Highways (Port River Expressway Project) Regulations 2019

The regulations revolve around a small set of legal concepts, each tied to the mechanics of implementing a highway infrastructure project. These concepts are: the Project, the Commissioner as project authority, ongoing maintenance and operation, authorisations for permanent closure of roads, authorisations for permanent limitation or closure of government railway lines, and declarations and authorisations for permanent obstruction of navigation in a delineated part of the Port River.

Project: The regulations define Project as the Port River Expressway Project (reg 3). The instrument does not attempt to re-specify completed works on commencement day; instead reg 4(2) records that particulars of completed features remain in the revoked regulations (Schedule 1 Parts 1 and 2 of the revoked instrument), except for two named clauses (5A and 9). The spatial extent of the Project is not reproduced in these regulations but is expressly referenced to Figures 2 to 5 in Schedule 2 of the revoked regulations (reg 4(3)). Therefore the concept of the Project within this instrument is partly defined by reference to an external, revoked instrument’s figures.

Commissioner as project authority: Regulation 5 states that responsibility for carrying out the Project continues to be assigned to the Commissioner as the project authority. The regulations do not define "Commissioner"; that definition must be sought in the Highways Act 1926 or other primary law. The Commissioner therefore, within the scope of these regulations, is the decision-maker authorised to exercise the powers set out in Schedule 1 Part 2.

Ongoing maintenance and operation: Schedule 1 Part 1 identifies two named bridges , The Lieutenant Tom ‘Diver’ Derrick, VC, DCM Bridge (road bridge) and The Saint Mary MacKillop Bridge (rail bridge) , and declares that maintenance and operation of these structures and their associated works will continue (Schedule 1 Part 1, clauses 1-2). Construction is stated to be complete for both structures. The wording is declaratory; the regulations do not specify who performs the maintenance but link responsibility for carrying out the Project to the Commissioner (reg 5).

Permanent closure of roads: Schedule 1 Part 2 Division 1, cl 3 authorises the Commissioner, pursuant to s 39G(1)(b) of the Act, to permanently close any road that it is necessary to permanently close for the purposes of implementing the Project. The authority is framed by the statutory criterion of necessity for Project implementation, rather than listing individual roads in the instrument.

Permanent limitation or closure of government railway lines: Schedule 1 Part 2 Division 2, cl 4(1) authorises, pursuant to s 39G(2)(b) of the Act, the Commissioner to permanently limit the use of certain government railway lines or to permanently close any or all of those lines as required. Subregulation 4(2) enumerates three corridors: the corridor between Francis Street and Eastern Parade, Port Adelaide; and two corridors listed subject to their transfer from the Australian Rail Track Corporation to the Crown, namely between Signal 1456 (Glanville Station) and Signal 3 (Birkenhead), and between Signal 14 (Gillman Junction) and Signal 1155 (Port Adelaide Junction).

Permanent obstruction of navigation: Schedule 1 Part 2 Division 3, cl 5 declares, pursuant to s 39H(2) of the Act, that permanent obstruction of navigation over the delineated area of the Port River (the area bounded by bold black lines in Figures 2 and 3 of Schedule 2 of the revoked regulations) is necessary for Project implementation, and accordingly authorises the Commissioner to permanently obstruct navigation over that area. The term "delineated area" is given its meaning by that cross-reference.

Revocation and continuity: Schedule 2 revokes the 2004 regulations, while reg 4(2) preserves particulars of completed features in the revoked regulations (with exceptions). The instrument therefore functions as a successor instrument preserving some matters and restating ongoing authorisations while removing the older subordinate law.

Together, these concepts create a framework in which the Commissioner is empowered to alter public access and transport corridors , roads, government-owned railway lines, and navigable waterways within a specified area , for the explicit purpose of implementing the Port River Expressway Project. The instrument does not itself set out procedures, compensation or detailed operational rules; it relies on the enabling provisions of the Highways Act 1926 cited in the relevant clauses.

The regulations identify specific categories of legal interests and infrastructure that are affected. The primary decision-maker under the instrument is the Commissioner as project authority (reg 5). The actions authorised by the instrument directly affect three groups or asset classes.

