Applied provisions. This term (defined in section 4) means the Commonwealth embryo laws that apply as a law of Tasmania because of section 6, including any modifications under section 7. The applied provisions are the substantive law that regulates human embryo research in Tasmania. They are not a separate set of rules but are the Commonwealth Act and regulations read with Tasmanian modifications.

Uniform approach. The object (section 3) is to achieve a uniform Australian approach. This is implemented by making the Commonwealth the single administrator and enforcer, so that a person dealing with human embryos in Tasmania faces the same licensing body, the same definitions, and largely the same prohibitions as a person in a Commonwealth-regulated territory. The uniformity is not total, however, because the modifications (especially the omission of section 46(b) and the cross-reference to Tasmania’s own human cloning Act) create differences. The Act also contemplates that the Tasmanian regulations may nullify future Commonwealth amendments (section 7(4)), allowing Tasmania to diverge if it chooses.

Commonwealth embryo laws. Defined in section 4 as the Commonwealth Research Involving Human Embryos Act 2002 and all regulations under that Act. This is the source text that becomes Tasmanian law.

NHMRC Licensing Committee. The Embryo Research Licensing Committee of the NHMRC, established under the Commonwealth Act. Under Part 3, this committee, its chairperson and members have the same functions and powers under the applied provisions as they have under the Commonwealth Act (section 9). Delegations made under the Commonwealth Act are taken to extend to the corresponding provision of the applied provisions (section 10). This means a licence issued by the committee under the Commonwealth Act also satisfies the Tasmanian requirement, and vice versa , section 17 confirms that a licence or certificate issued for the purposes of both laws is not invalid merely because it was issued for both purposes.

Offences treated as Commonwealth offences. Part 4 is pivotal. An offence against the applied provisions is taken to be an offence against Commonwealth law, not against Tasmanian law (section 12(2)). This attracts the Criminal Code (Cth), the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (Cth), and the investigative and prosecutorial powers of Commonwealth bodies such as the Australian Federal Police. Double jeopardy protection is provided in section 14: if an act or omission is an offence under both the applied provisions and the Commonwealth embryo laws, and the offender has already been punished under the Commonwealth laws, they cannot be punished again under the applied provisions. The converse is not stated: punishment under the applied provisions first would not necessarily bar Commonwealth prosecution, but the Commonwealth Act may have its own double jeopardy protections.

Commonwealth administrative laws. Defined in section 4 as the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 (excluding Part 7), the Freedom of Information Act 1982, the Ombudsman Act 1976, and the Privacy Act 1988, and their regulations. These laws apply as if the applied provisions were a Commonwealth law. However, section 15(4) expressly provides that any provision that purports to confer jurisdiction on a federal court is taken not to have that effect. This means that while the Administrative Review Tribunal can review decisions under the applied provisions, an appeal from the Tribunal to the Federal Court (which might otherwise be available under the Commonwealth Act) is not available under the Tasmanian applied law. This is a significant limitation on the right to judicial review.

The Act directly affects any person or organisation in Tasmania that engages in activities involving human embryos created by assisted reproductive technology or by other means, including by in vitro fertilisation, embryo research, or the storage or destruction of embryos. This includes:

Researchers and research institutions. Any entity conducting research on human embryos in Tasmania must obtain a licence from the NHMRC Licensing Committee and comply with the conditions of that licence as set out in the applied provisions. The licence is the same as that required under the Commonwealth Act, so a researcher does not need a separate Tasmanian licence. The applied provisions impose prohibitions on certain activities , for example, creating human embryos for research purposes unless authorised, or using embryos beyond a specified developmental stage , and researchers must ensure their activities do not contravene those prohibitions.

Assisted reproductive technology (ART) clinics. Clinics that produce human embryos in the course of fertility treatment are affected because the embryos they create may later be used for research, or may themselves be subject to regulation (e.g. storage limits, disposal requirements). The applied provisions also regulate the donation of embryos for research, which requires informed consent from the people for whom the embryos were created.

The NHMRC Licensing Committee and its staff. The committee exercises licensing and enforcement functions under the applied provisions. It must process licence applications, impose conditions, monitor compliance, and revoke licences for breaches. Section 9 gives the committee the same powers as under the Commonwealth Act, including powers of entry and inspection (if the Commonwealth Act confers such powers).

