A basic legal framework on intermediary liability beyond copyright infringement is absent in Australia's law and jurisprudence. It is reported that the basis on which third parties are liable for the actions of individuals online is confusing and, viewed as a whole, largely incoherent. The result is a great deal of uncertainty.

According to the Telecommunications (Service Provider — Identity Checks for Prepaid Mobile Carriage Services) Determination 2017, telecommunication companies must identify their customer when that customer wants to activate a prepaid mobile service. According to Part 4 of the law, to activate a new prepaid mobile service, customers need to give their telecommunication company their name, date of birth, and home address (or business name and address if acting on behalf of a business). Proof of ID is also necessary.

The Criminal Code Amendment (Sharing of Abhorrent Violent Material) Act 2019 subjects Internet service providers and content providers to criminal penalties for the failure to report or remove "abhorrent violent material" that the providers have reasonable grounds to believe records or streams abhorrent violent conduct in Australia (Section 434.33-34). The Act has been largely criticised for its ambiguous terms such as "terrorist act," "expeditiously," and who will be prosecuted within the business organisation if found to be in violation of the Act. It is reported that the Act, because of its vague standards and high penalties, would incentivise rational service providers to err on the side of taking down more material than necessary. Although the Act does not establish a blanket content monitoring obligation, it does stipulate that in cases involving "abhorrent violent conduct," Internet hosts are expected to exert reasonable efforts to monitor and promptly deactivate such materials.

Australia enacted an Online Safety Act that places additional responsibilities on digital platforms and internet service providers (ISPs) to monitor and remove harmful content posted on their services. Specifically, the Act reduces the time a site owner or ISP has to remove harmful content from 48 hours to 24 hours when served with a removal notice by the eSafety Commissioner. It also provides the eSafety Commissioner additional information collection powers and the power to require ISPs to disable access to material depicting violent conduct for a limited period during “crisis situations.”

The general standard-setting process in Australia is collaborative and transparent. It includes a wide range of stakeholders (international, private/public sector) and the treatment of intellectual property (IP) issues. For example, the Technical Committee, which is responsible for developing new standards, includes representatives from government agencies, businesses, and industry organisations and associations. However, the process does not seem transparent when it comes to electrical products.
To regulate electrical products, the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMC) derive technical standards from the Standards Alliance, a non-government and not-for-profit standards organisation, if not from international standard bodies or national regulatory agencies. In developing standards, the Standards Alliance forms technical committees consisting of technical, business, academic, government, and community experts as representatives from nominating organisations. According to the Structure and Operation of Standardisation Committees (SG-002) and Nominating organisation Guide, to be eligible as a nominating organisation, it must have its headquarters based in Australia, have an Australian membership base, and represent a constituency, among other requirements. SG-002 was published in 2001 and recently amended in September 2020.

The Australian Communications and Media Authority Act 2005 No. 44 establishes that Australia has an independent telecommunications authority, the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA). Division 4 of the Act establishes that the Minister may give written directions to the ACMA in relation to the performance of its functions and the exercise of its powers. However, it is reported that the ACMA is independent from the government in the decision-making process.

My Health Records Act 2012 requires information relating to health records to be stored and processed within Australia unless the records do not include "personal information in relation to a healthcare recipient or a participant in the My Health Record System" or "identifying information of an individual or entity" (Section 77).

Under Section 201A of the Corporations Act 2001, a proprietary company must have at least one director with resident status in Australia. A public company must have at least three directors, two of whom must be ordinarily residents of Australia. This requirement has been in place since its enactment in 2001.

In the Privacy Act 1988, the Australian Privacy Principle 8 creates a regime that allows cross-border disclosure of personal information in six different scenarios (Schedule 1). These conditions include but are not limited to situations where data protection frameworks are similar or equivalent to those in Australia, there is consent to the disclosure, or laws require the disclosure. The Australian Privacy Principles were inserted into the Privacy Act by the Privacy Amendment (Enhancing Privacy Protection) Act 2012, which came into force in March 2014.

The Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers Act 1975, last amended in January 2021, establishes a framework for screening foreign investments, granting the Foreign Investment Review Board (FIRB) the authority to prohibit proposed investments on several grounds, including:
(i) significant investment activities are considered contrary to the national interest. The Foreign Investment Policy, revised in 2023, outlines the national interest criteria. These include national security, competition, government policies, economic and community impact and the investor's character;
(ii) preventing actions classified as notifiable for national security that pose a threat to national security. This includes investments in 'national security businesses' as defined in Article 9 of the Security of Critical Infrastructure Act. Specifically, it encompasses critical telecommunications assets, critical broadcasting assets, critical domain name systems, and critical data storage or processing assets;
(iii) the Treasurer's authority to "call in" and review an investment that would not normally require notification if it poses national security concerns; and
(iv) the Treasurer's ability to re-evaluate previously approved investments if new national security risks arise post-approval.

Section 80 of the Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers Act 1975 requires foreign individuals to notify the Foreign Investment Review Board (FIRB) before taking notifiable actions involving the acquisition of interests in Australian securities, assets, or land with a connection to Australia. To be considered significant under Sec. 82, an action must result in a change in control by a foreign person or be initiated by one, which is often dependent on meeting a specified threshold.
In addition, Art. 130 lists a number of conditions that can lead to excluding significant investments contrary to the national interest. This includes the exercise of a 'revocation' power to prohibit an investment on national security grounds and reassessing previously approved investments if national security risks arise post-approval. The latter pertains to participation in a 'business of national security' as specified in Art. 67 of the law. As Art. 9 of the Security of Critical Infrastructure Act outlines, this encompasses FDI in critical telecommunications assets, critical broadcasting assets, critical domain name systems, and critical data storage or processing assets. It has been reported that in 2012, under this regime, Australia cited cybersecurity concerns to prevent China's Huawei Technologies Co Ltd from bidding for contracts for the $38 billion National Broadband Network.

Australia is a party to the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT).

Australia has a clear regime of copyright exceptions under the Copyright Act that follows the fair dealing model, which enables the lawful use of copyrighted work by others without obtaining permission. The list of exceptions includes research or study, criticism or review, parody or satire, reporting news, enabling a person with a disability to access the material, and professional advice by a lawyer, patent attorney or trademark attorney (Division 3).

Australia has ratified the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) Copyright Treaty.

Australia has ratified the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) Performances and Phonograms Treaty.