Radiocommunications (Exemption - Visiting Dignitaries) Determination 2023

The instrument defines a compact set of concepts and ties the exemption to them. The operational concepts are: “relevant person”, “electronic counter measures”, “visiting dignitary”, “dignitary security period”, and the statutory parts of the Act from which exemption is claimed (s5, s7, s8, s9).

• Relevant person. The instrument defines “relevant person” to mean either (a) a person performing a function or duty in relation to the Australian Federal Police or a state or territory police force, or (b) a person performing a function or duty in relation to the defence, security or international relations of Australia (s5). The text does not further restrict who counts as a person for this purpose. The definition therefore ties the exemption to the performance of functions or duties that are related to those public security bodies or state purposes, rather than to a particular employment classification. The instrument does not itself define whether that phrase excludes or includes contractors, external consultants or corporate entities; it only uses the term “person”.

• Electronic counter measures. The instrument provides a short working definition: electronic counter measures means measures designed to interfere with, disrupt, distort or disturb radiocommunications (s5). The instrument also expressly allows that implementation may include use of an “electronic counter measure vehicle” (s8(4)). The operative definition is behaviour-focused and tied to effect on radiocommunications.

• Visiting dignitary and dignitary security period. ACMA may name a person as a visiting dignitary and specify a dignitary security period by notifiable instrument (s9(1)). The power is constrained by listed categories in s9(2) and by a maximum period of 14 days (s9(3)). The instrument therefore creates a short, ACMA-declared event window during which the exemption can be engaged.

• Parts of the Act exempted. The instrument identifies three whole Parts of the Radiocommunications Act from which an act or omission by a relevant person may be exempt: Part 3.1, Part 4.1 and Part 4.2 (s7). The Determination does not describe the content of these Parts; its mechanism is to render those Parts inapplicable to qualifying conduct.

• Conditionality and temporality. The exemption is conditional on all circumstances in s8 being satisfied (s8(1)). Those conditions include that the act be performed in the performance of relevant functions and duties (s8(2)) and that it relate to implementation of electronic counter measures associated with a named visiting dignitary during the specified dignitary security period (s8(3)). The instrument itself is temporary, with automatic repeal on the fifth anniversary of commencement (s4). The dignitary security period is separately capped at 14 days (s9(3)).

Ancillary references in the instrument clarify that some expressions used are defined in the Act, for example ACMA, interference and radiocommunication (s5 Note). The instrument also cross-references other Commonwealth Acts and administrative law practices for interpretation of references and registration (s6 Notes and s6 provisions).

Mechanically, therefore, the Determination ties a limited field of otherwise-regulated conduct to a short-notified window, under which designated security actors can implement specified kinds of radio-interfering measures without being subject to the three identified Parts of the Act, provided the statutory conditions are satisfied (s7, s8, s9).

The instrument allocates decision rights and compliance consequences across three groups: ACMA as the naming authority, “relevant persons” who may act under the exemption, and the abroad visiting dignitaries who are the focus of security measures. The broader public and private users of the radio spectrum are affected indirectly because the instrument creates a temporary carve-out for radio-disturbing measures when certain conditions are met.

• ACMA. The Australian Communications and Media Authority is the statutory decision-maker empowered to name a visiting dignitary and set the dignitary security period by notifiable instrument (s9(1)). ACMA exercises a gatekeeping role: it must not make a notifiable instrument naming a person unless one of the listed criteria in s9(2) is met. These criteria are: the person is a head of state, deputy head of state, head of government or deputy head of government of a foreign nation (s9(2)(a); example: president); the person is a member of a branch of government of a foreign nation (s9(2)(b)); the person is a member/delegate to the governing body of an international organisation declared under the International Organisations (Privileges and Immunities) Act 1963 (s9(2)(c)); or ACMA is satisfied it is in the interests of defence, security or international relations to make the instrument naming the person (s9(2)(d)). ACMA therefore has discretion bounded by express criteria.

• Relevant persons. The persons who may perform exempt acts are those “performing a function or duty in relation to” the AFP, state or territory police, or to the defence, security or international relations of Australia (s5; s8(2)). The instrument does not narrow this to employees of those agencies, and does not expressly exclude contractors, consultants or third parties. The relevant person must be performing the function or duty at the time of the act or omission: the exemption only applies to acts or omissions “in the performance of the relevant person’s functions and duties” in relation to the listed bodies (s8(2)). The instrument therefore interfaces with the operational choices of police, Federal Police, defence or other security actors and those who carry out tasks for them.