1. Road users and owners of roads: Schedule 1 Part 2 Division 1, cl 3 authorises the Commissioner to permanently close any road that it is necessary to permanently close to implement the Project, pursuant to s 39G(1)(b) of the Act. That authorisation potentially affects any group with legal or practical interests in roads within the Project area, including motorists, freight operators, local businesses relying on road access, residents, and parties holding easements or other interests in road corridors. The regulations do not list roads by name; rather they provide a broad authorisation tied to necessity for Project implementation.

2. Operators and users of specified government railway lines: Schedule 1 Part 2 Division 2, cl 4(2) names particular government railway corridors (Francis Street to Eastern Parade, Port Adelaide; and two corridors contingent on transfer from the Australian Rail Track Corporation to the Crown between specified signals). The Commissioner is authorised to permanently limit use of, or to permanently close, those government railway lines (cl 4(1), citing s 39G(2)(b) of the Act). Accordingly, entities with operational, commercial, regulatory or property interests in those rail corridors , rail operators, freight customers, shippers, and parties with rail-related access rights , are directly affected.

3. Maritime and navigational interests in the Port River: Schedule 1 Part 2 Division 3, cl 5 declares that permanent obstruction of navigation over the delineated area of the Port River is necessary for the Project and authorises the Commissioner to permanently obstruct navigation in that area (cl 5(a)-(b), citing s 39H(2) of the Act). This affects maritime operators, shipping companies, port service providers, and any persons who use or rely upon the navigability of the delineated area for commerce, recreation or transport.

Secondary parties are also likely to be affected by the instrument’s operations, even though they are not named. These include landowners and occupiers adjacent to the Project footprint, holders of statutory or private rights that cross or rely on road, rail or waterway access within the defined area, and contractors engaged to maintain or operate the two named bridges. The instrument names two bridges whose maintenance and operation will continue (Schedule 1 Part 1, clauses 1-2): The Lieutenant Tom ‘Diver’ Derrick, VC, DCM Bridge (road) and The Saint Mary MacKillop Bridge (rail). Parties responsible for maintaining these structures, and users who transit them, are therefore within the ambit of ongoing operational activity.

The regulations also make express reference to the Australian Rail Track Corporation and the transfer of specific corridors to the Crown (cl 4(2)(b) preface). That reference indicates a potential administrative sequencing matter: the Commissioner’s powers in respect of two corridors are tied to the corridors’ transfer from ARTC to the Crown. Until such transfer occurs, the authority to limit or close those lines under this instrument will be contingent.

Finally, because the spatial extent of the Project is defined by figures in the revoked 2004 regulations, anyone claiming to be affected should check those figures. The regulations leave the mapping detail in the revoked instrument’s Schedule 2 figures, so affected persons need to consult that earlier instrument (reg 4(3); Schedule 1 Part 2 cl 5(a)).

This instrument creates authorisations for the Commissioner and identifies ongoing operational functions; it does not impose new duties on private parties in the text. The key duties and rights flowing from the regulations are concentrated on the Commissioner and concern the powers the Commissioner may exercise to implement the Project.

Commissioner’s responsibilities and rights:

• Continuation of project responsibility: Regulation 5 expressly continues the assignment of responsibility for carrying out the Project to the Commissioner as the project authority. That is a statement of institutional responsibility, which implies the Commissioner is the accountable public body for actions authorised under the instrument.
• Maintenance and operation of bridges: Schedule 1 Part 1 (clauses 1-2) records that maintenance and operation of the named road and rail bridges and their associated works "will continue to be carried out". When read with reg 5, the practical duty to maintain and operate these structures is situated within the Commissioner’s overall responsibility for the Project, although the instrument does not itself specify operational standards, timetables, or contracting processes.
• Power to close roads: Under Schedule 1 Part 2 Division 1 cl 3, the Commissioner is authorised pursuant to s 39G(1)(b) of the Act to permanently close any road that it is necessary to permanently close for Project implementation. This authorisation is framed by the statutory necessity test in the Act; the regulations do not themselves set out procedures for determining necessity.
• Power to limit or close government railway lines: Under Schedule 1 Part 2 Division 2 cl 4(1), the Commissioner is authorised pursuant to s 39G(2)(b) of the Act to permanently limit use of, or to permanently close, the specified government railway lines listed in cl 4(2). The instrument distinguishes particular corridors and links two others to their transfer from the ARTC to the Crown.
• Power to obstruct navigation: Under Schedule 1 Part 2 Division 3 cl 5, the Commissioner is authorised pursuant to s 39H(2) of the Act to permanently obstruct navigation over the delineated area in the Port River. The instrument also declares that such permanent obstruction is necessary for Project implementation.