Commonwealth officers and authorities. Investigators from the Australian Federal Police, the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions, and other Commonwealth enforcement bodies have jurisdiction over offences under the applied provisions. Section 13 confers on them the same functions and powers as for Commonwealth offences. State police and prosecutors in Tasmania have no role , Part 4 expressly removes the character of the offence as a Tasmanian law.

The Tasmanian Government and its agencies. The Act assigns administration to the Minister for Health and Human Services and the Department of Health and Human Services (section 22), but only until an order under the Administrative Arrangements Act 1990 directs otherwise. In practice, the Tasmanian government bears minimal ongoing regulatory costs because the Commonwealth shoulders most of the administrative burden. However, Tasmania loses any revenue from fees and penalties, which are paid to the Commonwealth (section 19). The Tasmanian Parliament retains the power to make regulations modifying the applied provisions (section 7(3)) and to order a review of the Act (section 21), but there is no obligation to do so beyond the initial review.

Members of the public. Individuals who wish to obtain information about licences or decisions can use the Commonwealth Freedom of Information Act 1982 as applied by section 15. Complaints about administrative decisions or maladministration can be made to the Commonwealth Ombudsman under the Ombudsman Act 1976. Privacy rights in relation to personal information held by the NHMRC Licensing Committee are protected by the Privacy Act 1988. However, access to judicial review is limited: the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 applies for merits review, but section 15(4) prevents any conferral of jurisdiction on a federal court, so applicants cannot appeal to the Federal Court.

Duties under the applied provisions. The substantive duties are those contained in the Commonwealth Research Involving Human Embryos Act 2002 as applied and modified. While the text of that Act is not reproduced here, the source indicates that the applied provisions include prohibitions on creating human embryos for research purposes without a licence, requirements for informed consent from gamete providers, and conditions relating to the number of embryos that may be created, the use of embryos, and the storage period. The applied provisions also impose a duty on licence holders to comply with conditions set by the NHMRC Licensing Committee, and to allow inspections and monitoring by authorised officers.

Rights of licence applicants. A person who wishes to conduct human embryo research may apply to the NHMRC Licensing Committee for a licence. Section 9 gives the committee the same functions and powers as under the Commonwealth Act, which would include the power to grant, refuse, suspend or revoke licences. Applicants have the right to have their application considered in accordance with the Act and, if refused, to seek merits review in the Administrative Review Tribunal under the applied Commonwealth administrative laws (section 15). However, rights of appeal to a court are curtailed by section 15(4), which disclaims any conferral of federal court jurisdiction. This likely means that a person aggrieved by a tribunal decision cannot appeal to the Federal Court; only limited judicial review in the Tasmanian Supreme Court may be available, if at all, on administrative law grounds.

Rights of persons under investigation or charged with an offence. Because Part 4 treats offences under the applied provisions as Commonwealth offences, the rights and protections of the Criminal Code (Cth) and the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) apply. These include rights relating to arrest, bail, legal representation, and the conduct of trials. The applied criminal procedure also includes the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (Cth) and spent convictions legislation, which may affect ancillary orders.

Double jeopardy protection. Section 14 is a key right: if a person has been punished under the Commonwealth embryo laws for an act or omission that also constitutes an offence under the applied provisions, they cannot be punished again under the Tasmanian applied law. Note that the protection is not reciprocal , punishment under the applied provisions first does not bar a Commonwealth prosecution , but in practice the Commonwealth would likely decline to prosecute.

Rights to information, privacy, and complaint. The application of Commonwealth administrative laws gives individuals the right to access documents held by the NHMRC Licensing Committee under the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (subject to exemptions), to complain about administrative decisions to the Commonwealth Ombudsman, and to have their personal information handled in accordance with the Privacy Act 1988.

No right to challenge decisions in federal court. This is a significant limitation. Section 15(4) removes any jurisdiction of federal courts that might otherwise be conferred by the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024. This means that the only avenue for challenging a licensing decision is merits review in the Administrative Review Tribunal itself; there is no automatic right to appeal its decision to the Federal Court of Australia. A person seeking to challenge a tribunal decision on a question of law would need to rely on whatever state judicial review mechanisms exist in Tasmania, which may be narrower than those available in the federal jurisdiction.

