Automatic Mutual Recognition (Australian Capital Territory) (Exemption—Dangerous Substances and Labour Hire Provider) Declaration 2025

The instrument uses several legal and policy concepts that determine its scope and intended effect. Those concepts are embedded in the Mutual Recognition Act framework and the specific wording of this declaration.

Automatic deemed registration: The Mutual Recognition Act provides for “automatic deemed registration” where a person lawfully registered in one jurisdiction is taken to be registered in another, subject to specified exceptions in the Act. This instrument operates under the Act’s exception power in section 42S (s 3). Section 6(1) expressly excludes the listed registrations from the operation of the automatic deemed registration provisions. The instrument therefore interrupts the otherwise automatic cross‑jurisdictional recognition that AMR provides.

Registrations and licences specified: The declaration defines the precise classes of registrations to be excluded. Item 1 in s 6(3) targets “Dangerous substances licences issued under the Dangerous Substances (Explosives) Regulation 2004 and the Dangerous Substances (General) Regulation 2004.” Item 2 targets “Licensing provided under the Labour Hire Licensing Act 2020.” The instrument thus operates at the level of statutory licences or registrations rather than, for example, occupational titles or generic categories.

Risk statements: Subsection 42S(2) of the Mutual Recognition Act requires the decision maker to provide a statement of the risk that justifies an exemption. The instrument fulfils that requirement by setting out statements of risk in column 2 of the table in s 6(3). For dangerous substances the instrument cites significant health and safety risks in the ACT and expresses the concern that AMR’s one-time notification model weakens ongoing regulator engagement and could delay risk mitigation, especially with a high number of interstate workers. For labour hire licensing the instrument cites the risk that AMR may limit availability of up-to-date information on operational industries, impeding compliance and enforcement.

Territorial operation and temporal limits: Section 4 explicitly states the instrument “has effect only in relation to the Australian Capital Territory.” Section 6(4) sets an express repeal date for the exclusions of 30 June 2030. Section 4 also explains how the broader Legislation Act sunset procedure will generally affect repeal timing in practice. This combination defines both the geographic and temporal reach of the instrument.

Interaction with ACT registration requirements and the right to work: The Human Rights Act statement at s 8 records that the exclusions do not bar individuals from carrying on activities covered by dangerous substances or labour hire occupations in the ACT; rather, they compel compliance with ACT registration requirements. The Acting Chief Minister records the view that registration requirements are “necessary, proportionate and reasonable” safeguards and that any limitation on the right to work is justified because the exclusion “will allow the ACT to address risks associated with the application of AMR while ensuring there is no diminution in current levels of safeguards” (s 8).

Legal authority and formalities: The instrument is made under s 42S of the Commonwealth Mutual Recognition Act (s 3). It includes the standard commencement table in s 2 and the name in s 1. The instrument notes that the table in s 2 is limited to the instrument as originally made (s 2, note).

Practical implication: By removing AMR’s deemed-registration pathway for the specified licences, the main conceptual effect is to re-centre the ACT’s own licensing and regulatory controls for dangerous substances and labour hire providers as the operative gateway for lawful activity in the Territory. The instrument frames that effect as a response to risks identified in the risk statements in s 6(3).

The instrument identifies and therefore affects three broad groups: individuals, businesses (including labour hire providers), and the ACT regulator(s), with consequences that flow from the exclusion of automatic deemed registration.

Individuals and interstate workers: The instrument explicitly addresses “interstate workers” in the risk statement for item 1 (s 6(3), item 1). Those who might, under Mutual Recognition, rely on a one-time notification to work in the ACT in dangerous‑substances activities will be affected: they cannot rely on automatic deemed registration to lawfully carry on those activities in the ACT. Section 8 reiterates that the effect is to require individuals to meet the ACT’s particular registration requirements to carry on those activities in the Territory. Therefore workers who otherwise would have exercised mobility under AMR must instead obtain local licences or registrations as set out in ACT law.