Rights and duties of other parties:

• The regulations do not set out express duties for private parties, nor do they expressly create rights such as compensation entitlements or notice and consultation obligations. Any rights or duties that third parties have in relation to closures, limitations or obstructions will need to be located in the principal Highways Act 1926, or in other applicable statutes, statutory instruments or contractual arrangements that govern roads, railways and navigable waters.
• The instrument places certain assets and uses in scope by naming corridors and a delineated area. Parties with existing legal interests in those assets (for example, holders of rail operating agreements) will have their positions affected when the Commissioner exercises the authorisations in Schedule 1. The regulations themselves, however, do not describe procedural protections such as hearing rights, notice requirements or compensation.

Scope-limiting features in the text:

• The authorisations for closures and obstruction are expressly tied to Project implementation (see reg 4(1)(b) and Schedule 1 Part 2 clauses). That ties the Commissioner’s powers to the stated statutory purpose rather than making them general delegations.
• For two of the listed rail corridors the operation of the authorisation is contingent upon their transfer from the Australian Rail Track Corporation to the Crown (cl 4(2)(b) preface and subclauses). That condition limits immediate effect in respect of corridors still held under ARTC control.

Absences that matter:

• The regulations do not define procedural steps for exercising the authorisations, specify notice or consultation processes, set out compensation or acquisition mechanisms, or create standalone offences or penalties. These matters must be checked in the Highways Act 1926 or other statutes. Practitioners should therefore treat these regulations as identifying what the Commissioner may lawfully authorise, and must look beyond the instrument for how those powers are to be exercised in practice.

The regulations themselves do not create express penal provisions, fines, or criminal offences, nor do they establish detailed enforcement mechanisms. The instrument is an enabling and declaratory subordinate instrument that authorises the Commissioner to exercise certain powers under the Highways Act 1926; the enforcement and penalty architecture is therefore left to the Act and other statutory frameworks rather than to these regulations.

What the text says about authority and enforcement context:

• The Commissioner is authorised to permanently close roads, to limit or close specified government railway lines, and to permanently obstruct navigation in the delineated Port River area (Schedule 1 Part 2). Those are substantive powers to alter public access to infrastructure and waterways. The exercise of such powers will have practical enforcement consequences, such as physical barriers or signage, but the regulations do not prescribe how such closures or obstructions are to be physically enforced.
• Each of the authorisations is linked to particular sections of the Highways Act 1926 , s 39G for closures/limitations on roads and government railway lines, and s 39H for obstruction of navigation. Any enforcement powers, offences or penalties that apply when someone breaches a closure or obstruction are matters the Act will address, not these regulations. The instrument’s references to ss 39G and 39H therefore direct practitioners to consult the Act for the legal consequences of non-compliance, enforcement agents and processes, and any administrative or criminal penalties.

Implications from the absence of penalties in the regulations:

• Because no penalty or enforcement process is set out in the regulations, persons or entities affected by closures or obstructions should immediately consult the Highways Act 1926 and any related subordinate legislation or statutory instruments to determine the legal consequences of breaching a closure or obstruction.
• Practitioners should also expect that physical measures and administrative orders issued by the Commissioner pursuant to the Act will accompany any exercise of the authorisations. Those instruments or orders are the likely locus of enforceable requirements and may contain specified penalties or mechanisms for enforcement.
• The regulations' silence on compensation implies that any claim for compensation arising from closures, limitations or obstructions is governed by the Act or other laws, not by the regulations in isolation. The instrument does not create a statutory compensation entitlement or state a compensation procedure.

