Information Commissioner Regulations 2025

The regulations rest on a few concise legal concepts that determine how the transitional mechanics operate.

• Transition day and cross-reference to the Act: The regulations repeatedly operate "at the beginning of transition day" or "on and from transition day" (see regs 4 and 5). The regulations do not define "transition day" themselves; instead reg 3(2) provides that if a term used in the regulations is given a meaning in section 36 of the Act, it has the same meaning in these regulations. That ties the operative timing to the Act’s definition and means the exact moment for the transfers depends on the Act’s definition of transition day. Users must therefore read the Act’s s 36 (and any connected provisions) to locate the precise temporal trigger.

• Asset/right/liability framing: The drafters adopt a broad property and obligations frame. "Asset" is defined to include legal and equitable estates and interests of every kind (present, future, vested, contingent), and expressly includes money, securities, choses in action and documents (r 3(1) asset). "Liability" is defined equivalently broadly to capture actual, contingent or prospective duties and obligations, and whether liquidated or not (r 3(1) liability). "Right" covers rights, powers, privileges and immunities (r 3(1) right). This drafting signals that the transfer is intended to be comprehensive and to operate across property, contractual and in personam interests.

• Assignment to the State for and on behalf of the State: Regulation 4(1) does not assign assets and liabilities to an individual officeholder but to "the office of the new Information Commissioner for and on behalf of the State". This language treats the new office as a State organ; the operative legal owner and debtor becomes the new office acting in a public capacity. That has consequences for who bears cost and who is the defendant or plaintiff in proceedings (see reg 4(2)).

• Substitution in agreements and textual continuity: The regulations operate by substitution and textual read-across. A contract that named the FOI Act Commissioner or that office will be treated as if the new office were substituted as a party (r 5(2)). Further, textual references to the former Commissioner or office "have effect on and from transition day" as references to the new Commissioner or office, unless the context otherwise requires (r 5(3)). This combination of substitution and reinterpretation is meant to preserve contractual continuity and to avoid the need for novations or re-execution in routine cases.

• Judicial remittal for pending appeals: For a specific group of pending appeals under the FOI Act (appeals under s 85(1), (2)(a) or (4)), regulation 6 permits the Supreme Court, when remitting under FOI Act s 87(1)(c)(ii), to remit to the new Information Commissioner or to the Information Access Deputy Commissioner. The Court’s choice is permissive ("may remit ... as the Court thinks fit"), making the remittal an instrument of judicial discretion in the transition of adjudicative functions.

• Non-derogation clause: Regulation 7 sets out a closed list of things the operation of Part 6 of the Act and regs 4-6 must not be regarded as, including breach of contract or confidence, grounds for damages, or causing instruments to be void or permitting the release of surety. The operative effect is to limit the availability of certain private law remedies that counterparties might otherwise seek to assert when confronted with the transfer.

• Cross-references to other legislation: The regulations explicitly reference the Freedom of Information Act 1992 (regs 6(1) and 6(2)) and the Public Sector Management Act 1994 via the office of the new Information Commissioner definition (r 3(1)). Regulation 4(2) is subject to sections 41 and 42 of the Act. Those cross-references create interdependence between these regulations and the principal Act and other statutes.

These conceptual building blocks indicate the drafters’ intent to make the new office the legal successor in interest for a wide variety of assets, rights and obligations, while limiting the prospect that parties can treat the transfer itself as an actionable event.

The regulations have a focused but multi-party effect. The principal categories of affected parties are the following.

• The FOI Act Information Commissioner and the Office of the FOI Act Information Commissioner: The personnel, property and legal positions that immediately before transition day belonged to the FOI Act Information Commissioner or that office are the source of the transferred assets, rights and liabilities (reg 4(1)). Any appeal or proceeding that involved those pre-transition capacities is contemplated by regs 4-6.

• The new Information Commissioner and the office of the new Information Commissioner: The regulations make the office of the new Information Commissioner the transferee of assets, rights and liabilities (r 4(1)(a)-(b)). The regulations define "office of the new Information Commissioner" specifically as the department of the Public Service of which the new Information Commissioner is the chief executive officer under the Public Sector Management Act 1994 (r 3(1)). Accordingly the new office, as a Public Service department, will hold the assigned assets and bear the assigned liabilities, and be the named party for ongoing proceedings (r 4(2)).

