Magistrates Court (Liquor Infringement Notices) Regulation 2010

The regulation organises a small set of administrative, evidential and monetary rules that enable certain Liquor Act offences to be handled by infringement notices rather than prosecution. The principal concepts in the text are:

• Infringement notice system: The regulation applies the Magistrates Court Act 1930, part 3.8 to specified offences against the Liquor Act (s 7). The explanatory note in s 5 states the policy function: the infringement notice system is intended to provide an alternative to prosecution. That is a statutory framing; the regulation itself implements specific operational rules for that system.

• Administering authority: The director‑general for the Liquor Act is the administering authority for infringement notice offences under this regulation (s 6). That means the director‑general has administrative responsibility for the infringement notice scheme as it relates to the Liquor Act.

• Authorised persons: The regulation restricts who can serve infringement and reminder notices: a police officer or an “investigator” may serve both types of notice (s 12). The Dictionary directs the reader to the Fair Trading (Australian Consumer Law) Act 1992 for the meaning of “investigator”. The regulation requires identifying the authorised person on notices: for police, by service number; for investigators, by full name or surname and initials, or by any unique number assigned by the administering authority (ss 9 and 11).

• Contents requirements: Apart from the identification of the authorised person, an infringement notice served on a company must include the company’s ACN (s 10(1)). The regulation notes that this ACN requirement is additional to the Magistrates Court Act 1930, s 121(1)(c) (s 10, note).

• Monetary framework: Schedule 1 contains two columns that are conceptually distinct: column 3 records the statutory penalty in penalty units for the Liquor Act offence (the offence penalty), and column 4 fixes the infringement penalty in dollars payable under an infringement notice (s 8(1) and sch 1). The regulation separately prescribes that a corporation pays five times the dollar infringement penalty amount for the offence under an infringement notice (s 8(2)). The regulation also fixes the cost for serving a reminder notice as $34 (s 8(3)).

• Age exceptions: The regulation flags age‑related exceptions. The notes to s 7 and certain items in schedule 1 indicate that some listed offences may be committed by individuals under 18, and that for some schedule items infringement notices are not applicable where the individual is under 16 years old (s 7 note; sch 1 entries that read “except where individual is under 16 years old”). The reader must therefore compare the table in schedule 1 against the substantive Liquor Act provisions to determine applicability by age.

• Interaction with definitions: The Dictionary provisions and s 3 embed external definitional cross‑references (for example, to the Legislation Act 2001 and other Acts) so that terms like “individual”, “corporation”, “director‑general”, “police officer” and “investigator” carry their statutory meanings (s 3; Dictionary).

These concepts together specify how infringement notices for Liquor Act offences are to be issued, by whom, what they must contain, and what monetary amounts apply, including a corporate multiplier and reminder cost.

The regulation affects four principal groups and, through them, secondary stakeholders:

• Individuals who commit the listed Liquor Act offences. Schedule 1 identifies the Liquor Act provisions covered and specifies a dollar‑amount infringement penalty for each item (sch 1, col 2-4). Section 8(1) makes clear that the monetary amount payable by an individual under an infringement notice is the amount recorded in schedule 1, column 4. Some schedule entries include age qualifications such as “except where individual is under 16 years old”; the regulation’s note at s 7 emphasises that some listed offences may be committed by persons under 18, and that infringement notices for those offences may only be given to individuals who are 16 years old or older (s 7 note; sch 1, col 2). Practitioners dealing with youth compliance must therefore check both the Liquor Act text and the schedule entries.

• Corporations and companies. Section 8(2) makes corporations financially liable on a different scale: the penalty payable by a corporation under an infringement notice is five times the amount stated in schedule 1, column 4. Schedule 1 also requires that infringement notices served on companies include the company’s ACN (s 10(1)), so companies are directly affected both by heightened monetary exposure and by the documentary content requirements on notices. The Dictionary points to the Corporations Act definition for “company” and to the Legislation Act definition for “corporation” (Dictionary; s 3).

