> Extra-territorial law application is very complex. KP is one of the few places where you can routinely expect to be prosecuted in Australia for breaches overseas. or FGM. Or, more recently the war in Syria but bear with me: do you not also recognize that there is a huge reluctance to try and enforce the law in that last regard? because it turns out simply being somewhere is not neccessarily a good basis to declare you broke the law, noting that few if any of the people seeking to come home took up arms, and specifically took up arms against Australia or her allies.
To be honest, what you have written doesn't seem to be related and/or your point is lost. However, I will try to underline my comment with the following:
If you are issued with a TAR, TAN or TCN and you reside overseas you must comply or face extradition under an extradition treaty - unless you are fortunate enough to reside in a country that does not have an extradition treaty with Australia and that country is unlikely to make deals in secret with the Australian Government. Or, you are fortunate enough to have a secondary citizenship and subsequently renounce your Australian citizenship.
> They also have to serve the request on you. Simply issuing it doesn't make it binding surely? You have to be formally notified.
If you are issued this notice, you are able to refuse under 317ZB and incur 238 penalty units or $49,980 as an individual, or 47,619 penalty units or $9,999,990 as a corporate body. There is no limit to the number of subsequent notices that are able to be issued of the same nature. In reality this means, if it is important enough, the government will continue to issue notices until you comply.
> do we have any indication aside from hypothetically speaking, that a TAR/TAN/TCN has or can be drafted which doesn't include the employer and IPR holder in the notice?
The law stipulates that a person is considered to be a "designated communications provider" under 317C.
See also, all relevant sections detailing: "an employee of a designated communications provider" and "an employee of a contracted service provider of a designated communications provider".
317ZF dictates that disclosure outside of seeking legal council incurs a penalty of 5 years imprisonment.
I'm not sure where you received your information from, but most of what you have said is contradictory to the law that was passed. Have you read the Assistance and Access Bill?