National Self-exclusion Register (Cost Recovery Levy) Act 2019

The statute concentrates on a small set of legislative concepts: levy, levy period, designated levy period and applicable percentage, the Register and Register arrangement, the ACMA’s costs (including upfront costs), and the linkage to Part 7B of the Interactive Gambling Act 2001.

Levy and levy period. A levy is imposed for a defined levy period when a person both (a) is a licensed interactive wagering service provider during the whole or part of the levy period and (b) makes at least one request to the Register operator under subsection 61NC(1) during that levy period (section 7). A levy period is defined in section 6 as either (a) a period beginning on the proclaimed start day and ending 30 June next following, or (b) the financial year beginning 1 July next following the proclaimed start day, or (c) a later financial year. The “interim period” has a distinct definition, running from the start of 30 November 2018 until immediately before the proclaimed start day (section 6).

Method determination and legislative instruments. The Act delegates to the ACMA the power to determine the method for calculating the amount of levy imposed on each person, by legislative instrument (section 9(1)). That means the statutory calculation rules will be contained in secondary legislation made under the Act. The ACMA must consult the Minister before making that determination (section 9(2)). Likewise, the ACMA can, by legislative instrument, designate consecutive levy periods and set an applicable percentage for each designated period (section 11(1)), subject to the requirement that the total of applicable percentages cannot exceed 100 per cent (section 11(3)). The ACMA must consult the Minister before making any designation (section 11(4)).

Cost recovery cap. Section 10 caps the aggregate amount of levies that may be imposed in any levy period to the sum of specified ACMA payments and costs incurred in the levy period. The list is fairly granular. It includes amounts paid to the Register operator under a Register arrangement (section 10(1)(a)), ACMA costs of managing a Register arrangement (10(1)(b)), costs for monitoring, promoting and investigating compliance with Part 7B (10(1)(c)(i)-(ii)), costs of taking action under the Regulatory Powers (Standard Provisions) Act 2014 insofar as it relates to Part 7B (10(1)(c)(iii)), costs of performing ACMA functions under Part 7B or this Act (10(1)(d)), procurement costs relating to entering a Register arrangement (10(1)(e)), and other development/operation costs for the Register (10(1)(f)). For designated levy periods the cap may also include the applicable percentage of the ACMA’s upfront Register costs (10(1)(g)).

Upfront costs and interim period. Section 12 itemises what counts as the ACMA’s upfront Register costs. Those are amounts and costs incurred during the interim period and cover amounts paid to the Register operator, costs in managing Register arrangements, performance costs of functions or powers under Part 7B or this Act, procurement costs, and a broad residual head for other costs relating to preparing, establishing, developing and operating the Register (section 12(a)-(e)). The interim period is defined in section 6 as starting at the start of 30 November 2018 and ending immediately before the proclaimed start day.

Cross‑references to Part 7B. Many of the Act’s operative terms are defined by reference to Part 7B of the Interactive Gambling Act 2001 (section 6). The Register, Register operator, Register arrangement, Register rules, and licensed interactive wagering service provider draw their meanings from that Part. The Act therefore operates as a cost‑recovery overlay on the Register established in Part 7B and on the enforcement and compliance activities flowing from that Part.

Scope and reach. The Act extends to external Territories (section 4) and applies extra‑territorially (section 5). The Act binds the Crown in right of the States, the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory, but it does not bind the Crown in right of the Commonwealth (section 3). These jurisdictional allocations influence who can be subject to the levy and who may be excluded from it.

Decision points and discretion. Key policy and implementation choices are delegated to the ACMA via legislative instruments: the method of calculating individual provider liabilities (s9), and designation of levy periods and applicable percentages for recovery of upfront costs (s11). Both require ministerial consultation (s9(2); s11(4)) but otherwise the ACMA sets the instrument content.

Primary affected parties. The statutory levy targets persons who are licensed interactive wagering service providers, as that phrase is defined in Part 7B of the Interactive Gambling Act 2001 (section 6). The levy is confined to providers that both were licensed during the whole or part of a levy period and made at least one request to the Register operator under subsection 61NC(1) in that levy period (section 7). That creates a targeted nexus between engaging with the Register and incurring monetary liability.

