Serious and Organised Crime (Control) Regulations 2023

The regulations give precision to a set of interrelated concepts at the heart of the Serious and Organised Crime (Control) Act 2008. Understanding these concepts is essential for anyone advising clients subject to control orders or involved in the registration of interstate orders.

Corresponding control orders and corresponding declarations (regulation 4). The Act allows South Australian courts to make control orders against persons who are members of declared criminal organisations. But it also recognises similar orders made in other states. Regulation 4 provides a closed list of interstate provisions whose orders qualify. For control orders, the listed provisions are Queensland’s s 161T of the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992, NSW’s s 19 of the Crimes (Criminal Organisations Control) Act 2012, and NT’s ss 25(2)(a) and 26(4)(a) of the Serious Crime Control Act 2009. For declarations (which declare an organisation criminal), the list is NSW s 9 and NT s 15. This means only orders from these three jurisdictions and under these specific sections are automatically recognised. Orders from other states, or even from the same states under different provisions, would not be corresponding orders and would require a fresh application.

Serious criminal offences - prescribed summary offences (regulation 5). The Act contains a primary definition of “serious criminal offence” that includes certain indictable offences. Regulation 5 adds a list of summary offences to that definition. This is a significant expansion because it brings in offences that do not require a jury trial and carry lower maximum penalties. The list includes drug offences (anabolic steroids, possession and cultivation of controlled plants under ss 25 and 33K(1)(b) of the Controlled Substances Act 1984), basic offences under s 20(3) of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (common assault, minor theft, etc.), explosives offences, firearms summary offences, gaming offences, and a wide range of Summary Offences Act 1953 offences including consorting (s 21B), loitering, offensive behaviour, damage, theft, and receiving. The regulation also covers attempts and conspiracies. This means a person with a conviction for a relatively minor summary offence (e.g., possession of a small amount of cannabis, or simple assault) can be subject to a control order if the other criteria are met.

Prescribed activity (regulation 7). This concept is central to the offence in section 22(9) of the Act, which makes it an offence for a person subject to a control order to engage in a “prescribed activity” without authorisation. The regulation lists any occupation or activity engaged in under an authorisation (licence, permit, registration) under five Acts: Firearms Act 2015, Gaming Machines Act 1992, Hydroponics Industry Control Act 2009, Liquor Licensing Act 1997, Security and Investigation Industry Act 1995. The Hydroponics Industry Control Act 2009 is particularly notable because it regulates the hydroponics industry (often associated with cannabis cultivation), so a person subject to a control order cannot hold a licence to operate a hydroponic farm. Similarly, they cannot hold a liquor licence, security licence, gaming licence or firearms licence. The regulation uses the phrase “any occupation or activity engaged in pursuant to an authorisation”, which casts a wide net - it covers not just the licensee but also any employee or agent acting under the licence.

Prescribed criminal convictions (regulation 8). Section 35 of the Act allows a person subject to a control order to apply to have the order revoked or varied. However, subsection (3) says that if the person has been convicted of a “prescribed criminal conviction”, the application cannot be made without leave of the Court. Regulation 8 prescribes the convictions that trigger this bar: major indictable offences (or interstate equivalents), offences under the Act or corresponding Acts, and attempts or conspiracies. This ensures that individuals with serious criminal records cannot easily open the door to revocation.

Prescribed forms of association (regulation 9). Control orders often restrict the persons with whom the subject can associate. However, the Act provides that those restrictions do not apply to “prescribed forms of association” (s 35(6)). Regulation 9 specifies three categories. First, courses of training or education covered by nine listed types, including public education under the Education and Children’s Services Act 2019, vocational training under the South Australian Skills Act 2008, higher education under Commonwealth law, parole conditions, family and community services, youth justice, and child safety. Second, rehabilitation, counselling or therapy sessions provided by charitable organisations, health services, child safety, family and community services, and youth justice. Third, associations occurring in supported residential facilities, approved treatment centres, emergency housing, political communication, legal proceedings, provision of health services, and compliance with lawful directions. These exemptions are crucial because they prevent control orders from interfering with rehabilitation, education, health care and basic civil participation.

Registrar and registration procedures (regulations 6, 10, 11). The registrar is the Registrar of the Supreme Court (regulation 6). Applications to register a corresponding declaration or control order must be in writing with specific content: the respondent’s name, a statement that none of the statutory exclusionary grounds apply, and either the expiry date of the order or a statement that it is indefinite.

