Election Commitments Costing Act 2012

The Act’s core conceptual architecture rests on four linked ideas: (1) authorised requesters; (2) formal, written requests that include sufficient details; (3) regulated timing and publication obligations; and (4) confidentiality rules during the “costing period.” Each concept is defined and constrained in the text.

Authorised requesters. The Act restricts who may ask for a costing. Before polling day, the leader of a registered party with at least one MLA, or an MLA who is not a member of a registered party, may ask (s 5(1)). After polling day, requests are permitted from the leader of a registered party that had at least one MLA before polling day, or from a person that party nominates (s 5(2)). The Act also forbids asking to cost another MLA’s commitment or a registered party of which the requester is not a member (s 5(5)). These provisions create a closed class of eligible requesters tied to parliamentary status in the Assembly (see cross‑references to Electoral Act definitions in the Dictionary).

Request content and administrative process. A costing request must be written and include a detailed explanation of the commitment and any other information relevant to costing (s 5(3)). The director‑general may request more information in writing (s 8) and may issue written guidelines for administrative procedure (s 7). On receipt, limited metadata must be made public (s 5(4)): the commitment, the requester’s name and the date received. The Act gives examples to clarify “publicly announced” commitments and “publicly available” publishing channels, but explicitly states each example is not exhaustive (see ss 5 example; ss 9 and 10 examples).

Timing, deadlines and automatic withdrawal. The Act sets firm temporal rules. The Dictionary defines the costing period; for elections after 2012 it begins 1 week after the last sitting day before the election and ends when the Chief Minister is elected on the first sitting day after the election. For requests received before polling day, the director‑general must cost and make the costing publicly available as soon as practicable and before polling day (s 9(2)). If insufficient information or time means a costing cannot be completed, a notice stating that and why must be published before polling day (s 9(4)). Any pre‑poll request not costed before polling day is taken to be withdrawn on polling day and the director‑general must not begin or continue costings on or after polling day (ss 9(5)-(6)). For requests received on or after polling day, the analogous obligations are to cost and publish as soon as practicable and before the end of the costing period, or to publish a notice if impossible (s 10).

Confidentiality and permitted disclosure. s 11(1) generally prohibits disclosure “during the costing period” of costing information particular to a costing request, except where disclosure is made under the Act or another territory law, in relation to exercise of a function under this or another territory law, or with the requester’s consent (s 11(2)). That structure allows the director‑general to comply with the Act’s own publication obligations while protecting other kinds of disclosure during the costing period.

Administrative discretion and oversight. The director‑general has discretion to issue guidelines (s 7) and seek additional information (s 8). The Executive may make regulations (s 13), which offers a route for further procedural detail to be introduced without amending the Act. The Act does not itself prescribe a costing methodology or standards, leaving those choices to the director‑general’s practice, the guidelines and any regulations.

Definitions and boundary rules. “Costing period” (Dictionary) is precisely defined and is the anchor for timing and confidentiality rules. “Costing request” is defined by reference to s 5. The Dictionary cross‑references Electoral Act definitions (polling day, MLA, registered party).

Together these concepts produce a legislative regime oriented to: (a) giving recognised political actors access to Treasury costings under defined deadlines; (b) requiring Treasury to publish costings or a notice of inability to cost within those deadlines; and (c) preserving a measure of confidentiality during the costing period except where the Act requires or permits disclosure.

The Act allocates rights and duties among a small set of institutional actors, and in doing so changes information flows and administrative obligations during an election cycle.