ACMA and Register operator. The ACMA is the administrative actor responsible for setting the calculation method and making designated period determinations by legislative instrument (sections 9 and 11). The Act also recognises payments made by the ACMA (on behalf of the Commonwealth) to the Register operator under a Register arrangement; those amounts are recoverable via the levy cap (section 10(1)(a)). The Register operator is a defined concept in Part 7B, and payments to that operator and ACMA costs in managing the arrangement are explicitly included in recoverable costs (section 10(1)(a)-(b)). Thus the Register operator receives payments from the ACMA that may ultimately be funded in whole or in part by levies on certain providers.

States, territories and the Commonwealth. The Act binds the Crown in right of each State, the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory (section 3), but it does not bind the Crown in right of the Commonwealth (section 3). That means State and Territory Crown entities can be within the Act’s operation, while the Commonwealth itself is excluded from being bound by this Act. The Act also extends to external Territories (section 4) and applies extra‑territorially (section 5), so the territorial reach is expansive beyond the mainland States.

Providers who do not make the trigger request. The levy only applies if the provider made at least one request to the Register operator under subsection 61NC(1) in the levy period (section 7(b)). Providers who were licensed but did not make such a request during the levy period are not caught by section 7 and therefore are not subject to the statutory levy in that levy period, under the Act’s stated mechanics.

Who pays. The statute is explicit: where a levy is imposed on a person for a levy period, the person must pay the levy (section 8). The Act does not itself create alternative payment obligations or apportionment rules between providers; the individual amount is to be determined by an ACMA legislative instrument (section 9(1)).

Indirectly affected parties. Other participants in the wagering ecosystem may be affected indirectly. For example, the ACMA’s cost items include monitoring and investigation work under Part 7B and actions under the Regulatory Powers (Standard Provisions) Act 2014 insofar as those relate to Part 7B (section 10(1)(c)). Those activities may lead to regulatory interventions or compliance costs that affect providers more broadly, but the Act’s direct pecuniary obligation attaches only to those providers who meet the specified levy trigger.

Entities managing the Register. The Register operator and any entity that enters into a Register arrangement with the ACMA will be paid by the ACMA, and those payments feed into the recoverable cost pool (section 10(1)(a); section 12 for upfront costs). Entities involved in procurement or operation of the Register are therefore suppliers whose fees and costs are, in whole or part, recoverable from the levy cap.

Duty to pay where levy imposed. The Act places a clear payment duty on any person on whom a levy is imposed: the levy is payable by that person (section 8). The triggering conditions for imposition are set out in section 7, requiring both licensed status during a levy period and making at least one request to the Register operator under subsection 61NC(1) during that period.

ACMA’s duties in determining method and designations. The ACMA has the duty to determine the method by which individual levy amounts are calculated, and to do so by legislative instrument (section 9(1)). Before making that method determination, the ACMA must consult the Minister (section 9(2)). Similarly, when designating levy periods and specifying applicable percentages for designated levy periods, the ACMA must make those determinations by legislative instrument and consult the Minister beforehand (section 11(1), (4)). The consultation requirements are the only procedural obligations on ACMA expressly stated in the Act in relation to setting the method and designations.

Constraints on ACMA’s levying power. The ACMA’s power to cause levies to be imposed is constrained by the statutory cap on total levies for a levy period. Section 10(1) provides a closed list of costs and payments that together limit the total amount of levies that may be imposed; the aggregate of levies must not exceed the sum of those items. In designated levy periods the applicable percentage of upfront costs (as defined in section 12) may be included, but only up to the applicable percentage for that period and subject to the overall cap on applicable percentages not exceeding 100 per cent (section 11(3)).

Rights conferred or implied. The Act confers a right on the ACMA to recover certain costs via levies, subject to the statutory cap. Providers have the right to know the method for individual assessments only once the ACMA makes the legislative instrument required by section 9. The Act mandates ministerial consultation in two specified contexts (sections 9(2) and 11(4)), which is a procedural protection for ministerial oversight, but it does not provide an express right to industry consultation beyond what the ACMA may implement when framing its instruments. The Act does not prescribe notice, billing, dispute resolution, or remission mechanisms for levy payers within its text.

No specification of payment mechanics or enforcement for levy non‑payment. The Act does not specify timing for payment, billing notices, penalties for non‑payment, or mechanisms for enforcement of levy obligations. It confines itself to who is liable, how amounts will be prescribed (by ACMA instrument), and how the total recoverable pool is capped (section 10). Any procedural or enforcement mechanisms therefore must be supplied by the ACMA’s legislative instruments or other legislation, or by administrative arrangements outside this Act.