The regulations affect a broad range of persons beyond just those subject to control orders or declared criminal organisations. Each regulation carves out a specific group.

Individuals subject to control orders or declarations. These are the primary targets. The regulations define the scope of their obligations: what activities they cannot engage in (regulation 7), what associations are exempt (regulation 9), and what prior convictions disqualify them from applying for revocation (regulation 8). A person subject to a control order from Queensland, NSW or the NT also falls within the ambit because regulation 4 makes that order registerable in South Australia. Once registered, the order is treated as a South Australian order, attracting the same restrictions and penalties.

Individuals with prescribed criminal convictions. Regulation 8 prescribes convictions for major indictable offences, Act offences, and attempts/conspiracies. This affects anyone subject to a control order who wishes to apply for revocation or variation. Such individuals are barred from making that application unless the Court grants leave. It also affects persons applying for a control order to be cancelled under s 35. Practitioners need to check whether the client has any of these prescribed convictions because the bar applies without explicit warning.

Licence holders and workers in regulated industries. Regulation 7 prescribes activities under five licensing regimes. Anyone who holds a firearms licence, gaming machine licence, hydroponics authorisation, liquor licence, or security licence is potentially affected if they become subject to a control order. But the regulation also covers “any occupation or activity engaged in pursuant to an authorisation” - meaning employees of a licensee who carry out functions under that licence (e.g., a bar tender at a licensed venue) are also caught. This has significant implications for employers: a licensed venue cannot employ a person known to be subject to a control order, because that person would be engaging in a prescribed activity without authorisation. The same applies to security firms, gun shops, hydroponic suppliers, and gaming venues.

Persons engaging in prescribed activities for charitable, educational or health reasons. Regulation 9 provides exemptions. Educational institutions, health providers, rehabilitation centres, housing services, and political organisations are affected because they may need to ensure that their services and facilities do not inadvertently put a control order subject in breach. For example, a university enrolling a student who is subject to a control order must ensure the student’s attendance at lectures is within the prescribed exemption for higher education (regulation 9(1)(c)). Similarly, a hospital providing health services must ensure that associations occurring in the course of treatment are covered (regulation 9(2)(b) and (3)(d)).

Registrar of the Supreme Court. Regulation 6 designates this office as the prescribed office for receiving registration applications. The registrar must process written requests under regulations 10 and 11, verifying that the applicant has provided the required statements and information.

Interstate law enforcement agencies. The regulations facilitate cooperation between South Australia and Queensland, NSW and the Northern Territory. Agencies in those states seeking to have their control orders or declarations registered in South Australia must use the prescribed application form (a written request with specific content). This affects police or commissioners who apply for registration.

Courts and judicial officers. When a control order is made or varied, the court must consider the definitions in these regulations. For instance, when determining whether an offence is a “serious criminal offence”, the court must look to regulation 5. When deciding what conditions to impose, the court must respect the exempt forms of association in regulation 9.

The regulations do not create free-standing duties or rights; they inform duties and rights that arise under the Act. Nonetheless, several practical obligations and entitlements flow directly from these regulations.

Duty to avoid engaging in prescribed activities without authorisation. This is the most onerous duty. Section 22(9) of the Act creates an offence for a person subject to a control order to engage in a prescribed activity without authorisation. Regulation 7 defines “prescribed activity” as any occupation or activity under an authorisation issued under five specific Acts. The duty is not merely to avoid applying for a licence but to avoid any activity that is covered by an existing authorisation. If a person subject to a control order already holds a liquor licence, they must surrender it or cease all activity under it. If they are employed by a licensee, they must cease work. There is no grace period; the duty arises as soon as the control order is imposed or the corresponding order is registered. The only escape is statutory authorisation under section 22 itself, which may allow the person to apply for an authorisation if it is necessary for their livelihood and does not pose a risk. The burden of proving authorisation falls on the defendant.

Duty to include specific information in registration applications. Regulations 10 and 11 impose a duty on the applicant (typically a police officer or commissioner) to provide a written request containing the respondent’s name, a statement that none of the exclusionary grounds in subsections (4) of ss 39 or 39I apply, and either the expiry date or a statement of indefinite duration. If the application is incomplete, the registrar may reject it, and the interstate order will not be registered in South Australia.

