Crown Land Management Regulations 2024

Unalienated Crown land is the central subject of Part 3, though the regulations do not define it; the definition arises from the parent Act. It refers to Crown land that has not been sold, leased, or otherwise alienated into private ownership. The regulations give the Minister wide discretionary power over this category of land, which includes vast areas of South Australia, particularly in the outback and regional areas. Prescribed amount is a concept under regulation 4, setting the financial threshold at $25,000. This triggers the operation of section 25(1)(d) of the Act, which relates to the disposal of Crown land. Any proposed disposal valued above this amount must follow additional statutory processes, likely including public notice or ministerial approval. Prescribed circumstances under regulation 5 identify four situations where land may be disposed of outside the standard competitive or market-value mechanisms. These exceptions represent a carve-out for transactions that the Act treats as having policy justification: rewarding a licensee who has improved the land, honouring pre-existing statutory obligations, facilitating transfers to regional councils, and transferring outback land to the Outback Communities Authority. The concept of occupation is defined by reference to a period: 21 days as the default under regulation 7, but variable by notice, sign or Ministerial condition. Occupation beyond the prescribed period without authorisation could constitute an offence under the parent Act. Notice or sign is a recurring concept throughout regulations 9 to 12. The Minister may exercise significant regulatory power simply by publishing a notice in the Government Gazette or displaying a sign on the land itself. This is a low-technology, low-transparency mechanism that imposes legally binding restrictions and creates criminal liability. Compliance is mandatory regardless of whether the person actually saw the notice or sign, provided it was displayed at each point of entry as far as reasonably practicable. Permit is the mechanism by which the Minister can authorise otherwise prohibited conduct. Permits under regulation 13 are entirely discretionary: the Minister determines the application form and fee, may waive or reduce fees, attaches any limitations or conditions the Minister thinks fit, and may revoke the permit if the holder contravenes a condition. There is no right to a permit, no specified grounds for refusal, and no avenue of review within the regulations. Statutory indenture or other statutory agreement appears in the transitional provision and in regulation 5(b). These are formal instruments under which the Crown has assumed binding obligations to grant or transfer an interest in land. The regulations ensure those obligations survive the commencement of the Act and the repeal of the 2010 regulations.

The regulations affect a broad range of persons and entities, but the impact is not uniform. Individual members of the public who access unalienated Crown land for recreation, camping, prospecting, or other activities are directly affected by Part 3. They may find that an area they previously used freely is now restricted to a specified activity, subject to a permit requirement, or closed entirely for health and safety reasons. The default 21-day occupation limit applies to anyone camping or temporarily using Crown land unless a sign or condition says otherwise. Persons who contravene a notice or sign face a $5,000 maximum penalty and a $315 expiation fee. Commercial operators who conduct activities on unalienated Crown land, such as tour operators, event organisers, or those using the land for business purposes, are affected by the Minister’s power to designate areas for specified activities. They may be required to obtain permits, which are granted entirely at the Minister’s discretion with conditions the Minister thinks fit. The absence of any stated criteria for permit decisions creates uncertainty for businesses that depend on access to Crown land. Licensees and former licensees of Crown land are affected by regulation 5(a). A person who holds or has held a licence and has constructed significant improvements on the land may qualify for a disposal of that land without going through the usual competitive process. This provision creates an incentive to invest in improvements, but the opinion-based test (the Minister decides what is significant) introduces uncertainty. Regional councils are affected as prescribed recipients of Crown land disposals under regulation 5(c). Land within their areas may be transferred to them directly, bypassing market-value or auction requirements. This facilitates local government ownership but also means the council may acquire land at below-market terms, potentially at the expense of the state’s consolidated revenue. The Outback Communities Authority is similarly affected under regulation 5(d) for outback land. Adelaide City Council is affected by regulation 6, which prescribes certain Adelaide Park Lands for the purposes of section 27 of the Act. That section deals with the grant of easements, and regulation 6 carves out land under the council’s care, control and management (except where an easement power already exists under the Act or the Real Property Act 1886). This means the council may have limited ability to grant easements over Park Lands without additional statutory authority. Permit applicants are subject to the Minister’s unbounded discretion under regulation 13. The Minister determines the application form, sets the fee, and may impose any conditions. There is no guarantee of a permit, no time limit for processing, and no appeal mechanism. The Minister may also revoke a permit for any contravention, not necessarily a serious one. This creates a relationship of dependency between the permit holder and the Minister, with limited legal protection for the holder.

