Telecommunications (Interception and Access) (Communications Access Coordinator) Instrument (No. 2) 2025

This instrument uses a small set of recurring legal and administrative concepts. Understanding its mechanics requires attention to those concepts as they appear in the text.

Specification under a statutory power: The instrument is made under s 6R of the Act (s 3). It operates by specifying classes of persons and the functions and powers those persons may exercise under the Act and under the Telecommunications Act. The instrument does not restate the substantive content of the statutory provisions it mentions. It relies on the Act and the Telecommunications Act for the legal scope and effect of those powers.

"Communications Access Coordinator" as a defined role: The instrument repeatedly references paragraph (b) of the definition of Communications Access Coordinator in subsection 6R(1) of the Act and specifies which persons satisfy that part of the definition (s 6). The precise statutory definition in the Act is not reproduced in the instrument; the instrument performs the technical function of identifying which Department positions count for that definition.

Position-based specification and "from time to time" language: The instrument specifies positions rather than named individuals. It operates over time by specifying that "a person who from time to time holds, occupies or performs the duties" of any of the listed positions is treated as within the relevant class (s 6). This language captures permanent incumbents, acting incumbents, and persons temporarily performing the duties. It therefore affects the set of individuals who may exercise the specified powers at any point in time, without needing a separate instrument for each individual appointment.

Tiered allocation of powers: The instrument separates persons into three tiers for allocation of functions and powers: SES-level roles (Head of National Security, SES3 in Law Enforcement and Domestic Security Group, SES1/SES2 in Criminal Justice Division), EL-level roles (EL2 and EL1 in the Office of the Communications Access Coordinator), and APS-level roles (APS1-APS6 in the same Office). Each tier receives a different subset of functions and powers under the Act and the Telecommunications Act (ss 7-9). SES-level appointees receive the broadest set of specified statutory powers, including references to additional subsections and to subordinate instruments (s 7). EL and APS levels receive narrower lists that omit some powers reserved to SES staff (ss 8-9).

Cross-references to subordinate instruments and other statutes: The instrument does not operate in isolation. It expressly incorporates two subordinate instruments by reference: the Interception Capability Plan Determination 2024 (the ICP Determination) made under subsection 195(4) of the Act, and the Telecommunications (Service Provider , Identity Checks for Prepaid Mobile Carriage Services) Determination 2017 made under subsection 99(1) of the Telecommunications Act (s 4 definitions; s 7(3)(a)-(b)). It also specifies particular provisions of the Telecommunications Act for delegation (ss 7(2), 8(2), 9(2)). The mapping from shorthand classifications APS1-APS6, EL1-EL2 and SES1-SES3 to the Public Service Classification Rules 2000 is included in s 4(2).

Administrative footprint: The instrument creates a clear administrative footprint for the Office of the Communications Access Coordinator within the Department. Several positions within that Office at EL and APS levels are explicitly specified (s 6(d)-(f)). It also identifies two separate Department work units, the Criminal Justice Division and the Law Enforcement and Domestic Security Group, and the Head of National Security role (s 4 definitions; s 6). The distribution of powers across those units indicates which parts of the Department will exercise particular statutory functions.

Limitation to Department positions: The instrument defines "position" as "a position in the Department" (s 4). That definition limits the specified classes to Department of Home Affairs positions. The instrument therefore does not purport to specify positions in other agencies, nor to confer functions directly on private-sector actors.

Collectively, these concepts show the instrument as an internal, statutory allocation of the Communications Access Coordinator role and its associated powers among named Department positions and classification levels, with a graduated allocation of statutory powers and references to related subordinate instruments.

Directly affected persons and entities

• Department of Home Affairs staff occupying the listed positions. The instrument explicitly specifies that a person who "from time to time holds, occupies or performs the duties of" the listed positions is specified for the purposes of paragraph (b) of the definition of Communications Access Coordinator in subsection 6R(1) of the Act (s 6). That means incumbents and acting officers in the Head of National Security (SES3), SES3 in the Law Enforcement and Domestic Security Group, SES1 and SES2 in the Criminal Justice Division, EL2 and EL1 in the Office of the Communications Access Coordinator, and APS1-APS6 staff in that Office will, as a class, be the persons through whom the statutory Communications Access Coordinator function is exercised.

• The Office of the Communications Access Coordinator as a work unit. Because the instrument specifies EL and APS roles within that Office (s 6(d)-(f)), the Office itself will be the primary locus for exercising the functions and powers specified at those levels.