• The State: Assets and liabilities are assigned "for and on behalf of the State" (r 4(1)). That phrasing indicates the State will underpin the new office’s legal status and liabilities and thus will be the ultimate payor of liabilities that have been assigned.

• Contractual counterparties and third parties: Any person or entity party to a "relevant agreement" in effect immediately before transition day is affected (r 5(1)). A relevant agreement is either one to which the FOI Act Commissioner or its office was a party or one that contains a reference to them (r 5(1)(a)-(b)). Those counterparties will find the office of the new Information Commissioner substituted for the former party (r 5(2)) and textual references treated as referring to the new office (r 5(3)).

• Parties to litigation and potential litigants: The regulations contemplate the continuation or bringing of proceedings by or against the new Information Commissioner or the office of the new Information Commissioner (r 4(2)). This affects plaintiffs and defendants whose claims concerned the prior office, as well as litigators who must update parties and process.

• The Supreme Court and judges handling remittals: Under reg 6 the Supreme Court is given a specific power when remitting FOI Act appeals under s 87(1)(c)(ii) to remit to the new Information Commissioner or the Information Access Deputy Commissioner. Judges making remittal decisions will exercise discretion as to which recipient is appropriate (r 6(2)).

• Sureties and guarantors: Regulation 7(f) expressly addresses sureties by instructing that the operation of Part 6 and regs 4-6 must not be regarded as releasing or allowing the release of any surety. Entities providing security connected to the former office are therefore affected by the transitional posture.

• Persons relying on remedies against the prior office: Reg 4(2) preserves the availability of remedies subject to sections 41 and 42 of the Act, and reg 7 limits the ability to claim breach or damages simply because of the transfer (r 7). That dual posture affects anyone who might have hoped to enforce private remedies arising from a change in legal ownership.

Who pays: the State, via the office of the new Information Commissioner, becomes the legal debtor for liabilities assigned at the beginning of transition day (r 4(1)(b)). That shifts funding responsibility from the prior legal entity to the new departmental structure.

Who decides: the Supreme Court retains judicial control over remittals (r 6(2)). The State executive, through the Public Service machinery, decides administrative arrangements by placing the new office within a department (r 3(1) definition). The regulations do not themselves create new administrative decision-making powers beyond the substitution and transfer mechanisms.

Behavioural effect: Contracting parties should treat pre-existing agreements as continuous and substitute the new office as the relevant counterparty unless the agreement context requires otherwise (r 5(3)). Litigants should expect to prosecute or defend suits against the new office (r 4(2)). The regulations reduce the incentive for counterparties to seek technical terminations or claims based solely on the change in legal personhood (r 7).

The regulations do not impose new regulatory duties in the sense of compliance obligations governed by penalties, but they create obligations and confer rights by modifying legal relationships and the identity of counterparties. The essential duties and rights created or preserved are as follows.

• Duty to accept assignment/substitution: From transition day the legal effect is that assets, rights and liabilities of the FOI Act Information Commissioner "are assigned to and become" those of the office of the new Information Commissioner for and on behalf of the State (r 4(1)). Parties with legal, equitable or contractual relationships involving the pre-existing Commissioner are thereby required to treat the new office as the applicable legal person. Regulation 5(2) makes clear that if the FOI Act Commissioner or its office was a party, the agreement "has effect ... as if the office of the new Information Commissioner, acting for and on behalf of the State, were substituted for that party." That creates a practical duty on counterparties to recognise the new office as the contractual counterparty.

• Right to continue and bring proceedings: Regulation 4(2)(a) preserves the right to commence or continue proceedings that "immediately before transition day might have been brought or continued by the FOI Act Information Commissioner," but declares that such proceedings may be brought or continued by the new Information Commissioner or the office of the new Information Commissioner, "as is appropriate in the circumstances." That preserves litigation rights in a way that permits the State-side office to step into ongoing legal processes.