• Visiting dignitaries. Persons named by ACMA under s9 become the focal point for the exemption because the act or omission must be in relation to implementation of electronic counter measures associated with security of a “visiting dignitary” and during the dignitary security period named by ACMA (s8(3); s9). The instrument sets out criteria for who may be named (s9(2)), thereby constraining which foreign officials or international delegates may trigger use of the exemption.

• Third parties and spectrum users. The instrument does not directly create authorisations for third-party private spectrum users; rather it exempts certain actors from the application of the specified Parts of the Act while they implement electronic counter measures. The practical effect is that other spectrum-dependent users may experience interference during the dignitary security period where relevant persons implement measures, but the instrument itself does not create new compensation or notification obligations in the text provided. The instrument therefore affects third parties indirectly, by removing the usual statutory constraints for the exempted conduct for the limited period and circumstances specified.

• Administrative actors outside ACMA. The instrument references the Australian Federal Police’s role and points readers to a Ministerial direction under the AFP Act 1979 (note in s9). That cross-reference indicates an operational intersection with other administrative directions, but the Determination does not itself create duties for those other agencies; it simply conditions the exemption on acts being performed in relation to their functions (s8(2)).

Overall, the Determination concentrates decision-making on ACMA for naming dignitaries and on those performing security functions for the exercise of counter measures. It adjusts the legal exposure of those actors by removing certain statutory constraints from the Act for qualifying acts and omissions (s7, s8, s9).

The instrument creates, constrains and clarifies several duties and rights for the principal actors. These are primarily administrative and conditional rather than prescriptive technical duties.

• ACMA’s duties and constraints. ACMA has the authority to name a visiting dignitary and specify a dignitary security period by notifiable instrument (s9(1)). That authority is subject to duty-like constraints. The instrument expressly directs that ACMA must not make a notifiable instrument naming a person unless at least one of the categorical criteria in s9(2) is met: the person is in specified high office in a foreign nation (heads/deputies of state or government), is a member of a branch of a foreign government, is a member/delegate to a governing body of an international organisation declared under the International Organisations (Privileges and Immunities) Act 1963, or ACMA is satisfied the naming is in the interests of defence, security or international relations (s9(2)). Those are preconditions to ACMA exercising its power.

  ACMA also has a duration constraint: it must not specify a dignitary security period longer than 14 days (s9(3)). The instrument requires the use of a notifiable instrument, which implies public registration (s9(1) and s2 note regarding the Federal Register of Legislation). The instrument is silent on internal procedural steps ACMA must take prior to making the notifiable instrument, but the statutory text imposes the substantive limiting criteria and the duration cap.

• Relevant persons’ entitlement to exemption. When conditions in s8 are all met, an act or omission by a relevant person is exempt from all of Part 3.1, all of Part 4.1 and all of Part 4.2 of the Act (s7). The instrument therefore grants a conditional right to be outside the scope of those Parts for qualifying conduct. The entitlement is contingent on three linked conditions: the act or omission must be performed in the performance of the relevant person’s functions and duties (s8(2)); it must relate to the implementation of electronic counter measures associated with the security of a visiting dignitary (s8(3)(a)); and it must occur during the dignitary security period specified by ACMA (s8(3)(b)). The instrument also confirms that implementation may include use of an electronic counter measure vehicle (s8(4)).

  The exemption applies to both acts and omissions (s7), which means not only active measures but also failures to act that would otherwise fall within the specified Parts of the Act, provided the statutory conditions are satisfied.

• Limitations and temporal duties. The instrument itself is subject to commencement and repeal timing. It commences the day after registration on the Federal Register (s2) and is repealed at the start of the day that is five years after commencement (s4). These are duties on the instrument’s operational life, not duties on ACMA or relevant persons, but they constrain the period in which the exemption exists.

• Interaction with other definitions and authorities. The instrument clarifies that some expressions used are defined in the Act itself, including ACMA, interference and radiocommunication (s5 Note). It also cross-references the International Organisations (Privileges and Immunities) Act 1963 for the definition of “international organisation” (s5). Those references bring into play definitions and concepts that are external to the instrument but incorporated by reference.

• No new enforcement or penalty clauses in the Determination. The instrument does not create new offences, civil penalties or specific enforcement procedures within its text. Instead, it operates by statutory exemption,removing the application of identified Parts of the Act to qualifying acts or omissions (s7). Therefore the key legal effect is a narrowing of the Act’s application for specified actors and acts, rather than creation of additional rights or duties in the positive sense beyond the exemption conditions and the ACMA naming constraints.