The Act does not itself prescribe penalties; instead, it relies entirely on the penalty provisions of the Commonwealth Research Involving Human Embryos Act 2002 as applied. Under that Act (as it stood at the time of adoption), the maximum penalties for serious offences included imprisonment for up to 5 years, or 10 years for some offences under the related human cloning prohibitions. Contraventions of licensing conditions or unlicensed activities attract significant criminal penalties. Because Part 4 declares offences against the applied provisions to be Commonwealth offences, the sentencing regime under the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) applies, including provisions for pecuniary penalties, forfeiture of property used in commission of the offence, and proceeds of crime orders.

Enforcement. Enforcement is carried out by Commonwealth agencies: the Australian Federal Police investigate suspected breaches, and the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions prosecutes offenders. State law enforcement has no role. Section 13 extends any function or power conferred on a Commonwealth officer or authority in relation to an offence against the Commonwealth embryo laws to the corresponding offence under the applied provisions. This includes powers of entry, search, and seizure, if the Commonwealth law confers them. The officer must act as nearly as practicable as they would under the Commonwealth law.

Double jeopardy protection. Section 14 prevents double punishment if the offender has already been punished under the Commonwealth embryo laws. This is a safeguard against being prosecuted twice for the same conduct, but it only applies if the Commonwealth penalty has been imposed first. If a person is convicted and punished under the Tasmanian applied provisions, the Commonwealth could still, in theory, prosecute under the Commonwealth Act, but section 14 does not prohibit that. However, Commonwealth law itself contains double jeopardy protections (e.g., the Criminal Code s 4C) that would likely prevent a second trial.

Fees and money. All fees, penalties, fines, and other money payable under the applied provisions must be paid to the Commonwealth (section 19). This includes licence application fees and any fines imposed by a court. The Tasmanian consolidated revenue receives nothing from the operation of this Act, aside from any general Commonwealth grants. This arrangement removes a potential source of conflict of interest , Tasmania has no financial incentive to maximise enforcement , but also means Tasmanian taxpayers bear no direct cost for enforcement, while the Commonwealth bears the cost and keeps the revenue.

Regulations. The Governor may make regulations for the purposes of the Act (section 20), including modifying the applied provisions. Such regulations could, for example, specify that an amendment to the Commonwealth Act is not to take effect in Tasmania (section 7(4)). This power could be used to reduce penalties or prohibitions, or to increase them, but any regulation must be consistent with the Act’s object of adopting a uniform Australian approach.

Commonwealth Research Involving Human Embryos Act 2002. The Tasmanian Act adopts this Act as a law of Tasmania, with modifications. The relationship is unusual: the same legislative text operates in two jurisdictions. Section 17 ensures that a licence issued for the purposes of both laws is not invalid merely because it was issued for dual purposes. Section 14 prevents double punishment if an act constitutes an offence under both laws. The applied provisions are to be interpreted using the Commonwealth Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (section 8), not the Tasmanian Acts Interpretation Act 1931. This ensures uniform interpretation across jurisdictions.

Tasmanian Human Cloning for Reproduction and Other Prohibited Practices Act 2003. The modification in section 7(1) requires that references in the Commonwealth Act to the Commonwealth human cloning Act be read as including a reference to this Tasmanian Act. This means that the prohibitions on cloning in the Commonwealth Act, when applied in Tasmania, also incorporate the Tasmanian definitions and prohibitions found in that Act. The two human cloning laws are thus cross-referenced, creating a single set of rules.

Commonwealth administrative laws. The Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 (excluding Part 7), the Freedom of Information Act 1982, the Ombudsman Act 1976, and the Privacy Act 1988 apply as Tasmanian laws to matters arising under the applied provisions. However, section 15(4) explicitly removes any conferral of jurisdiction on a federal court. This means that while the Administrative Review Tribunal can hear reviews of licensing decisions, a party cannot appeal from the Tribunal to the Federal Court under the applied law. Part 7 of the Administrative Review Tribunal Act is excluded entirely, which in the federal context deals with matters such as the Administrative Appeals Tribunal’s powers in relation to the Migration Act and other specific legislation; the exclusion prevents those specific provisions from applying in Tasmania.

Criminal laws. Part 4 applies Commonwealth criminal laws (the Crimes Act 1914, the Criminal Code, the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, and spent convictions legislation) to offences against the applied provisions. State criminal laws, including the Tasmanian Criminal Code and the Sentencing Act 1997, do not apply.