The primary duty imposed by the regulations is the obligation to comply with notices, signs, and permit conditions. Regulation 12(1) makes it an offence for a person on unalienated Crown land to contravene or fail to comply with a direction given by the Minister in the form of a notice or sign, unless the Minister has consented (which may be given as a permit). This is a strict obedience duty: the direction need not be reasonable, proportionate, or even consistent across different areas. The only defence is having the Minister’s consent. Regulation 9 imposes a duty not to contravene conditions or restrictions imposed on land set aside for a specified activity. Regulation 10 imposes a duty not to contravene prohibitions, restrictions or conditions on activities in designated areas. Regulation 11 imposes a duty not to contravene prohibitions, restrictions or conditions imposed for public health and safety reasons. All carry the same penalty of $5,000 and $315 expiation fee. The Minister has a duty to consult before exercising powers under regulations 9, 10 and 11, but the consultation is entirely at the Minister’s discretion: the Minister determines what consultation is reasonable and appropriate in the circumstances. There is no prescribed list of stakeholders, no minimum period, no requirement to consider submissions, and no duty to give reasons. The duty to consult is therefore largely procedural and unlikely to give rise to enforceable rights. The Minister also has a duty to display signs at each point of entry to the relevant land, but only if the Minister chooses to act by sign rather than by Gazette notice. If the Minister acts solely by Gazette notice, there is no duty to display signage at all. In practice, many users of remote Crown land may never see a Gazette notice, raising questions about whether constructive notice alone is sufficient to support a criminal prosecution. The regulations also impose a duty on the Minister (or at least a process requirement) when setting fees for permits. Regulation 13(1)(b) requires payment of the relevant fee fixed by the Minister, but regulation 13(2) allows the Minister to waive, reduce or refund the fee. There is no duty to set fees at a particular level, no prohibition on cost-recovery fees or profit-making fees, and no requirement that fees be published in advance. A person applying for a permit has no right to a particular fee amount. In terms of rights, the regulations confer very few enforceable rights on private persons. The clearest right is the transitional right preserved by Schedule 1, which confirms that pre-existing entitlements under statutory indentures or agreements are not affected by the Act. This right existed under section 81(3) of the Act already; the regulation merely restates it for avoidance of doubt. A person who holds a permit has a right to act in accordance with its terms, but that right is fragile because the permit is revocable at any time if the Minister believes the holder has contravened any condition. That is a subjective test with no threshold of seriousness. A person who is prosecuted for an offence under the regulations has the usual procedural rights under criminal law, but there is no specific defence of acting reasonably, no defence of ignorance of a notice or sign, and no provision allowing a person to challenge the validity of a ministerial decision as a defence.

The regulations create four separate offence provisions, all with identical maximum penalties: $5,000 with an expiation fee of $315. Regulation 9(4) applies to contravening or failing to comply with a condition or restriction on land set aside for a specified activity. Regulation 10(4) applies to contravening a prohibition, restriction or condition on activities in a designated area. Regulation 11(5) applies to contravening a prohibition, restriction or condition imposed for public health and safety reasons. Regulation 12(1) applies to contravening or failing to comply with a direction given by a notice or sign, without the Minister’s consent. The expiation fee of $315 is notable. It is high enough to be painful for an individual but low relative to the maximum court-imposed penalty. For a commercial operator, $315 may be a minor cost of doing business, while the $5,000 maximum is more significant. The wide gap between the expiation fee and the maximum penalty gives enforcement authorities substantial bargaining power: a person who disputes the alleged offence risks a penalty more than 15 times higher if the matter goes to court and the prosecution is successful. There is no provision for continuing daily penalties for ongoing breaches, which may limit deterrence for persistent non-compliance across large areas of remote Crown land where detection is unlikely. The enforcement mechanism is not specified in the regulations themselves. They do not create a specific enforcement agency, confer powers of entry, arrest, seizure, or investigation, or name who may issue expiation notices. These powers would come from the parent Act or from general South Australian law such as the Expiation of Offences Act 1996 and the Summary Procedure Act 1921. The regulations do not provide for any administrative enforcement short of criminal prosecution. There is no power to issue infringement notices other than expiation notices, no power to order a person to leave land, and no power to impound equipment or vehicles. The Minister’s only enforcement tool appears to be the criminal law and the power to revoke permits under regulation 13(3)(b). Revocation does not attract a penalty but may be used to remove a person’s lawful authority to be on the land, thereby exposing them to potential trespass or other offences under the parent Act. The penalty of $5,000 is set by regulation. It has not been indexed to inflation. Over time, as the value of money declines, the real penalty will fall, potentially reducing deterrence. The regulations do not distinguish between first and subsequent offences, nor between negligent and intentional conduct. A person who unknowingly walks past an obscured sign and a person who deliberately camps in a prohibited area for a month face the same maximum penalty.

