Liquor Control (Bungardi Restricted Area) Regulations 2017

The instrument rests on a small set of regulatory building blocks. Each is used in a narrow, textually defined way.

• Geographic definition. The Bungardi Aboriginal Community is a defined term in the regulations (r 3). The definition locates the community by reference to: the east side of Marrala Creek, the south side of Geikie Gorge Road, the east side of Bungardi Road, and the north side of Fitzroy River, and specifies that the area comprises parts of Lot 289 Crown Reserve 45608 and Lot 290 Crown Reserve 45609 (r 3). The definition is the boundary-determining device for the entire instrument.

• Restricted area declaration. Regulation 5 declares that the Bungardi Aboriginal Community is a restricted area “for the purposes of section 175(1a) of the Act”. The regulations therefore operate as subordinate legislation that invokes and gives effect to a head of power in the Liquor Control Act 1988. The declaration is the trigger for the offences and other requirements in the regulations.

• Prohibitions on liquor. Regulation 7 creates two related criminal elements: (a) bringing liquor into the Bungardi Aboriginal Community; and (b) having liquor in one’s possession in the Bungardi Aboriginal Community. The prohibition is framed in broad terms and applies to both opened and unopened containers (r 8 contemplates both).

• Differential penalties by actor. The instrument distinguishes between ordinary persons and persons holding particular licenced roles. Regulation 7(2) specifies that where the offender is a licensee, manager of licensed premises, or a director of a body corporate holding a licence, the penalty for a contravention under r 7(1) is set at $5 000. For other persons the fine is $2 000. The regulation therefore imposes higher monetary sanctions on persons with licenced responsibilities when they commit the prohibited acts.

• Administrative signage duty. Regulation 6 imposes a continuing administrative duty on the Director of Liquor Licensing: to take all reasonable steps to post and keep posted notices at each place where a customary access route enters the Bungardi Aboriginal Community, while the declaration remains in effect (r 6(1)). The content of the notice is prescribed to include a description of the offences in r 7 and the specified penalties (r 6(1)(a)-(b)). Subregulation (2) clarifies that failure to comply with that posting duty does not invalidate the restricted-area declaration.

• Police seizure and disposal power. Regulation 8 authorises a member of the Police Force to seize and, as soon as is practicable, dispose of any opened or unopened container of liquor suspected on reasonable grounds to be the subject of an offence under r 7. The regulation is drafted to operate “despite section 155(4) and (5) of the Act”, meaning it takes precedence over those subsections in relation to seizure and disposal for the purposes of these regulations.

• Temporal operation. The instrument includes commencement provisions (reg 2) and a fixed expiry unless sooner repealed (reg 9). The compilation table records intervening amending instruments and dates; the effect is that the regulations are not permanent and have been extended or amended through regulations noted in the compilation table.

These concepts interplay: the geographic definition fixes scope; the declaration under the Act activates criminal prohibitions; the signage duty is an enabling administrative step intended to inform potential entrants of the rule; and the seizure/disposal power gives police an operational tool to enforce the prohibition. The higher fines for licence-holders create a distinct compliance incentive for actors connected to the licencing regime.

The regulations specify, by action and by role, who is liable and who has duties.

• Criminal liability for individuals entering or present in the defined area. Any person who brings liquor into the Bungardi Aboriginal Community, or who has liquor in their possession while in the Bungardi Aboriginal Community, commits an offence under regulation 7(1). The statutory language “a person” is broad and does not itself limit the prohibition to residents, visitors, or particular classes of people; it therefore applies to any natural person in the defined geographic area who brings or possesses liquor there.

• Higher monetary liability for licenced actors. Regulation 7(2) elevates the penalty where the offender is either a licensee, a manager of licensed premises, or a director of a body corporate that holds a licence. That group is specifically singled out by the instrument and faces a $5 000 fine rather than the $2 000 fine applicable to other persons (r 7(1) penalty). The presence of that category targets persons with formal roles in the liquor licensing framework.