In short, the instrument establishes a bounded administrative power for ACMA and a contingent exemption right for persons performing relevant functions, with specific temporal and categorical limits (s9, s8, s7, s4).

The Determination itself does not create new penalties or introduce bespoke enforcement mechanisms. Its principal operation is to exempt specified conduct from the application of particular Parts of the Radiocommunications Act 1992, and therefore the enforcement implications flow from that mechanism.

• Exemption effect on enforcement under the Act. Where an act or omission by a relevant person falls within the conditions in s8, the act or omission is exempt from all of Part 3.1, all of Part 4.1 and all of Part 4.2 of the Act (s7). By making specified conduct outside the scope of those Parts, the Determination has the effect that any prohibitions, licensing requirements, authorisation conditions, offence provisions or enforcement mechanisms that are contained in those Parts do not, by operation of this Determination, apply to the qualifying conduct. The instrument does not restate or reproduce the enforcement content of those Parts; it simply declares inapplicability for qualifying conduct.

• No standalone penalty regime. The Determination does not contain standalone criminal offences, civil penalties, infringement notices, compliance notices or administrative sanctions within its text. It confers an exemption rather than imposing punishments. Therefore, any enforcement consequence for acts during the dignitary security period will be determined by reference to whether the act falls within the exemption conditions. If the conditions are not met, the relevant Parts of the Act remain applicable and enforcement under those Parts may follow; if conditions are met, the acts are outside the listed Parts and enforcement under those Parts will not apply to that conduct (s7, s8).

• Administrative enforcement and transparency. The instrument requires ACMA to make any naming of a visiting dignitary and specification of the dignitary security period by notifiable instrument (s9(1)). The notifiable instrument requirement implies publication and formal registration, which functions as an administrative transparency mechanism. The Determination does not otherwise specify operational reporting or notification duties on relevant persons once ACMA has made a notifiable instrument.

• Indirect enforcement through other regulatory regimes. The Determination is explicit about what it exempts under the Radiocommunications Act (s7) but does not address other Commonwealth, state, territory or international legal obligations. The instrument therefore does not remove exposure to enforcement under other laws that might apply to the same acts or omissions; those separate enforcement regimes are outside the textual scope of this Determination. Practitioners must therefore consider other applicable legal regimes in parallel when assessing enforcement risks.

• Temporal scope for enforcement applicability. Because the Determination is repealed at the start of the day five years after commencement (s4), acts occurring after the Determination’s repeal will not benefit from the exemption. Similarly, the exemption applies only during an ACMA-specified dignitary security period not exceeding 14 days (s9(3)), so enforcement under the Act’s Parts may apply outside that window (s8(3)).

In summary, the Determination alters enforcement consequences under the Radiocommunications Act by creating a targeted, conditional inapplicability of specified Parts to certain actors and acts. It does not itself create penalties, nor does it prescribe a separate enforcement mechanism; enforcement relies on the continued applicability of Acts and parts not exempted, and on the correctness of the factual predicate for the exemption in s8.

The instrument is made under the Radiocommunications Act 1992 (s3), and it expressly interlaces with other Commonwealth instruments and statutes by reference and by operational design. The text identifies specific cross-references and limitations.

• Parent statute authority. The Determination is made under subsection 27(2) of the Radiocommunications Act 1992 (s3). It therefore operates as a legislative instrument exercising an express statutory power granted by that parent Act. Its legal effect and validity are therefore derived from and limited by the scope of the section under which it is made.

• Incorporation of Act definitions and parts. The instrument notes that a number of expressions used are defined in the Act, including ACMA, interference and radiocommunication (s5 Note). The Determination exempts conduct from specific Parts of the Act (Part 3.1, Part 4.1 and Part 4.2) (s7). Practically, this means that to understand precisely what is being removed from the regulatory regime, a reader must examine those Parts of the Act themselves. The Determination does not restate or interpret the content of those Parts; it only declares non-application to qualifying conduct.

• Reference to the International Organisations (Privileges and Immunities) Act 1963. The instrument uses the concept “international organisation” and defines it as an international organisation declared in regulations under subsection 5(1) of that Act (s5). This cross-reference anchors one of ACMA’s naming criteria (s9(2)(c)) to an external statutory list and thus integrates the Determination with that separate statutory regime.