The regulations are expressly subordinate to the Crown Land Management Act 2009 and derive all their authority from it. They must be read consistently with that Act. Where the parent Act provides a different process or standard, the parent Act prevails. Section 25 of the Act is directly engaged by regulations 4 and 5. That section deals with disposal of Crown land, and the regulations specify when the standard disposal requirements (market value, public auction, ministerial approval) may be bypassed. Regulation 6 interacts with section 27 of the Act, which deals with the grant of easements over Crown land. By prescribing certain Adelaide Park Lands under that section, the regulation confirms that the Minister’s power to grant easements exists in relation to those lands, except where another power already exists under the Act or the Real Property Act 1886. This avoids a gap where neither the Minister nor the Adelaide City Council could grant an easement over Park Lands. Regulation 6 explicitly references the Real Property Act 1886, meaning that if an easement can be granted under Torrens system procedures, the regulation does not apply. The Adelaide Park Lands Act 2005 is referenced in the interpretation provision of regulation 3 to define the Adelaide Park Lands. This means the physical boundaries of the Park Lands for the purposes of regulation 6 are determined by that Act. Planning, Development and Infrastructure Act 2016 is referenced for the definition of Greater Adelaide. This is relevant to regulation 5(c), where a regional council is defined as a council whose area is outside Greater Adelaide. The definition determines which councils qualify for the direct disposal pathway. Outback Communities (Administration and Management) Act 2009 is referenced for the definitions of outback and the Outback Communities Authority. Regulation 5(d) allows disposal to that authority for outback land. Local Government Act 1999 defines the areas of councils for the purpose of determining whether a council is regional. The transitional provision in Schedule 1 expressly preserves entitlements under statutory indentures or other statutory agreements that existed immediately before the commencement of the Act. This interacts with section 81(3) of the Act and ensures that pre-existing contractual or statutory rights are not extinguished by the new regulatory framework. The regulations do not interact with native title legislation, environmental protection laws, or heritage laws. The parent Act may have provisions dealing with those matters, but the regulations are silent on them. A person who complies with the regulations may still need separate approvals under the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth), the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1988 (SA), or the Planning, Development and Infrastructure Act 2016. The regulations create no exemptions from, nor do they override, those laws. The regulations do not interact with the criminal law of trespass. A person who is on Crown land without lawful authority under the regulations may also be committing trespass under the parent Act or under common law, but the regulations do not address that overlap. The Crown Land Management Regulations 2010 are repealed entirely by Schedule 1, Part 1. Any rights or obligations that arose under the 2010 regulations are replaced by the 2024 regulations, subject to the transitional provision protecting pre-Act statutory entitlements.

The Crown Land Management Regulations 2024 were made on 26 September 2024 and commenced on the same day. They appear as South Australian Statutory Instrument No 92 of 2024, published in the Government Gazette on 26 September 2024 at page 3801. They repeal and replace the Crown Land Management Regulations 2010, which were the previous subordinate legislation under the Crown Land Management Act 2009. There have been no subsequent amendments to the 2024 regulations as at the time of the source text. The regulations are new and have not yet been tested by amendment. The legislative history note in the source refers readers to the Index of South Australian Statutes or www.legislation.sa.gov.au for further information. The regulations themselves contain no amendment history section, which is standard for a newly made instrument. The transitional provision in Schedule 1, Part 2 is not an amendment but a savings provision that ensures continuity of pre-existing statutory entitlements. It clarifies that the repeal of the 2010 regulations and the operation of the Act do not affect entitlements under statutory indentures or agreements that existed before the Act commenced. This is consistent with section 81(3) of the Act. The source text does not include the 2010 regulations, so a comparison of specific changes is not possible from the source alone. However, the basic structure of the 2024 regulations follows the same pattern: Part 2 supporting the Act with prescribed amounts, circumstances, and periods; Part 3 regulating access to unalienated Crown land; Part 4 on permits; and a repeal and transitional schedule. The penalty amounts and expiation fees appear to have been updated from the 2010 version, but the source does not provide the previous figures for comparison. The use of email service under regulation 8 is likely an update reflecting modern communication practices.