• Authorised persons and administering authority. The regulation appoints the director‑general for the Liquor Act as the administering authority for these infringement notice offences (s 6). It also restricts who may serve infringement and reminder notices to police officers and investigators (s 12). The regulation sets identification requirements for those authorised persons on notices (ss 9 and 11), and allows investigators to be identified either by name or by a unique number given by the administering authority (ss 9(b)(ii), 11(b)(ii)). The administering authority will therefore be responsible for issuing any unique investigator numbers and for overall administration.

• Enforcement and court system. The regulation operates within the Magistrates Court Act 1930, part 3.8 infringement notice system (s 5; s 7). Although the text of the Magistrates Court Act is not reproduced here, the regulation’s operation substitutes an administrative monetary remedy for criminal prosecution in respect of the listed Liquor Act offences, subject to the procedural architecture of part 3.8.

Secondary effects reach licensed venues, hospitality and retail sectors whose staff may otherwise be the point of contact in enforcement; insurers and advisers dealing with regulatory risk; and legal practitioners representing recipients of infringement notices. Businesses should note the corporate multiplier (s 8(2)) and the ACN disclosure requirement (s 10(1)), because those mechanisms change the financial exposure and evidentiary trail when an infringement notice is issued to an entity rather than an individual.

The regulation sets out a compact set of duties and entitlements that govern behaviour of authorised persons, administering authority and recipients. The principal duties and rights are:

• Administering authority duties. The director‑general for the Liquor Act is named as the administering authority (s 6). While the regulation does not specify particular administrative duties, that designation identifies who has the administrative responsibility under the Magistrates Court Act infringement scheme for the listed Liquor Act offences. The administering authority also has the power to provide investigators with unique numbers for identification purposes (ss 9(b)(ii), 11(b)(ii)).

• Authorised person duties when issuing notices. A police officer or an investigator is authorised to serve infringement notices and reminder notices for the listed Liquor Act offences (s 12(a)-(b)). When serving an infringement notice on a person, the authorised person must identify themselves on the notice: police officers by service number, investigators by full name or surname and initials, or by any unique number given by the administering authority (s 9). The same identification requirements apply to reminder notices (s 11). Failure to include these prescribed identification details would mean the notice does not comply with the applicable content requirements set by this regulation; the regulation also notes that s 10(1) is additional to the Magistrates Court Act 1930, s 121(1)(c) (s 10 note), indicating a layered compliance obligation with the primary Act’s notice‑content regime.

• Duty to include ACN for companies. An authorised person serving an infringement notice on a company must include the company’s ACN (s 10(1)). The regulation defines “company” by reference to the Corporations Act (s 10(2): company means a company registered under the Corporations Act), so the duty attaches to entities captured by that statutory definition.

• Financial obligations of recipients. An individual served with an infringement notice for a listed Liquor Act offence is liable to pay the dollar amount shown in schedule 1, column 4 for that offence (s 8(1); sch 1). A corporation that is served with an infringement notice is liable to pay five times the amount shown in schedule 1, column 4 (s 8(2)). There is a prescribed $34 cost for serving a reminder notice (s 8(3)).

• Rights implicated by age‑related provisions. The regulation recognises age distinctions in the applicability of infringement notices to certain offences: some schedule entries are qualified “except where individual is under 16 years old”, and s 7 notes that where offences may be committed by persons under 18, infringement notices may only be given to individuals aged 16 or older. That creates a legal boundary on the issuing of infringement notices in relation to age and indicates a right of younger persons to be excluded from the infringement‑notice pathway for some offences.

• Interaction with Magistrates Court Act procedures. The regulation implements the Magistrates Court Act part 3.8 mechanism (s 5; s 7). The wider procedural rights and remedies attached to the infringement notice system, such as the right to contest an infringement notice or the process for conversion to prosecution, derive from the Magistrates Court Act rather than from this regulation alone; the regulation’s duties and content requirements are therefore to be read and applied in the context of the primary Act’s procedural scheme (s 5 note).