Crown and territorial allocations. The Act binds State and Territory Crowns but not the Commonwealth (section 3). That duty/allocation affects whether Commonwealth entities can be compelled to pay levies or be subject to duties under this Act. The Act extends to external Territories (section 4) and applies extra‑territorially (section 5), which affects rights and obligations of persons operating offshore or in Territories.

Definitions driving duty. Several core duties follow directly from statutory definitions. The meaning of licensed interactive wagering service provider, Register operator, Register arrangement and Register rules are all taken from Part 7B of the Interactive Gambling Act 2001 (section 6). The reach of duties therefore depends on companion statutory definitions outside this Act.

No express levy collection penalties or enforcement processes in the Act. The Act does not create criminal penalties, civil penalties, or specific enforcement mechanisms for failure to pay a levy. It states who is liable for a levy and how amounts are to be determined, but it is silent on collection procedures, interest on late payments, penalties for non‑payment or administrative recovery steps. The absence of such provisions in the Act means collection and enforcement procedures, if any, must be established elsewhere,either in the ACMA’s legislative instruments under this Act, in the Interactive Gambling Act 2001, or in other laws or administrative arrangements. The Act itself does not provide those mechanisms.

ACMA enforcement activities are contemplated in recoverable costs, but that is different from levy enforcement. Section 10(1)(c) explicitly allows the ACMA’s costs of taking action under the Regulatory Powers (Standard Provisions) Act 2014, insofar as that Act relates to Part 7B of the Interactive Gambling Act 2001, to be included in the recoverable cost pool. That provision addresses recovery of ACMA enforcement costs, and recognises that the ACMA may undertake enforcement or regulatory actions under the Regulatory Powers Act in relation to Part 7B. It does not, however, convert those enforcement powers into direct levy‑collection powers; the text separates ACMA enforcement costs as an item that may be funded by levies, not the mechanism by which levy arrears are recovered from liable persons.

No express administrative review or appeal route under this Act. The Act does not provide a statutory appeal or review right specific to levy amount determinations or liability. Because the method for calculating individual amounts is to be prescribed by ACMA legislative instrument (section 9(1)), avenues for challenge would depend on the content of that instrument, any accompanying regulations, and general administrative law remedies available against administrative decisions. The Act itself does not articulate those processes.

Implication for regulated parties. The practical implication is that regulated parties need to monitor secondary instruments and administrative guidance to know how the levy will be billed and enforced. The ACMA’s inclusion of its enforcement costs in the recoverable pool (section 10(1)(c)) also creates an incentive for the ACMA to treat enforcement work as a recoverable cost, but the Act does not prescribe how the ACMA will recoup unpaid levies if payers decline to pay.

Jurisdictional limits on enforcement. The Act binds State and Territory Crowns but not the Commonwealth (section 3). Therefore any enforcement mechanism fashioned to collect levies must respect that constitutional allocation; the Act’s silence on enforcement leaves open questions about whether Commonwealth entities can be obliged to pay or pursued, given the non‑binding clause.

Dependent definitional cross‑references to Part 7B. The Act repeatedly delegates definitional content to Part 7B of the Interactive Gambling Act 2001: licensed interactive wagering service provider, Register, Register arrangement, Register operator and Register rules are all defined by reference to that Part (section 6). Liability under this levy Act is therefore strictly dependent on the definitions and operational rules in Part 7B. Determination of who is a provider, what constitutes a Register request under subsection 61NC(1), and other operational triggers will be governed by Part 7B’s text. The levy Act overlays a cost‑recovery regime on top of Part 7B rather than replacing or duplicating Part 7B’s substantive rules.

Link to the Regulatory Powers (Standard Provisions) Act 2014. Section 10(1)(c)(iii) explicitly includes the ACMA’s costs of taking action under the Regulatory Powers (Standard Provisions) Act 2014, insofar as that Act relates to Part 7B, as recoverable via the levy cap. That creates a financial link between enforcement activity under the Regulatory Powers Act and the levy recovery mechanism. The Act does not, however, import enforcement procedures from the Regulatory Powers Act for collecting levies; the linkage is to the recoverable cost pool only.

Legislative instruments and their legal context. The ACMA is required to determine the levy calculation method and designated levy periods by legislative instrument (sections 9(1) and 11(1)). Those instruments will sit within the broader statutory framework governing legislative instruments and delegated legislation. The Act does not itself specify the parliamentary oversight or disallowance regime that attaches to those instruments; such procedural consequences are governed by the statutes that regulate legislative instruments more generally, but those statutes are not incorporated into this Act’s text. Practically, the ACMA’s instruments will be central to how the levy operates in the context of the law as a whole.