Case law. No cases are cited in the Act. The applied provisions will be interpreted by courts in accordance with the Commonwealth Acts Interpretation Act 1901, and Tasmanian courts would have jurisdiction only if a matter somehow falls outside the Commonwealth criminal framework , but section 12(2) expressly provides that the offence is not an offence against Tasmanian law, so state courts lack jurisdiction to hear the criminal matter itself.

Effect on private choice. The Act restricts the freedom of researchers and ART clinics to use human embryos without licence. It imposes a state-backed monopoly on permissible research activities, subject to NHMRC oversight. Those who wish to engage in embryo research must accept the conditions set by the committee, which may include prohibitions on certain types of research that would be lawful in other jurisdictions. The uniform approach reduces the cost of compliance for researchers who operate across state lines, as they deal with a single licensing body. But it also eliminates the possibility of regulatory competition between states , Tasmania cannot, for example, offer a more permissive regime to attract research investment.

The Act has been amended on two occasions as reflected in the source text.

2007 amendments. Sections 25 and 26 of the Statute Law Revision Act 2007 (No. 48 of 2007) amended sections 3(1) and 7(1) respectively. The amendment to section 3(1) updated the reference to the uniform Australian approach; the amendment to section 7(1) modified the cross-reference to the Tasmanian human cloning Act. These changes appear to have been minor, clarifying or updating the language to match the Commonwealth Act as it stood at that time.

2025 amendments. Sections 19 and 20 of the Statute Law Revision Act 2025 (No. 8 of 2025) amended section 4(1) (definition of Commonwealth administrative laws) and section 15(5) respectively. These amendments replaced references to the former Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 with references to the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024. The amendments were applied from 14 October 2024, indicating a retrospective commencement. This is a standard machinery update to reflect the replacement of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal by the Administrative Review Tribunal.

Section 23. This section is listed as having been incorporated into the authorised version of the Federal Courts (State Jurisdiction) Act 1999. It appears to be an amendment that was originally inserted into the Act but has been moved to the other Act. The current text of the Act does not include operative words for section 23; it simply notes the incorporation. This is an unusual drafting approach but effectively means that the amendment is no longer part of this Act.

Regulations. Section 7(4) empowers the Governor to make regulations providing that an amendment to the Commonwealth embryo laws specified in the regulations has not taken effect for the purposes of the applied provisions. This gives Tasmania a forward-looking amendment power: it can veto future Commonwealth changes. No such regulations have been made public yet, but the power remains available.

Review requirement. Section 21 required the Minister to review the Act as soon as possible after two years from the date of royal assent (which was 9 April 2003). A report was to be tabled within 12 months after that two-year period. That review was a one-off; there is no ongoing obligation to review the Act. The review could have been combined with the Commonwealth review under section 47 of the Research Involving Human Embryos Act 2002. It is not clear from the public record whether the review was conducted and what recommendations were made.

The source text of the Act does not mention any case law, and the Act itself has been the subject of very little judicial consideration. The mechanism of applying a Commonwealth Act as a state law, with the treatment of offences as Commonwealth offences, has been used in other Australian jurisdictions (e.g., the Human Cloning for Reproduction and Other Prohibited Practices Act 2003 (Tas) and similar laws in other states). However, no reported decisions directly interpreting this Act have been identified in the public domain.

Potential litigation could arise in the following scenarios:

Licensing disputes. A person refused a licence by the NHMRC Licensing Committee could seek merits review in the Administrative Review Tribunal. The decision of the Tribunal could be challenged only on a point of law in a state court, as section 15(4) prevents federal court jurisdiction. It is possible that a litigant would argue that the Tribunal’s decision is contrary to natural justice or is vitiated by jurisdictional error, invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of the Tasmanian Supreme Court under common law administrative law. The question of whether the Supreme Court has jurisdiction to review a decision of a Commonwealth tribunal acting under state law is novel and could be litigated.

Prosecutions. A person prosecuted for an offence under the applied provisions might challenge the validity of the application of Commonwealth criminal laws to Tasmania. For example, could the Commonwealth Constitution prevent Tasmania from purporting to make an offence a Commonwealth offence? Section 12(2) provides that the offence is taken not to be an offence against Tasmanian law, but the power to create the offence remains a state legislative power. A challenge might argue that the effect of Part 4 is to delegate Commonwealth criminal power to the state, or that it offends the principle of the separation of powers. No such challenge appears to have been successful to date.