In short, authorised persons must follow specified content rules when issuing notices (identity and ACN), the director‑general is the administering authority and must administer the scheme (including the issuance of investigator numbers), and recipients face set monetary liabilities that differ by individual or corporate status, with age exceptions for certain offences.

The regulation prescribes monetary penalties under the infringement‑notice model and assigns enforcement roles. The penalty and enforcement architecture under the regulation is as follows:

• Infringement penalty amounts. Schedule 1 lists 47 items. For each listed Liquor Act provision the schedule records both the statutory penalty in penalty units (sch 1, col 3) and the prescribed infringement penalty in dollars (sch 1, col 4). Section 8(1) states the penalty payable by an individual under an infringement notice is the dollar amount in schedule 1, column 4. The dollar amounts vary by offence: for example, schedule item 4 (Liquor Act s 100(1)) records 50 penalty units as the statutory penalty and an infringement penalty of $1,100 (sch 1, cols 3-4). The schedule must be consulted to ascertain the specific monetary exposure for any listed provision.

• Corporate multiplier. Section 8(2) prescribes that the penalty payable by a corporation under an infringement notice is five times the amount shown in schedule 1, column 4. The regulation therefore applies a uniform corporate multiplier across all listed offences rather than computing corporate fines by reference to penalty units or other metrics.

• Reminder notice cost. Section 8(3) fixes the cost of serving a reminder notice for an infringement notice offence against the Liquor Act at $34. Reminder notices are a procedural device under the Magistrates Court Act system; this regulation fixes the administrative cost to be levied for their service.

• Who enforces and serves notices. Enforcement via issuing of infringement and reminder notices is performed by authorised persons, defined in s 12 to be police officers and investigators. That delegation concentrates day‑to‑day enforcement with two categories of front‑line officials. The administering authority, the director‑general for the Liquor Act, presumably controls or oversees investigator identification and other administrative supports (s 6; ss 9(b)(ii), 11(b)(ii)).

• Notice content and evidential consequences. The regulation requires identification details for the authorised person on both infringement and reminder notices (ss 9 and 11). It also requires the inclusion of a company’s ACN where the recipient is a company (s 10(1)). The regulation notes that the ACN requirement is additional to obligations under the Magistrates Court Act (s 10 note). These content prescriptions will be relevant to enforcement because they specify the constitution of a compliant notice that the Magistrates Court Act’s infringement regime recognises.

• Age constraints on enforcement. Schedule entries that read “except where individual is under 16 years old” limit the use of infringement notices in respect of certain offences against younger persons; s 7’s note reiterates that some offences may be committed by persons under 18 but that infringement notices may only be given to those aged 16 or older (s 7 note; sch 1). This imposes a threshold that enforcement officers must respect when selecting the infringement route.

• Relationship to penalty units and the Legislation Act. The regulation itself provides fixed dollar infringement penalties in schedule 1. Separately, the republication includes a statement about the value of a penalty unit for offences against this law as at the republication date (penalty unit = $160 for an individual and $810 for a corporation) per the Legislation Act 2001, s 133 (header note). That statement relates to calculation of penalties where expressed as penalty units; however, schedule 1 already specifies both penalty units (as the offence penalty) and the dollar infringement penalty to be imposed by notice.

Enforcement therefore is operationalised by authorised persons issuing notices with specified content; recipients face fixed monetary obligations (with a corporate multiplier and a reminder cost) if they choose to pay the infringement penalty rather than pursue other statutory avenues (which remain governed by the Magistrates Court Act). The regulation does not itself set out the post‑issuance dispute or prosecution conversion procedures, which are contained in the Magistrates Court Act 1930, part 3.8.