• Senior departmental leaders named in the instrument. The Head of National Security and SES-level positions in the Law Enforcement and Domestic Security Group and Criminal Justice Division are included (s 6(a)-(c)). These personnel gain the broadest set of specified functions and powers (s 7).

Indirectly affected parties

• Communications service providers and telecommunications industry participants. Although the instrument does not directly change provider obligations, it reallocates which Department positions are authorised to exercise specific functions and powers under the Act and the Telecommunications Act (ss 7-9). Providers interacting with the Communications Access Coordinator function should therefore expect to be dealing with the specified Department positions when the statutory powers in the listed sections are exercised.

• Other Commonwealth agencies, law enforcement and intelligence agencies. The instrument allocates functions across multiple parts of the Department; those allocations will affect inter-agency interactions where the Communications Access Coordinator role is engaged. The inclusion of Department work units such as the Criminal Justice Division and the Law Enforcement and Domestic Security Group (s 6) signals that advice and decisions will be taken within those units as part of the Communications Access Coordinator function.

• Individuals subject to interception or access activities. The instrument assigns who within the Department is authorised to exercise statutory powers related to interception and access. It therefore changes the internal points of authorising decision-making within the Department that may lead to actions affecting individuals. The instrument itself does not create new substantive powers over individuals; it specifies who may exercise existing powers in the Act and the Telecommunications Act.

• Legal advisors, compliance officers and defence counsel. Because the instrument alters which classes of departmental officers may exercise particular statutory functions, legal practitioners and compliance teams advising clients on interception and access matters will need to confirm the authorised decision-maker under the current instrument prior to lodging challenges, making applications or otherwise engaging with the Department.

Who pays and who decides

• Who decides. The instrument designates specific Department positions as the roles through which the Communications Access Coordinator role operates (s 6). Those persons, in their capacity as incumbents of those positions, will be the authorised decision-makers for the specified statutory powers. The instrument thus determines who within the Department holds that legal authority.

• Who pays. The instrument reallocates decision-making within the Department; the immediate fiscal burden of carrying out those functions will fall on the Department of Home Affairs, which must resource the Office of the Communications Access Coordinator and the relevant work units to perform the specified functions. There may be compliance or transaction costs for external parties, such as telecommunications providers, who need to interact with different departmental officers; the instrument itself does not set fees or financial obligations, but it changes the institutional counterparties that providers engage with.

Temporal and operational effects

• Acting arrangements, temporary incumbents and staff mobility will change who may exercise the statutory powers as personnel move between roles described in s 6. Because the instrument is position-based rather than person-specific, the set of authorised decision-makers evolves with staffing.

• The tiered allocation of powers means that some decisions will be taken at SES level, while routine operational functions may be exercised at EL or APS levels. The precise division of authority for particular powers rests in the lists in ss 7-9. For example, certain Act sections are listed for SES personnel but omitted for EL and APS staff (compare s 7 with ss 8-9). That difference determines which kinds of decisions can be made at lower classification levels and which require SES-level incumbency.

The instrument does not create new duties or rights in the abstract; rather it identifies which positions are to be treated as the Communications Access Coordinator and which statutory functions and powers those positions may exercise under existing Acts and subordinate instruments. The operative duties and rights therefore derive from the referenced provisions of the Acts and instruments; the instrument assigns them to particular position classes.

Listed statutory powers and functions

• Under the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979 (the Act): The instrument specifies a number of sections and subsections that are to be within the remit of specified positions. For SES-level persons (s 7(1)) the list is extensive and includes s 183, s 187B, s 187F, subsections 187G(1), (2), (4) and (6), s 187J, multiple elements of s 187K (including s 187K(1), paragraphs 187K(5)(a) and (b), and subsections 187K(6)-(8)), s 187L, subsections 188(2) and 188(4), paragraph 188(9)(c), s 192, ss 196-198, s 202, s 202B, s 202C, subsection 203(1) and subsection 203(3) (s 7(1)(a)-(za)). EL-level appointees are specified for a subset of those powers (s 8(1)(a)-(n)). APS-level appointees are specified for a further reduced list (s 9(1)(a)-(h)).

• Under the Telecommunications Act 1997: The instrument specifies that SES-level persons have functions under ss 53A, 56A and 317ZF (s 7(2)), while EL- and APS-level persons have functions under ss 53A and 317ZF only (ss 8(2) and 9(2)). The instrument therefore reserves s 56A of the Telecommunications Act to SES-level positions.