• Right to remedies: Regulation 4(2)(b) states that any remedy that might previously have been available against or to the FOI Act Information Commissioner is available against or to the new Information Commissioner, or the office of the new Information Commissioner, "as is appropriate in the circumstances," although this preservation is "subject to sections 41 and 42 of the Act." Thus rights to specific remedies under pre-existing law are not lost simply because of the transition; they transfer to the new office subject to the Act’s other transitional provisions.

• Contractual read-across: Regulation 5(3) gives contractual parties a right to treat references to the previous office as references to the new office "unless the context otherwise requires." This is a default interpretative rule that privileges continuity, but parties retain the right to argue that a particular context excludes substitution.

• Judicial remittal discretion as a procedural right: For specific FOI Act appeals pending immediately before transition day, reg 6(2) grants the Supreme Court the discretion to remit matters to the new Information Commissioner or to the Information Access Deputy Commissioner. The right to be remitted to a particular decisionmaker is thus subject to judicial assessment, not automatic.

• Protected position against certain claims: Regulation 7 enumerates circumstances in which the operation of Part 6 and regs 4-6 "must not be regarded" as a breach or cause of damages, termination, voidness of instruments, or the release of surety, among others (r 7(a)-(f)). This provision effectively removes certain avenues of private law response to the transition, thereby conferring a protective legal posture on the State and the new office.

• Administrative identity: The definition in reg 3(1) that the "office of the new Information Commissioner" is the department of the Public Service of which the new Commissioner is the chief executive officer under the Public Sector Management Act 1994 creates an administrative right and duty structure internal to the public service. The new office will be subject to Public Sector Management Act duties applicable to departments and chief executive officers.

What the regulations do not create as explicit duties: They do not create new public-facing compliance regimes (no licensing, fee schedules, or reporting obligations are set in these regulations), they do not create a private right of action specifically tied to the transition (and in several respects reg 7 limits private law recourse), and they do not create new criminal offences. The operative legal duties are therefore primarily transfer and substitution duties, and the rights preserved are litigation and contractual continuity rights, all subject to the Act’s other transitional sections.

The instrument contains no express criminal offences, monetary penalties, administrative sanctions or formal enforcement regime located within these regulations. Instead, enforcement and legal effect arise through ordinary civil and public law mechanisms. Key enforcement-related features are the following.

• No statutory penalties in the regulations: There are no penalty clauses in regs 1-7. The regulations are transitional mechanics, not a regulatory code that prescribes behaviour under threat of penalty.

• Proceedings continuation and remedies: Enforcement in respect of obligations and liabilities will largely be effected through civil proceedings. Regulation 4(2)(a) and (b) preserve the ability to bring or continue proceedings and the availability of remedies "as is appropriate in the circumstances." That means claimants and the State can pursue claims or seek remedies via the courts, and defendants can be named as the new Information Commissioner or the office, or vice versa, depending on the procedural context.

• Subject to sections 41 and 42 of the Act: Regulation 4(2) is expressed to be "subject to sections 41 and 42 of the Act." Those sections likely contain additional transitional rules or constraints on remedies and proceedings, and they may affect enforcement. The regulations themselves do not reproduce those sections; they therefore leave some enforcement detail to the Act.

• Judicial control over remittal and procedural dispositions: Regulation 6(2) puts an element of enforcement via judicial discretion in remittal of certain FOI matters. The Supreme Court may remit pending appeals to the new Commissioner or the Information Access Deputy Commissioner. This provides the Court with an enforcement-adjacent role in allocating procedural jurisdiction for continuing FOI appeals.

• Preclusion of certain private law claims arising from transfer: Regulation 7 constitutes a prophylactic limitation on civil claims that would characterise the operation of Part 6 and regs 4-6 as breaches of contract or confidence, as causes of damage claims, or as grounds permitting termination of instruments or releases of surety. The statutory instruction that the operation "must not be regarded as" those causes of action will be an important caveat litigants must navigate; it narrows the slate of private remedies that counterparties may rely on simply by pointing to the transfer.

• Practical enforcement through state apparatus: Because assets and liabilities are assigned "for and on behalf of the State," enforcement of assigned liabilities will in practice be handled through State mechanisms , the department that becomes the office of the new Information Commissioner and the State Solicitor or Crown law machinery for litigation. The regulations do not provide an explicit procedure for how those State-side enforcement arrangements operate day-to-day; they instead effect the substantive substitution of party and leave the mechanics of litigation and collection to existing public law practice.