This regulation is an implementing instrument: it operates by reference to and interacts with several other statutes and their definitions. Key interactions in the text are explicit:

• Magistrates Court Act 1930, part 3.8. The regulation applies the infringement‑notice mechanism under part 3.8 of the Magistrates Court Act to certain Liquor Act offences (s 5; s 7). The Magistrates Court Act therefore supplies the procedural architecture , what an infringement notice is, how it is served, how reminder notices operate, timeframes for payment, and so on , while this regulation supplies offence‑specific content for Liquor Act matters (ss 5-7; s 10 note cross‑referencing Magistrates Court Act s 121(1)(c)).

• Liquor Act 2010. The regulation expressly lists particular provisions of the Liquor Act 2010 in schedule 1 as the offences eligible for infringement notices, with the offence penalty in penalty units and the prescribed infringement dollar amount (sch 1). The substantive elements of the offences , what conduct contravenes the Liquor Act, age thresholds, defences and licensee obligations , are governed by the Liquor Act itself. Practitioners must therefore cross‑check each schedule entry against the Liquor Act text to understand the material elements and any defences or licensing contexts.

• Legislation Act 2001. Section 3 and the Dictionary state that definitions and drafting conventions from the Legislation Act (for example, application of a definition to the whole regulation under ss 155-156) apply to the regulation. The republication header also refers to the Legislation Act, s 133 for the penalty unit value at the republication date. Editorial amendment powers under the Legislation Act are noted in the republication prefatory material.

• Corporations Act. Section 10(2) defines “company” in the context of the ACN requirement by reference to the Corporations Act. That imports the Corporations Act registry concept of ACN as the identifier that must be printed on infringement notices served on companies.

• Fair Trading (Australian Consumer Law) Act 1992. The Dictionary signpost defines “investigator” by reference to the Fair Trading (Australian Consumer Law) Act dictionary. That means investigators for the purposes of s 12 may be persons defined as investigators under that Act, and the regulation thus brings those cross‑defined functions into the Liquor infringement‑notice context (s 3; Dictionary).

• Magistrates Court Act notice content provisions. The regulation’s s 10(1) expressly states its ACN requirement for company notices is additional to the requirement under the Magistrates Court Act 1930, s 121(1)(c). That signals layered compliance , notices must satisfy both the primary Act’s notice content rules and the additional content rules in this regulation.

• Penalty unit machinery and monetary conversion. The regulation sets dollar infringement penalties in schedule 1 rather than exclusively expressing fines in penalty units. The republication prefatory material gives the penalty unit value as at the republication date (individual $160; corporation $810) under the Legislation Act 2001, s 133. Users must take care to distinguish the statutory penalty in penalty units recorded in schedule 1 (col 3) , which is the Liquor Act offence penalty , from the dollar amount set for the infringement notice (col 4), and from penalty unit values that apply to the calculation of other penalties where the primary Act does not fix a dollar amount.

In short, this regulation is not standalone. It operates only within the procedural framework of the Magistrates Court Act and the substantive offence definitions of the Liquor Act, while incorporating definitional and registry linkages to the Legislation Act, Corporations Act, and the Fair Trading (Australian Consumer Law) Act.

The regulation’s legislative history is recorded in the endnotes and in the amendment history section of the republication. The instrument was originally made as SL2010‑47 and notified on 30 November 2010, with most provisions commencing on 1 December 2010 (legislation history, endnote 3). Key subsequent amendments and their recorded commencements are:

• Administrative (One ACT Public Service Miscellaneous Amendments) Act 2011 (A2011‑22), sch 1 pt 1.103. Notified LR 30 June 2011; s 1 and s 2 of that Act commenced 30 June 2011; sch 1 pt 1.103 commenced 1 July 2011. That instrument amended s 6 (Administering authority) and updated the Dictionary (amendment history, endnote 4).

• Magistrates Court (Liquor Infringement Notices) Amendment Regulation 2012 (No 1) (SL2012‑28). Notified LR 28 June 2012; remainder commenced 29 June 2012. That instrument amended schedule 1 (sch 1 am SL2012‑28 s 4).