Double jeopardy claims. A person punished under the Commonwealth Act and then charged under the applied provisions would rely on section 14 to seek a stay of proceedings. The interpretation of “punished for that offence under those Commonwealth laws” could be litigated: does a fine or a conviction without further penalty constitute punishment? Does a forfeiture order under proceeds of crime legislation count? The courts would need to resolve these questions.

Interstate application. The Act only applies in Tasmania. A case involving activities that straddle state borders (e.g., an embryo created in Victoria and brought to Tasmania for research) could raise questions about which licensing regime applies. The applied provisions incorporate the Commonwealth Act, which may have extraterritorial application, but the Tasmanian Act only applies to acts done in Tasmania. The exact territorial reach of the applied provisions has not been tested.

Freedom of Information and Privacy. Disputes over access to documents held by the NHMRC Licensing Committee could be litigated in the Administrative Review Tribunal (for FOI) or the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner (for privacy). These are likely to be the most common areas of legal activity, though they would be structured under the Commonwealth administrative laws as applied.

No federal court review rights. The most significant trap for litigants is section 15(4), which provides that any provision in a Commonwealth administrative law that purports to confer jurisdiction on a federal court is taken not to have that effect. In the federal context, the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 allows appeals on a question of law from the Tribunal to the Federal Court. Under the Tasmanian applied law, that avenue is closed. A party dissatisfied with a Tribunal decision can seek judicial review in the Tasmanian Supreme Court, but only on traditional administrative law grounds (jurisdictional error, denial of natural justice), not on a pure question of law. The scope of review may be narrower, and the cost may be higher.

Double jeopardy only one way. Section 14 protects a person from being punished under the applied provisions if they have already been punished under the Commonwealth embryo laws. But it does not protect a person punished first under the applied provisions from then being punished under the Commonwealth Act. The Commonwealth Act itself has double jeopardy protections that would likely prevent a second trial for the same conduct, but the Tasmanian Act does not guarantee it. In practice, the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions coordinates with state counterparts to avoid double prosecution, but the legal safeguard is imperfect.

Fees paid to the Commonwealth, not Tasmania. Licence applicants pay fees to the NHMRC Licensing Committee, and those fees are paid to the Commonwealth (section 19). Tasmania receives no direct revenue from the regulatory scheme. This may affect the incentives for Tasmania to devote resources to educating researchers about the scheme or to monitoring compliance, since the state has no financial interest.

Modifications by regulation can nullify Commonwealth amendments. Section 7(4) allows the Tasmanian Governor to make regulations providing that an amendment to the Commonwealth embryo laws specified in the regulations has not taken effect for the purposes of the applied provisions. This means that researchers in Tasmania could be operating under a different version of the law than researchers in the rest of Australia, without any public debate. The power is broad and could be used to exempt Tasmania from future prohibitions or to retain licensing categories that the Commonwealth has removed.

Interpretation uses Commonwealth Acts Interpretation Act, not Tasmanian. Section 8(1) requires that the Commonwealth Acts Interpretation Act 1901 applies to the interpretation of the applied provisions, and section 8(2) expressly excludes the Tasmanian Acts Interpretation Act 1931. Practitioners must be familiar with Commonwealth interpretation rules, which differ from Tasmanian ones in areas such as the meaning of “may” vs “must”, the effect of headings, and the use of extrinsic materials. A lawyer relying on the Tasmanian Act alone could misinterpret the applied provisions.

No ongoing review requirement. Section 21 required a review after two years from royal assent, but there is no requirement for periodic reviews. The Act could remain on the statute book indefinitely without any assessment of whether its policy objectives remain valid or whether its terms are appropriate. Given the rapid developments in embryo research, an Act that is not reviewed can become rapidly outdated or impose inappropriate restrictions.

Binding the Crown. Section 5 binds the Crown in right of Tasmania and, so far as legislative power permits, in all other capacities. This means that government researchers in public hospitals or universities are subject to the applied provisions, and the Crown cannot claim immunity.