• Contractual continuity to avoid litigated enforcement triggers: Regulation 5’s substitution rule reduces the likelihood of enforcement-triggering contract terminations based purely on change of name or identity, because the agreement is to "have effect" as if substitution had taken place. That reduces the scope for counterparties to assert termination rights that hinge on a change in party identity.

In short, enforcement in practice will be through ordinary civil litigation and administrative legal processes, but the regulations narrow the set of private-law arguments that counterparties can use solely on the basis of the transition. Any particular enforcement outcome will still be shaped by the Act’s sections 41-42 and the courts’ interpretation of reg 7’s non-derogation language.

These regulations are explicitly designed to work with and to be read alongside the principal Act and other existing statutes. The text includes multiple cross-references that generate legal interaction points.

• Freedom of Information Act 1992: Regulation 6 directly invokes the FOI Act. It applies when an appeal has been brought immediately before transition day in relation to a decision of the FOI Act Information Commissioner under FOI Act s 85(1), (2)(a) or (4) and has not been determined (r 6(1)). Regulation 6(2) then authorises the Supreme Court, upon remittal under FOI Act s 87(1)(c)(ii), to remit to the new Information Commissioner or the Information Access Deputy Commissioner. This creates a procedural interaction whereby remittal mechanics under the FOI Act are extended to or assigned to different administrative decisionmakers after transition.

• Public Sector Management Act 1994: The definition of "office of the new Information Commissioner" in reg 3(1) makes explicit that the new office "means the department of the Public Service of which the new Information Commissioner is the chief executive officer under the Public Sector Management Act 1994." That ties the new office to public service governance, finance, and employment frameworks under the Public Sector Management Act. Administrative duties and employment conditions that apply to departments and chief executive officers under that Act will therefore be engaged.

• The Act (Information Commissioner Act 2024): Several provisions are explicitly subject to or dependent on sections of the principal Act. Regulation 3(2) imports meanings from s 36 of the Act, and reg 4(2) is subject to sections 41 and 42 of the Act. Regulation 7 states that "The operation of Part 6 of the Act and regulations 4 to 6 must not be regarded as" a list of listed civil wrongs. Those connections mean the regulations cannot be interpreted in isolation; their operation and limits are shaped by the principal Act’s transitional Part 6 and specific sections.

• Contract and property law: The regulations interact with general contract law by prescribing substitution and interpretative rules for existing agreements (r 5). Regulation 7 expressly addresses how the operation of the transfer should be treated in relation to contract law by specifying that the transition must not be regarded as a breach, cause for termination or a basis for damages. The asset and liability definitions (r 3(1)) engage property law concepts , legal and equitable estates, choses in action, documents , thereby affecting property transfer and security regimes.

• Surety and guarantee arrangements: Regulation 7(f) specifically says the operation must not be regarded as "releasing or allowing the release of any surety." That interacts with guarantee law and securities, signalling the regulatory intention to preserve the enforceability of security instruments despite the transfer of legal identity.

• Judicial procedures and Supreme Court jurisdiction: The remittal language in reg 6(2) is framed to sit within the Supreme Court’s powers under the FOI Act. It modifies the practical destination of remitted matters by authorising remittal to different decisionmakers following the transition. It therefore interacts with judicial practice rules and with FOI Act procedural provisions.

• Administrative law remedies and public liability regimes: Because remedies previously available to or against the FOI Act Information Commissioner are to be available to or against the new Commissioner, the regulations engage administrative law remedies (judicial review, statutory appeals, etc.). They also move liability exposure into a departmental context, which may engage Crown immunity principles, public indemnities, and State risk management frameworks, although the regulations themselves do not spell out those consequences.

Overall, the regulations are transitional instruments that alter the identity of the public body with which other laws interact. They do so by substitution, by importing cross-references, and by placing the new office within the Public Sector Management Act framework, while using reg 7 to constrain certain private law consequences that could otherwise arise from a change in legal personhood.

The regulations are short and have a compact amendment/compilation record set out in the compilation table at the end of the instrument.