• Administrative duty-bearer: Director of Liquor Licensing. Regulation 6(1) places a continuing duty on the Director of Liquor Licensing to post and keep posted notices at each place where a customary access route enters the Bungardi Aboriginal Community (r 6(1)). The Director is therefore the responsible executive officer for publicising the restriction.

• Law enforcement actors: members of the Police Force. Regulation 8 authorises members of the Police Force to seize and dispose of containers of liquor suspected on reasonable grounds to be the subject of an offence under r 7. The power explicitly extends to both opened and unopened containers and triggers disposal “as soon as is practicable” (r 8).

• Property and locality stakeholders: persons using customary access routes. While the regulations do not define “customary access route”, r 6(1) identifies those access points as the places where notices must be posted. People who enter via such routes therefore are the immediate target for the Director’s signage duty and for receiving notice of the prohibition.

• Indirectly affected parties. The regulations will also implicate businesses and operators who supply liquor in nearby areas outside the restricted boundary. While the instrument does not create an offence for selling liquor outside the area to persons who then enter it, practical compliance responsibilities and commercial choices (for example training staff to refuse retail supply intended for consumption inside the restricted area) will be considered by affected businesses in order to avoid complicity. The instrument expressly makes a higher fine specifically applicable to licensees and managers (r 7(2)), which creates a direct compliance exposure for holders of liquor licences.

• Temporal stakeholders. Because the instrument has a sunset clause (r 9), persons and organisations whose compliance costs are time-sensitive,such as those who manage signage, law enforcement resourcing, or commercial arrangements,must take account of the regulatory timeframe. The compilation table records amendments and the insertion of r 9 over time; the current end date recorded in r 9 is the close of 19 August 2026 (r 9).

The instrument does not, in its text, create civil liabilities or compensatory rights for third parties, nor does it confer any affirmative rights to possess liquor within the community. It does not define enforcement priorities, nor does it provide an administrative review mechanism for the declaration itself. The persons who pay monetary penalties are therefore those caught bringing or possessing liquor in the area, with an explicit heavier penalty for certain licenced actors (r 7).

The regulations allocate a small set of duties and confer practical powers to law enforcement; they also declare what is not a defence in a narrow way.

Duties

• Director of Liquor Licensing , signage duty. Under regulation 6(1) the Director must “take all reasonable steps to cause to be posted, and while the Bungardi Aboriginal Community continues to be a restricted area by operation of regulation 5 to be kept posted, at each place where a customary access route enters the Bungardi Aboriginal Community a notice” that describes the offences in regulation 7 and specifies the penalties (r 6(1)(a)-(b)). The duty is continuing while the declaration remains in force. The duty is framed as “all reasonable steps”, which implies a standard of reasonableness rather than absolute perfection in execution, but the regulation prescribes content and placement points.

• Police , seizure and disposal duty/power. Regulation 8 authorises a member of the Police Force to seize and, as soon as is practicable, dispose of any opened or unopened container of liquor suspected on reasonable grounds to be the subject of an offence under regulation 7. The duty to dispose “as soon as is practicable” places a temporal expectation on police action once seizure occurs.

• Offenders , prohibition obligations. Any person is under the duty not to bring liquor into, or possess liquor within, the Bungardi Aboriginal Community (r 7(1)). The prohibition is phrased as an offence; compliance is therefore a legal obligation.

Rights and legal effects

• Non-invalidity of the declaration despite posting failures. Regulation 6(2) states that a failure to comply with the posting duty in r 6(1) “does not invalidate the declaration in regulation 5”. That is a textual limitation on procedural challenges: the Director’s omission to post notices does not, by itself, render the restricted-area declaration void. The practical effect is to reduce avenues for contesting the restricted area’s legal existence on the basis of signage non-compliance.