Primary affected parties

• Registered parties with parliamentary representation. The leader of a registered party with one or more MLAs gains the explicit right to ask for costings (s 5(1)). After polling day, the leader of a registered party that had at least one MLA before polling day, or a person nominated by that party, may ask (s 5(2)). These provisions give party leaders formalised access to director‑general costings and a public channel for publication.
• Individual MLAs who are not members of registered parties. An MLA who is not a member of a registered party may ask for costings of their publicly announced commitments (s 5(1)(b)). That creates parity for independents to access the same costing mechanism as party leaders.
• The director‑general and Treasury/Directorate staff. The director‑general acquires statutory duties to cost commitments when requested (ss 9(1), 10(1)), to make costings publicly available within set timeframes (ss 9(2), 10(2)), to notify reasons when unable to cost within time (ss 9(4), 10(4)), to publish request metadata (s 5(4)) and to manage requests, including seeking additional information (s 8) and issuing guidelines (s 7). That imposes administrative workload and timing risk on the director‑general’s office.
• Requesters’ political opponents and the voting public. By requiring publication of costings (or a notice that costings could not be completed), the Act affects the information available to voters and opponents during and immediately after an election. The Act requires publication channels be used (examples in ss 9 and 10 suggest the Treasury Directorate website and media releases). The request metadata published under s 5(4) further informs public debate about which commitments are being costed and by whom.

Secondary affected parties and limits

• Parties or persons not linked to the registered party or MLA. The Act expressly forbids asking the director‑general to cost commitments of another MLA or of a registered party of which the requester is not a member (s 5(5)). That excludes journalists, interest groups, third‑party researchers and members of the public from initiating a costing request under this Act.
• The electorate’s access to internal costing inputs. During the costing period, costing information particular to a request is protected from disclosure to third parties (s 11(1)), with limited exceptions in s 11(2). The Act therefore confines access to the director‑general, the requester and persons entitled to disclosure under the Act or other territory laws.
• Regulatory agencies and FOI regime. Endnotes show amendments by the Freedom of Information Act 2016 and the Justice and Community Safety Legislation Amendment Act 2017. The Act previously contained s 12 (now omitted) that dealt with access to documents relating to a costing request; endnote 4 records “s 12 om A2016‑55 amdt 4.12.” This indicates the FOI Act amendments shifted access provisions outside this Act, and so the FOI Act now determines broader access to costing documents outside the narrow s 11 regime.

Who pays and who decides

• The director‑general (Treasury) performs the costing and decides methodology and assumptions in practice, subject to guidelines and regulations if issued (ss 7, 13). The Act requires the requester to supply a detailed explanation and any other information relevant to costing (s 5(3)), so requesters bear the upfront drafting and evidence burden. The director‑general may request more information (s 8), transferring additional document and evidentiary work back to the requester. Publication imposes dissemination costs on the director‑general’s office.

Net effect on behaviour

• Eligible political actors gain a route to transparent public costings tied to election commitments, with deadlines forcing the director‑general to prioritise those requests (ss 9 and 10). The Act’s eligibility rules make it a tool for parties and individual independents, not for third‑party commentators. Administrative time pressures and the possibility that a request will be taken to be withdrawn if not completed before polling day (s 9(5)) create an incentive for early and complete provision of supporting information by requesters.

This section maps statutory duties imposed on the director‑general and rights granted to requesters, referencing the relevant sections and the Dictionary.

Duties of the director‑general

• Receive and make public request metadata. Upon receipt of a costing request the director‑general must, as soon as practicable, make public the election commitment to which the request relates, the name of the person making the request and the date the request was received (s 5(4)). This is an immediate transparency duty that applies on receipt.
• Cost the commitment and publish the costing. Where a request is valid and not withdrawn, the director‑general must cost the election commitment and make the costing publicly available (s 9(1) for pre‑poll requests; s 10(1) for post‑poll requests). The Act requires the director‑general to act “as soon as practicable” after receiving a request and to meet the deadline relevant to whether the request is before polling day (before polling day, s 9(2)) or on or after polling day (before the end of the costing period, s 10(2)). The director‑general must also give the requester a copy of the costing before making it publicly available (s 9(3), s 10(3)).
• Publish notices when costings cannot be completed in time. If the director‑general lacks adequate information or sufficient time to complete a costing within the required window, the director‑general must, before the deadline (before polling day or before the end of the costing period), make publicly available a notice stating the commitment cannot be costed in time and the reason (s 9(4), s 10(4)).
• Refuse to commence/continue costings in certain circumstances. If a pre‑poll request has not been costed before polling day, the request is taken to be withdrawn on polling day and the director‑general must not begin or continue costing the commitment on or after polling day (ss 9(5)-(6)). Similarly, if a post‑poll request has not been costed before the end of the costing period, it is taken to be withdrawn and the director‑general must not begin or continue the costing after the end of the costing period (ss 10(5)-(6)). Those provisions constrain the director‑general’s ability to continue work beyond the Act’s deadlines.
• Seek additional information and issue procedures. The director‑general may ask the requester in writing for additional information relevant to costing (s 8) and may issue written guidelines on administrative procedures for costing (s 7). These are discretionary powers to manage process and evidence.
• Observe confidentiality exceptions. During the costing period the director‑general must not disclose costing information particular to a request to anyone other than the requester, except where disclosure is permitted under the Act or other territory law, for the exercise of a function under territory law, or with the requester’s consent (s 11). The director‑general must therefore balance transparency obligations with confidentiality constraints.