Businesses and labour hire providers: Item 2 in s 6(3) expressly lists “Licensing provided under the Labour Hire Licensing Act 2020.” Labour hire providers that would otherwise seek to operate in the ACT relying on AMR are directly affected: the exclusion prevents AMR from supplying deemed licensure for ACT operations, requiring providers to secure ACT licences under the relevant ACT Act. The instrument states a concern that AMR may “limit the availability of up-to-date information on operational industries, hindering compliance and enforcement” (s 6(3), item 2), implying that ACT authorities and compliance functions rely on local licensing frameworks to collect operational information and fulfil enforcement obligations. The practical effect is that labour hire providers must engage with ACT licensing processes to operate lawfully.

Regulators and enforcers: The risk statements name WorkSafe ACT as an example of a regulator whose ability to maintain “ongoing engagement” may be weakened if AMR applied to dangerous substances licences (s 6(3), item 1). The instrument therefore affects regulatory bodies by preserving the need for ACT-issued licences and, implicitly, continuing the flow of information, conditions and contacts that ACT regulators use to manage risks associated with dangerous substances and with labour hire operations.

Employers and host businesses: Organisations in the ACT that host dangerous‑substances activities, or that engage labour hire providers, are affected indirectly. They will continue to be required to ensure that persons undertaking regulated activities in the ACT hold ACT registrations or licences, rather than relying on AMR deemed registration as a compliance defence. If businesses had anticipated short-term engagements using interstate-registered personnel covered by AMR, they must now verify local registration status and ensure that their contractors or staff hold the ACT licences required by the Dangerous Substances Regulations or the Labour Hire Licensing Act.

Legal advisers, compliance officers and accountants: Professionals advising clients on workforce mobility, licensing and regulatory compliance are affected because the declaration changes the landscape for cross‑jurisdictional recognition in these two areas. They must advise clients that AMR will not supply deemed registration for these categories in the ACT until the exclusion ends, and that enforcement risks identified in the instrument (s 6(3)) underpin the policy choice.

Public more generally: The instrument frames its rationale around protecting “the health and safety of workers or the public” (s 4). Citizens in the ACT are implicated insofar as the declared exclusions are intended to preserve regulatory engagement and oversight that the government identifies as necessary to mitigate risks in dangerous substances and labour hire sectors (s 6(3) items 1-2).

Geographic and temporal limits: The effect is strictly territorial , “has effect only in relation to the Australian Capital Territory” (s 4) , and temporary, given that s 6(4) repeals the exclusions on 30 June 2030. Parties operating in other States and Territories are unaffected by this ACT declaration, though those same entities may be affected if they operate in the ACT during the exclusion period.

Who decides: The instrument is made by the Acting Chief Minister (prefatory signature dated 30 June 2025) under s 42S of the Mutual Recognition Act (s 3). Operational decisions on registration, licensing and enforcement remain with the relevant ACT authorities; the declaration preserves their role by excluding AMR’s automatic deemed‑registration mechanism for the listed classes (s 6).

This instrument principally alters the duties and rights that flow from the Mutual Recognition Act’s automatic deemed-registration mechanism for the specified classes. It does not itself create the licensing regimes; rather, it preserves the primacy of the ACT’s licensing duties and the requirement that applicants meet ACT statutory criteria.

Duty to hold ACT registration or licence (practical duty): By excluding the classes listed in s 6(3) from automatic deemed registration, the instrument makes the practical duty clear: persons who wish to carry on activities covered by the specified dangerous substances licences or by labour hire licensing in the ACT must comply with the ACT’s registration or licensing requirements instead of relying on AMR. The Human Rights Act statement (s 8) expressly records that “the making of the exclusion will mean that all individuals who wish to carry on an activity covered by dangerous substances or labour hire occupations in the ACT must meet particular registration requirements set out in ACT law.” This is a statement of the operative effect on rights and duties.

Regulatory engagement and continuing obligations (regulatory duty): The instrument emphasises ongoing engagement with ACT regulators as a necessary safeguard. The risk statement for dangerous substances identifies the AMR one-time notification model as weakening “ongoing engagement with regulators like WorkSafe ACT” (s 6(3), item 1). The duty retained by licence-holders and regulated entities therefore includes continuing compliance obligations, engagement with regulators, reporting and responsiveness to ACT‑imposed licence conditions; the instrument preserves the regulators’ expectation that licence-holders will be subject to these ongoing obligations.

