authorisation discretion are not accompanied by judicial definitions in the instrument. Users must therefore rely on general administrative law and operational practice to interpret those terms.
• Evidentiary role of certificates: The Rules prescribe content and signature requirements for certificates issued by authorised testers and accredited analysts (s13(5)-(6); s18(1)-(4)). Courts adjudicating disputes over admissibility or weight of test results will look to whether these procedural requirements were met. The absence of judicial history means there is no statutory or judicially-developed threshold in the instrument itself for admissibility challenges; litigants will need to argue on established evidence and administrative law principles.
• Dispute mechanism: The Rules supply an administrative mechanism for disputed results, namely independent testing of the second sealed container and availability of original test records for re‑examination (s19). No court decisions are cited that have tested the adequacy or practical operation of these provisions, so contestation in court would proceed against the plain text and administrative practice, rather than against an instrument-specific corpus of case law.
• Judicial review risk: Secretary decisions to authorise persons or labs, and any Departmental decisions applying the Rules in disciplinary or security vetting contexts, are administrative acts. Although the instrument contains no litigation history, such administrative acts are ordinarily reviewable under general administrative law. Practitioners should therefore anticipate judicial review arguments will be framed under standard grounds such as irrationality, procedural fairness, or error of law when authorisations or disclosure/retention decisions are challenged.

For current litigation status, case law, or challenges arising from operation of the 2015 Rules or related policies, practitioners must consult external judicial databases and authoritative case reports. The instrument itself provides no precedential material, and any litigation strategy will need to rely on cross-reference to the Act, general administrative law, evidentiary rules, and privacy law as applicable.

This section identifies practical pitfalls and friction points that arise from the Rules’ text and the operational choices they make. Each item cites the relevant provision that creates the issue.

Retention asymmetry and timing risks

• Positive vs negative result retention: Body samples that indicate the presence of alcohol or prohibited drugs can be retained up to two years, whereas non‑indicating samples must be destroyed within 28 days (s11(2)(a)-(b)). That creates an asymmetric retention window that may produce logistical and compliance complexity for secure storage, particularly for positive samples that might require long-term chain-of-custody and space considerations. Practitioners should note the specific timing thresholds and ensure storage capacity and record systems can meet them.

Partial privacy protection and competing uses

• Limited collection scope vs retention for vetting: Section 10 restricts the information that may be collected by a test to information relating to detection of alcohol or prohibited drugs. However, s11(4)-(5) permits the retention of analytical information for a statistical database, so long as it is de-identified, and also for security vetting and organisational suitability assessments (s11(5)). This creates a tension: information is narrowly collected, but permitted uses for vetting mean that identification-linked information may be retained. Practitioners should prepare policies to reconcile these clauses with privacy law obligations, and to ensure de-identification and access controls are robust.

Device list rigidity

• Approved devices are specifically listed (s8). Any device not on the list is, by the instrument’s terms, not approved for the specified tests. Operational entities that rely on other makes/models will need either to procure listed devices or seek changes to the instrument. That may slow adoption of new technology and require administrative amendment to expand the approved-device list.

Secretary discretion and authorisation concentration

• The Secretary must authorise individuals and companies in writing before they act as authorised testers or laboratories (s6(3); s7(4)). That concentrates gatekeeping power. While the Rules require certificates to be issued and shown on request (s6(4)-(5); s7(5)), the instrument does not specify timeframes for the Secretary to act on authorisations or set objective criteria. Administrative delays or unevenness in authorisation could create operational bottlenecks.

Standards tied to commencement-day versions

• Urine and oral fluid testing must comply with specified AS/NZS standards “as in force on the day this section commences” (s20(1)-(2)). That fixes particular versions at commencement and does not automatically incorporate later revisions. Entities must monitor whether the instrument requires amendment to adopt updated versions, or whether practice will continue with the fixed versions, which may be out of step with evolving technical practices.