Rights and obligations of requesters

• Right to request costings. Eligible persons (party leaders with one or more MLAs; independents) have the right to submit a written costing request that is to be processed under the Act (s 5(1)). After polling day, leaders who had one or more MLAs before polling day and persons nominated by the party may request costings (s 5(2)).
• Content obligations. A costing request must be in writing and include a detailed explanation of the commitment, including its purpose, and any other information relevant to costing (s 5(3)). The Act gives an example that assumptions to be used should be included.
• Right to be given a copy before publication. The requester must be given a copy of the costing before it is made publicly available (s 9(3), s 10(3)). That copy is the trigger point for withdrawal rights (see below).
• Withdrawal ability and limits. The requester may withdraw a costing request at any time prior to being given a copy of the costing under s 9(3) or s 10(3). Withdrawal must be by written notice (s 6). Once the copy is provided, the request cannot be withdrawn under s 6(1),the Act’s mechanics convert the request into a published costing obligation.
• Control over disclosure via consent. During the costing period, costing information particular to a request cannot be disclosed to others except with the requester’s consent or under the Act or other territory law (s 11). The requester can therefore permit disclosure to third parties.

Limitations and prohibitions

• The Act forbids making a costing request about another MLA or a registered party of which the requester is not a member (s 5(5)). This is an express limitation on who may use the mechanism.
• Automatic withdrawal rules create a hard deadline for pre‑poll requests that are not completed, reinforcing the requirement that costings requested pre‑poll be finished before polling day (s 9(5)-(6)).

Administrative instruments and delegation

• The director‑general may issue guidelines (s 7) and the Executive may make regulations for the Act (s 13). These instruments can expand on administrative duties, but until issued the statutory obligations remain as set in Parts 2 and 3.

The Act therefore establishes enforceable duties on the director‑general to cost and publish, and grants controlled rights to a narrowly defined class of political actors to obtain those costings, subject to strict form and timing rules.

The Act contains a small number of prohibitions but does not attach bespoke monetary penalties to most individual contraventions within its text. Enforcement mechanisms operate primarily through statutory duties and deadlines placed on the director‑general and through procedural rights and limits for requesters.

Statutory prohibitions and sanctions in the text

• The Act contains at least one explicit statutory prohibition: “A person must not ask the director‑general to cost a publicly announced election commitment of another MLA; or a registered party of which the person is not a member” (s 5(5)). The provision is expressed as a mandatory prohibition, but the Act text does not specify an immediate penalty quantum for breach within that section.
• Other provisions that create duties,such as the director‑general’s duty to make public certain details on receipt (s 5(4)) or to cost and publish under timing constraints (ss 9 and 10),are expressed as obligations, but again the Act does not set out specified penalties for failure to comply in the substantive sections.

Penalty units and offences under general law

• The republication front matter records that “At the republication date, the value of a penalty unit for an offence against this law is $150 for an individual and $750 for a corporation (see Legislation Act 2001, s 133).” That statement records the value of a penalty unit for any offence against this law but does not itself enumerate which contraventions in the Act attract penalty units. The Act’s text does not contain explicit penalty clauses attached to particular sections (for example, “a person who contravenes X is guilty of an offence and liable to Y penalty units”).
• The endnotes and amendment history do not add specific new penalty clauses for breaches of the Act; they record amendments by other Acts and the omission of s 12 (which concerned access to documents and was removed by the FOI Act amendment; see endnote 4). Because this Act lacks bespoke penalty schedules, the enforcement of duties may rely on other administrative or statutory mechanisms, or on general offence provisions where applicable.