• Administrative law and publication frameworks. The Determination stipulates that references to other legislative instruments are to be read as references to instruments as in force from time to time, and references to other kinds of instruments or writings are similarly to be read as those instruments in force or existing from time to time (s6). Notes in s6 refer to the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 and the Legislation Act 2003 for interpretation and registration mechanisms. Those references indicate that the Determination is to be read within the broader architecture of Commonwealth legislative interpretation and publication.

• Interaction with AFP and other agency directions. The instrument’s note in s9 points readers to a Ministerial direction issued under subsection 37(2) of the Australian Federal Police Act 1979 for the AFP’s role in relation to visiting dignitaries. That shows an operational interface between this Determination and other agency directions, but the Determination does not modify those other instruments; rather, it connects by reference.

• Limits on the Determination’s legal reach. The Determination removes the application of certain Parts of the Radiocommunications Act for qualifying acts and omissions (s7). It does not purport to displace other Commonwealth, state or territory legal obligations, nor does it purport to affect obligations under international law. The instrument is silent on other legal regimes; therefore, the interplay with other laws will depend on external texts and factual circumstances.

• Temporal and conditional interplay. Because ACMA must make a notifiable instrument to trigger the dignitary security period, and because the Determination is itself time-limited and requires that qualifying acts be in the performance of certain functions and within a specified period, it interacts with operational legal regimes through a set of gating conditions (s9, s8, s4).

The Determination therefore functions as a surgical, statutory exemption tethered to the Radiocommunications Act’s architecture and to external statutory concepts, principally by reference rather than by substantive amendment of other regimes. Understanding its full legal effect requires consulting the referenced Parts and external Acts it cites.

The text of the instrument as provided contains its own commencement and expiry provisions and does not record prior amendments or versions. From the instrument itself the amendment history is minimal and explicit.

• Commencement. The Determination commences at the start of the day after the day it is registered on the Federal Register of Legislation (s2). The instrument’s note reiterates that the Federal Register is publicly available (s2 Note). There is therefore no delayed or staged commencement: the instrument is effective from the day after registration.

• Repeal and sunset. The instrument is automatically repealed at the start of the day that is the fifth anniversary of its commencement (s4). The Determination therefore contains an express sunset clause and no open-ended duration. That automatic repeal is the only amendment mechanism provided in the instrument for its termination.

• No amendments recorded in the text. The instrument as supplied does not show any subsequent amendments or variations. It does not include a schedule of prior versions, amending instruments or historical notes showing changes. The only temporal constraint is the five-year repeal provision (s4).

• Future amendments not precluded by the text. While the Determination contains no internal amendment mechanism, it is framed as a legislative instrument (made under s27(2) of the Act) and therefore may be subject to variation, replacement or repeal by subsequent instruments or by amendment to the parent Act, consistent with Commonwealth legislative practice. The text itself neither prescribes nor limits the Commonwealth’s ability to amend or replace the Determination prior to its sunset, other than the constraints on ACMA’s naming powers set out in s9.

• Operational implications of the sunset. The five-year lifespan imposes an administrative obligation on users and regulators to review the instrument’s continued suitability prior to expiry should they want the exemption regime to continue. The Determination does not contain a transitional regime for acts or omissions that occur on the day of repeal or thereafter; the repeal provision simply returns the legal position to what it would be under the Act absent the Determination.

In short, the instrument is presented as a self-contained, time-limited legislative instrument with a defined commencement, a five-year sunset and no recorded amendments in the text provided.

The instrument, as provided, contains no references to litigation, case law, or adjudication history. It does not identify any judicial decisions, legal challenges, or precedents that interpret or test its operation. Within the text the only judicially-referable content appears as cross-references to statutory definitions and other Acts, not to case law.

• No cases named. The Determination does not name any judicial or administrative decisions or provide examples of litigation about its application. It contains no dispute-resolution provisions specific to the exemption.

• Implication for legal challenge. Because the instrument is a legislative instrument issued under a statutory power (s3), challenges to its validity or to particular applications of the notifiable instruments it authorises would be matters for administrative law and judicial review in the federal courts. Such proceedings would necessarily raise issues about whether ACMA complied with the statutory constraints in s9 when making a notifiable instrument, and whether acts relied upon as exempted fall within the s8 conditions. The Determination does not itself prescribe a dispute mechanism, and the instrument includes no immunity for acts that fall outside its conditions.