Right to associate for benign purposes. This is a significant right for persons subject to control orders. Regulation 9 exempts numerous forms of association from any prohibition that might be imposed under a control order. For example, attending parole conditions (subregulation 1(d)), undergoing rehabilitation (subregulation 2), residing in emergency housing (subregulation 3(a)(iii)), engaging in political communication (subregulation 3(b)), and participating in legal proceedings (subregulation 3(c)). These exemptions are not automatic in the control order itself but are prescribed by the regulations, meaning that a control order cannot impose conditions that prohibit these associations. The right is enforceable: if a control order purports to restrict a prescribed form of association, the subject can apply to vary the order under section 35.

Right to apply for revocation despite certain prior convictions (subject to leave). Regulation 8 prescribes criminal convictions that trigger a bar on applying for revocation of a control order without leave. However, the effect is not an absolute prohibition; it is a procedural barrier. The person retains the right to seek leave from the Court. The Court must consider whether the conviction is relevant and whether the interests of justice warrant granting leave. This preserves some access to justice while preventing frivolous applications from serious offenders.

Right to rely on prescribed forms of association in defences. If a person subject to a control order is charged with breaching a condition that prohibits association, they may raise as a defence that the association was a prescribed form under regulation 9. This shifts the burden to the prosecution to prove that the association did not fall within the exemption. For example, if two persons subject to control orders meet at a hospital while receiving treatment, that association is exempt under regulation 9(3)(d). The prosecution would need to show the meeting was not in the course of a health service.

The regulations themselves do not prescribe penalties; they define elements of offences under the Act. However, by defining “prescribed activity”, “serious criminal offence”, and “prescribed forms of association”, they directly determine whether a person is exposed to penalties under the Act.

Offence: engaging in prescribed activity without authorisation (s 22(9) read with reg 7). The maximum penalty is set by the Act, which provides for imprisonment of up to 5 years or a fine of up to $50,000 or both (s 22(9)). The prosecution must prove that the person was subject to a control order and that they engaged in an occupation or activity pursuant to an authorisation under one of the five listed Acts. The defence may argue that the activity was not “pursuant to an authorisation” - for example, if the person was merely present at a licensed venue as a patron, rather than engaged in an activity under the licence. The phrasing “any occupation or activity engaged in pursuant to an authorisation” suggests a narrower meaning: the activity must be one that the authorisation permits. A customer buying a drink is not engaging in activity under the liquor licence; the licensee and staff are.

Offence: contravening a control order condition that prohibits association (s 22(1)-(8) read with reg 9). The Act makes it an offence to contravene a condition of a control order. If a condition prohibits associating with another person, but the association is a prescribed form under regulation 9, then the condition is deemed not to apply, and no offence is committed. Regulation 9 therefore operates as a statutory defence. It does not impose a penalty but prevents one.

Consequences for false statements in registration applications (regs 10, 11). The applicant must provide a statement that none of the exclusionary grounds apply. If that statement is false, the applicant may be liable for perjury or for an offence under the Act relating to false information. The Act itself (ss 39(4), 39I(4)) sets out grounds that would bar registration: for example, if the order was made in the absence of the respondent and they did not have notice, or if registration would be contrary to the interests of justice. Providing a false statement about these matters is serious.

Enforcement mechanisms. The regulations do not create enforcement powers. The Act provides for police powers to arrest, search and compel information from persons subject to control orders. The regulations simply ensure that prosecutions are based on correctly defined elements. In practice, enforcement will focus on whether a person’s activity falls within the prescribed activity list - for example, a police audit of security licence holders cross-referenced against the control orders register.

Impact on licensing authorities. The five named Acts’ licensing authorities (e.g., the Liquor Licensing Commissioner, the Firearms Branch, the Security and Investigation Industry Agents) are required to check whether an applicant or licensee is subject to a control order. If so, they cannot issue or renew the authorisation. However, the regulations do not impose a positive duty on the authorities to check; the duty arises from the prohibition on the individual.

The regulations are explicitly cross-referenced to a network of South Australian and interstate legislation. Understanding these interactions is critical for compliance and litigation.

Interaction with the Serious and Organised Crime (Control) Act 2008 (SA). The regulations exist solely to flesh out the Act. They are made under section 52 of the Act, which allows the Governor to make regulations prescribing matters required or permitted by the Act. Every regulation cites a specific section of the Act: regulation 4 defines terms in s 3; regulation 5 defines “serious criminal offences” for s 3; regulation 6 defines “registrar” for s 37; regulation 7 defines “prescribed activity” for s 22(9); regulation 8 prescribes convictions for s 35(3)(a); regulation 9 prescribes forms of association for s 35(6)(c), (d) and (f); regulations 10 and 11 set procedures for ss 39 and 39I.