Independent testing window and evidence lifecycle

• The right to independent testing of the second sealed container is limited to collection from the laboratory within six months after collection (s18(3)(a)). Note the instrument’s Note 1 in s19 warns that independent testing or re-examination may be limited to presence detection because of degradation. Practically, delays beyond six months may foreclose independent confirmatory tests, and sample degradation may limit the scope of possible re-testing.

Certificates and evidentiary formality

• Certificates for breath tests must record device serial numbers, sample numbers, tester identity, self‑test details, and result (s13(5)-(6)). Laboratory analysis certificates must include dates, laboratory sample numbers, analyst name and observations, and advise on independent testing rights (s18(2)-(3)). Failure to include these elements may undermine evidentiary utility. Practitioners should ensure procedural checklists capture every required certificate element.

Scope of sample collection and prohibited areas

• Hair sampling restrictions are specific: the least painful technique, minimal amount, avoid genital or anal areas and buttocks, and the sample may be collected from any other body part (s9(4)). There is a risk of procedural error in interpreting allowable sampling sites; training and clear operating procedures are required to avoid overreach.

Disclosure edge cases

• Disclosure exceptions include “if the information is already lawfully publicly known” (s12(a)) and broader categories such as security vetting (s12(i)). Disclosures to medical staff when the worker lacks capacity are permitted (s12(g)(i)-(ii)). However, the instrument does not define “lawfully publicly known” or “capacity” for these purposes, relying on other legal standards. This leaves room for contested interpretation in boundary cases.

Transitional carryover obligations

• Authorisations, certificates and tests under the 2015 Rules continue under the new instrument (ss22-23). Agencies must map prior authorisations to the new rule numbering and ensure certificates remain accessible and valid. Administrative oversight is necessary to avoid losing sight of old authorisations incorrectly assumed to be replaced automatically.

Interplay with external privacy and health laws

• The instrument does not spell out how compliance with the Privacy Act 1988, health confidentiality obligations, or state laws on sample collection intersect with its provisions. Entities must manage compliance across statutes, which could be complex where state laws differ.

For operational planners these “gotchas” indicate areas to prioritise: certificate compliance, chain-of-custody and storage logistics, training uptake for HLTPAT005, authorised-device procurement, and clear policies aligning retention and disclosure practices with privacy and vetting obligations.

This section sets out practical compliance steps tied directly to the Rules’ provisions. It is written as an operational checklist for departmental implementers, authorised companies, laboratories, HR/security units and legal/compliance teams.

1. Map authorisations and certificates, and secure Secretary authorisation where required

• Review existing authorisations under the 2015 Rules and confirm their continued operation under s22. Where individuals or companies are not already authorised in writing as required by s6(3) and s7(4), prepare and submit authorisation applications to the Secretary with required supporting documentation. Ensure certificates issued under ss6(4)-(5) and s7(5) are held and that authorised persons know their obligation to show certificates on request (s6(4)-(5)).

2. Ensure training compliance for officers of Customs

• Require and document successful completion of the HLTPAT005 unit - Collect specimens for drugs of abuse testing - under the Australian Qualifications Framework for officers intended to conduct alcohol screening tests, alcohol breath tests, or to supervise specimen collection (s14; s21). Maintain training registers that record date of course completion, unit code, and participant identifiers.

3. Procure and maintain approved devices and inventory control

• Acquire only devices listed in the approved-device table for the relevant tests: Alcolizer Le5 and AlcoQuant 6020 for alcohol screening and breath tests, Innoscreen Cup for urine, Medvet Oral 7 and Quantisal for oral fluid testing (s8). Establish device inventory logs with make/model, serial number, maintenance/calibration records and self-test logs. Ensure breath-test certificates capture device serial numbers and whether self‑tests were conducted and on override mode when applicable (s13(5)(a), (e)-(f)).

4. Contract or confirm NATA-accredited laboratories and accredited analysts

• For analysis of blood or non-urine/oral fluid prohibited drug samples, only send samples to laboratories that are both NATA accredited and authorised in writing by the Secretary under s7(4). Ensure laboratories provide certificates required by s18 and maintain chain-of-custody and sealing procedures so the second container remains sealed for independent testing (ss16-18).