Enforcement practicalities and administrative remedies

• Compliance by the director‑general is enforced by statutory obligation and by the political and administrative consequences of failing to meet the Act’s publication deadlines. The director‑general must publish a notice if a costing cannot be completed in time (ss 9(4), 10(4)), which creates a formal record of inability to meet the statutory duty. The Act constrains the director‑general’s ability to continue work on certain requests after prescribed deadlines (ss 9(6), 10(6)).
• Because the Act permits the Executive to make regulations (s 13) and permits the director‑general to issue administrative guidelines (s 7), regulatory or administrative instruments could impose process obligations and penalties in subordinate instruments, subject to the Legislation Act and the requirement that regulations be notified and presented to the Assembly.
• Access to costing documents beyond the narrow confines of s 11 is likely governed by the Freedom of Information legislation and administrative law principles. The endnotes record that s 12 (access to documents relating to costing request) was omitted by the Freedom of Information Act 2016 (see amendment history), which indicates disclosure and access disputes will be adjudicated under the FOI Act and its procedures rather than this Act.

Practical enforcement risks and remedies

• The Act gives requesters the right to have a copy of the costing before publication (ss 9(3), 10(3)) and to withdraw a request up to that point (s 6). Where a requester contends the director‑general has not complied with duties, political and administrative remedies (public complaints, Assembly oversight, judicial review) will be the likely routes, but the Act does not create a tribunal or internal penalty regime.
• If a person contravenes s 5(5) by submitting an improper request, the absence of an explicit monetary penalty in the text means enforcement will depend on whatever general offence framework applies or on administrative rejection of the request by the director‑general under the Act’s process rules.

In sum, the Act sets obligations and prohibitions and references the general penalty unit framework in the republication notes, but does not embed a detailed penalty or enforcement schedule in its substantive text. The FOI Act amendments suggest that some enforcement avenues (access to documents) have been reallocated to other legislation.

The Act cross‑references and is situated within broader territory legislation. Its operation interacts with the Electoral Act 1992, the Legislation Act 2001 and the Freedom of Information Act 2016 (via amendment history and omission of prior sections).

Links to Electoral Act and definitions

• The Dictionary signposts key electoral terms to the Electoral Act 1992 dictionary: “polling day”, “MLA” and “registered party” are defined in the Electoral Act (Dictionary note). The Act relies on those definitions to determine eligibility to make requests (s 5) and to fix timing (polling day is a central deadline in ss 9 and 10). Users must therefore consult the Electoral Act definitions to determine who qualifies (for example, what constitutes a “registered party” and the timing of “polling day” in a given election).

Legislation Act 2001

• The Dictionary and the Act rely on definitions from the Legislation Act, including the definition of director‑general (see Dictionary note 2). The Legislation Act also governs penalty units and the treatment of notes and examples in the Act (Legislation Act ss 115, 117, 126, 127, 132 references are used by the republished copy). The republication front matter explicitly notes the penalty unit values as determined under the Legislation Act (penalty unit value at republication date).

Freedom of Information Act 2016

• The endnotes record that the Freedom of Information Act 2016 (A2016‑55) amended this Act and omitted s 12 (see amendment history: “Access to documents relating to costing request s 12 om A2016‑55 amdt 4.12”). That omission indicates that access to documents that relate to costing requests, or broader disclosure obligations, are to be dealt with under the FOI Act rather than by the now‑omitted provisions of this Act. Therefore, while s 11 restricts disclosure during the costing period to the requester except in specified circumstances, FOI law will be the primary instrument governing public access to any documents beyond those narrow s 11 permissions.
• The amendment history entries (legislation history) show the Act was amended by the FOI Act in 2016 and later touched by the Justice and Community Safety Legislation Amendment Act 2017 (which amended the FOI Act). Users should consult the FOI Act to understand how access requests and exemptions interact with the confidentiality provisions in s 11.

