Telecommunications (Carrier Licence Charges) (Application) Determination 2022

The Determination is built around a small number of discrete legal concepts that determine its effect and limits.

• Carrier licence, as defined (note to s 4): The charge is imposed on “an application for a carrier licence”. The instrument itself does not define “carrier licence”. The instrument expressly notes that the expression is defined in the Telecommunications (Carrier Licence Charges) Act 1997 by reference to the Telecommunications Act 1997 (note to s 4). Therefore the scope of the Determination depends on those external statutory definitions. Any person or entity described as a prospective applicant under the parent Act and the Telecommunications Act 1997 will be within the coverage of the charge.

• Amount of charge (s 4): The Determination fixes a precise monetary amount: $2,862. The instrument does not contain any formula, indexation mechanism, tiering, or variance by type of applicant or licence: the amount is a single flat fee specified in a single provision.

• Delegated instrument authority (s 3): The instrument is made under subsection 9(1) of the Telecommunications (Carrier Licence Charges) Act 1997. That is the statutory power permitting the making of this subordinate instrument. The Determination’s legal effect and permissible content are therefore constrained by the parent Act’s delegation. The compilation does not reproduce subsection 9(1) itself; it records only that the Determination is made under that subsection (s 3).

• Temporal operation and amendment (Endnote 3 and Endnote 4): The instrument commenced on 1 October 2022 (Endnote 3). The compilation records an amending Determination in 2025 that amended s 4 (Endnote 3; Endnote 4). The amendment history entry also records that s 2 of the original Determination was repealed (s.2 rep. LA 48D) (Endnote 4). The instrument therefore has a discrete lifecycle: initial creation and later amendment as recorded.

• Administrative absence of procedure and enforcement provisions: The Determination contains no procedural details about how the charge is to be paid, by whom exactly (beyond the natural reading that it applies to the applicant), whether payment must accompany the application, whether applications are invalid without payment, or what administrative sanctions apply for non-payment. Those matters are outside this instrument’s text and therefore fall to the parent statute or a separate instrument (s 4; note to s 4).

These main concepts define the Determination’s boundaries: it is a single-purpose pricing instrument that prescribes a flat fee for a statutory application, relies on external statutory definitions for scope, and leaves operational, enforcement and exemption details to the parent Act or other regulations.

The Determination affects anyone who applies for a carrier licence within the meaning used by the Telecommunications (Carrier Licence Charges) Act 1997 and the Telecommunications Act 1997, because it imposes a charge “on an application for a carrier licence” (s 4; note to s 4). The instrument does not qualify the class of applicants by corporate form, size, nationality, or service type. The immediate economic burden therefore falls on the applicant , an identifiable legal and financial cost on the front end of seeking the statutory permission to operate as a carrier.

Because the instrument fixes a single amount without categories, the same $2,862 figure applies whether the applicant is an individual, a small business, a large telecommunications operator, or a foreign entity applying for the same class of carrier licence under the parent Act’s definitions (s 4). The Determination itself does not create exemptions, waivers or sliding scales; any such differentiated treatment would have to be provided by the parent Act, another instrument, or administrative practice not recorded in this Determination (s 4; note to s 4).

The Determination will also affect entities and advisors who process licence applications. Solicitors, migration of in-house counsel, consultants, accountants and licensing teams will need to account for the charge when budgeting for an application. The Determination does not set procedural timing for invoices, payment receipts, or refund policies; therefore those transactional interactions between applicant and regulator will be governed by the parent Act’s regime or administrative procedures outside this instrument (s 4).

Finally, the Determination’s interaction with the wider legal framework may affect persons indirectly. For example, because the instrument relies on the definition of carrier licence in the parent Act and the Telecommunications Act 1997, any person whose activities are captured by those statutory definitions could suddenly be in scope for the charge when applying for the relevant licence. The compilation emphasises the definitional dependency in its note to s 4, so scope disputes will turn on the parent Act’s definitions rather than the Determination’s text (note to s 4).

The compilation records an amendment to s 4 in 2025 (Endnote 4). Applicants and advisers therefore need to be attentive to amended versions of the Determination as recorded on the Federal Register of Legislation to determine the current amount and any changes to scope that the amending instrument introduced.

The Determination imposes a single, discrete duty: an obligation to pay $2,862 on an application for a carrier licence (s 4). The instrument does not specify procedures for enforcing that duty, nor does it set out timing, payment methods, or consequences for non-payment. Accordingly, under the Determination itself the duty is limited to the monetary figure; the procedural mechanics and legal consequences of failing to pay are not contained in the instrument and must be found in the parent Act or associated administrative instruments (s 4; note to s 4).