5. Implement chain-of-custody and sample-splitting protocols

• For alcohol blood tests and prohibited drug tests of samples other than urine or oral fluid, split samples approximately equally into two labelled and sealed containers, place both into a transportation container, and send to an authorised laboratory (s16). Maintain sample labels, seals and transport logs; document the time and identity of personnel handling each stage.

6. Adopt AS/NZS standards for urine and oral fluid testing

• Ensure all urine samples and oral fluid samples are collected and analysed in strict accordance with AS/NZS 4308:2023 and AS/NZS 4760:2019 respectively, as they were in force on commencement (s20(1)-(2)). Maintain copies of the standards and evidence of compliance, including supplier instructions and validation for devices designed for those standards.

7. Ensure certificate generation and retention

• After any alcohol breath test, provide the worker and the authorised person a certificate including device type and serial number, sample number, unique identifying number, tester identity (and company address where applicable), self-test details, date/time and result (s13(5)-(6)). After laboratory analysis provide a signed analyst certificate listing a unique worker identifier, collection and receipt dates, lab ID, analysis date, results, analyst name and observations, and advise on the right to collect the second container within six months for independent testing (s18(1)-(4)). Maintain certified copies in secure records.

8. Secure storage and destruction processes

• Store body samples and records in a secure location (s11(1)). Implement automatic destruction procedures aligned to s11(2): destroy non-indicating samples no later than 28 days after the test, and destroy indicating samples no later than two years after the test. For other records, implement a trigger to destroy as soon as practicable after the worker ceases employment, while ensuring exceptions for de‑identified statistical data or security vetting retention are applied in compliance with s11(3)-(5). Log all destructions and retain destruction certificates.

9. Establish disclosure governance and legal checks

• Build a disclosure policy aligned with s12. Ensure that disclosure is permitted only where the instrument allows: lawfully public information, in accordance with the Rules, investigations or proceedings, Public Service Act conduct management, medical treatment in incapacity situations, written consent, or security vetting (s12(a)-(i)). Link disclosure decisions to legal review and record each disclosure decision with its legal basis.

10. Prepare dispute and independent-testing workflows

• Prepare procedures for contested results: on dispute, ensure the second sealed container is made available for independent testing at an accredited laboratory nominated by the tested worker and that original records are made available for re-examination (s19(1)). Record the chain-of-custody for the second container and set calendar reminders for the six-month independent testing window (s18(3)(a)).

11. Align HR and security vetting processes

• Integrate test-result handling into security vetting and organisational suitability assessment workflows in accordance with s11(5) and s12(i). Ensure separation of functions where appropriate, with authorised access controls and audit logs, and ensure retention and access are consistent with privacy obligations.

12. Audit and quality assurance

• Regularly audit compliance with training, device approvals, split-sample and sealing protocols, NATA accreditation verification, certificate completeness, storage and destruction schedules, and disclosure decisions. Maintain corrective action logs and update standard operating procedures accordingly.

13. Transitional and change management

• For authorisations and tests carried from the old rule, reconcile documentation to demonstrate the continuity provisions in ss22-23 have been complied with. Ensure all authorisation certificates in force immediately before commencement are recorded as continuing in force under the new instrument and move operational records to comply with new section numbering and forms.

14. Recordkeeping for regulatory and legal readiness

• Maintain secure, searchable records for each test including unique worker identifiers, dates, device serial numbers, certificate copies, transport logs, analyst certificates, sample destruction proofs and disclosure decision records. These will be necessary for administrative investigations, disciplinary proceedings and potential external legal challenges.

15. Monitor standards and device approval changes

• Assign responsibility to monitor whether the instrument is amended, whether new devices are approved, and whether updates to AS/NZS standards are to be incorporated through legislative amendment. Prepare contingency plans for device obsolescence or procurement lead times.

By following these concrete steps rooted in the Rules’ provisions, agencies and contracted providers will reduce operational risk, preserve evidentiary integrity, and align testing practices with the instrument’s procedural requirements.