Practical enforcement risks to note:

• Physical closure of roads, restriction or closure of rail corridors, and obstruction of navigation are changes that normally have immediate operational consequences. Entities that continue to use closed roads, rail lines or obstructed waterways without lawful authority will likely be acting contrary to whatever orders or notices the Commissioner issues under the Act. The legal response and penalties for such acts are not in this instrument and must be established by reference to the Act and implementing orders.
• The contingent nature of some authorisations (for example, corridors following transfer from ARTC to the Crown, as stated in cl 4(2)(b)) may create timing uncertainty about when enforcement measures can lawfully be applied. Parties should therefore seek confirmation of when a particular authorisation becomes operational.

In short, these regulations authorise decisive action by the Commissioner but leave enforcement, penalty and compensation details to the Highways Act 1926 and subsequent administrative action. For concrete enforcement rules and penalties, refer to the Act provisions cited in the instrument.

These regulations operate as subordinate legislation made under the Highways Act 1926, and they explicitly invoke particular sections of that Act for their authorisations. The text therefore interacts with the Highways Act 1926 in several specific ways and in other implied ways by cross-reference and by preserving material in a revoked subordinate instrument.

Direct statutory links:

• The authorisations for permanent road closures, limitations or closures of government railway lines, and the obstruction of navigation are expressly made pursuant to provisions of the Highways Act 1926. Schedule 1 Part 2 Division 1 cl 3 cites s 39G(1)(b) of the Act for road closures; Division 2 cl 4 cites s 39G(2)(b) of the Act for railway closures/limitations; and Division 3 cl 5 cites s 39H(2) of the Act for obstruction of navigation. These cross-references mean that the scope, conditions and legal consequences of the authorised actions are governed by those sections of the Act. Practitioners must therefore read these regulations together with the relevant sections of the Act to understand procedural preconditions, limits on power, compensation, and enforcement.

Interaction by reference to the revoked regulations:

• Regulation 4(2) and reg 4(3) rely on the revoked Highways (Port River Expressway Project) Regulations 2004 for particulars of features completed before commencement day and for the spatial description of the Project area (Figures 2-5 in Schedule 2 of the revoked regulations). Schedule 2 of the 2019 instrument revokes the 2004 regulations, but the 2019 regulations preserve certain particulars by reference to parts of the revoked instrument. This creates an interpretive interaction: to determine completed features and the Project boundary one must consult the revoked 2004 regulations’ Schedule 1 Parts 1 and 2 and Schedule 2 figures. The revocation should be read together with the preservation language in reg 4(2)-(3) to understand which parts of the old instrument remain operative by reference.

Interaction with property and transfer arrangements:

• Schedule 1 Part 2 Division 2 cl 4(2) lists two rail corridors that are included only following transfer from the Australian Rail Track Corporation (ARTC) to the Crown. That reference signals an interface with administrative arrangements under other statutory regimes or transfer instruments governing ARTC holdings. The effectiveness of the Commissioner’s authorisation in relation to those corridors is therefore conditional on an inter-governmental or inter-agency transfer event that lies outside these regulations. Practitioners should check transfer instruments and any legislative or administrative steps that effected the transfer for timing and legal effect.

Interfaces not specified in the instrument but likely necessary in practice:

• The regulation does not specify interactions with maritime laws (for example, port bylaws, maritime safety or coastal protection laws) even though it authorises permanent obstruction of navigation in part of the Port River. In practice, obstruction of navigation will implicate maritime regulatory regimes and port governance instruments, and those interactions are therefore relevant though not enumerated in the text.
• The regulations also do not specify how they interact with land acquisition, planning or environmental laws. Permanent closure of roads and railways and permanent obstruction of navigation are types of acts that commonly intersect with statutes governing land acquisition, planning approvals, heritage and environmental impact. However, the instrument is silent on these matters; the Highways Act 1926 and other statutes will determine applicable approvals, consents and procedural obligations.

Temporal and procedural interaction:

• The instrument effectively acts as a bridge between an earlier subordinate instrument (2004 regulations) and the continuing powers of the Commissioner under the Highways Act 1926. It therefore must be read in tandem with the Act, with any transfer instruments concerning ARTC corridors, and with the revoked 2004 regulations for spatial and historical particulars preserved by reference.