• Under subordinate instruments: SES-level persons are specified to have functions under the Interception Capability Plan Determination 2024 and the Identity Checks Determination (s 7(3)(a)-(b)). EL and APS-level specifications do not reference those subordinate instruments.

Implications for duties and rights

• Duties exercised via positions. The immediate practical effect is that statutory duties and decision-making rights resident in the cited sections of the Act and the Telecommunications Act may be exercised by the occupants of the specified Department positions. For example, decisions required or permitted by the listed provisions of the Act will be taken by the position-holders to whom the instrument assigns those functions.

• Scope depends on underlying provisions. The substantive content of the duties and rights that attach to each position is not provided by this instrument. The instrument delegates or specifies who may exercise the existing statutory powers. Practitioners must consult the underlying provisions of the Act, the Telecommunications Act and the subordinate instruments identified (the ICP Determination and the Identity Checks Determination) to understand the precise operational duties, thresholds, and constraints that the instrument assigns to each position.

• Tiered decision-making. The instrument delineates which functions are reserved to senior departmental officers and which may be performed by lower-level staff. For instance, s 7 includes subsections and provisions that are omitted from ss 8 and 9; that indicates an intentional concentration of certain powers at SES level and of other operational functions at EL or APS levels. The mapping in ss 7-9 therefore prescribes the internal distribution of statutory duties.

• Acting and temporary occupants. By specifying positions rather than named persons and by using "from time to time holds, occupies or performs the duties of," the instrument enables acting incumbents to exercise the specified duties while occupying the position. That has operational consequences for continuity and for challenge or review of decisions, as the identity and seniority of the decision-maker may change with staffing.

Chain of command and accountability

• Internal accountability: The instrument creates a clear chain of authority for exercising the Communications Access Coordinator role by naming work units and position classifications. Accountability for decisions taken under the cited statutory provisions will follow the roles mapped in ss 6-9.

• External accountability: Because exercise of the duties and rights depends on the substantive Act provisions, any external oversight, review or judicial challenge will engage the statutory scheme in the Act and Telecommunications Act. This instrument does not create separate oversight mechanisms; it situates who within the Department exercises those powers.

This instrument is an administrative specification; it does not itself create criminal offences or specify penalties. Enforcement mechanisms and civil or criminal penalties, where any exist, are contained in the underlying Acts and subordinate instruments whose functions and powers are allocated by this instrument. The instrument therefore affects enforcement indirectly by designating which Department positions may exercise the statutory powers that lead to enforcement activities under the Act and the Telecommunications Act.

What the instrument shows about enforcement architecture

• Powers supporting enforcement rest in the Acts. The instrument lists multiple provisions of the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979 and of the Telecommunications Act 1997 (ss 7-9). Any enforcement, sanctioning or penalty-related powers that those statutory provisions confer remain with the Acts; the instrument designates which Department positions may exercise those powers. For example, if a particular Act provision authorises the making of a written direction, a warrant, an access request, or an enforcement notice, the instrument assigns which categories of Department officers may make or approve such actions (compare s 7 with ss 8-9).

• Differentiation by classification may affect procedural timeliness. The instrument reserves a broader range of statutory powers to SES-level positions (s 7). If particular enforcement actions require SES-level authorisation under the instrument, the need to obtain SES-level sign-off may affect the speed with which enforcement action is initiated. Conversely, where EL or APS staff are specified for particular powers (ss 8-9), routine or operational enforcement actions may be taken without elevating to SES level.

• Subordinate instruments and enforcement. The instrument expressly includes the ICP Determination and the Identity Checks Determination among the subordinate instruments for which SES-level persons are specified (s 7(3)). Any enforcement or compliance mechanisms that those determinations provide will, under this instrument, be exercised at SES level; EL and APS specifications do not reference those subordinate instruments.

Practical considerations for enforcement and review

• Identify the decision-maker in disputes. For practitioners involved in litigation or administrative review, the instrument matters because it identifies the class of officer who took a decision. Judicial review or statutory appeal grounds often involve questions about whether an authorised person made the decision. The instrument provides a public specification of which positions possess that authority (s 6; ss 7-9).