• Instrument citation and publication: The instrument is the Information Commissioner Regulations 2025 (r 1). The compilation table records the citation as Information Commissioner Regulations 2025, SL 2025/120, published 25 June 2025.

• Commencement entries: The compilation table and regulation 2 together show that regs 1 and 2 commenced on 25 June 2025 (the date of publication on the WA legislation website) and that the remainder of the regulations commence on 1 July 2025 (r 2(a)-(b); compilation table). There are no subsequent amendment entries recorded in the compilation supplied.

• No recorded subsequent amendments or repeals in the supplied compilation: The notes and compilation table supplied with the instrument list the original publication and commencement details only. There are no entries in the supplied compilation table showing later amendments, variations or repeals. The compilation table’s format indicates how later amendments would be recorded, but the present document lists only the original instrument SL 2025/120 published 25 June 2025 with commencement as stated.

• Legal status and licensing: The notes also indicate that the work is © State of Western Australia 2025 and is made available under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International Licence. That relates to republication and use of the text rather than substantive law.

• Interaction with the Act’s transitional Part 6: Although not an "amendment history" per se, the regulations are expressly connected to Part 6 of the Act and are intended to operate alongside it. Any future amendment history of the Act’s Part 6 or of sections 36, 41 and 42 will affect the operation of these regulations. Those links are asserted in the text (r 7 refers to Part 6; r 3(2) imports meanings from s 36; r 4(2) is subject to ss 41 and 42).

Practically, at the time these regulations were compiled they are the original 2025 instrument with staged commencement dates and no subsequent amendments recorded in the compilation supplied. Users seeking any amendment history beyond that must consult the WA legislation database for later versions or amendment instruments that post-date the compilation.

The supplied text contains no reported litigation history relating to these regulations. The instrument is a transitional statutory instrument and the compilation notes do not record any judicial decisions or challenges.

• No cases named or cited: The regulations themselves do not reference any judicial decisions, and the compilation table and notes do not include litigation annotations. There are consequently no cases to list that interpret these specific regulations in the supplied material.

• Anticipated litigation touchpoints: Although there is no recorded litigation, the regulations anticipate particular procedural judicial interactions through reg 6, which provides for Supreme Court remittal of certain FOI Act appeals to the new commissioner or the Information Access Deputy Commissioner. That provision anticipates judicial decision-making, and in practice disputes could arise about appropriate remittal destinations, or about the application of reg 7’s non-derogation protections to particular contractual disputes. None of that potential dispute resolution is evidenced in the supplied compilation.

• Litigable issues that could arise: Based solely on the text, likely future matters for courts could include interpretation of "unless the context otherwise requires" in reg 5(3), scope and effect of reg 7’s direction that the operation "must not be regarded as" certain wrongs, and the interplay between reg 4(2)’s preservation of remedies and sections 41 and 42 of the Act. Again, the supplied material contains neither decisions nor examples.

• How to find any later litigation: To identify any post-enactment judicial treatment of these regulations, readers would consult the WA court databases, law reports, or the WA legislation website for annotations that post-date the compilation. The compilation itself contains no such entries.

In short, the instrument as supplied has no recorded litigation history. It does, however, introduce legal effects and potential interpretative questions that could give rise to future litigation , particularly over contract substitution, the limits of reg 7, and remittal of FOI appeals , but the source provides no judicial rulings to date.

The regulations are concise but contain features that merit careful attention; practising lawyers and administrators should note the following traps, interpretative tension points and operational consequences grounded in the text.

• "Unless the context otherwise requires" caveat in r 5(3): The default rule is that references to the FOI Act Commissioner or its office become references to the new Commissioner or office. However, the "unless the context otherwise requires" qualification leaves room for disputes over whether a specific contractual provision was intended to apply only to the prior legal structure or to the person in office rather than to the office as an ongoing entity. Contracts that depend on the identity, statutory role, or non-transferability of rights may be vulnerable to argument. Do not assume substitution is automatic in every textual context.