Right to work subject to local requirements (qualified right): Section 8 engages the ACT Human Rights Act 2004 and records consideration of the right to work. The instrument takes the position that the exclusion does not prevent a person from exercising the right to work; rather it conditions the right on meeting local registration requirements. The Acting Chief Minister states that the registration requirements are “necessary, proportionate and reasonable” and that the limitation on the right to work is justified to address risks associated with AMR (s 8). Practically, the right to work remains but is subject to a procedural and substantive barrier in the form of meeting ACT licensing standards.

Duty to provide a statement of risk (statutory duty of the decision-maker): The Mutual Recognition Act requires a statement of risk for an exemption (subsection 42S(2)), and s 6(2) records that the table in s 6(3) fulfils that requirement. The instrument therefore discharges the statutory duty to specify the risks that justify the exclusion. Practitioners should note that the sufficiency of these statements could be material to judicial review challenges, although no litigation is recorded in the instrument.

Temporal duty (expiry): The instrument creates a temporary duty,its exclusions are time-limited. Section 6(4) provides that the exclusions are repealed on 30 June 2030. The instrument also notes the operation of the Legislation Act sunset mechanism which will generally lead to repeal on the first 1 April or 1 October after the fifth anniversary of registration (s 4). Parties must therefore track the exclusion’s life-span and plan for the point at which AMR might again apply to these classes in the ACT unless the exclusion is renewed or replaced.

No new criminal offences in this instrument: The declaration itself does not create criminal offences, penalties, or new enforcement powers; it operates by preserving existing ACT licensing requirements and by preventing the Mutual Recognition Act deemed-registration mechanism from applying to the listed classes. Enforcement and penalties for contravention of ACT licensing law will remain governed by the relevant ACT statutes and regulations.

Duty to consider human rights: The instrument records that in making the exclusions the Acting Chief Minister considered relevant human rights under s 40B of the ACT Human Rights Act 2004 and found the exclusions compatible with the right to work (s 8). That statement is itself part of the administrative record of the decision-maker’s obligations under the Human Rights Act.

This declaration is not a charging instrument and does not itself establish new penalties or enforcement powers. It functions by excluding particular registrations from the Mutual Recognition Act’s automatic deemed-registration mechanism and thereby leaves intact the existing enforcement and penalty regimes established in ACT law for those activities.

No new penalty provisions in the declaration: The instrument contains no provisions creating offences, fines, or enforcement mechanisms. It does not modify the penalty structure of the Mutual Recognition Act or of the ACT licensing laws. Consequently, any sanctions for unlicensed conduct in dangerous substances activities or for labour hire providers operating without the ACT licence will continue to be those set out in the Dangerous Substances regulations, the Labour Hire Licensing Act 2020, and other ACT statute and regulation. The declaration preserves the requirement to comply with those ACT provisions by preventing AMR from supplying an alternative, deemed registration pathway (s 6(1)).

Enforcement responsibility remains with ACT regulators: By excluding the specified registrations, the instrument keeps enforcement, inspection, compliance, and licensing functions with ACT regulators. For dangerous substances the risk statement names WorkSafe ACT as an example of a regulator that relies on “ongoing engagement” with licence‑holders (s 6(3), item 1). The practical effect is that ACT regulators retain their usual suite of monitoring, compliance and enforcement tools under ACT law.

Indirect compliance consequences: While the instrument itself does not prescribe penalties, its effect is to create compliance obligations where AMR would otherwise have supplied a deemed registration. Entities or individuals who rely erroneously on AMR to operate in the ACT could therefore expose themselves to ACT enforcement action for unlicensed conduct under the relevant ACT legislation. Those consequences depend on the sanctions present in the Dangerous Substances instruments and the Labour Hire Licensing Act 2020, which are not reproduced in this declaration.

Potential for administrative review and judicial challenge: The instrument was made under s 42S of the Mutual Recognition Act and includes statutory risk statements (s 6(2)). It also contains a Human Rights Act statement (s 8). The absence of new penalties does not preclude administrative review remedies or judicial review challenges to the validity of the declaration under administrative law or under the Human Rights Act where there is an arguable incompatibility. The instrument itself records the decision-maker’s view that the exclusions are compatible (s 8), but it does not preclude external legal challenge. The declaration does not describe procedural pathways or limitation periods for such review; those would be determined by ordinary administrative and judicial review law and by the terms of the Acts under which the ACT licence regimes operate.