In sum, the regulations are a targeted subordinate instrument that delegates concrete authorisations under specified sections of the Highways Act 1926 and cross-references a revoked instrument for mapping and historical particulars. For a complete legal picture, practitioners must read these regulations together with the relevant sections of the Highways Act 1926, the revoked 2004 regulations (for maps and completed features), and any statutes or instruments governing transfers of rail corridors and maritime and land-use regulation in the Port River area.

The regulations have a concise statutory history which is recorded in the instrument itself. They were made in 2019 (Principal regulations Year 2019, No 197) and commenced operation on 1 September 2019 (reg 2 and Legislative history). The Gazette reference for the instrument is Gazette 1.8.2019 p2915, with commencement noted as 1.9.2019 under reg 2.

The instrument’s chief amendment action is not a textual amendment to prior subordinate legislation but a revocation: Schedule 2 expressly revokes the Highways (Port River Expressway Project) Regulations 2004. Nevertheless, the 2019 regulations preserve by cross-reference certain particulars contained in the revoked regulations. Regulation 4(2) confirms that particulars of the Project features that were completed prior to commencement remain recorded in Schedule 1 Parts 1 and 2 of the revoked regulations (other than clauses 5A and 9), and regulation 4(3) preserves the Project’s spatial definition by reference to the bold black line and coordinate points shown in Figures 2-5 in Schedule 2 of the revoked regulations.

The form of the instrument indicates a purposeful consolidation and selective continuation of prior authorisations and declarations. Rather than reproducing all content from the 2004 instrument, the 2019 regulations:

• Restate ongoing features in Schedule 1 Part 1 (maintenance and operation of the two named bridges).
• Restate enabling authorisations and declarations required for ongoing implementation (Schedule 1 Part 2).
• Revoke the prior instrument entirely (Schedule 2), while directing readers to the revoked instrument for particulars of completed features and for the maps that define the Project boundary.

No other amendments, revocations or subsequent subordinate instruments are recorded in this text. The instrument contains an internal "Legislative history" note indicating where to find further information about the Act and subordinate legislation, but no record of any further amendments or replacement instruments after 2019 is included. Users seeking subsequent amendments or related instruments will need to consult the official legislative register or the Index of South Australian Statutes and subordinate legislation noted in the instrument’s "Notes".

In short, the single-step amendment history presented is: the 2019 regulations were made and commenced on 1 September 2019 and they revoked the 2004 regulations while preserving certain particulars by cross-reference.

The text of the Highways (Port River Expressway Project) Regulations 2019 contains no record of litigation and does not mention any court decisions or statutory judicial interpretations. The "Legislative history" section of the instrument lists only the instrument’s Gazette publication and commencement details. There are no entries in the provided text referring to judicial review, judicial determinations, or legal challenges to the regulations or to actions taken under them.

Because the instrument primarily operates as an enabling subordinate instrument that delegates powers to the Commissioner under the Highways Act 1926, litigation that might arise in practice could take several possible forms. However, the regulations themselves do not describe or record any such litigation. Potential litigation themes that would be typical in relation to the actions authorised by these regulations , for example, judicial review of the Commissioner’s decisions to close roads or obstruct navigation, claims for compensation or contesting the lawfulness of a closure , are not mentioned in the text and cannot be affirmed from it.

Practitioners interested in the litigation history relevant to these regulations should therefore consult external sources:

• Judicial databases and court records for challenges to decisions made under the Highways Act 1926 or under prior subordinate instruments in respect of the Port River Expressway Project.
• Administrative law decisions concerning the lawfulness of closures or obstructions effected by statutory authorities under similar enabling provisions.
• Any reported cases that explicitly reference the 2004 or 2019 regulations or decisions by the Commissioner regarding this Project.

Within the confines of the provided text, no litigation or case law is recorded. The absence of a litigation record in the instrument does not imply that no litigation exists; it simply means this instrument does not incorporate or summarise any such judicial material.

This instrument is compact but contains several points that can be sources of practical and legal ambiguity unless approached carefully. The following items highlight those "gotchas" that practitioners should bear in mind and check against primary sources.