Rights under the Determination are implicit and narrow. The instrument does not create rights to refund, review, waiver, or exemption. It does not prescribe any internal review mechanism or appeal relating to the amount. Any legal rights to contest the charge, seek remission, or obtain administrative review would need to be founded on the parent Act, general administrative law, or a separate regulation or practice note. The Determination does not annotate or preserve rights; it simply fixes the charge amount (s 4).

Who decides and exercises discretion is indicated indirectly by the instrument’s authority clause: the Determination is made under subsection 9(1) of the Telecommunications (Carrier Licence Charges) Act 1997 (s 3). The instrument does not identify the person or office that made it, nor does it set out any discretionary criteria for the exercise of the power. The parent Act’s subsection 9(1) therefore supplies the enabling discretion and any boundaries to that discretion. The Determination itself contains no delegated discretion to officials about reducing, waiving, or modifying the fee for individual applicants (s 3; s 4).

Because the instrument is a statutory delegation, the standard statutory controls on making legislative instruments (publication, registration, commencement, tabling) will apply; the compilation records those formalities (Endnote 3). The amendment history shows that s 4 has been amended, which reflects the exercise of delegated power in subsequent instruments (Endnote 4). Rights of review of the instrument-making process (for example parliamentary disallowance) are not set out in this compilation; those mechanisms are provided in the broader legislative-instrument framework rather than in the Determination’s text.

In sum, the Determination’s key duty is the single-fee obligation for licence applicants. Any procedural, remedial, or discretionary matters that materially affect how that duty is implemented or challenged are outside the Determination and must be sought in the parent statute or other instruments.

The Determination does not itself create penalties, enforcement mechanisms, or criminal or civil sanctions. Its operative text is limited to fixing the amount of the application charge for a carrier licence (s 4). There are no provisions in the Determination about non-payment, late payment, invalidity of application for failure to pay, refund, enforcement by debt collection, administrative sanctions, or other disciplinary measures.

Because the Determination is made under subsection 9(1) of the Telecommunications (Carrier Licence Charges) Act 1997 (s 3), any enforcement regime relevant to ensuring payment of the charge will be found in the parent Act or in other instruments made under the parent Act. The compilation does not reproduce those provisions. Therefore from the Determination alone it is not possible to identify what enforcement powers officials may have, whether non-payment invalidates an application, or whether interest, penalties or cost-recovery processes apply.

The compilation’s endnotes and amendment history do not add enforcement content to the Determination. They record the administrative lifecycle of the Determination (registration and commencement dates, and an amendment) but do not create enforcement rules (Endnote 3; Endnote 4). The absence of enforcement text in the instrument means that counsel, applicants and compliance officers must consult the parent Act and any relevant regulations or agency guidance to understand the legal consequences of not paying the fee or otherwise not complying with application requirements.

If enforcement action were to be taken under the parent Act, those enforcement steps would be governed by the parent Act’s wording, policy, and any delegated instruments that relate to administrative processes. The Determination should be read as a price-setting mechanism rather than as a punitive or enforcement instrument.

The Determination’s legal status and scope depend on its enabling statute and on how related terms are defined elsewhere. The instrument is explicitly made under subsection 9(1) of the Telecommunications (Carrier Licence Charges) Act 1997 (s 3). The note to s 4 expressly states that the expression “carrier licence” is defined in the Telecommunications (Carrier Licence Charges) Act 1997 by reference to the Telecommunications Act 1997 (note to s 4). Consequently the Determination interacts at least with these two statutes: the Telecommunications (Carrier Licence Charges) Act 1997 and the Telecommunications Act 1997.

Procedurally, the compilation indicates that the Determination is a legislative instrument that was registered and commenced consistent with the federal legislative instrument framework (Endnote 3). The endnotes and the amendment history also reference general legislative editorial and amendment mechanisms. For example, the endnotes refer to section 15V of the Legislation Act 2003 in the context of incorporating misdescribed amendments by editorial change (Endnote 1). The amendment table records that s 2 of the instrument was repealed by “LA 48D” (Endnote 4), which indicates that changes to the Determination have been effected or recorded in the course of legislative housekeeping under general legislation-procedure rules.

The compilation records a subsequent amending Determination in 2025 and notes that s 4 was amended by F2025L00910 (Endnote 4). That shows how this instrument can be varied by later delegated instruments, and that the current effect of the charge can change over time through the delegated-instrument process. Users must therefore consider the Determination alongside its amendments to know the current law.

The Determination does not specify how it interacts with other possible cost-recovery or licensing fees across the telecommunications law framework. It is silent on interaction with other fees, levies, or regulatory charges that may be payable under other parts of the telecommunications framework. Therefore practitioners must cross-reference the parent Act, the Telecommunications Act 1997 and other fee instruments to determine cumulative costs on applicants and any potential double-charging risks.