• Check for delegation limits. The instrument specifies that persons holding particular positions are specified. It does not address internal delegations beyond those specifications. The existence of internal delegation, and any limits on delegations under the Act, will determine whether a specified person may sub-delegate the power to others. The Act and internal Departmental instruments should be consulted for delegation rules and any constraints on enforcement actions.

• Record-keeping and evidential chains. Because the instrument enables acting incumbents and temporary performers of duties to exercise the powers, enforcement actions should document the occupant's authority at the time of decision. That will assist in demonstrating lawful exercise of powers in any subsequent review or litigation.

Limitations in the instrument

• No penalty-making power added. The instrument does not create new penalties. Any penalty or enforcement remedy must be sourced in the Act, Telecommunications Act or subordinate instruments it references.

• Reliance on the underlying statutory scheme. The instrument’s operational effect on enforcement depends entirely on the scope, thresholds and safeguards located in the referenced statutory provisions. Advice about enforcement outcomes therefore must be grounded in those primary provisions.

The instrument situates itself within the statutory architecture of Commonwealth telecommunications interception and access regulation by cross-referencing the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979 (the Act), the Telecommunications Act 1997 and two subordinate determinations. The relevant interactions are as follows.

Made under s 6R of the Act: The instrument states it is made under s 6R of the Act (s 3). It therefore draws its legal effect from the power granted by that subsection. The instrument’s principal operative mechanism is to identify classes of Department positions as satisfying a subparagraph of the definition of Communications Access Coordinator in subsection 6R(1) of the Act (s 6). For the legal status of the specified functions and powers, the underlying Act supplies the substantive legal framework that the instrument allocates among Department positions.

Cross-reference to the Telecommunications Act 1997: The instrument lists specific provisions of the Telecommunications Act for which it specifies functions and powers for particular departmental positions (ss 7(2), 8(2), 9(2)). Where the instrument references ss 53A, 56A and 317ZF of the Telecommunications Act, the legal operation and effect of delegation or specification will depend on the substantive content, thresholds and constraints set out in those sections of that Act. The instrument therefore functions as an internal allocation device within the broader statutory regimes of both Acts.

Incorporation of subordinate instruments: The instrument explicitly specifies that SES-level persons are covered for functions under the Interception Capability Plan Determination 2024 (the ICP Determination) made under subsection 195(4) of the Act and the Identity Checks Determination made under subsection 99(1) of the Telecommunications Act (s 7(3); s 4 definitions). That creates an interaction wherein subordinate instruments are actionable, in practice, by personnel at particular Department seniority. The ICP Determination and the Identity Checks Determination themselves likely set out operational or technical obligations; this instrument determines which Department positions can apply or enforce them.

Administrative law and delegation principles: The instrument reallocates statutory powers among departmental positions. Administrative law doctrines relating to valid delegation, the limits on subdelegation, the necessity for authorised decision-makers, and whether a person acted within the scope of their authority will intersect with the instrument. For judicial review or statutory appeal purposes, practitioners will need to align the identity of the decision-maker with the specification in this instrument and with any internal delegation instruments that may further distribute authority. The instrument does not itself discuss delegation chains; consult the Act and Departmental delegations.

Public Service Classification Rules 2000: The instrument maps APS/EL/SES shorthand to the approved classifications under the Public Service Classification Rules 2000 (s 4(2)). This links the instrument to the public service classification regime and determines which employees, by classification, are captured by terms such as APS1-APS6, EL1-EL2 and SES1-SES3. The operation of employment law, industrial instruments and classification criteria will therefore be relevant to determining whether a particular person occupies a specified role.

Interplay with confidentiality, privacy and evidence laws: While the instrument does not itself create privacy or evidence rules, the exercise of the specified powers under the Act and Telecommunications Act will invoke other areas of law, including privacy legislation, evidence law, and any statutory secrecy or confidentiality regimes that apply to interception and access. Those laws will bind recipients and decision-makers to statutory safeguards and disclosure rules when exercising the functions allocated by this instrument.

Absence of cross-jurisdictional delegation: The instrument restricts "position" to "a position in the Department" (s 4). It does not attempt to make inter-agency specifications or to allocate powers to state or territory officers, nor to private-sector actors. Any inter-jurisdictional or inter-agency sharing of functions would therefore require separate statutory authority or instruments.

Practical note for practitioners

• To understand the full legal effect of any decision taken under the authority the instrument confers, consult the underlying sections of the Act, the referenced Telecommunications Act provisions, the ICP Determination and the Identity Checks Determination. The instrument allocates authority; the substantive legal tests, thresholds and procedural safeguards that must be satisfied are contained in those primary and subordinate sources.