Sunset and repeal implications for enforcement: Because section 6(4) repeals the exclusions on 30 June 2030, and because the instrument otherwise will sunset under the Legislation Act (s 4), the enforcement landscape will change again on repeal. Regulated parties and enforcers must manage the transition back to normal AMR operation for these classes (if that occurs), including monitoring for renewals, revocations or replacement instruments.

This declaration is explicitly linked to several other laws and operates by reference to them. Its interactions are principally with the Commonwealth Mutual Recognition Act 1992, ACT licensing and regulation regimes, the ACT Human Rights Act 2004, and the Legislation Act 2003 (Commonwealth) insofar as sunset and registration mechanics are concerned.

Mutual Recognition Act 1992 (Commonwealth): The instrument is made under section 42S of the Mutual Recognition Act 1992 (s 3). It relies on the power in that Act to exclude particular classes of registrations from automatic deemed registration. The table in s 6(3) is presented as the exercise of the power in paragraph 42S(1)(a) and the accompanying statement of risk is drafted to satisfy subsection 42S(2) (s 6(1)-(2)). Practitioners should note that the exclusion works by operating inside the Commonwealth framework: it does not amend the Mutual Recognition Act but records an exemption under its section 42S mechanism.

ACT dangerous substances regulation and licences: The instrument expressly names the Dangerous Substances (Explosives) Regulation 2004 and the Dangerous Substances (General) Regulation 2004 as the regulatory instruments that issue the licences excluded from AMR (s 6(3), item 1). The effect is that the licensing, conditions, compliance obligations, enforcement and penalty structures in those Regulations, and the broader ACT occupational health and safety framework, remain the operative basis for lawful activity in the ACT. The declaration therefore preserves the primacy of these ACT instruments over the mutual recognition route for dangerous‑substances activities.

Labour Hire Licensing Act 2020 (ACT): Item 2 in s 6(3) targets the licensing regime under the Labour Hire Licensing Act 2020. The exclusion means the ACT licensing and information‑gathering regimes under that Act remain the point of compliance for labour hire providers operating in the ACT rather than being bypassed by AMR deemed registration. The instrument’s risk statement for item 2 links AMR to potential limitations on “availability of up-to-date information on operational industries, hindering compliance and enforcement” (s 6(3), item 2), which underlines the intended interaction between the declaration and the Labour Hire Licensing Act’s data and supervisory functions.

Human Rights Act 2004 (ACT): Section 8 of the declaration engages the ACT Human Rights Act. It records that the decision-maker considered the right to work (s 27B(1)) and s 40B(1) obligations to avoid incompatibility with human rights, and concluded the exclusions are compatible. The declaration therefore sits alongside the Human Rights Act as part of the administrative record for the decision and records the Actor’s view of compatibility with rights, but it does not purport to displace that Act.

Legislation Act 2003 (Commonwealth): Section 4 explains that the instrument will sunset under section 50 of the Legislation Act 2003 and clarifies the likely practical date of repeal (the first 1 April or 1 October on or after the fifth anniversary of registration on the Federal Register of Legislation). That interaction defines the lifecycle of the instrument and ties it to Commonwealth statutory mechanisms governing disallowable or time-limited legislative instruments.

Jurisdictional limits: The declaration states it “has effect only in relation to the Australian Capital Territory” (s 4). It therefore does not change the operation of AMR in other States and Territories; other jurisdictions are unaffected by this ACT-specific exemption.

Administrative law and review: Because the instrument is an exercise of a statutory power under the Mutual Recognition Act, it will be subject to the usual doctrines of administrative law and judicial review. The declaration records that the requirements of s 42S(2) were observed by providing a statement of risk (s 6(2)-(3)). It also records human-rights consideration (s 8). Any legal challenge to the instrument would therefore be litigating under the Mutual Recognition Act, the Human Rights Act and administrative law principles, though this declaration does not itself set out procedural routes or limits.

No change to Commonwealth AMR architecture outside ACT: Finally, practitioners should note that this instrument is a targeted, territorial exemption. It declares a local operation and does not, and cannot, amend the national Mutual Recognition Act or the legal position of licences in other jurisdictions.