• Police operational discretion with seizure and disposal. Regulation 8 conditions seizure on “reasonable grounds” to suspect the container is the subject of an offence under r 7 and then permits disposal “as soon as is practicable”. The regulation thereby sets a standard for lawful seizure (reasonable grounds) while simultaneously giving police discretion about disposal timing, subject to the “as soon as is practicable” qualifier.

• Penalty as exclusive statutory sanction specified. The regulations set monetary fines for contraventions (r 7). The instrument does not itself provide for non-monetary orders, licensing suspensions or civil remedies within its text; the only specified penalties are the fines. Whether other statutory consequences under the Liquor Control Act 1988 or other legislation can attach is not addressed in the regulation text itself, although the instrument makes direct reference to the Act (r 5; r 8).

Duties not created or limited

• The regulations do not create a private right to recover seized liquor, nor a statutory compensation scheme for disposal. The instrument also does not define “customary access route”, leaving that term operationally significant but undefined.

• The regulations do not provide an internal administrative review or appeal procedure specific to the declaration or the seizure/disposal actions. Any challenge to an officer’s action or the validity of the declaration must therefore be brought via general legal remedies available outside the instrument itself.

In short, duties are concentrated on the Director of Liquor Licensing and on members of the Police Force for enforcement; duties on others are prohibitive. Rights are limited and functionally instrumental,procedural posting failures do not annul the declared restriction (r 6(2)) and police have a defined but discretionary seizure-and-disposal power (r 8).

The instrument specifies monetary penalties and operational enforcement mechanics, and it modifies aspects of how seizure and disposal are carried out.

Penalties

• Fixed fines. Regulation 7 sets two monetary levels. For an offence under r 7(1), the penalty is a fine of $5 000 if r 7(2) applies, and in any other case a fine of $2 000 (r 7(1), penalty). Regulation 7(2) identifies the persons to whom the higher penalty applies: a licensee, a manager of licensed premises or a director of a body corporate that holds a licence. The prescribed fines are direct statutory penalties in the instrument; the regulations do not create alternative tiers or non-monetary sanctions within their text.

• Actor-specific sanctioning. The instrument’s structure makes it clear that a person who holds a position within the liquor licencing framework , licence-holder, manager or director of a corporate licence-holder , faces more severe financial exposure for contraventions than ordinary persons. The differential suggests a legislative aim to hold persons with professional or corporate responsibility to a higher standard of accountability, though the instrument itself simply records the differential.

Enforcement mechanics

• Police seizure power. Regulation 8 empowers a member of the Police Force to seize any opened or unopened container of liquor suspected on reasonable grounds to be the subject of an offence under r 7. The seizure power is conditioned by the “reasonable grounds” standard, which is a common legal standard for law enforcement actions and is enacted here as the factual predicate for lawful seizure.

• Disposal power and timing. The police may dispose of seized containers “as soon as is practicable”. The regulation does not prescribe the method of disposal, any record-keeping obligations accompanying disposal, or any compensation on disposal. It does, however, displace subsections 4 and 5 of section 155 of the Act to the extent necessary, by operating “despite section 155(4) and (5) of the Act” (r 8). The net effect is to permit disposal under the regulation notwithstanding whatever constraints those subsections otherwise impose.

• Effect of signage on enforcement. Regulation 6 requires notices at each place where a customary access route enters the community describing the offences and specifying penalties (r 6(1)). The Director must take all reasonable steps to cause the notices to be posted and kept posted while the restriction continues. The regulation also clarifies that failure to post does not invalidate the declaration (r 6(2)). This drafting reduces the procedural risk that enforcement might be invalidated by signage omissions; it therefore buttresses the enforceability of the prohibition even if notices are imperfectly placed.

Operational considerations implicit in the text

• Reasonable grounds. The standard of “reasonable grounds” for seizure is fact-specific. The regulation sets that standard but does not define it; accordingly, operational enforcement will require a police officer to form and be able to justify reasonable grounds at the time of seizure.