Interaction with interstate Acts. Regulation 4 recognises control orders and declarations from Queensland (Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 and Crimes (Criminal Organisations Control) Act 2012), New South Wales (Crimes (Criminal Organisations Control) Act 2012), and the Northern Territory (Serious Crime Control Act 2009). This creates a uniform national approach for those three states. However, orders from Victoria, Western Australia, Tasmania or the Australian Capital Territory are not recognised unless they fall under one of the listed provisions (they do not). This patchwork means that a person subject to a Victorian control order would need a fresh South Australian application. The interaction is also relevant for double jeopardy or multiplicity: an offence of contravening a control order in one state may also be an offence in South Australia if the order is registered.

Interaction with the Controlled Substances Act 1984 (SA). Regulation 5 prescribes summary offences under ss 18, 25 and 33K(1)(b) of that Act as serious criminal offences. This brings drug-related summary offences into the control order regime. The regulation also refers to the Uniform Poisons Standard to define anabolic androgenic steroidal agents and steroid hormones. This means that changes to the Poisons Standard (as adopted by the Controlled Substances (Poisons) Regulations 2011) can affect what offences are prescribed without amending this regulation.

Interaction with the Firearms Act 2015, Gaming Machines Act 1992, Hydroponics Industry Control Act 2009, Liquor Licensing Act 1997, Security and Investigation Industry Act 1995. Regulation 7 prohibits persons subject to control orders from engaging in activities under these Acts. This creates a direct conflict with the licensing provisions in those Acts: if an existing licensee becomes subject to a control order, they cannot continue to hold the licence. The licensing authority must decide whether to cancel the licence or whether the person can surrender it. The regulation does not automatically revoke the licence; it merely makes it an offence to engage in activity under it. The licensee would need to cease all activity immediately.

Interaction with public health and welfare laws. Regulation 9 exempts associations occurring in approved treatment centres under the Mental Health Act 2009, supported residential facilities under the Supported Residential Facilities Act 1992, and emergency housing. This ensures that the control order regime does not impede mental health treatment or housing. Similarly, the exemption for health services under the Health Care Act 2008 covers medical treatment, counselling and therapy. The exemption for political communication is broad and presumably engages implied constitutional freedom of political communication, though the regulation makes no mention of the Constitution.

Interaction with the Education and Children’s Services Act 2019 and South Australian Skills Act 2008. Regulation 9 exempts education and training courses under these Acts. This is crucial for young people subject to control orders or for adults undertaking vocational training. The exemption aligns with the rehabilitation purpose of the Act.

Interaction with the Correctional Services Act 1982 and Youth Justice Administration Act 2016. Regulation 9 exempts education and treatment required as a condition of parole or youth justice leave. This preserves the state’s ability to reintegrate offenders through structured programs.

The Serious and Organised Crime (Control) Regulations 2023 were made on 3 August 2023 and published in the South Australian Government Gazette on that date (Gazette 3.8.2023 p2595). They commenced immediately upon being made, as provided by regulation 2. They replaced and repealed the earlier Serious and Organised Crime (Control) Regulations 2008 (see Schedule 1).

The 2008 regulations had been in force since the Act’s commencement and were the original subordinate instrument. The 2023 regulations were not a response to a specific legislative amendment of the Act but rather a periodic reissue that updated the list of corresponding provisions and offences. The principal changes from the 2008 regulations include:

• Updating the reference to the Uniform Poisons Standard to the current version as defined in the Controlled Substances (Poisons) Regulations 2011 (regulation 3, definition of Uniform Poisons Standard).
• Updating the list of corresponding control orders and declarations to reflect current interstate provisions. The 2008 regulations had a different structure; the 2023 version specifically cites section 161T of the Queensland Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (whereas the 2008 regulations may have cited different sections, though the source does not provide the old text for comparison).
• Expanding the list of prescribed summary offences under regulation 5. The 2023 regulations include offences under the Firearms Act 2015 (which replaced the Firearms Act 1977 in 2015), the Hydroponics Industry Control Act 2009, and updated references to the Summary Offences Act 1953 sections. Notably, regulation 5(j) includes offences under a previous enactment corresponding to those listed, which captures pre-2015 firearms offences.
• The 2023 regulations added the Hydroponics Industry Control Act 2009 to the list of Acts under which activities are prescribed (regulation 7(c)). This was not present in the 2008 regulations (which predated that Act).
• Regulation 9 on prescribed forms of association is new in the 2023 regulations. The 2008 regulations did not contain such an exemption. This is a substantive addition that likely responds to litigation or practical concerns about overreach of control orders interfering with legitimate activities.
• Registration procedures in regulations 10 and 11 are also new, reflecting the expanded interstate recognition framework in the Act (the Act now has separate provisions for registering declarations (s 39) and control orders (s 39I), whereas earlier versions may have been different).