• Statute Law Amendment Act 2013 (A2013‑19), sch 3 pt 3.27. Notified LR 24 May 2013; sch 3 pt 3.27 commenced 14 June 2013. This instrument amended the Dictionary and administrative references (amendment history).

• Statute Law Amendment Act 2015 (A2015‑15), sch 3 pt 3.27. Notified LR 27 May 2015; sch 3 pt 3.27 commenced 10 June 2015. This instrument amended s 12 (Authorised people for infringement notice offences) (amendment history).

• Liquor Amendment Act 2017 (A2017‑13), sch 1 pt 1.1. Notified LR 17 May 2017; sch 1 pt 1.1 commenced 18 May 2017. That amendment renumbered and updated schedule items (legislation history).

• Statute Law Amendment Act 2018 (A2018‑42), sch 3 pt 3.23. Notified LR 8 November 2018; taken to have commenced 1 July 2018 for some parts, and sch 3 pt 3.23 commenced 22 November 2018 (legislation history).

The amendment history summary included in the republication (endnote 4) lists the specific sections amended across these instruments: s 2 (commencement) was omitted, s 3 (Dictionary) and s 6 (administering authority) were amended at various times, s 12 (authorised people) was amended in 2015, schedule 1 has been amended across multiple instruments (SL2012‑28 and subsequent Acts), and the Dictionary was amended across instruments (A2011‑22, A2013‑19). The republication’s “Legislation history” and “Amendment history” endnotes list dates of notification and commencement for each amending instrument, enabling practitioners to trace textual evolution and to check which version was in force at any given date.

For present‑day compliance or litigation purposes, readers must consult the consolidated republication (this document) and the legislation register to see if any further amending instruments or uncommenced provisions apply. The republication also flags editorial amendments under the Legislation Act 2001, part 11.3; those are formal adjustments made by the Parliamentary Counsel’s Office and are noted in the republication prefatory material.

The regulation itself contains no references to case law or judicial consideration. The republication’s endnotes record the statute and subordinate instruments that created and amended the regulation, but they do not record any judicial decisions. Consequently, no litigation history is recorded or cited in the source material.

That absence in the regulation text means two things for a researcher or practitioner: first, this instrument is largely administrative and prescriptive, specifying notice content, identification, penalty amounts and enforcement persons rather than establishing novel legal tests that would immediately generate reported litigation; second, legal disputes arising from the application of the regulation (for example, about adequacy of notice content, age thresholds, the identity of the authorised person on a notice, or whether a particular Liquor Act offence is properly the subject of an infringement notice) will be litigated under the procedural framework of the Magistrates Court Act 1930, part 3.8, or under judicial review principles if an acted decision by the administering authority is alleged to be unlawful. Those potential litigation paths (challenge to validity of a notice, review of administrative action, contest of underlying liability) are not set out in this regulation; they derive from the Magistrates Court Act and the general law.

If a party intends to contest an infringement notice, the relevant procedural and substantive recourses are governed by the Magistrates Court Act’s infringement notice provisions and by the Liquor Act substantive law. Practitioners should therefore consult:

• the Magistrates Court Act 1930, part 3.8 for the statutory processes attached to infringement notices (application to withdraw notice, election for court hearing, conversion to prosecution, timeframes, etc.), noting that the regulation implements only the Liquor‑specific overlay; and

• the Liquor Act 2010 for the substantive elements of the listed offences, age exceptions and any licence defences.

Because the regulation does not contain a litigation record or cite cases, any analysis of precedent must be built from decisions interpreting the Magistrates Court Act process or the Liquor Act offences themselves. The regulation’s silence on litigation history in the source requires researchers to search court databases and law reports for decisions engaging the infringement‑notice pathway in Liquor Act contexts.