The text of the instrument provided is self-contained but contains limited historical metadata. The instrument title includes "(No. 2) 2025", which implies it is a numbered instrument for the year 2025 and that a previous instrument with a related title exists or existed in that year. Beyond the title and the statement that the instrument is made under s 6R of the Act (s 3), the provided text does not include enactment dates, commencement information, or a schedule of amendments to prior instruments. The instrument repeats identical text in multiple places in the supplied source, which appears to be duplication rather than distinct amendment entries.

What the source contains

• Instrument title and authority. The instrument is named and is stated to be made under s 6R (s 1; s 3). That is the only statutory authority and the only provision cited as the enabling power.

• No explicit commencement or registration information. The text supplied does not include a commencement clause, a date of making, or references to registration on the Federal Register of Legislation. It also omits any express revocation of prior instruments or transitional arrangements.

• No explicit amendment entries. The instrument as provided does not carry an appendixed history showing prior versions or amendments, nor does it include a schedule noting which previous instruments it replaces or amends.

How to obtain a complete amendment history

• Check the Federal Register of Legislation. To locate whether this instrument supersedes or amends an earlier instrument, or whether there is an earlier Telecommunications (Interception and Access) (Communications Access Coordinator) Instrument with the same or similar title, consult the Federal Register of Legislation (legislation.gov.au). The register will typically show the history of versions, commencement dates and any revocations.

• Check the Department of Home Affairs and Attorney-General's Department publications. Those departments sometimes publish administrative determinations, explanatory materials or registers that document the introduction and amendment of specification instruments.

• Review the Act and s 6R. Subsection 6R of the Act is the statutory hook; its text may list procedural requirements for making specification instruments, including whether instruments must be tabled in Parliament or published. Determine whether s 6R or other parts of the Act impose publication or notice requirements that give a fuller administrative history.

Practical implications of limited amendment data

• Uncertain retrospective effect. The instrument does not state whether it applies retrospectively to decisions taken before its making. Where retrospective effect matters for litigation or review, practitioners should seek the instrument's formal publication entry and the date of effect as recorded on the Government's legislation register.

• Identify prior instruments. If parties or counsel are assessing past decisions, it will be necessary to identify which instrument was in force at the time of the relevant decision. The Federal Register will show the version history and effective dates.

• Verify whether a (No. 1) 2025 or earlier instrument exists. The "(No. 2) 2025" suffix signals there may be a related instrument earlier in the same year. Confirming whether a prior instrument exists is material where a decision predates the current instrument.

The instrument itself, as provided, contains no litigation history. It does not list any judicial decisions, nor does it note any challenges or proceedings relating to its provisions. There is no indication within the text of existing case law that interprets the allocation of functions and powers it effects. The instrument simply specifies positions and lists statutory provisions.

What this means for practitioners and researchers

• No embedded case references. Unlike a statutory provision or an explanatory memorandum that might cite precedent, this instrument contains no case names or references. If litigation has occurred that involves the Communications Access Coordinator role or the use of functions under the Act, those cases are not reflected in the instrument text provided.

• Need to search external sources. To locate any litigation interpreting the Communications Access Coordinator role, or to find judicial decisions that engage with whether a particular officer had authority to act under a specification instrument, practitioners must search case law databases, the Federal Court and Federal Circuit Court decisions, Administrative Appeals Tribunal records, and the High Court if relevant. Relevant searches should include the keywords "Communications Access Coordinator", "Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act", and the specific sections listed in ss 7-9.

• Practical litigation hooks. Even though the instrument itself lists which positions may exercise functions, litigation commonly raises questions about whether the decision-maker actually had authority, whether internal delegations were valid, whether procedural fairness and statutory criteria were observed, and whether the decision was reasonable in Wednesbury or proportionality terms. The allocation established by this instrument will be a central factual and legal predicate in such disputes.

Suggested steps if litigation is contemplated or underway

• Verify which instrument was in force at the relevant time. Use the Federal Register of Legislation to confirm the instrument’s effective date and to identify any prior instruments.

• Record the decision-maker and their position at the time of the decision. Because the instrument is position-based, the identity of the occupant is relevant. Litigation documents should state whether the person was a substantive or acting incumbent and cite the instrument accordingly.