• Evidence record and litigation readiness. The instrument’s text suggests that ACMA’s notifiable instrument will be the central administrative record for determining whether a dignitary security period existed for particular acts (s9(1)). For litigation or review concerning whether an act was exempt, relevant evidence would include the ACMA notifiable instrument, records demonstrating a person was performing the relevant functions or duties, and evidence that the act was in relation to implementation of electronic counter measures during the dignitary security period (s8(2)-(3)). The Determination does not create evidentiary rules but shapes what documents and facts will be central in any dispute.

Because the Determination lacks internal litigation history or precedent, practitioners must expect any legal interpretation questions to be resolved by reference to the parent Act and to general administrative law principles where disputes arise. The instrument itself offers no case law to cite.

The instrument is compact, but it contains several points where ambiguity, operational risk, or compliance traps can arise. These are textual features that practitioners should note because they affect who can rely on the exemption and under what circumstances.

• “Person performing a function or duty” is unspecific. The definition of “relevant person” hinges on a person performing a function or duty in relation to AFP, a state or territory police force, or to the defence, security or international relations of Australia (s5). The Determination does not define whether that phrase covers third-party contractors, corporate entities, consultants, or volunteers. Consequently, there is uncertainty about whether individuals or organisations engaged under contract by police or defence can properly claim the exemption. Because the text requires the act to be performed “in the performance of the relevant person’s functions and duties” (s8(2)), the precise contractual or employment status and the scope of the function or duty will be critical facts.

• Narrowly phrased subject of exemption: particular Parts only. The instrument exempts qualifying acts from all of Part 3.1, Part 4.1 and Part 4.2 of the Act (s7), but it does not alter other Parts or other statutes. If the activity implicates other provisions of the Act outside those Parts or other Commonwealth, state or territory laws, such obligations remain in force. Users who assume the exemption is broader than specified risk noncompliance with provisions that the Determination does not displace.

• Dependence on ACMA notifiable instrument. The exemption applies only during a dignitary security period specified by ACMA and only in relation to a visiting dignitary named by ACMA (s8(3) and s9(1)). If ACMA has not issued a notifiable instrument, or if the notifiable instrument does not correctly identify the person or period, the exemption will not apply. The instrument does not stipulate minimum content for the notifiable instrument beyond naming the person and specifying the period, so practical verification of a valid instrument will be an important operational step.

• 14-day cap per dignitary. The maximum dignitary security period is 14 days (s9(3)). The instrument does not provide a mechanism to extend that period for a single named visiting dignitary beyond 14 days under the Determination. Implementers who need longer protection must therefore either rely on a different legal mechanism or secure successive notifiable instruments, noting that the Determination contains no text about successive periods or minimum intervals between them.

• Temporal limit at instrument level. The Determination itself expires after five years (s4). That means reliance on the exemption beyond that point is not available unless a further instrument is made. This is a practical gotcha for long-term planning: capability, procurement or contractual choices premised on a permanent exemption could be undermined by the instrument’s sunset.

• Definition of “electronic counter measures”. The instrument defines electronic counter measures broadly as measures designed to interfere with, disrupt, distort or disturb radiocommunications (s5). The phrase “designed to” may capture both intended and designed-in effects, but the Determination does not elaborate on acceptable targeting thresholds, necessary precision or thresholds for collateral interference. That leaves room for operational disagreement about whether a specific technical action qualifies, which can have downstream enforcement implications.

• No procedural safeguard text for third-party effects. The Determination is silent on obligations to give advance notice to spectrum users, to mitigate collateral interference, or to provide compensation for affected parties. The instrument removes applicability of identified Parts of the Act for qualifying acts, but it does not create compensatory or notification duties. Affected third parties may have recourse under other laws, but the Determination itself does not address those consequences.

• “In the interests of defence, security or international relations” as a discretionary ground. One of the ACMA criteria to name a person is that ACMA be satisfied “that it is in the interests of the defence, security or international relations of Australia to make the instrument naming the person” (s9(2)(d)). That is a broad, subjective formulation and places significant discretion on ACMA. Administrative law challenges could focus on whether ACMA’s satisfaction was reasonable and properly documented.

• Evidence burden and retrospective uncertainty. The exemption requires that the act be performed “in the performance of the relevant person’s functions and duties” and “in relation to the implementation of electronic counter measures associated with the security of a visiting dignitary” during the specified period (s8(2)-(3)). For ex post verification, agencies and contractors should retain contemporaneous records demonstrating the nexus between the act and the functions/duties and the ACMA-notified period, otherwise disputes will turn on reconstruction of facts.