• Broad definitions that sweep in contingent interests: The definitions of "asset" and "liability" are deliberately broad and include contingent, prospective and equitable interests, and choses in action (r 3(1)). That breadth means that contingent claims, documents, and future entitlements can transfer. If those contingent items sit behind security interests, confidentiality obligations, or third-party restrictions, the transfer may still occur despite those protections; counterparties must review security registers and contract provisions to identify where the new office becomes the legal owner or debtor.

• "For and on behalf of the State" wording changes the character of ownership and liability: Assets and liabilities are assigned to the new office "for and on behalf of the State" (r 4(1)). That changes the beneficial and sometimes the enforcement posture of the interest. Parties who expected a private-law counterparty or personal liability may find themselves dealing with a State department and Crown risk management arrangements. Carefully check whether funding or indemnity expectations are affected.

• Reg 7 narrows private law responses: Regulation 7 contains a hard list of things "must not be regarded as" arising from the operation of Part 6 and regs 4-6, including breach of contract or confidence, grounds for damages, or releases of surety. Counterparties hoping to treat the transition as a contractual default or a ground to terminate may find those paths closed. However, reg 7 is an interpretative and statutory declaration, and its ultimate effect may itself be a subject for judicial review or argument.

• Subject to sections 41 and 42 of the Act: Regulation 4(2) is expressly "subject to sections 41 and 42 of the Act." The content of those sections (not reproduced here) may qualify the availability of proceedings or remedies. Do not assume reg 4(2) is unconstrained; check the principal Act’s relevant sections for carve-outs or limits.

• Narrow remit of reg 6: Regulation 6 applies only to certain appeals under the FOI Act (s 85(1), (2)(a) or (4)) that were brought before transition day and not yet determined (r 6(1)). Appeals under other FOI Act sections, or other statutory appeals not referenced, are not covered by reg 6. Parties should confirm whether their matter falls within its scope before relying on the remittal pathway.

• Practical administrative adjustments: The definition in r 3(1) links the new office to the Public Sector Management Act 1994’s departmental and chief executive officer framework. That has practical implications for employment, delegation of functions and public sector governance that are not set out in these small regulations. Administrative arrangements may therefore cause temporary disruption even though legal substitution is effected.

• Timing mismatch and staged commencement: Regulations 1 and 2 commence on publication, with the remainder commencing on 1 July 2025 (r 2). Administrative actors must ensure that the operational steps necessary to implement reg 4 and reg 5 are in place by 1 July 2025 to avoid lapses or uncertainty.

• Security and surety implications: Although reg 7(f) says the operation must not be regarded as releasing any surety, practical parties should verify whether security documents contain material adverse change clauses or other triggers that could be interpreted independently of reg 7. The statutory assurance does not annul contractual wording that imposes duties unrelated to the assignment.

• Records and notifications: There is no express obligation in the regulations to notify counterparties of substitution or to re-execute agreements. However, counterparties and the new office will need to record the change in effective counterparty on registers, procurement records, and litigation files to ensure proper service, payment and compliance. Failure to do so could cause practical operational lapses despite the legal substitution.

• Potential for interpretative litigation: Several drafting choices , particularly the breadth of definitions, the "context otherwise requires" caveat, and the reg 7 non-derogation list , leave interpretative questions that may be settled only by courts. Parties should consider obtaining contractual novations or express confirmations in sensitive cases to avoid uncertainty.

These items are grounded in the text and identify concrete operational and legal risks. The safe course is to audit existing agreements, security arrangements and litigation positions against the precise language of regs 3-7 and the Act’s sections cross-referenced by the regulations.

The regulations create a short, focused compliance checklist for administrators, legal counsel, and contract managers. Compliance here is chiefly about recognising substitution, preserving rights, avoiding avoidable dispute, and updating administrative records. Practical steps derived from the text follow.

1. Identify transition day in the Act and calendar resources

   • Reg 3(2) ties meanings to section 36 of the Act and the operative transfers occur at the beginning of transition day (see regs 4 and 5). Confirm the Act’s definition of transition day and calendar timing so that substitutions occur in step with the statutory trigger. Note staged commencement: regs 1-2 commence on publication, the rest on 1 July 2025 (r 2).