Finally, the compilation’s endnotes include references to the Federal Register of Legislation filing numbers (for example F2025L00910) and to the use of endnotes to capture legislation and amendment history. Those references are procedural in nature but indicate the need to consult the Federal Register entries and the parent legislation to see the Determination in context and to check for amendments or repeal.

The compilation records the initial registration and commencement of the Determination and a later amendment. The Telecommunications (Carrier Licence Charges) (Application) Determination 2022 was registered on 23 September 2022 and commenced on 1 October 2022 (Endnote 3). An amending instrument, the Telecommunications (Carrier Licence Charges) (Application) Amendment Determination 2025 (No. 1), was registered on 8 August 2025 and commenced on 9 August 2025 (Endnote 3).

The amendment history table in the endnotes records specific edits to the Determination’s provisions. It shows that s 2 of the Determination was repealed, annotated as “s.2 … rep. LA 48D” (Endnote 4). It also records that s 4 , the section fixing the amount of the charge , was amended by F2025L00910 (Endnote 4). The amendment-history table uses the Federal Register of Legislation identifiers for amending instruments (e.g. F2025L00910) as the cross-reference for the change to s 4.

The compilation also includes standard endnote text on misdescribed amendments and the editorial power in s 15V of the Legislation Act 2003 to incorporate misdescribed amendments where they can be given effect (Endnote 1). That material is procedural rather than substantive to the charge itself, but it has a bearing on how the compilation treats post-enactment corrections and editorial changes.

The amendment history does not reproduce the textual content of the 2025 amendment; the compilation only records that s 4 was amended by the specified amending instrument (Endnote 4). Therefore to determine the exact change made in 2025 (for example whether the fee was altered or whether ancillary text was added), a user must consult F2025L00910 on the Federal Register of Legislation or the consolidated version of the Determination. The compilation’s amendment history provides the necessary registration numbers and dates to locate the amending instrument.

No other amendments are recorded in the provided compilation beyond the 2025 amendment and the repeal of s 2 as noted. The amendment history table’s entries are narrow in scope and tied to the formal identifiers listed (Endnote 4).

The compilation contains no litigation history entries relating to the Determination. There are no cases, court judgments, or tribunal decisions cited in the instrument text or in the endnotes. The endnotes' purpose statements indicate that the endnotes provide information about compilation and amendment history; they do not record litigation (Endnote 1). The amendment-history table and legislation-history notes list registration and commencement details and amending instruments, but they do not record any judicial or tribunal challenges (Endnote 3; Endnote 4).

Because the Determination is a subordinate instrument that fixes a monetary amount, disputes that might give rise to litigation would ordinarily concern matters outside the Determination’s text. Potential disputes could relate to the parent Act’s application of the charge, whether a particular application qualifies as an “application for a carrier licence” under the parent Act and Telecommunications Act 1997, procedural requirements for payment, or the validity of the instrument-making process. None of those disputes are recorded in the compilation.

The absence of litigation records in the compilation does not necessarily mean that no disputes have ever arisen; it means only that the compilation provided contains no litigation entries to report. For authoritative or current information about any litigation, one must search case law databases, administrative tribunal records and the Federal Court records, or check for later published entries in the Federal Register or consolidated legislative materials. The compilation itself does not provide such case-law references.

The Determination’s brevity creates a set of practical “gotchas” that arise from what it says and, equally importantly, from what it does not say. These are matters drawn directly from the instrument and its endnotes.

• Flat single amount, no categories (s 4). The Determination fixes one dollar amount ($2,862) for any “application for a carrier licence”. It does not adopt a graduated scale, size-based differential, or different fees for different licence classes. Applicants cannot locate relief or variance in the Determination’s text itself. If a practitioner assumes tiering or exemptions, that assumption will not be supported by this instrument.

• Dependence on external definitions (note to s 4). Whether a person is captured by the charge turns on the statutory definition of “carrier licence” in the Telecommunications (Carrier Licence Charges) Act 1997 and the Telecommunications Act 1997. If an adviser treats their client as out of scope without checking those definitions, there is a risk of misapplication. The Determination delegates that definitional work to the parent statute rather than restating it.

• No procedural details (s 4). The Determination is silent on whether payment must accompany the application, whether payment is a precondition to filing, whether the application will be invalidated for non-payment, and whether there are refund or remission paths. Those matters are often critical in practice: without them practitioners must consult the parent Act or agency guidance.

• No enforcement or penalty text (s 4). There is no enforcement mechanism in the Determination itself. Practitioners should not expect to find consequences for non-payment in this instrument; those will need to be found elsewhere.