Crown bindings and constitutional implications. The Act binds the Crown in right of each State and Territory but does not bind the Crown in right of the Commonwealth (section 3). This interacts with constitutional and administrative law principles about the legal capacity of the Commonwealth and whether Commonwealth departments or agencies are liable under statutes that do not bind the Commonwealth. The Act’s allocation means that State and Territory Crown entities cannot claim exemption from duties under this Act on the basis of Crown immunity, whereas the Commonwealth itself is not bound.

Territorial reach and extra‑territorial application. The Act extends to external Territories (section 4) and applies extra‑territorially (section 5), so activities outside Australia can fall within the statute’s reach. The Act’s extra‑territorial application must be read alongside the cross‑references to Part 7B to determine which foreign or offshore activities create levy liability,i.e., whether a person is a licensed interactive wagering service provider under Part 7B when operating outside Australia.

Interaction with procurement and contract law. The Act contemplates procurement costs and payments to a Register operator under a Register arrangement (section 10(1)(a), 10(1)(e), section 12). That implies a contractual relationship between the ACMA and a Register operator (or operators). The Act allows those contractual payments and attendant procurement costs to be included in the recoverable pool of costs that limit total levies. The Act does not itself regulate the procurement process, but it makes procurement costs a recoverable cost item.

Administrative law and merits review. The Act’s silence on appeals, remissions or billing disputes means that standard administrative law remedies and judicial review may be the only routes for challenging ACMA instruments or implementation acts that give rise to levy obligations, subject however to the content of the ACMA instruments and any other legislation. The Act requires the ACMA to consult the Minister before certain decisions (sections 9(2) and 11(4)), which is a procedural requirement but not a substantive limitation on the content of instruments beyond the cost cap in section 10.

Overall, the levy Act is an overlay that depends for its substantive trigger and operational detail on Part 7B of the Interactive Gambling Act 2001 and that relies on delegated instruments and other Acts for enforcement and procedural mechanisms.

Original enactment and commencement. The Act is the National Self‑exclusion Register (Cost Recovery Levy) Act 2019 (short title stated in section 1). It was assented to on 12 December 2019, as recorded in the Act’s cover material. Section 2 sets out commencement mechanics by reference to the Interactive Gambling Amendment (National Self‑exclusion Register) Act 2019. The commencement table in section 2 states that “the whole of this Act” commences at the same time as the Interactive Gambling Amendment (National Self‑exclusion Register) Act 2019 commences, with an entry of 13 December 2019 in the commencement column. Section 2(2) also records that information in column 3 of that table is not part of the Act and may be edited in published versions; that is the statutory housekeeping note that appears in the Act as enacted.

No later amendments recorded in the text provided. The copy of the Act supplied contains the original enactment text and the commencement table. There are no subsequent amendment provisions, schedules amending other Acts, or alteration provisions contained in the supplied text. The Act’s own note indicates the commencement table relates only to provisions as originally enacted; the supplied version does not annotate subsequent amendments.

Ministerial statements and parliamentary materials recorded. The Act contains a notation that a Minister’s second reading speech was made in the House of Representatives on 27 November 2019 and in the Senate on 5 December 2019. Those entries are recorded at the end of the Act in the form “Minister’s second reading speech made in, House of Representatives on 27 November 2019 Senate on 5 December 2019”. The content of those speeches is not reproduced in the Act text supplied.

No recorded legislative amendments, repeals or judicially imposed modifications in the supplied text. The Act as supplied does not include transitional, savings or amendment provisions beyond the commencement table. The Act delegates substantive operational design (calculation method and designation of levy periods) to ACMA legislative instruments, which themselves are likely to be subject to standard legislative instrument procedures and may be amended over time; however, the supplied text contains no record of subsequent instruments or amendments.

Implication for practitioners. Because the Act depends on delegated instruments to set the detailed mechanics (section 9(1), section 11(1)), the amendment history relevant to practical application will include the ACMA instruments made under those powers and any later amendments to them. Those instruments are not part of this Act’s primary text and are not reproduced here. The Act’s own text has no recorded internal amendment history beyond the original commencement entry in the statutory table.

No litigation recorded in the Act text. The supplied version of the statute does not reference any judicial decisions, case law or disputes that have interpreted or applied this Act. There are no schedule entries summarising litigation or court challenges, and the Act’s text does not cite judicial authority.