This instrument is presented in its original form as made on 30 June 2025 by the Acting Chief Minister (cover sheet and signature). The declaration includes a standard commencement table (s 2) and a note clarifying the table applies only to the instrument "as originally made" and will not be amended in the instrument text to record later amendments (s 2, note).

Key dates and lifecycle entries in the instrument:

• Made: signed and dated 30 June 2025 (prefatory material).
• Commencement: the whole instrument commences on 1 July 2025 (s 2(1)).
• Repeal of section 6: s 6(4) explicitly provides that section 6 (the exclusions) is repealed on 30 June 2030.
• Sunset mechanism: s 4 records that, unless revoked earlier, the instrument will sunset under s 50 of the Legislation Act 2003 (Commonwealth), generally meaning repeal on the first 1 April or 1 October falling on or after the fifth anniversary of registration on the Federal Register of Legislation.

The instrument contains no other amendment history notes, and no amendments to the instrument itself are recorded in the text provided. The s 2 note makes clear that later published versions of the instrument may include editorial information in column 3 of the commencement table, but that such information is not part of the instrument.

Because s 6(4) fixes a repeal date for the exclusions, any substantive amendment extending, narrowing or otherwise changing the exclusions would require a fresh instrument or an amendment made in the statutory manner under section 42S of the Mutual Recognition Act. The instrument does not, on its face, provide an automatic review point other than the sunset provisions described, nor does it record a commitment to review the exclusions before repeal. Practitioners should therefore treat the instrument as a time-limited declaration likely to require affirmative action by the ACT executive to renew or replace the exclusions before or after 30 June 2030 if continuity is desired.

There is no record in the instrument of prior versions, consultations, or interim amendments. The document's explanatory statement at s 4 describes the purpose and the intended expiry pathway but does not record any antecedent instruments or amendments. For historical or administrative tracking, the instrument will also be recorded on the Federal Register of Legislation, and s 4’s reference to that registration establishes how the Legislation Act sunset timing will be calculated.

In sum, the instrument is new as of 30 June 2025, commenced 1 July 2025, and contains an express stand‑alone expiry clause for the exclusions on 30 June 2030. No further amendment history is set out in the text provided.

The instrument itself does not record any litigation. There are no cases, judicial decisions, or tribunal matters referenced in the text of the declaration. The only material touching on rights or review is the administrative statement concerning compatibility with the ACT Human Rights Act 2004 in section 8, which records the Acting Chief Minister’s concluded view that the exclusions are not incompatible with the right to work as expressed in s 27B(1) of the Human Rights Act.

Absence of recorded litigation: Because the declaration was made on 30 June 2025 and commences on 1 July 2025, it is possible litigation or review could follow in practice, but the instrument contains no reference to any such proceedings. The instrument does not itself create new enforcement powers or penalties; it preserves existing enforcement frameworks under ACT law by removing the AMR deemed-registration pathway for the specified licences (s 6), and therefore any challenges that arise are likely to be about:

• the validity of the use of s 42S of the Mutual Recognition Act in these circumstances, including the sufficiency of the risk statements required by subsection 42S(2) (s 6(2)-(3)); and
• compatibility with the ACT Human Rights Act 2004, although the instrument records the decision-maker’s consideration and conclusion on that point (s 8).

Potential grounds for legal challenge (the instrument does not assert these have occurred): Given the instrument is an administrative act made under a Commonwealth statute, potential avenues for legal challenge could include judicial review of the decision under general administrative law grounds, or argument that the risk statements do not satisfy the statutory preconditions. The instrument records the risk statements (s 6(3)) and the Human Rights Act assessment (s 8), which will be relevant material in any review. However, the instrument includes no factual record of litigation or adverse judicial findings.

Practical note for practitioners: Because the declaration removes a pathway that some applicants or providers might have expected to use, disputes arising from non-compliance or from misunderstanding may generate litigation in the future. Where challenges occur they will be fact-sensitive and depend on the content of the Mutual Recognition Act, the extent and sufficiency of the risk statements in s 6(3), and the administrative law and human‑rights context. The instrument itself provides the primary administrative record relevant to such disputes.

In short, the instrument’s text contains no litigation history. It records administrative reasons and human‑rights considerations, which would be the material focal points in any future legal challenge; however, no such challenges are set out in the instrument.