2. Audit contracts and agreements for "relevant agreements"

   • Under reg 5(1) a "relevant agreement" is any agreement in effect immediately before transition day to which the FOI Act Commissioner or that office is a party or that contains a reference to them. Compile a list of such agreements, including procurement contracts, leases, service agreements, licences, MOUs, and any instrument that references the FOI Act Commissioner or its office.

3. Update contract records and counterparties

   • For agreements where the FOI Act Commissioner or the office is a party, treat the agreement as if the office of the new Information Commissioner, acting for and on behalf of the State, is substituted for that party (r 5(2)). For agreements with references to the Commissioner or office, update internal interpretation notes to reflect that references now read as references to the new Commissioner or office "unless the context otherwise requires" (r 5(3)). Where ambiguity or material commercial exposure exists, seek written confirmation or novation for certainty.

4. Review security, surety and guarantee arrangements

   • Check any mortgages, charges, guarantees or surety instruments tied to the prior office. Reg 7(f) states the operation must not be regarded as releasing or allowing release of any surety, but administrative action may still be needed to update registries or note changes in the debtor’s legal identity. Ensure securities remain effective and that registries reflect the substituted party as appropriate.

5. Assess contingent assets and liabilities

   • The definitions of asset and liability are broad (r 3(1)). Identify contingent claims, pending indemnities, constructive trusts or other equitable interests that may be assigned. Coordinate with the State Solicitor or in-house counsel to determine funding and indemnity arrangements for liabilities now in the departmental framework.

6. Preserve evidence and procedural standing in litigation

   • For any proceedings that immediately before transition day might have been brought by or against the FOI Act Commissioner, note that the new Commissioner or the office may bring or continue them (r 4(2)). Update court filings, substitute parties where necessary, notify opposing counsel, and ensure service addresses reflect the new office. Check sections 41 and 42 of the Act for qualifications that might affect procedural steps.

7. For pending FOI appeals, liaise with the Supreme Court and/or counsel

   • If an appeal under FOI Act s 85(1), (2)(a) or (4) is pending immediately before transition day, reg 6(2) allows the Court, on remittal under FOI Act s 87(1)(c)(ii), to remit to the new Information Commissioner or the Information Access Deputy Commissioner. Coordinate with counsel and the Court registry to understand remittal options and preferences, and be prepared to accept remittal to either recipient as the Court deems fit.

8. Coordinate with Public Sector Management Act machinery

   • The new office is defined as a department of the Public Service headed by the new Commissioner as chief executive under the Public Sector Management Act 1994 (r 3(1)). Ensure human resources, delegations, financial delegations, and records management are aligned with departmental requirements.

9. Document decisions and communications

   • Even though reg 7 limits treating the transfer as a breach or as a cause for damages or termination, maintain contemporaneous records of substitution steps, communications with counterparties, and internal approvals. That documentation will be vital if any party disputes the effect of the transition or seeks to test the scope of reg 7.

10. Seek targeted legal advice for high-risk contracts

    • For agreements where the identity of the party is material (e.g. commercial confidentiality, non-assignable licences, contracts that depend on the personal skill or statutory status of the prior Commissioner), consider negotiating express novation, assignment or confirmation agreements. Reg 5(3)’s "context otherwise requires" carve-out could be argued; a negotiated confirmation removes that uncertainty.

11. Check the Act for sections 36, 41 and 42

    • Because regs 3(2) and 4(2) reference s 36 and ss 41-42 of the Act, confirm the content of those sections. They may affect definitions, exceptions, or the availability of remedies, and so are necessary to full compliance.

12. Update public-facing materials and service points

    • Update website contact details, published decision registers, and public correspondence to reflect the new office’s departmental identity. Ensure payment points and remittance advice direct funds correctly to the State account that the new office will use, since liabilities and financial obligations transfer "for and on behalf of the State" (r 4(1)).

13. Train staff and contractors on the substitution rule

    • Ensure procurement, records and legal teams understand that substitution is statutory and not merely administrative. Prepare standard clauses and templates to be used for future contracts that might interact with the new office.

These steps align directly with the regulations’ wording and practical effect. The regulations themselves do not require separate filings or payment of fees to effect substitution; they instead operate by statutory assignment. That makes accurate record-keeping and proactive contract management the central compliance focus.