Regulations and subordinate instruments

• The Executive may make regulations under s 13 for this Act. Any regulations must be notified and presented to the Legislative Assembly under the Legislation Act. Regulations could add procedural detail or specify matters not contained in the Act; therefore the regulatory power provides a route to elaborate on process, evidence requirements or other operational matters without amending the Act itself.

Administrative law and judicial review

• The director‑general’s duties to act “as soon as practicable” and to make decisions about whether adequate information or time exists are administrative decisions. Those decisions will be subject to general administrative law principles, including merits review or judicial review in appropriate circumstances. The Act does not preclude judicial review of decisions or directions taken under it.

Interaction summary

• The Act sits within a framework: electoral definitions and timing from the Electoral Act, administrative definitions and penalty units from the Legislation Act, and access and disclosure matters now governed by the FOI Act after the 2016 amendments. Regulations under s 13 and director‑general guidelines under s 7 will further interact with the Act’s core duties, and administrative law remedies apply to the director‑general’s discretionary acts.

The text includes explicit annotation of the Act’s legislative history and amendments in the endnotes. The republication covers amendments up to 1 January 2018 and lists the amending instruments, commencement dates and specific textual changes.

Key legislative events and dates

• Original enactment: Election Commitments Costing Act 2012 A2012‑47 was notified on the Legislation Register on 29 August 2012 and commenced in stages: ss 1 and 2 commenced 29 August 2012; remainder commenced 30 August 2012 (Legislation history, endnote 3).
• Expiry and interim republiciations: Earlier republications R1 (30 August 2012) and R2 (1 November 2014) are recorded in endnote 5; part of the Act (s 14) had an expiry date noted (s 14 exp 31 October 2014, endnote 4 indicates expiry of a review provision,see below).
• FOI Act amendment (2016): The Freedom of Information Act 2016 (A2016‑55) amended this Act. The endnotes state that the FOI Act (A2016‑55 sch 4 pt 4.10) was notified on 26 August 2016; ss 1 and 2 commenced 26 August 2016 and sch 4 pt 4.10 commenced 1 January 2018 as amended by A2017‑14 s 19 (Legislation history).
• Justice and Community Safety Legislation Amendment Act 2017 (No 2) (A2017‑14): This amending Act was notified on 17 May 2017; ss 1 and 2 commenced 17 May 2017 and s 19 commenced 24 May 2017 (Legislation history). The endnote clarifies that this Act only amends the Freedom of Information Act 2016 (A2016‑55).

Specific textual changes recorded in endnotes

• Omission of s 12: The amendment history notes “Access to documents relating to costing request s 12 om A2016‑55 amdt 4.12.” That identifies a discrete deletion: section 12, which previously addressed access to documents relating to costing requests, was removed by the FOI Act amendment. Users should therefore consult the FOI Act for current access rules.
• Expiry of review provision: The amendment history reports “Review of Act s 14 exp 31 October 2014 (s 14(3))”. That indicates the Act originally contained a review provision in s 14 that expired on 31 October 2014 and is no longer operative.
• Editorial and commencement adjustments: The republication includes standard editorial notes and indicates that some minor editorial changes may have been made under the Legislation Act 2001, part 11.3 (see “About this republication” notes). These editorial changes do not alter substantive effect.

Practical implications of amendment history

• Access and transparency regime relocated: The omission of s 12 by the FOI Act suggests access to costing documents and related disclosure obligations is now governed by the FOI Act rather than by this Act. Practitioners must therefore read the FOI Act alongside this Act to understand access rights and exemptions.
• Timebound review no longer active: The expiry of the Act’s review provision (s 14) means there is no standing statutory review obligation preserved in the current text; any scheduled review has lapsed.
• Regulatory and administrative evolution: The Act’s caution about guidelines (s 7) and the Executive’s power to make regulations (s 13) means further procedural changes may have been implemented in subordinate instruments since the 2018 republication date; readers should check the legislative register for any regulations or guidelines made after the republication date.

The endnotes provide the official amendment trail up to the republication date and should be consulted in tandem with the Electoral Act, the Legislation Act and the FOI Act for a complete contemporaneous compliance picture.