Omission of section 46(b). The modification in section 7(2) omits paragraph (b) of section 46 of the Commonwealth Embryo Act. Section 46 of the Commonwealth Act deals with the licensing committee’s power to impose conditions. Omitting paragraph (b) removes one specific ground or limitation on that power. The exact effect cannot be determined without consulting the Commonwealth Act, but it means the licensing committee in Tasmania has a slightly different power , likely narrower or broader depending on what was omitted. A researcher relying on the Commonwealth Act alone could be misled.

A person or organisation in Tasmania wishing to engage in research involving human embryos created by assisted reproductive technology must comply with the applied provisions , that is, the Research Involving Human Embryos Act 2002 (Cth) as modified and applied by this Tasmanian Act. Compliance steps are as follows.

Step 1: Determine whether your activity requires a licence. The Commonwealth Act prohibits certain activities involving human embryos unless conducted under a licence issued by the NHMRC Licensing Committee. Prohibited activities include creating human embryos for research purposes without a licence, using embryos beyond 14 days of development, and certain commercial trading in human eggs, sperm, or embryos. A person considering research should consult the Commonwealth Act to identify whether their proposed activity is prohibited or licensable. The modifications (especially the omission of section 46(b)) mean that the licensing conditions may differ from those in other jurisdictions. It is safest to contact the NHMRC Licensing Committee directly for guidance.

Step 2: Apply for a licence. Applications are made to the Embryo Research Licensing Committee of the NHMRC. The application must include information about the proposed research, the number of embryos to be used, the consent arrangements, and the qualifications of the researchers. The committee will assess the application against the criteria in the Commonwealth Act as applied. There is no separate Tasmanian application form; the same form used for Commonwealth licences serves both purposes (section 17 ensures dual-use documents are valid).

Step 3: Comply with licence conditions. Once a licence is granted, the holder must comply with all conditions imposed by the committee. These typically include requirements for record-keeping, reporting of embryo usage, compliance with the National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research, and restrictions on the mixing of human and animal material. Failure to comply is an offence. The condition-setting power of the committee is modified by the omission of section 46(b), so the committee may have more or less flexibility than under the Commonwealth Act.

Step 4: Ensure informed consent. The applied provisions require that gamete providers and persons for whom embryos were created give informed consent before their embryos can be used for research. Researchers must maintain documentation of consent. The Privacy Act 1988 as applied protects the personal information of donors.

Step 5: Be aware of enforcement and review mechanisms. If a licence is refused, suspended, or revoked, the applicant can seek merits review in the Administrative Review Tribunal (ART) under the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 as applied. But there is no appeal to the Federal Court; only limited judicial review in the Tasmanian Supreme Court might be available. Any person who suspects a breach can complain to the Commonwealth Ombudsman or apply for investigation by the AFP.

Step 6: Monitor amendments. The Tasmanian Act allows the Governor to make regulations that nullify amendments to the Commonwealth Act. Researchers should check whether any such regulations have been made, as they could alter the applicable law. The Department of Health and Human Services (or whichever department is responsible under an Administrative Arrangements order) should be consulted for updates.

Step 7: Pay fees to the Commonwealth. Licence application fees and annual fees are payable to the NHMRC Licensing Committee, which forwards them to the Commonwealth. Tasmania collects nothing. Budget accordingly.

Step 8: Record keeping and reporting. Licences will generally require quarterly or annual reports on the number of embryos used, the outcomes of research, and any adverse events. These reports are made to the NHMRC Licensing Committee. Failure to report may result in licence revocation.

Step 9: Do not rely solely on the Commonwealth Act. The modifications in section 7 mean that the applied provisions are not identical to the Commonwealth Act. In particular, the omission of section 46(b) and the cross-reference to the Tasmanian human cloning Act create differences. Obtain legal advice specific to Tasmania.

Step 10: Prepare for a one-off review. Section 21 required a review after two years from royal assent, but that review has likely been completed. There is no ongoing review, but the Minister may undertake a review at any time. Researchers should participate in any public consultation to ensure their interests are represented.

In summary, compliance is achieved by following the Commonwealth licensing regime as modified by the Tasmanian Act. The key additional complexities are the limited judicial review rights, the risk of divergence through regulation, and the need to understand the Tasmanian modifications. The primary burden is on the applicant to understand the law and to maintain ongoing compliance with licence conditions.