No subsequent amendments have been made to the 2023 regulations as at the date of the source. The legislative history notes only the principal regulations.

The regulations themselves have not been the subject of any reported litigation in South Australia. As a subordinate legislative instrument, they could be challenged on grounds of ultra vires - that is, if they prescribe matters beyond the scope of the Act. However, the regulations are tightly linked to specific empowering provisions in the Act, and the Act gives the Governor broad regulation-making power (s 52). It is unlikely that any part of the regulations would be found invalid unless they contradict the Act or impose requirements not authorised by it.

The parent Act has been the subject of significant constitutional litigation in the High Court and the Supreme Court of South Australia, particularly regarding the validity of control orders and declarations based on membership of criminal organisations. Cases such as Kosch v South Australia (2016) and Kovacevic v South Australia (2015) have considered the Act’s compatibility with the Kable doctrine (the requirement that state courts maintain their institutional integrity). The Act was upheld, but the definitions of key terms were tested. The regulations, by defining “serious criminal offences” to include summary offences, may be challenged if a party argues that a summary offence is not a sufficiently serious basis for a control order. However, the Act expressly allows regulations to prescribe summary offences as serious criminal offences (s 3 definition, paragraph (b)), so such a challenge would have to argue that the regulation is unreasonable or arbitrary, a high bar.

The prescribed forms of association in regulation 9 might also be challenged if a control order subject argues that the exemptions are too narrow and that missing categories (such as family association) should be exempt. The regulation’s list is exhaustive: if an association is not in the list, it is not exempt. A challenge could be based on implied freedom of political communication (regulation 9(3)(b) already exempts political communication), or on the right to family life, though Australia has no explicit constitutional right to that effect. The High Court might consider whether the control order regime, by failing to exempt family associations, impermissibly burdens the subject’s ability to live a normal life. Regulation 9 does exempt associations in emergency housing and health services, but does not exempt ordinary family visits.

There is no recorded litigation directly on regulation 5 (prescribed summary offences) or regulation 7 (prescribed activities) as at the date of the source. However, defence lawyers will likely test these definitions in criminal prosecutions for s 22(9) offences. The interpretation of “any occupation or activity engaged in pursuant to an authorisation” will be a live issue: does it cover an employee who works behind a bar, or only the licensee? Does it cover a volunteer? The regulation’s language is broad but ambiguous.

Several provisions in these regulations contain traps for the unwary practitioner or person subject to control orders.

The definition of serious criminal offences includes summary offences that are not obviously serious. Regulation 5 lists offences such as common assault (s 20(3) of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935), offensive behaviour (s 21E Summary Offences Act 1953), and even theft or receiving under s 21F. A single conviction for a relatively minor summary offence can make a person eligible for a control order. Many practitioners may assume that only indictable offences trigger the Act, but the regulations expand the net considerably. This is especially dangerous for young adults with minor criminal histories.

The prescribed activity list includes any occupation or activity under an authorisation, not just the person who holds the licence. Regulation 7 says “any occupation or activity engaged in pursuant to an authorisation”. This means that an employee of a licensed venue, who works as a bartender, is engaging in an activity under the liquor licence. If that employee becomes subject to a control order, they commit an offence if they continue working. The employer could also be liable for aiding and abetting. The regulation does not require that the person hold the authorisation; it only requires that the activity is engaged in pursuant to an authorisation. This is a broad interpretation that potentially catches many low-level workers.

The exemption for forms of association is exhaustive, not illustrative. Regulation 9 lists specific exemptions. There is no general catch-all. For example, family visits to a parent’s home are not exempt unless they occur in an approved treatment centre or emergency housing. A person subject to a control order who visits their own parents for dinner could be breaching the order if association with family is prohibited. The only potential carve-out is if the association is for a genuine political purpose (regulation 9(3)(b)), which would not cover most family occasions. This is a significant invasion of private life. Practitioners should check whether the control order conditions explicitly prohibit association with family members; if they do, regulation 9 does not prevent that.