Implication for legal research. For a practitioner seeking cases that interpret the levy scheme, the Act itself provides no direct references. Any litigation that might exist would need to be located in external sources,reported decisions, court files or tribunal records. The statute as supplied does not record whether any disputes have occurred about (a) the ACMA’s power to make legislative instruments under sections 9 and 11, (b) the liability trigger in section 7, (c) the scope of recoverable costs in section 10, or (d) the inclusion of upfront costs under section 12. Consequently, an absence of litigation references in the Act text is neutral: it does not imply litigation has not occurred, only that none is recorded in this statutory extract.

Practical consequence for advisers. Where a provider or supplier seeks legal advice about the levy, the critical documents for litigation risk assessment include the ACMA’s legislative instruments under sections 9 and 11, any billing notices or collection instruments issued by the ACMA, the Register arrangement contracts, and any enforcement or collection processes used. Since the Act does not itself prescribe enforcement or dispute resolution procedures, any litigation history relevant to collection or disputes is likely to arise from those instruments and contracts rather than from the primary statute alone.

Trigger tied to making a request to the Register operator. The levy only applies where a provider both was licensed during a levy period and has made at least one request to the Register operator under subsection 61NC(1) in that levy period (section 7). The statutory trigger is not merely licensing status alone. Because the Act conditions liability on an operational act,making a request under a specific subsection of the Interactive Gambling Act,providers who engage with the Register in certain ways become liable. That creates a narrow causal link between interacting with the Register and incurring a monetary obligation. The text of subsection 61NC(1) is not reproduced in this Act, so the exact operational meaning of “request” must be checked in Part 7B of the Interactive Gambling Act 2001. Practitioners must not assume any request qualifies; they must examine subsection 61NC(1) itself.

No payment timing, billing or penalty rules. The Act does not spell out when levies must be paid, how the ACMA will bill liable persons, what interest or penalties (if any) apply on late payment, or what enforcement steps will be available to the ACMA to recover unpaid levies. Those operational matters will be crucial in practice. The absence of such provisions in the Act means that providers should carefully examine the ACMA’s legislative instrument under section 9 and any administrative guidance or contractual arrangements to understand payment mechanics and enforcement risk.

ACMA discretion on method and designation. The ACMA determines the method for allocating individual liabilities by legislative instrument (section 9(1)). It also may designate levy periods and set applicable percentages (section 11). Both powers require consultation with the Minister but the Act does not require public consultation with industry, nor does it prescribe allocation principles such as fairness, pro rata allocation by turnover, or other standard cost‑allocation metrics. The methodological choice by ACMA can therefore materially affect individual providers’ payments, but the Act gives ACMA wide scope to design the allocation method subject only to the statutory aggregate cap in section 10.

Aggregate cap may still permit substantial recovery. Section 10(1) lists many categories of recoverable costs, including amounts paid to a Register operator, ACMA management and enforcement costs, procurement costs, development and operation costs, and an applicable percentage of upfront costs for designated periods. Although the Act caps the aggregate levies in a levy period to the sum of these items, those items together can be large depending on procurement and operational choices made by the ACMA and the Register operator. Practitioners should therefore examine the ACMA’s cost base and any contracted payments to the Register operator to anticipate the potential size of the recovered pool.

Upfront costs and staged recovery. The ACMA can recover an applicable percentage of its upfront Register costs in designated levy periods (section 10(1)(g); section 11). Upfront costs are defined in section 12 as a broad catchment of amounts during the interim period. The ACMA may spread those upfront costs across multiple designated levy periods, but the total of applicable percentages must not exceed 100 per cent (section 11(3)). Practitioners should note that the statutory framework contemplates staged recovery of upfront costs but constrains total recovery to the quantum of costs actually incurred.

Crown immunity nuance. The Act does not bind the Commonwealth (section 3). That raises practical questions if a Commonwealth agency or entity meets the statutory trigger (licensed and made a request under 61NC(1)), since the statute explicitly does not bind the Commonwealth. Practitioners advising entities with Commonwealth links should examine whether those entities are Crown in right of the Commonwealth and whether different arrangements apply.

Dependency on external definitions. Key concepts such as the Register operator and the meaning of a request reference provisions in Part 7B of the Interactive Gambling Act 2001 (section 6). Effective compliance assessment requires cross‑checking those external provisions. Failure to do so risks misclassifying conduct that triggers the levy.

No internal dispute resolution or appeal guarantees. The Act does not create a statutory right to internal review of levy assessments nor an explicit merits review path. Aggrieved parties must therefore rely on the ACMA’s instrument, administrative law channels and, where applicable, judicial review for procedural fairness or jurisdictional error. This gap is a practical “gotcha” when assessing remedies.