1. Spatial definitions are not reproduced in this instrument: reg 4(3) fixes the Project area by reference to Figures 2 to 5 in Schedule 2 of the revoked 2004 regulations. The maps themselves are therefore not included in the 2019 regulations. If you need to determine whether land, a road, a rail corridor, or a maritime area falls within the Project footprint you must consult the revoked 2004 regulations’ Schedule 2 figures. Failure to do so risks misidentifying which assets are in scope.

2. The Commissioner is not defined in these regulations: reg 5 assigns responsibility to "the Commissioner as the project authority", but the instrument does not define who the Commissioner is. The identity, statutory functions, delegated powers and administrative processes associated with the Commissioner will be found in the Highways Act 1926 or other legislation. Do not assume the Commissioner has particular procedural constraints based on this instrument alone.

3. Broad discretion framed by "necessity" and statutory cross-references: the power to close "any road that it is necessary to permanently close" (Schedule 1 Part 2 Division 1 cl 3) and to limit or close specified rail lines (cl 4(1)) is expressed in broad terms subject to the statutory test in s 39G of the Act. Without consulting s 39G itself, it is not possible to know what procedural safeguards, criteria or limits apply. The same applies to obstruction of navigation under s 39H (cl 5). Do not assume procedural protections or compensation entitlements are established by these regulations.

4. Contingent authorisations tied to transfer events: cl 4(2)(b) includes corridors "following their transfer from the Australian Rail Track Corporation to the Crown". The authorisation in respect of those corridors is therefore contingent on a transfer event. Confirm whether such a transfer has occurred and, if so, when; the instrument alone does not effect the transfer.

5. No compensation, notice, or consultation provisions stated: the regulations do not set out compensation, notice or consultation processes. If those matters matter to affected parties, they must be located in the Highways Act 1926 or in other statutes or administrative instruments. Assuming compensation or statutory notice obligations exist solely because of these regulations is a mistake.

6. No penalties or enforcement detail in the instrument: the regulations authorise closures and obstructions but do not set out penalties or enforcement mechanisms. To understand the legal consequences of contravening a closure or obstruction, consult the Highways Act 1926 and any orders or notices the Commissioner issues under the Act.

7. Historical particulars preserved by reference: reg 4(2) preserves particulars of features completed before commencement day by cross-reference to the revoked 2004 regulations "other than clauses 5A and 9". Practitioners should determine what material is preserved and what is excluded by that specific carve-out. Do not assume all historical provisions remain in force.

8. Named infrastructure with unspecified operational details: Schedule 1 Part 1 identifies two named bridges whose maintenance and operation "will continue to be carried out", but the instrument does not name the responsible maintenance entity, standards of maintenance, or funding arrangements. Those details will be found elsewhere. Assuming funding or contractor arrangements solely from this instrument would be an error.

9. Multiple instruments must be read together: the full legal position will require reading these regulations with the Highways Act 1926, relevant transfer instruments (if any), the revoked 2004 regulations (for maps and preserved particulars), and any notices, orders or administrative instruments that the Commissioner issues. Failing to assemble that corpus risks incomplete legal advice.

10. Limited textual scope equals procedural uncertainty: because the instrument is narrow in scope, many implementation details will be publicly observable only through Commissioner actions , notices, orders, traffic management instruments, or contractual arrangements. Do not treat this instrument as a complete implementation manual.

These gotchas mean that affected parties cannot rely on the 2019 regulations alone to assess legal rights, compensation prospects, or implementation timing. For operational planning or regulatory compliance you must consult the cited provisions of the Highways Act 1926, the revoked 2004 regulations (for maps), and any administrative instruments issued by the Commissioner.

Compliance in relation to these regulations requires understanding what the instrument authorises, identifying if and how your assets or activities fall within its scope, and then locating the procedural and remedial material in the Highways Act 1926 and in administrative instruments by the Commissioner. Below is a practical compliance checklist and explanatory steps to minimise uncertainty and to prepare for action by the Commissioner.