The text and endnotes in the republication do not record any case law or litigation history arising under the Election Commitments Costing Act 2012. The Act’s endnotes list legislative and amendment history and earlier republications, but do not cite any judicial decisions, determinations or tribunal findings.

What the source does record

• The endnotes and republication materials identify legislative amendments (notably by the Freedom of Information Act 2016 and the Justice and Community Safety Legislation Amendment Act 2017) and earlier republications (endnote 5). They do not include any references to legal proceedings or judicial consideration of the Act.
• The Act’s examples, notes and cross‑references are explanatory and not authoritative precedent. The republished text emphasises the legal effect of notes and examples under the Legislation Act, but does not report disputes or litigation about meaning.

Implications for research and practice

• Absence of named cases in the text means lawyers, compliance officers and researchers should not assume there is settled judicial interpretation of the Act’s provisions. Key interpretative questions , for example the scope of “costing information particular to a costing request” in s 11(1), the precise application of the “as soon as practicable” timing requirement in ss 9(2) and 10(2), or the division of roles between the director‑general and party requesters over assumptions and modelling , may not have been litigated at the time of this republication.
• Where ambiguities arise, administrative law remedies (judicial review) remain available to challenge the director‑general’s exercise of discretion or to seek declarations about statutory interpretation. The Act does not specify an internal appeal process for disagreements over costings, so disputes would follow ordinary public law pathways, unless regulations or guidelines create alternative dispute mechanisms.
• Practitioners should search current case law databases and the Legislative Assembly records for any later litigation or controversy about the operation of the Act after the republication date.

In short, the republication records no litigation history. Users seeking judicial interpretations or enforcement precedents must look beyond the Act to court and tribunal records for any cases decided after the republication date.

This section flags statutory traps, timing pitfalls and procedural frictions that flow directly from the Act’s wording and structure.

Eligibility limits and standing traps

• Only a narrow class may request a costing. Before polling day only a party leader with one or more MLAs, or an MLA who is not a member of a registered party, may ask (s 5(1)). After polling day the leader of a registered party who had at least one MLA before polling day, or a person nominated by the party, may ask (s 5(2)). The Act therefore excludes third parties, external organisations, journalists and members of the public from making requests under this statute. Attempting to use the mechanism without the required status will run afoul of s 5(5), which forbids a person from asking the director‑general to cost another MLA’s commitment or a registered party of which they are not a member.
• Ambiguity over “leader” and “nominated person.” The Act presumes knowledge of who is the party leader and who a party has nominated; disputes about whether a request was made by an authorised person may be susceptible to political or administrative contest. The Act does not set out a verification mechanism or a timetable for resolving competing claims to leadership or nomination.

Timing and automatic withdrawal

• Pre‑poll requests are high risk for incomplete costings. A request made before polling day must be costed and made publicly available before polling day (s 9(2)). If the director‑general does not have adequate information or enough time, the director‑general must publish a notice before polling day stating the inability to cost and the reason (s 9(4)). Crucially, any pre‑poll request not costed before polling day is taken to be withdrawn on polling day (s 9(5)) and the director‑general must not begin or continue costing it on or after polling day (s 9(6)). This creates a hard deadline: if the director‑general cannot complete the work pre‑poll, both the requester and the director‑general lose the ability to pursue the costing under this Act thereafter for that request.
• Post‑poll requests must be completed before the end of the costing period. For requests received on or after polling day, the director‑general must complete costings before the end of the costing period (s 10(2)). If not, the request is taken to be withdrawn at the end of the costing period and the director‑general must not continue work (ss 10(5)-(6)). The Dictionary’s definition of “costing period” therefore becomes decisive. Practitioners must determine precisely when the costing period ends (it ends “when the Chief Minister is elected on the first sitting day of the Legislative Assembly after the election”, Dictionary). That timing can vary by election and may be days or weeks after polling day.