The source text does not reference any litigation. This is expected; the regulations came into operation on 26 September 2024 and the source text contains no later date. As a new instrument, there has been insufficient time for litigation to arise, be heard, and be reported. No cases are cited in the regulations themselves. The parent Act, the Crown Land Management Act 2009, may have generated litigation over its 15-year history, but that litigation would have interpreted the Act, not these specific regulations. Any challenge to the regulations would likely be on procedural grounds, such as failure to consult (regulations 9(3), 10(3), 11(3)), or on vires grounds, arguing that the regulations exceed the scope of the parent Act. The broad discretion granted to the Minister in regulations 9, 10, 11 and 13 may be challenged for unreasonableness or for failing to take into account relevant considerations, but the regulations themselves do not specify what those considerations are. A challenge to a particular decision made under the regulations could also arise. For example, a person whose permit is revoked under regulation 13(3)(b) could seek judicial review on the ground that the Minister’s opinion that a contravention occurred was irrational or not based on evidence. However, the regulation requires only that the Minister hold the opinion; it does not require the contravention to be proven in a court. Similarly, a person prosecuted for an offence under regulations 9, 10, 11 or 12 could challenge the validity of the underlying notice or sign if it was not displayed as required (e.g. not at each point of entry as far as reasonably practicable). The phrase as far as is reasonably practicable leaves room for argument about what was reasonable in the circumstances of a particular piece of land with multiple informal access points. The consultation requirements in regulations 9(3), 10(3) and 11(3) are potential grounds for challenge. The Minister must undertake such consultation as the Minister determines to be reasonable and appropriate. A person who claims to have been affected by a decision but was not consulted could argue that the Minister’s determination was not genuinely made or was irrational. However, the language gives the Minister wide latitude, and a court would be reluctant to second-guess what the Minister considered appropriate. The transitional provision in Schedule 1 could generate litigation if a dispute arises about whether a particular agreement qualifies as a statutory indenture or other statutory agreement for the purpose of preserving entitlements. The regulation does not define these terms, leaving them to be interpreted by reference to the parent Act and general law.

The largest trap is the near-unlimited scope of the Minister’s discretion. In regulations 9, 10 and 11, the Minister may set aside land, prohibit activities, restrict access, impose conditions, and require permits, with only a self-determined consultation obligation and no requirement to give reasons. A person who has used a particular area of Crown land for decades may find it is designated for a different activity overnight, with no notification except a sign at a point of entry they may not use. The offence provisions in regulations 9(4), 10(4), 11(5) and 12(1) do not require proof that the person knew about the restriction. Ignorance of a notice or sign is no defence, provided it was displayed as far as reasonably practicable at each point of entry. A person who enters via a non-established track may never see the sign, yet still commit an offence. Regulation 12(1) is particularly broad. It applies to any direction given by the Minister in the form of a notice or sign. It does not require the direction to be related to any specific activity or area. A sign could say no fires, no camping after dark, no dogs, no vehicles, or any other direction the Minister chooses. Contravening any such direction is an offence with a $5,000 penalty. The consent mechanism (a permit) is entirely at the Minister’s discretion, with no criteria, no time limit, and no review. The permit provisions under regulation 13 contain multiple traps. First, the Minister may fix the fee, with no upper limit. Second, the Minister may impose any limitations, restrictions and conditions the Minister thinks fit. Third, the permit may be revoked if the Minister forms an opinion that the holder has contravened any condition. The opinion is subjective and not appealable under the regulations. There is no requirement for a material breach, no warning period, and no opportunity to remedy. The 21-day default occupation period in regulation 7(b) applies in any case where a notice, sign or condition does not fix a different period. A person who occupies the same site for 22 days without a permit or other authorisation may be committing an offence under the parent Act. The period resets only if the person leaves the area entirely; moving to an adjacent site may not count as leaving. The prescribed amount of $25,000 in regulation 4 is not indexed. Over time, inflation will reduce its real value, potentially bringing more disposals within the higher-scrutiny threshold than the drafter intended. Alternatively, if the government wanted to reduce scrutiny, it would need to amend the regulation. The consultation obligations in regulations 9(3), 10(3) and 11(3) are weaker than they appear. The Minister determines what consultation is reasonable and appropriate. There is no requirement to consult any particular person or group, no minimum period for consultation, no requirement to publish a notice of proposed action, and no obligation to consider submissions. The consultation need not occur before the decision is made; it could be contemporaneous or even after the fact, though the regulation says before taking any action. The transitional provision in Schedule 1 protects only entitlements that existed immediately before the commencement of the Act, which was 1 January 2010. Any statutory agreement entered into after that date is not protected by this regulation. The regulation is also limited to statutory indentures or other statutory agreements. Ordinary contracts between the Crown and a private party are not covered. The email service provision in regulation 8 is a convenience but carries risk. A notice or document sent to an email address known to be used by the person is taken to have been served at the time of transmission. There is no requirement for a read receipt, delivery confirmation, or for the person to have consented to email service. If the email goes to spam, bounces, or the person has changed addresses, service is still effective. The person bears the burden of checking the email address the Minister happens to know about.