• Cross-check delegation and internal authorisation documents. If the Department relies on subdelegation, obtain the internal delegation instrument to establish the chain of authority. The specification instrument does not itself authorise further subdelegation; whether subdelegation is valid will depend on the Act and the Department's internal legal instruments.

• Map the decision to the underlying statute. Any challenge will require analysis of the substantive statutory provision that authorised the act. The instrument only identifies who had the authority; the legality of the decision turns on compliance with the substantive statute.

This instrument appears straightforward but contains a number of details that can create traps for practitioners, administrators and affected parties. The following are concrete, source-based issues to watch for.

Position-based specification, not person-based specification (s 6). The instrument specifies positions rather than named individuals. That means acting incumbents and temporary performers of duties will be legally capable of exercising the specified powers. In practice, that can complicate evidence and challenge points in litigation where the identity and authority of the decision-maker matters. Practitioners should always record the position and the incumbency status at the time a decision was made.

"From time to time" language broadens capture (s 6). Because the instrument covers "a person who from time to time holds, occupies or performs the duties of" a listed position, short-term deployments, secondments and acting arrangements will typically bring additional individuals within the authorised class. This increases the number of people who may lawfully exercise the specified powers without further instruments.

Uneven distribution of powers across levels (ss 7-9). The lists in ss 7-9 differ materially. Several powers and subordinate instrument functions are reserved to SES-level persons (s 7) but are absent from EL and APS lists (ss 8-9). For example, the instrument specifies section 56A of the Telecommunications Act only for SES-level positions (s 7(2)(b)); EL and APS levels are specified for ss 53A and 317ZF only (ss 8(2), 9(2)). Similarly, subsections such as 187G(6), 187K(6)-(8), subsection 188(4) and section 202B appear only in the SES list (s 7(1)). Parties should not assume lower-level staff have the same scope.

Subordinate instruments specified only for SES (s 7(3)). The ICP Determination and the Identity Checks Determination are listed as instruments under which SES-level persons are specified (s 7(3)(a)-(b)). EL and APS lists do not include them. If a particular operational power depends on those determinations, only SES-level specified persons will be authorised by this instrument to act under them.

"Position in the Department" restrictive definition (s 4). The instrument defines "position" as meaning a position in the Department (s 4). It therefore excludes positions in other Commonwealth agencies or state/territory bodies. Parties seeking to rely on or challenge actions by non-Department staff should not assume this instrument confers or reflects authority outside the Department.

Mapping of APS/EL/SES to Public Service Classification Rules 2000 (s 4(2)). The instrument's table ties shorthand to the Public Service Classification Rules 2000. Care is required when applying the instrument to ensure that a given employment classification corresponds to the approved classification under those Rules. Misreading classification mappings can lead to incorrect conclusions about who is authorised.

Duplication and text repetition in the published source. The material provided contains repeated blocks of text, including repeated definitions and repeated provisions. That likely reflects duplication in the supplied source rather than substantive provisions. Nevertheless, practitioners should check the authoritative published instrument on the Federal Register of Legislation for the canonical text and any errata.

No explicit commencement or revocation clause in the supplied text. The provided instrument text lacks a commencement clause or a statement about revoking prior instruments. Users must verify the instrument's commencement date and whether it replaces any prior instrument (for example a "(No. 1) 2025" version). Failure to check effective dates can lead to reliance on the wrong specification.

Interaction with internal delegation policies and the Act’s delegation rules. The instrument specifies who may exercise functions, but it does not state whether those specified persons may sub-delegate their powers. Practitioners should inspect the Act for delegation limits and the Department’s internal delegation instruments for details; assuming open delegability can be a legal mistake.

Practical evidence issues. When challenging a decision, litigants may need to prove that the person who took the decision was a specified occupant at the relevant time. Given the "from time to time" language, precise personnel records and contemporaneous documents are important.

This instrument allocates authority internally within the Department and externally alters who stakeholders will deal with when the Communications Access Coordinator role is engaged. Compliance therefore splits into two practical streams: (1) Departmental implementation and governance; and (2) external-facing operational compliance for stakeholders such as telecommunications providers, legal advisers and other agencies.

Departmental implementation steps

1. Update role descriptions and delegations. Ensure that the position descriptions for the Head of National Security, SES3 positions in the Law Enforcement and Domestic Security Group, SES1/SES2 positions in the Criminal Justice Division, EL2/EL1 positions and APS1-APS6 positions in the Office of the Communications Access Coordinator accurately reflect the statutory functions now specified for those positions (s 6; ss 7-9). Confirm whether existing internal delegation instruments need amendment to reflect the specification.