This regulation is short and exacting; several practical pitfalls and points of confusion arise from the way it links to other instruments and fixes particular mechanics. The following “gotchas” are grounded in the regulation text and should be considered by advisers and compliance officers:

• Distinguish penalty units from infringement dollar amounts. Schedule 1 records two different figures for each listed offence: the statutory offence penalty in penalty units (sch 1, col 3) and the prescribed infringement penalty in dollars (sch 1, col 4). The dollar number in column 4 is the amount payable under an infringement notice for an individual (s 8(1)), and it is not a direct arithmetical conversion of the penalty units in column 3. Do not attempt to recalculate or re‑express the column 4 amounts by multiplying the column 3 penalty units by the Legislation Act penalty‑unit value shown in the republication header. The schedule already provides the relevant dollar figure for infringement notice purposes.

• Corporate exposure is higher and fixed as a multiplier. Section 8(2) makes the corporation’s infringement penalty equal to five times the dollar amount in schedule 1, column 4. This is a fixed multiplier, not a function of penalty units or of any separate corporate penalty unit value. For corporations that receive an infringement notice, the multiplicative effect can be substantial and is uniform across all schedule items.

• Age exceptions require cross‑checking. Several schedule items are qualified with “except where individual is under 16 years old” and s 7 notes that some offences may be committed by those under 18 but that infringement notices may only be given to individuals 16 or older. Practically this means authorised officers must check the age of the recipient and the Liquor Act provision before issuing an infringement notice. The regulation does not itself state the consequences of serving a notice to someone under the applicable age; the officer should therefore exercise care and consult the Liquor Act and the Magistrates Court Act procedures.

• Identification requirements are prescriptive. The notice must identify the authorised person in precise terms: police officers by service number; investigators by name or by a unique number provided by the administering authority (ss 9 and 11). If an investigator is not assigned a unique number by the director‑general, the investigator must provide the full name or surname and initials. The regulation treats these identification elements as mandatory content for a valid notice.

• ACN requirement is additional. For companies, inclusion of the ACN on an infringement notice is required by s 10(1) and is stated to be additional to requirements under the Magistrates Court Act s 121(1)(c) (s 10 note). Practically, authorised persons must ensure both sets of requirements are satisfied; missing the ACN could render the notice non‑compliant with this regulation, invoking procedural or substantive challenges.

• Reminder notice fee is separate. Section 8(3) fixes a $34 cost for serving a reminder notice. That is an administrative charge in addition to the infringement penalty; practitioners should account for this when advising recipients who may face both an unpaid infringement amount and the reminder fee.

• Who counts as an “investigator”? The Dictionary signposts the definition of “investigator” to the Fair Trading (Australian Consumer Law) Act 1992. That cross‑reference can be a source of confusion because the class of persons defined as investigators under that Act may include roles outside traditional police enforcement. The administering authority may supply unique investigator numbers; practitioners should verify which persons carry investigator status for Liquor Act infringement purposes and whether any unique numbers have been issued (ss 9(b)(ii), 11(b)(ii), s 6).

• Penalty unit value note may mislead. The republication header contains a note about the value of a penalty unit for offences against this law at the republication date (individual $160, corporation $810). That statement relates to penalty‑unit conversions generally under the Legislation Act. For the infringement notice scheme, schedule 1 already sets a dollar figure for each offence; therefore do not treat the header’s penalty unit figure as the operative computation for the schedule’s infringement amounts.

• Procedural context is external to the regulation. The regulation does not set out the full set of procedural rights and remedies following a notice (for example, contesting a notice in court). Those mechanisms are governed by the Magistrates Court Act 1930, part 3.8. Practitioners should not assume the regulation provides a complete statement of procedural law.

• Amendment tracking required. Schedule 1 has been amended multiple times across various instruments (see endnotes and amendment history). Where an offence is time‑sensitive, or where an event occurred prior to an amendment, check the legislation history to confirm which version applied at the relevant time.

These are concrete operational risks and compliance traps visible from the regulation text. The correct operational response is meticulous cross‑referencing between this regulation, the Liquor Act and the Magistrates Court Act, and confirmation with the administering authority where ambiguity arises (for example, investigator numbering).