Compliance begins with awareness. Any person who accesses or uses unalienated Crown land in South Australia should check both the South Australian Government Gazette for notices under regulations 9, 10 and 11, and the physical signage at entry points. However, given the impracticality of checking the Gazette regularly and the possibility that signage may be absent or obscured, a prudent user should assume that restrictions may exist and seek confirmation from the Department for Environment and Water or the relevant land management authority before conducting any activity that could be prohibited. For commercial operators, event organisers, or any person wishing to use Crown land for a purpose that may be regulated, the safest course is to apply for a permit under regulation 13. The application process is informal: the applicant must apply in a manner and form determined by the Minister and pay the fee fixed by the Minister. There is no prescribed application form in the regulations, so the applicant should contact the Minister’s office or the relevant department to obtain the current form. The applicant should be prepared for the Minister to impose conditions, and should ensure that all activities are conducted strictly within those conditions. The permit is revocable at any time if the Minister forms the opinion that a condition has been contravened. To minimise revocation risk, the permit holder should maintain records demonstrating compliance with each condition, including photographic evidence, GPS logs, visitor logs, and copies of any approvals obtained from other agencies. If the Minister seeks to revoke a permit, the holder should seek written reasons and consider whether judicial review is available, though the regulations provide no internal review mechanism. For regional councils and the Outback Communities Authority seeking to acquire Crown land under regulation 5(c) or (d), compliance involves confirming that the land falls within the council’s or authority’s area, and negotiating the disposal with the Minister. The council or authority should document the transaction to ensure it meets the prescribed circumstances. For a licensee or former licensee seeking to acquire land under regulation 5(a), compliance requires demonstrating to the Minister that significant improvements have been constructed on the land. The licensee should maintain detailed records of all improvements, including construction dates, costs, photographs, and approvals. The Minister’s opinion is determinative, so the licensee should present a persuasive case with supporting documentation. For the Adelaide City Council in relation to Park Lands under regulation 6, the key compliance step is to determine whether the land in question is under the council’s care, control and management, and whether a power to grant easements already exists under the Act or the Real Property Act 1886. If an easement power already exists, regulation 6 does not apply. If not, the council should ensure that any easement it wishes to grant is processed under section 27 of the Act with the Minister’s involvement. For any person who receives a notice or document by email under regulation 8, compliance means monitoring that email account and taking action within any time limits specified in the notice. The person should not rely on a different email address; if they have changed their primary email, they should notify the Minister and confirm that the old address has been removed from the department’s records. For all users of unalienated Crown land, the default maximum occupation period is 21 days under regulation 7(b). Anyone wishing to occupy a site for longer should apply for a permit or a lease under the parent Act, or ensure that a notice or sign on the land specifies a longer period. Moving to a different site within the same area may not reset the clock if the area as a whole is designated. Finally, the transitional provision in Schedule 1 should be reviewed by any person or entity that holds entitlements under a statutory indenture or other statutory agreement that existed before the Act commenced (1 January 2010). Those entitlements are preserved, but the holder should confirm that the agreement is a statutory agreement and not merely a contractual arrangement. If in doubt, legal advice should be sought, as the regulations do not define the term with precision.