1. Identify whether you are affected

• Check whether your land, road, railway interest or navigation activities lie within the Project area. The 2019 regulations define the Project area by reference to Figures 2-5 in Schedule 2 of the revoked 2004 regulations (reg 4(3)). Obtain and review those figures immediately.
• If you hold rights or run operations on any of the rail corridors listed in Schedule 1 Part 2 cl 4(2), note that two corridors are included subject to their transfer from the Australian Rail Track Corporation to the Crown. Ascertain whether any such transfer has occurred.

2. Read the enabling statute

• Consult the Highways Act 1926 sections cited (s 39G for roads and railway lines, s 39H for navigation) to determine procedure, limitations, notice requirements, compensation provisions and enforcement measures. The regulations are declaratory and authorising; the Act supplies the legal framework for exercise of those powers.

3. Monitor Commissioner instruments and notices

• Because the Commissioner is the project authority with responsibility for implementation (reg 5), compliance will largely be driven by actions, orders, notices and physical changes the Commissioner or its delegates make under the Act. Monitor official publications, the Commissioner’s web pages, and Gazette notices for orders authorising closure or obstruction and for traffic or operational directives.

4. Engage early with the Commissioner or relevant agency

• If you are a rail operator, maritime operator, local business, landowner or infrastructure manager whose activities would be curtailed by the authorised closures or obstructions, engage with the Commissioner’s office to clarify planned timing, the legal basis for any closures, and any mitigation or transitional arrangements. The instrument does not itself impose consultation obligations, but administrative engagement can reduce disruption.

5. Prepare for physical and operational changes

• Contingency-plan for the permanent closure of roads or rail lines, and for permanent obstruction of navigation within the delineated Port River area. This may involve re-routing, seeking alternative modes, adjusting supply chains, or relocating facilities depending on the extent of the closure and your operational dependencies.
• For organisations that rely on the two named bridges (Schedule 1 Part 1 clauses 1-2), confirm any operational changes or maintenance schedules with the Commissioner or the body contracted to maintain the bridges.

6. Check property and contractual interests

• Review any easements, covenants, licences, lease arrangements or operational contracts that could be affected. The regulations do not set compensation or modify private contractual rights; disruptions may create contractual disputes requiring early legal assessment.

7. Confirm status of transfers and third-party rights

• If your interests are in corridors that are conditioned on transfer from ARTC, verify the legal title and control of the corridor. The authorisation in cl 4(2)(b) is contingent on transfer to the Crown; enforcement or closure in relation to those corridors should follow the transfer.

8. Seek legal advice on compensation and remedies

• The instrument does not specify compensation or acquisition procedures. If closure or obstruction is proposed, obtain legal advice on the availability of compensation or other remedies under the Highways Act 1926, the Land Acquisition framework, or other statutes or common law. Do not assume compensation exists simply because the regulation authorises closure.

9. Prepare for enforcement action

• Understand that continued use of closed roads, rail lines or obstructed waterways after lawful orders are made may attract enforcement action under the Act or other laws. Identify internal compliance protocols to react to any Commissioner orders or physical closure measures.

10. Maintain records and seek certainty

• Keep contemporaneous records of any notifications or consultations with the Commissioner, and retain copies of any orders, traffic management notices, or contractual notices received. If the Commissioner issues orders affecting your operations, request written confirmation of the legal basis and dates and seek to document transitional measures.

Summary of who pays and who decides

• Who decides: the Commissioner as project authority (reg 5) has the statutory authorisations set out in Schedule 1 Part 2 to close roads, limit or close the listed railway corridors, and obstruct navigation in the delineated Port River area, subject to the Highways Act 1926.
• Who pays: the regulations do not specify funding, cost allocation or compensation; costs of carrying out Project works and of maintaining the two bridges are situationally linked to the Commissioner’s responsibility, but the instrument does not set funding sources or compensation obligations. Parties potentially facing loss of access or use should seek advice on compensation rights under the Act or other applicable law.

Finally, because the instrument relies on cross-references to the Highways Act 1926 and to the revoked 2004 regulations for key particulars, effective compliance requires assembling that corpus. Practitioners should treat the 2019 regulations as the starting point for legal and operational preparation, not as a complete code for implementation.