These gotchas are textual and procedural. They produce implementation risk where parties rely on the exemption without careful documentary proof, where ACMA’s notifiable instrument is absent or deficient, or where the scope of “person” and “function or duty” is contested.

The Determination establishes a narrow compliance pathway. To rely on the exemption safely, practitioners and operational staff should follow a documented checklist linking the statutory preconditions in s8 and s9 to operational evidence. The steps below track the instrument’s text.

1. Confirm ACMA notifiable instrument. Before planning or initiating any electronic counter measures that would otherwise engage Parts 3.1, 4.1 or 4.2 of the Act, verify that ACMA has issued a notifiable instrument naming the visiting dignitary and specifying a dignitary security period (s9(1)). Obtain a certified copy or public notice of the notifiable instrument and record its registration date and the exact dates specified.

2. Verify that the named person meets ACMA’s naming criteria. Check that the person named falls within one of the categories in s9(2): head or deputy head of state or government of a foreign nation; a member of a branch of a foreign government; a member/delegate of a governing body of an international organisation declared under the International Organisations (Privileges and Immunities) Act 1963; or ACMA is satisfied the naming is in the interests of defence, security or international relations (s9(2)). Document the basis by which ACMA named the person, including any public statements or internal ACMA reasons where available.

3. Confirm dignitary security period timing and duration. Ensure the intended activity will occur within the dignitary security period specified by ACMA, and that the period does not exceed 14 days (s9(3)). If activity will extend beyond the specified period, seek fresh ACMA notifiable instrument(s) or alternative legal avenues; the Determination does not permit exceeding the 14-day cap.

4. Establish the actor’s status as a relevant person and linkage to functions/duties. Before acting, capture documentary proof that the person performing the act is a “relevant person” as defined: that they are performing a function or duty in relation to the AFP or a state or territory police force, or in relation to defence, security or international relations of Australia (s5; s8(2)). This could include delegation letters, duty statements, contractual scopes, orders, tasking memos or other evidence showing that the act is performed in the performance of the relevant person’s functions and duties.

5. Record the operational nexus to electronic counter measures. Document that the act is in relation to implementation of electronic counter measures associated with the visiting dignitary’s security, as required by s8(3)(a). Technical logs, operation orders, targeting parameters and after-action reports showing purpose, design and intended effect on radiocommunications will help establish the statutory nexus. Note that the instrument’s definition of electronic counter measures covers measures designed to interfere with, disrupt, distort or disturb radiocommunications (s5).

6. Capture contemporaneous evidence of timing and technical action. Because the exemption applies only during the dignitary security period and to acts in the performance of relevant functions, contemporaneous time-stamped technical logs, command-and-control messages, and location/time documentation are essential. If an electronic counter measure vehicle is used, document its deployment and linking to the dignitary security mission, consistent with s8(4).

7. Retain copies of the Determination and related instruments. Maintain a legal file containing the Determination text, the ACMA notifiable instrument(s), internal authorisations, tasking documentation and any inter-agency instructions (the instrument references other agency directions, e.g. the AFP Ministerial direction in s9 Note). The Determination will be repealed after five years (s4); keep a record of dates and review any reliance beyond that period.

8. Assess collateral impacts and parallel law obligations. The Determination exempts qualifying conduct from specified Parts of the Radiocommunications Act only (s7). Review other legal regimes that might be implicated (privacy, property, state laws, tort liability, aviation, spectrum management outside the Act’s specified Parts) and document legal advice where applicable. The Determination does not in its text remove obligations under other statutes.

9. Prepare for post-activity review and accountability. Because the instrument does not set out reporting obligations, agencies should adopt internal procedures to review each deployment, documenting legal bases for exemption reliance and operational outcomes. This record will be important if questions arise about whether the statutory conditions were satisfied.

10. If in doubt, seek formal ACMA clarification or legal advice. The Determination places ACMA at the centre of the naming step (s9). Where the applicability of the exemption is uncertain,whether because of ambiguity over personhood, the scope of the function or duty, or the technical character of the measure,seek written confirmation or legal advice before proceeding.

These steps implement the instrument’s textual requirements: the exemption applies only where the act or omission is in the performance of functions and duties in relation to the named security bodies (s8(2)), in relation to implementation of electronic counter measures associated with the security of a named visiting dignitary (s8(3)(a)), and during the dignitary security period specified by ACMA (s8(3)(b); s9). Absent those elements, Parts 3.1, 4.1 and 4.2 of the Act remain applicable (s7).