Withdrawal mechanics and strategic timing

• Requesters can withdraw only until the director‑general gives the requester a copy of the costing (s 6(1) in conjunction with ss 9(3), 10(3)). Requesters seeking tactical control over publication must time withdrawal carefully. Once the copy is provided, withdrawal is no longer permitted under s 6, and publication must proceed.
• The director‑general must publish some request metadata immediately on receipt (s 5(4)). Requesters who want to control public disclosure of the existence of a request cannot prevent the director‑general from publishing the name, the commitment and the date received as soon as practicable.

Confidentiality vs statutory publication obligations

• s 11(1) prohibits disclosure of costing information particular to a request during the costing period, but ss 9 and 10 require publication of costings within deadlines. The Act provides an internal exception in s 11(2)(a) permitting disclosure “under this Act” or another territory law; consequently the director‑general’s own statutory publication obligations are carved out. However, this structure creates a nuanced disclosure regime: request metadata (s 5(4)) becomes public on receipt, full costings become public pursuant to ss 9 and 10, but other internal costing information during the costing period remains protected unless disclosure is permitted under the Act or FOI regime. Practitioners should not assume all documents are automatically public while the costing period runs.

Access to documents and FOI interplay

• The Act formerly included s 12 dealing with access to documents relating to a costing request; endnote 4 shows s 12 was omitted by the Freedom of Information Act 2016 (A2016‑55). That means that access to documents relating to costings is now governed by the FOI Act. Requesters and third parties should therefore not rely on the Act alone for document access; they must consult the FOI Act for procedures, exemptions and review avenues.

No prescribed methodology or assumptions standard

• The Act requires that a request include any other information relevant to costing and allows the director‑general to request additional information, but it does not prescribe a costing methodology or standards. The director‑general’s approach to assumptions, discounting, forward estimates windows, or allocation of indirect effects is not set in the Act. That absence leaves room for methodological variability and potential disputes over assumptions. Requesters should include explicit assumptions in their requests (s 5(3)(b)(ii) and the example), and directors can issue guidelines (s 7), but there is no statutory guarantee of uniform methodology unless guidelines or regulations are produced.

Regulatory uncertainty

• The Executive may make regulations under s 13. Until regulations or director‑general guidelines are issued and made publicly available, the precise administrative procedures remain subject to executive discretion. Practitioners should check for any regulations or guidance issued post‑republication.

In practice these “gotchas” mean that political actors must prepare complete, well‑documented, timely written requests, and the director‑general must manage limited time windows and make clear public notices where work cannot be completed. Failure to align on timing, eligibility or document completeness can cause automatic withdrawal or require reliance on FOI channels outside the Act.

This section sets out practical, step‑by‑step compliance guidance tied to the Act’s provisions. It is aimed at eligible requesters (party leaders with at least one MLA and independent MLAs), director‑general staff and counsel advising them.

For requesters (party leaders with ≥1 MLA; eligible independents)

1. Confirm eligibility before drafting a request. Check the Electoral Act definitions for “registered party”, “MLA” and “polling day” (Dictionary cross‑references). Before polling day only party leaders with at least one MLA and independents (MLAs not members of a registered party) can request (s 5(1)). After polling day a leader who had one or more MLAs before polling day or a person nominated by the party can request (s 5(2)). Do not attempt to request a costing for another MLA or a party of which you are not a member,the Act forbids that (s 5(5)).

2. Prepare a written request meeting the statutory content test. The costing request must be in writing (s 5(3)(a)) and include a detailed explanation of the election commitment, including its purpose (s 5(3)(b)(i)), and any other information relevant to costing (s 5(3)(b)(ii)). The Act gives an example that assumptions to be used when costing the commitment should be included. Practical checklist:

   • Precisely describe the publicly announced commitment and attach the public announcement.
   • State the policy purpose, timing, affected cohorts and any phasing.
   • Provide base year assumptions, forward estimate horizon, indexing assumptions and any fiscal multipliers or offsets relied upon.
   • Provide supporting data or modelling, and identify any dependencies on other government actions or approvals.

3. Anticipate requests for further information. The director‑general may ask you in writing for additional information (s 8). Provide additional materials promptly to avoid the director‑general issuing a pre‑poll notice that the commitment cannot be costed before polling day (s 9(4)).

