---
title: "Draft a competition authorisation or notification for the ACCC"
url: "https://ailawframework.com/practice/competition-and-consumer-law/draft-a-competition-authorisation-or-notification-application/commonwealth"
type: "task_jurisdiction_version"
site: "AI Law Framework"
id: "A29-T1-R12-CTH"
practice_area: "Competition & Consumer Law (ACCC / ACL)"
tier: "yellow"
lawyer_review: "required"
jurisdictions: ["CTH"]
last_reviewed: "2026-09-23"
---

# Draft a competition authorisation or notification for the ACCC

> Structure the public-benefit and detriment narrative from the proposed conduct description and comparable ACCC Authorisation Register decisions the lawyer has named.

Canonical page: https://ailawframework.com/practice/competition-and-consumer-law/draft-a-competition-authorisation-or-notification-application/commonwealth  
Last reviewed: 2026-09-23

Site index for agents: https://ailawframework.com/llms.txt

## Key facts

| Fact | Value |
| --- | --- |
| Practice area | [Competition & Consumer Law (ACCC / ACL)](https://ailawframework.com/practice/competition-and-consumer-law.md) |
| Human involvement | Yellow: Lawyer and AI draft together |
| How AI is used | Structure the public-benefit and detriment narrative from the proposed conduct description and comparable ACCC Authorisation Register decisions the lawyer has named. |
| What the lawyer must review | Check every cited decision on the ACCC Authorisation Register Choose notification or authorisation correctly Apply net public benefit, not SLC Distinguish small-business collective bargaining (class exemption or notification) Follow the current Authorisation Guidelines |
| Written for | Commonwealth |
| Applies to | [Draft a competition authorisation or notification application](https://ailawframework.com/practice/competition-and-consumer-law/draft-a-competition-authorisation-or-notification-application.md) |

## Checking plan

**Lawyer review required**

The responsible lawyer reviews the work against the instructions, sources and intended use.

- What the AI does: Potential support includes preparing preliminary structure or wording. Confirm the tool’s capability and permitted scope.
- What the lawyer does: Set the scope, verify the evidence, resolve exceptions and approve the final output for its intended use.
- Who reviews: Responsible lawyer with competence in the matter
- Basis: Suggested checking approach based on the task guidance. Complete the assessment for the actual tool, information and jurisdiction.
- Why: The plan reflects the described work and review requirements. Policy colours are not used to determine permission or checking.

## Checks the lawyer makes

1. Open each relied-on authority independently. Confirm its existence, current status, proposition and any quotation or pinpoint reference.
2. Obtain and inspect the relevant current official register or search result. Confirm identities, interests and the date and scope of the search.
3. Verify dates, people and sequence against contemporaneous records. Preserve uncertainty and identify gaps or conflicting accounts.
4. Verify the applicable jurisdiction and the version of each relevant law, rule or instrument in force at the material time.
5. Confirm the output against the client’s instructions and the complete relevant source material, including omissions or contradictions.
6. Resolve exceptions and record the responsible lawyer’s approval of the exact output and intended use.

## Notes

- Confirm the required checking with the responsible lawyer before work starts. The checking approach does not establish permission to use AI.

*Practice guidance for planning and review. Confirm current primary sources and the requirements of the actual matter. This is general information, not legal advice.*