• Amendment uncertainty (Endnote 3; Endnote 4). The compilation records an amending instrument in 2025 that amended s 4 and records repeal of s 2. The Determination’s recorded content in this compilation may therefore differ from the current law, and the fixed $2,862 figure may have been changed in the 2025 amending instrument. Failure to check the consolidated or current instrument on the Federal Register of Legislation could lead to relying on an out-of-date fee.

• Editorials and misdescribed amendments (Endnote 1). The endnotes include the standard material on misdescribed amendments and the editorial power to incorporate such amendments under s 15V of the Legislation Act 2003 where they can be given effect. Users should be alert to the possibility that an apparent drafting error or misdescription has been corrected editorially, and must consult the consolidated text for the operative wording.

• Referential hole for related charges (s 4). The Determination deals only with the application charge. If an applicant faces other fees, levies or contributions under telecommunications law, those are not addressed here. Assume other instruments may impose additional costs.

• No express savings or transitional provisions (Endnote 3). The compilation records commencement dates but does not include transitional provisions or savings in the Determination itself. Where amendments were made (as in 2025) a practitioner should search the amending instrument for transitional rules that could affect existing or pending applications.

These “gotchas” flow directly from the instrument’s limited content. Practitioners must cross-check with the parent Act, the Telecommunications Act 1997, Federal Register entries and any agency operational guidance to avoid transactional missteps.

Compliance, insofar as the Determination dictates anything, is straightforward in form but requires cross-referencing other materials to be operationally complete.

1. Confirm whether an application is an “application for a carrier licence” under the parent legislation. The Determination itself defers to the Telecommunications (Carrier Licence Charges) Act 1997 and the Telecommunications Act 1997 for the term “carrier licence” (note to s 4). Before assuming the charge applies, confirm that the client’s proposed activity or licence type is captured by the statutory definition in those Acts.

2. Budget and arrange for payment of $2,862 per application (s 4). The Determination fixes the amount to be paid. The instrument itself contains no payment timing, method or invoice rules; therefore include $2,862 as a discrete cost item in the application budget and be prepared to remit it when and as required by the parent Act or the licensing authority.

3. Check the consolidated Determination and any amending instruments. The compilation records an amendment to s 4 in 2025 (Endnote 4). Because delegated instruments can change the fee, verify the current operative text on the Federal Register of Legislation (for example consult F2025L00910 and the Determination’s consolidated version) to ensure the fee has not been varied since this compilation.

4. Verify procedural requirements under the parent Act. The Determination does not state whether payment must accompany the application or whether an application remains on foot without payment. Consult the Telecommunications (Carrier Licence Charges) Act 1997 and the Telecommunications Act 1997, and any administrative instructions from the licensing authority, to confirm filing formalities, evidence of payment required, and whether an unpaid application is invalid or merely defective.

5. Ascertain any exemptions, waivers or remissions elsewhere. The Determination contains no explicit exemptions or waivers. If an applicant believes an exemption might apply (for example a small business relief or an official or public-benefit waiver), identify the statutory or administrative source for such relief in the parent Act or other instruments; it will not be found in this Determination.

6. Retain documentary proof of payment and consult agency guidance. Because the Determination sets only the amount, practical compliance will rely on evidence of payment (receipts, remittance advices) and adherence to the licensing authority’s submission processes. Keep records to support fee payment in case of administrative queries.

7. Where multiple applications are involved, multiply the charge per application. The Determination imposes the amount “on an application for a carrier licence” (s 4). If multiple separate applications are lodged, plan for the fee to apply per application unless the parent Act or agency guidance provides otherwise.

8. Monitor for amendment or repeal. The compilation’s amendment history shows this instrument can be and has been amended (Endnote 3; Endnote 4). Include a step in compliance workflows to check the Federal Register of Legislation for updated versions, particularly when preparing budgets or filing applications that may span instrument amendment dates.

9. Seek statutory source for enforcement consequences. Since the Determination does not set enforcement or penalty provisions, identify the relevant provisions in the Telecommunications (Carrier Licence Charges) Act 1997 that prescribe the legal consequences of non-payment, late payment, or misrepresentation in an application. That is necessary to advise clients on the legal risks of non-compliance.

10. If in doubt, localise the inquiry. Because the Determination references external definitions and delegates procedural matters, confirm specifics with the licensing authority, and check the parent Act and associated delegated instruments for procedural and remedial detail before filing.

Following these steps aligns the practical actions required by applicants and advisers to the Determination’s text. The core, non-negotiable compliance action imposed by the instrument is the payment of the specified amount; the remainder of compliance is determined by external statutory and administrative materials which must be consulted.