Compliance with this regulation involves both process and documentation. For regulated entities, enforcement officers and advisers, the immediate practical steps grounded in the regulation text are:

• Map the applicable Liquor Act provisions. Start by identifying which Liquor Act sections listed in schedule 1 apply to your business or the conduct in question (sch 1, col 2). The regulation gives the schedule entries but not their substantive elements; you must read the corresponding provision in the Liquor Act 2010 to determine what conduct is proscribed and whether any statutory defences, licensing exclusions or age constraints apply.

• Understand the monetary exposure. For each relevant schedule item, note the infringement penalty in dollars (sch 1, col 4). If the recipient is a corporation, calculate five times that amount to reflect s 8(2). Also factor in the $34 reminder notice cost (s 8(3)). Do not attempt to re‑derive the dollar amounts by multiplying penalty units by any penalty‑unit value; schedule 1 already sets the infringement dollar figure.

• Train enforcement personnel on notice content. Ensure that police officers and investigators who will be issuing notices are trained to include the mandatory identification information on infringement and reminder notices: police service number for police, and either full name/surname and initials or a unique investigator number for investigators (ss 9 and 11). Confirm with the administering authority whether investigators have been assigned unique numbers and ensure those numbers are recorded on notices where used (s 6; ss 9(b)(ii), 11(b)(ii)).

• For company notices, include the ACN. When an infringement notice is issued to a company, the notice must include the company’s ACN (s 10(1)-(2)). Verify the company’s registered ACN against the Corporations Act register and ensure it appears on the notice in addition to any content mandated by the Magistrates Court Act. The regulation explicitly treats the ACN requirement as additional to the Magistrates Court Act’s content obligations (s 10 note).

• Observe age thresholds. For offences where the schedule contains age qualifiers (for example, “except where individual is under 16 years old”), enforcement officers should verify the recipient’s age before issuing an infringement notice. The regulation’s note at s 7 also highlights that some offences might be committed by persons under 18, but that infringement notices may only be given to those 16 or older. That check is necessary to ensure the proper procedure is followed.

• Keep administrative records and evidence. Maintain records showing who served the notice, how identification was displayed on the notice (service number or investigator id/name), the ACN for company notices, the date and manner of service, and any reminder notice service including the $34 charge. These records will be material if a recipient contests the notice under the Magistrates Court Act procedures.

• Consult the administering authority for investigator numbers and administrative practice. The director‑general for the Liquor Act is the administering authority (s 6). Where uncertainty exists about how investigators are to be identified, whether a unique investigator number has been assigned, or about agency practice in issuing notices, the administering authority is the appropriate point of contact (ss 9(b)(ii), 11(b)(ii)).

• Check amendment history and current text. Schedule 1 and other sections have been amended across a number of instruments (see endnotes and amendment history). Before relying on a particular schedule item, verify you are consulting the most recent consolidated text on the legislation register and check the commencement dates in the legislation history for temporal applicability.

• Advise recipients about options. Because the regulation operates within the Magistrates Court Act infringement‑notice framework (s 5), recipients should be advised of their statutory options under that Act: paying the infringement amount, electing to contest the matter in court, or other remedies set out in the Magistrates Court Act. The regulation does not itself set those procedural options, so practitioners should provide advice referencing the Magistrates Court Act 1930, part 3.8.

• Consider corporate governance and training. For businesses at risk of being issued infringement notices, compliance steps include instituting policies and staff training to prevent contraventions of the underlying Liquor Act provisions, monitoring for regulatory change (given the history of amendment), and keeping company registration details (including ACN) current so notices are properly received and processed.

Taken together, compliance requires accurate cross‑checking between this regulation’s notice and monetary rules and the underlying Liquor Act offences and the Magistrates Court Act’s procedures. The director‑general as administering authority and the authorised persons (police and investigators) are central operational actors in the system; ensure liaison and recordkeeping accordingly.