2. Record incumbency and acting arrangements. Because the instrument covers "a person who from time to time holds, occupies or performs the duties of" a listed position (s 6), maintain an up-to-date register that records who occupied the position, whether they were acting, the start and end dates of occupancy, and authorisation documents. That register will support lawful exercise of powers and evidentiary needs in review or litigation.

3. Train authorised officers. Provide targeted training to the specified positions on the statutory provisions identified in ss 7-9, and on any subordinate instruments that apply at the SES level (s 7(3)). Training should emphasise the legal thresholds, procedures and record-keeping required by the underlying Acts and by privacy and oversight requirements.

4. Create decision-making and approval workflows. Map which decisions require SES-level sign-off and which may be taken at EL or APS levels, in accordance with the instrument’s tiers. Implement approval workflows and escalation paths that reflect the instrument’s allocations.

5. Align technical and operational processes. For powers under the Telecommunications Act and subordinate instruments specified here, ensure that operational systems, points of contact and contact details are aligned with the positions specified (ss 7(2), 8(2), 9(2); s 7(3)). This includes updating published contact points for service providers where required.

6. Internal legal review. Ask the Departmental legal branch to review whether the exercise of functions under the listed statutory provisions requires further internal policy guidance, templates, or procedural safeguards. Pay particular attention to whether statutory provisions limit subdelegation and whether any statutory preconditions (notice, warrants, judicial authorisation) are necessary.

External-facing compliance steps for providers and advisers

1. Confirm the current instrument and effective date. Before engaging with the Department on any interception or access matter, confirm which specification instrument is in force and its commencement date on the Federal Register of Legislation. Do not rely solely on the instrument excerpt; use the official published version.

2. Identify the relevant decision-maker. When preparing submissions, compliance responses or legal challenges, identify which position is specified as the authorised decision-maker for the relevant statutory function (s 6; ss 7-9). Confirm whether the person is a substantive or acting occupant of the position at the relevant time.

3. Review the underlying statutory provision. The instrument assigns authority but does not describe thresholds, procedural safeguards or remedies. For advice or operational response, read the specific section of the Act, the Telecommunications Act or the named subordinate instrument that governs the substantive decision.

4. Maintain contemporaneous records. When interacting with the Department, record the name, position and incumbency status of the officer with whom you deal. Copies of written directions, notices, or approvals should be retained, including any reference to the statutory provision relied upon.

5. Update compliance policies. Telecommunications providers and intermediaries should update their compliance and contact procedures to account for the positions listed in s 6, and to anticipate that SES-level decisions may be taken only by senior officers while routine operational interactions may involve EL or APS officers.

6. Prepare for variation in authority across offices. The instrument spreads authority across multiple Department work units. Be ready to send different types of requests or notices to different parts of the Department, and do not assume that a single contact will have authority to act on every statutory power cited in ss 7-9.

Legal practice checklist

• Confirm the instrument’s formal publication and commencement date.

• Obtain contemporaneous evidence of the decision-maker’s position and incumbency status at the time of the act.

• Identify any internal delegation instruments relied upon by the Department and seek those on discovery where relevant.

• Map the statutory tests in the underlying Act or Telecommunications Act provision to the decision taken.

• Where judicial review is contemplated, ensure pleadings identify the instrument and the specified position; challenge the lawfulness of action on the substantive statutory basis rather than on the specification instrument alone.

Records and audit trails

• Create and retain a clear audit trail for any decision taken under the functions and powers listed in ss 7-9. That trail should show who decided, when they decided, the statutory provision under which they acted, the reasoning applied, and any supporting evidence.

• For SES-level actions that invoke subordinate instruments such as the ICP Determination or the Identity Checks Determination, include copies of the specific clauses, technical standards or compliance obligations invoked.

Final practical observation

This instrument reassigns who within the Department is authorised to act as Communications Access Coordinator and who may exercise specified functions under two Acts and two subordinate instruments. Compliance is therefore primarily about ensuring that the right persons have been identified, trained and documented, and that external parties engage with the correctly authorised officers. Practitioners should couple reliance on this instrument with a careful review of the underlying statutory provisions and any Departmental delegation instruments to ensure lawful and procedurally correct exercise of power.