The instrument raises several practical pitfalls and traps for parties who rely on simple summaries of the Mutual Recognition Act. These are matters that advisers, compliance officers and regulated parties should note carefully.

The exclusion is narrow and specific in two ways: by activity and by jurisdiction. The instrument excludes only the registrations listed in s 6(3). Item 1 refers to licences under the Dangerous Substances (Explosives) Regulation 2004 and the Dangerous Substances (General) Regulation 2004; item 2 refers to licensing under the Labour Hire Licensing Act 2020. The effect is limited to those precise statutory licensing categories in the ACT (s 6(3)), and the instrument “has effect only in relation to the Australian Capital Territory” (s 4). Do not assume wider or national application; other jurisdictions remain governed by their own AMR posture and any corresponding exemptions.

AMR is excluded, not licensing: The declaration does not suspend the underlying ACT licensing regimes. It excludes the operation of AMR’s automatic deemed-registration mechanism for the listed licences (s 6(1)). That means the usual local licensing requirements remain enforceable. A common mistake would be to assume the exclusion creates a new ACT licence pathway or to assume that the Commonwealth AMR scheme no longer operates at all. It still operates in other categories and in other jurisdictions; it is only precluded for the listed ACT licences.

Right to work remains conditional: Section 8 emphasises that the exclusion “does not prevent an individual from carrying on an activity” but will mean they must meet ACT registration requirements. Practitioners should avoid telling clients the exclusion is an absolute ban; it is a conditioning mechanism. The practical consequence is that unlicensed persons who attempt to rely on AMR may face ACT enforcement for unlicensed conduct under ACT laws.

Timing traps: The instrument commences on 1 July 2025 (s 2(1)) and section 6 is repealed on 30 June 2030 (s 6(4)). The instrument also references the Legislation Act sunsetting process (s 4). Parties must track both the explicit repeal date and the mechanics of the Legislation Act sunset: depending on registration date and technicalities, the effective repeal date might be governed by the Federal Register of Legislation timing. Failure to account for the precise repeal/sunset date could lead to mistaken reliance on AMR after the exclusion ends or failure to seek timely ACT registration while the exclusion is in force.

Interplay with one-time notification misconception: The instrument’s risk statement criticises AMR as limited to “a one-time notification to work” and suggests AMR “may reduce regulatory oversight” (s 6(3), item 1). Advisers should not over-read this into the Mutual Recognition Act beyond the statement recorded. The declaration’s criticism is the government’s justification for the exclusion; it does not announce ACT enforcement practices beyond preserving the local licensing regime. Treat the phrase as an administrative justification rather than a legal amendment of the Mutual Recognition Act beyond the s 42S exemption.

Information and compliance expectations: For labour hire providers the instrument notes that AMR “may limit the availability of up-to-date information on operational industries, hindering compliance and enforcement” (s 6(3), item 2). This signals that the ACT expects licensing to be used to gather operational information for compliance. Labour hire providers who intended to operate under deemed registration but without fulfilling ACT reporting or data obligations may be exposed to compliance audits or sanction under local law.

Human rights statement is administrative, not dispositive: Section 8 records an assessment under the ACT Human Rights Act 2004. That statement is the executive’s view. It is part of the administrative record and may be relevant in review proceedings, but it is not an immunity from challenge. Advisers should not assume that section 8 forecloses legal argument about proportionality or compatibility in particular cases where the facts suggest a different outcome.

No change to penalties in ACT laws: Because the instrument does not change penalties, one common error is to assume it reduces exposure to sanctions. In fact the exclusion makes local licensing the operative condition for lawful activity; unlicensed activity continues to attract the penalties set out in the ACT Dangerous Substances regulations or the Labour Hire Licensing Act 2020.

Administrative metadata: The s 2 note says that column 3 of the commencement table is not part of the instrument and that it may be edited in published versions (s 2 note). Practitioners relying on published versions for historical detail should verify that any editorial content in column 3 is not legally operative.

Who to contact and verification: The declaration names WorkSafe ACT as an example of a regulator whose engagement could be weakened (s 6(3), item 1). That signals that WorkSafe and the ACT licensing authority are likely the operative contacts for queries and compliance steps. Do not assume Commonwealth regulators will manage these ACT licensing complaints while the exclusion is in force.