Legislative instrument exposure. Because the levy quantum and designated periods are determined by legislative instrument, changes can be made without a further Act. The Act requires ministerial consultation, but it does not constrain how often or on what basis the ACMA may change its instrument. Providers must monitor delegated legislation and ACMA publications to stay current.

Identify whether you are a covered provider. First, determine whether the entity is a “licensed interactive wagering service provider” as defined in Part 7B of the Interactive Gambling Act 2001 (section 6). That definitional inquiry is foundational. If the provider was not licensed during the whole or part of the relevant levy period, section 7 cannot operate to impose a levy.

Track Register interactions and record requests. Because a levy only arises if the provider made at least one request to the Register operator under subsection 61NC(1) in a levy period (section 7(b)), keep precise logs and documentary evidence of any requests or communications with the Register operator. Retain timestamps, copies of requests, and acknowledgements from the Register operator. The content and timing of such requests determine whether the levy trigger has been met.

Monitor ACMA legislative instruments and guidance. The method for calculating individual levy amounts is to be set out by ACMA legislative instrument (section 9(1)). The ACMA’s instruments and any accompanying publications will specify the formula, allocation methodology, payment schedule and potentially billing and enforcement procedures. Subscribe to ACMA notifications, review the Federal Register of Legislation for instruments under sections 9 and 11, and examine any explanatory material accompanying those instruments.

Prepare for consultation and engagement. The ACMA must consult the Minister before making the calculation method and designation instruments (sections 9(2) and 11(4)), but the Act does not require industry consultation. Providers concerned about likely allocation methods should proactively engage with the ACMA, supply submissions when ACMA calls for input on instruments, and participate in any public consultation the ACMA elects to run.

Review contractual interactions with the Register operator. If your business is the Register operator or a supplier to the Register operator, be aware that amounts paid by the ACMA to the Register operator under a Register arrangement feed into the recoverable cost pool (section 10(1)(a)). Contractual pricing, milestones and procurement arrangements may therefore materially affect the quantum of costs that can be recovered by levy. Ensure contracts include robust documentation of cost elements and that procurement suppliers are aware of how costs may be treated for levy recovery purposes.

Maintain financial forecasting for potential levies. Because the aggregate levies in any levy period are capped by listed ACMA costs (section 10(1)), but those costs can include payments, procurement expenses and enforcement work, providers should model potential exposure by reference to plausible ACMA cost outcomes. This is particularly important if the ACMA adopts a method that allocates costs pro rata by some metric (turnover, number of requests, market share) under its instrument.

Check Crown status if applicable. If the entity is a Crown body, determine whether it is Crown in right of a State, Territory or the Commonwealth. The Act binds the Crown in right of the States, the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory, but not the Crown in right of the Commonwealth (section 3). That distinction will determine whether the statutory levy can be imposed on the entity.

Document internal compliance procedures. Establish recordkeeping for licence status, Register interactions, billing notices, and correspondence with ACMA. Because the Act does not itself set payment mechanics, providers must rely on ACMA instruments; documenting receipt of any ACMA notices and preserving evidence of payment will be essential to guard against collection disputes.

Consider administrative or legal review avenues. The Act itself does not create internal review or appeal rights for levy imposition. If an ACMA instrument or a billing notice purports to impose a levy, consider administrative law remedies and the content of the instrument to determine whether procedural fairness or jurisdictional error grounds exist for challenge. Seek timely advice on potential merits review or judicial review options if assessments appear to be outside the scope of the ACMA’s statutory powers or the ACMA fails to follow required procedures.

Plan for cost allocation and budgeting. If you expect to be potentially liable, incorporate possible levy amounts into budgeting for the relevant financial years. Pay attention to ACMA announcements of designated levy periods and applicable percentages (section 11), since those will affect the share of upfront costs recovered in a given year.

Engage in policy channels if concerned. Because the ACMA method and designations are made by instrument, industry groups and providers may seek to influence allocation methodology through submissions to the ACMA or to the Minister in the consultation windows required by sections 9(2) and 11(4). Documented submissions may be the principal route for industry input given the Act’s delegation of the operational detail to the ACMA.

In short, compliance requires (a) establishing whether you are within the Act’s definitional ambit, (b) meticulously tracking any requests to the Register operator that could trigger liability, (c) monitoring and engaging with ACMA instruments and consultation processes, and (d) maintaining robust financial and contractual records tied to Register operation and ACMA interactions.