4. Understand publication and withdrawal mechanics. On receipt the director‑general will publish the commitment, requester’s name and date received (s 5(4)). You may withdraw the request in writing at any time prior to being given a copy of the costing by the director‑general (s 6(1)). Once the director‑general gives you a copy of the costing (s 9(3) or s 10(3)), withdrawal is no longer available. Plan for the publicity and political risk of that immediate disclosure.

5. Time your request strategically. If you submit a pre‑poll request, ensure you allow sufficient lead time for the director‑general to cost and publish before polling day; otherwise the request will be taken to be withdrawn on polling day (s 9(5)) and the director‑general must not continue the costing on or after polling day (s 9(6)). For post‑poll requests, the director‑general must complete costings before the end of the costing period; be clear about the definition of the end of the costing period (Dictionary).

6. Retain control over additional disclosure. During the costing period s 11(1) protects “costing information particular to a costing request” from disclosure to others except under the Act or other territory law, or with your consent (s 11(2)). If you want broader release of working papers or inputs, give consent or coordinate with the director‑general.

For the director‑general and Treasury staff

1. Establish administrative guidelines in writing. Use the express power under s 7 to issue written guidelines on procedures for lodging, prioritising and processing requests. Guidelines should specify file formats, assumptions templates, modelling conventions and timelines for requests for additional information under s 8. Publishing those guidelines reduces uncertainty and assists requesters to prepare complete submissions.

2. Implement intake and publication workflows. On receipt of a request you must make the specified metadata publicly available as soon as practicable (s 5(4)). Establish a workflow that:

   • Logs the request and publishes the metadata quickly.
   • Acknowledges receipt to the requester and identifies any initial deficiencies.
   • Tracks whether the request is pre‑poll or post‑poll for deadline management.

3. Manage timing risk proactively. Because pre‑poll requests must be costed and published before polling day (s 9(2)), set internal cut‑off dates to ensure adequate time for costing and consultation. If you determine there is inadequate time or information to complete a costing, publish the statutory notice before polling day or before the end of the costing period (s 9(4), s 10(4)). Do not commence or continue a pre‑poll costing after polling day if it expired uncompleted (s 9(6)).

4. Deliver a copy to the requester before publication. The Act requires giving a copy of the costing to the person who made the request before making the costing publicly available (s 9(3), s 10(3)). Make this an internal mandatory checkpoint. The requester’s copy is also the point beyond which withdrawal is not possible (s 6).

5. Protect confidential inputs, but comply with disclosure duties. During the costing period the director‑general must avoid disclosing costing information particular to a request, except under the Act, other territory law, for functions under territory law, or with requester consent (s 11). Coordinate with the agency’s FOI unit regarding any third‑party requests, noting the FOI Act now governs access to many documents.

6. Document methodologies and assumptions. The Act does not prescribe methodology; to reduce disputes have a written record of assumptions, model versions and the reasoning used to produce the costing. Where possible, requesters should be given the key assumptions in advance and asked to confirm them in writing.

For advisers and counsel

1. Ensure requesters include clear assumptions and supporting data. Given the Act’s silence on methodology, the requester’s stated assumptions will often be central to forming the costing. Draft requests with explicit forward estimates horizons, indexation, phasing and any offsetting revenue or savings.

2. Advise on timing and withdrawal options. Counsel should warn clients that pre‑poll requests can be lost if the director‑general cannot complete them before polling day (s 9(5)). Use the withdrawal window to strategise publication timing.

3. Coordinate FOI strategy. Since s 12 was omitted and FOI law governs document access, advisors should plan FOI strategies for any documents whose disclosure beyond the requester may be desirable. Be aware of the interplay between s 11’s confidentiality during the costing period and the FOI Act’s exemptions.

Record keeping and governance

• Maintain auditable records of requests, communications, internal analyses, assumptions and the time and content of published notices. The Act’s timing obligations create governance risks and administrative review exposure.

In sum, compliance requires early preparation, detailed written requests that spell out assumptions, prompt responses to information requests, careful timing of pre‑poll submissions, and clear internal procedures for publication, confidentiality and FOI coordination.