The instrument does not set out application forms, fees, or procedural steps for obtaining ACT licences. It does, however, make clear the practical compliance obligations. The steps below state the required compliance end‑state and the practical steps an adviser should take, grounded in the instrument’s text and the institutions it invokes.

1. Identify whether the activity or registration category is covered by the exclusion (s 6(3)). The declaration lists:

   • Dangerous substances licences issued under the Dangerous Substances (Explosives) Regulation 2004 and the Dangerous Substances (General) Regulation 2004 (s 6(3), item 1); and
   • Licensing provided under the Labour Hire Licensing Act 2020 (s 6(3), item 2).

   If the person or entity’s activity matches those statutory categories, they cannot rely on automatic deemed registration under the Mutual Recognition Act to operate in the ACT during the exclusion period.

2. Do not rely on AMR deemed registration in the ACT for those classes between 1 July 2025 and the repeal of section 6 on 30 June 2030 (s 2(1); s 6(4)). Instead, treat the ACT licences as the operative legal requirement for lawful activity in the Territory (s 6(1); s 8).

3. Apply for and obtain the relevant ACT licence or registration under the specific ACT instruments named. The instrument states that individuals “must meet particular registration requirements set out in ACT law” (s 8). Practically, this will mean:

   • For dangerous substances activities, engaging with the processes, conditions and safety requirements set out in the Dangerous Substances (Explosives) Regulation 2004 and the Dangerous Substances (General) Regulation 2004; and
   • For labour hire providers, applying for and maintaining licensing under the Labour Hire Licensing Act 2020.

   The declaration does not set out the procedural requirements, so applicants should use the official ACT licensing portals and guidance to complete the necessary steps.

4. Maintain ongoing engagement with ACT regulators. The risk statement for dangerous substances emphasises the need for “ongoing engagement with regulators like WorkSafe ACT” (s 6(3), item 1). Compliance should therefore include meeting reporting obligations, responding to inspections, and ensuring licence conditions are met on an on‑going basis.

5. Ensure information and operational transparency for labour hire licensing. The declaration cites the risk that AMR could “limit the availability of up-to-date information on operational industries, hindering compliance and enforcement” (s 6(3), item 2). Labour hire providers should therefore ensure they maintain up-to-date records, reporting and interfaces expected under the Labour Hire Licensing Act 2020.

6. Check timing and expiry. The exclusion is time-limited: section 6 is repealed on 30 June 2030 (s 6(4)). The instrument also notes the Legislation Act sunset mechanism (s 4). Practitioners should monitor whether the exclusion is renewed, revoked or allowed to lapse and plan licence renewals or AMR reliance strategies accordingly.

7. Keep the administrative record available. The instrument contains the s 6(3) risk statements and the s 8 Human Rights Act consideration. Parties seeking to contest an ACT decision should keep records of licence applications, notifications, and regulator correspondence, as these will be relevant in any review or enforcement context.

8. Seek advice where activities straddle categories or where interstate licensing regimes differ in scope. If an activity sits close to, or outside, the specific instruments named in s 6(3), confirm whether the exclusion applies. The declaration’s territorial and textual specificity makes that determination factual and statutory; where necessary, obtain legal advice to avoid misclassification.

9. For employers and host firms: verify the licence status of workers and labour hire providers. Because the exclusion removes AMR as a presumed compliance route for the listed licences, host businesses must ensure that workers and contractors hold the required ACT licences to avoid exposure to enforcement action under ACT law.

10. Document reliance decisions. If a person or firm decides to apply for an ACT licence rather than rely on AMR, keep evidence of application steps and timing. Conversely, do not rely on AMR in respect of the excluded registrations while the exclusion is in force.

Grounding: Each of these compliance steps flows from the instrument’s operative exclusions (s 6(1), s 6(3)), the statement that individuals must meet ACT registration requirements (s 8) and the temporal and territorial constraints (s 2(1), s 4, s 6(4)). The declaration does not provide procedural forms or fees, so compliance requires engagement with the relevant ACT licensing authorities and adherence to the procedural and substantive requirements of the Dangerous Substances Regulations and the Labour Hire Licensing Act 2020.