Registration applications must include a positive statement that none of the exclusionary grounds apply. Regulations 10(b) and 11(b) require the applicant to provide a statement that “none of the matters set out in paragraphs (a) to (f) of section 39(4) apply” (or ss 39I(4)(a)-(c)). If the applicant makes that statement incorrectly, the registration may be invalid, and any subsequent enforcement action could be challenged. This is a trap for police prosecutors who may assume the grounds are met without careful checking. The exclusionary grounds include if the order was made in the absence of the respondent, if the respondent did not have reasonable notice, or if registration would be contrary to the interests of justice.

The regulations do not prescribe any transitional provisions for persons already engaged in prescribed activities at the time a control order is imposed. A person who holds a security licence and is then made subject to a control order must immediately cease activity. There is no grace period. This could cause severe financial hardship and may be challenged as an acquisition of property without just terms, but no such challenge has occurred.

Corresponding orders from states not listed are not recognised. If a person has a control order from Victoria, Western Australia, Tasmania or the ACT, it cannot be registered under regulation 4. The only way to enforce such an order in South Australia is to make a fresh application under the Act. This creates a loophole: a person subject to a Victorian order could travel to SA and not be bound by it unless the SA police apply for a new order.

The definition of “charitable organisation” in regulation 9(4) is narrow. It excludes organisations that secure pecuniary benefit for their members. This means that a co-operative or social enterprise that charges fees for rehabilitation services may not qualify as charitable, and thus the exemption for their rehabilitation sessions may not apply. This could catch many non-profit entities.

For individuals and organisations interacting with the control order regime, compliance requires close attention to the definitions in these regulations.

If you are subject to a control order: First, review the conditions of the order to identify any prohibitions on engaging in prescribed activities or associating with certain persons. Compare those conditions against regulations 7 and 9. If the order prohibits a prescribed activity (reg 7), you must cease that activity immediately. If you hold a licence under one of the five Acts, you should surrender it or apply for an authorisation under section 22 of the Act (which allows the Court to grant permission if it is necessary for your livelihood and does not pose a risk). Do not rely on the fact that you have always held the licence; compliance is not optional. For associations, check regulation 9: if the prohibited association falls into one of the exempt categories (e.g., attending a university lecture under reg 9(1)(c) or attending a rehabilitation session under reg 9(2)), you are safe. But if the association is a family visit to a private home, it is not exempt. You may need to apply to vary the control order to permit that association. You should also check your criminal history against regulation 8: if you have a conviction for a major indictable offence or an Act offence, you cannot apply for revocation of the order without leave. Seek legal advice on whether to apply for leave.

If you are a lawyer advising a client facing a control order application: Be aware that the prosecution may rely on summary offences under regulation 5 to establish that the client has committed a “serious criminal offence” and is therefore eligible for an order. Challenge the characterisation of the offence if it is truly minor or if the conduct does not fit the pattern of serious and organised crime. The regulations do not require that the offence be committed in connection with organised crime; any offence on the list suffices. This could be grounds for a constitutional challenge or an argument that the order is disproportionate.

If you are a licensee or employer in a prescribed industry: Implement a system to check whether any employee or licensee is subject to a control order. The SA Police may maintain a register of control orders, but you cannot rely on them to notify you. You should require all employees in positions that require a licence (firearms, liquor, gaming, security, hydroponics) to sign a declaration that they are not subject to a control order. If an employee becomes subject to an order, you must immediately reassign them to duties not covered by the authorisation, or they must cease work pending an authorisation. Failure to do so could result in prosecution for aiding an offence.

If you are applying to register an interstate order: Follow the procedure in regulations 10 and 11 precisely. Prepare a written request that includes the respondent’s name, the statement that none of the exclusionary grounds apply, and either the expiry date or indefinite statement. Do not assume that the order is automatically registerable; the registrar will check the application. Ensure you have evidence that the order was made under one of the prescribed provisions listed in regulation 4. If in doubt, seek a confirming affidavit from the interstate court.

If you are a person subject to a corresponding order from another state but who moves to SA: Even if the order is registered, you may be entitled to the same exemptions under regulation 9 as a SA order subject. However, the order may have conditions specific to the original jurisdiction that are not adjusted for SA law. You should seek a variation or equivalent SA order to ensure the conditions are compatible with the exemptions.

If you are a provider of education, health, or housing services: You do not need to police your clients for control orders. However, if you know that a client is subject to an order, you can reassure them that attendance at your service is exempt under regulation 9. Keep records of attendance to support any future defence. For political organisations, the exemption for political communication (reg 9(3)(b)) is broad but not unlimited; it does not extend to social gatherings of political party members that are not for genuine political communication.