• Evidence and prosecution. The regulations create offences and specify penalties; the instrument does not set out evidentiary rules for proof, nor does it provide a dedicated enforcement scheme or procedural mechanism beyond the police powers provided. Prosecution would proceed under the usual criminal procedures applicable to offences under the Act or related legislation, as governed outside the text.

• Temporal limitation. Enforcement powers and offences operate only while the regulations are in force; r 9 sets a sunset date (close of 19 August 2026) unless the regulations are sooner repealed. Enforcement strategies and resourcing therefore operate within a defined timeframe.

Overall, enforcement under the instrument combines a statutory prohibition with police seizure and disposal powers and prescribed fines. The instrument expressly limits some procedural defenses by displacing certain subsections of s 155 of the Act and by stating that notice failures do not invalidate the declaration, thereby creating a relatively robust enforcement posture within the scope of the text.

The regulations operate as subordinate legislation under the Liquor Control Act 1988 and explicitly cross‑refer to particular provisions of that Act. The instrument therefore modifies how certain Act provisions apply within the Bungardi Aboriginal Community.

References to the Liquor Control Act 1988

• Enabling head. Regulation 5 declares the Bungardi Aboriginal Community to be a restricted area “for the purposes of section 175(1a) of the Act”. The regulations are therefore an exercise of the power or mechanism created by s 175(1a) of the Liquor Control Act 1988. The regulation text does not reproduce s 175(1a) but directly invokes it as the statutory basis for the declaration.

• Seizure and s 155. Regulation 8 operates “despite section 155(4) and (5) of the Act”. That phrasing reflects a direct interaction: the regulation modifies or displaces the effect of those subsections in relation to seized containers connected with offences under r 7. The regulation therefore limits the operation of s 155(4) and (5) within the specific enforcement context of these regulations; the instrument is drafted to ensure police may seize and dispose as stated even if s 155(4) and (5) would otherwise impose constraints.

Subordinate legislation and amendment interplay

• The compilation table records that the regulations have been amended by successive instruments listed as racing and gaming regulations amendments (SL 2020/62; SL 2023/78; SL 2024/157; SL 2025/143). Those amendments affect commencement dates and specific regulations (for example r 3 was amended in 2024; r 9 was inserted in 2020 and amended subsequently). The text therefore sits within the usual hierarchy: these regulations are made under the Act and have themselves been modified by later subordinate instruments.

Intersections with property and local law notions

• Boundary defined by allotments. The Bungardi Aboriginal Community definition identifies parts of Lot 289 Crown Reserve 45608 and Lot 290 Crown Reserve 45609 as the land affected (r 3). Those lot references situate the restriction with reference to land-reservation categories and suggest an intersection with land administration records. The regulation does not alter property rights in those lots; it declares a criminal prohibition on liquor possession or importation within those boundaries.

Absence of interactional detail in the instrument

• The regulations do not expressly reference other criminal, civil or administrative statutes beyond the Liquor Control Act 1988. They do not, within their text, specify how actions under these regulations intersect with other bodies of law, such as general criminal offences, local government by‑laws, or land tenure rules. Any such interaction would therefore need to be assessed by reference to the external statutes and the wider legal framework.

• The instrument does not create a separate appeal, review, or administrative remedy specific to the declaration; nor does it specify whether consequences under the Act (for example licensing consequences beyond the monetary fines) may follow from breach of these particular regulations. Those questions turn on the Liquor Control Act 1988 and other applicable law outside this instrument.

In short, the regulations are tightly connected to the Liquor Control Act 1988, invoke specific sections of the Act as their legal basis, and expressly displace certain subsections of s 155 in their enforcement provisions. They otherwise operate as a localized, time-bound subordinate instrument that interacts with land boundaries through lot descriptions but leave broader cross‑statutory effects to be determined by the underlying Act and other applicable law.

The compilation table and marginal notes within the instrument set out its amendment history and changes to particular regulations. The history in the statutory compilation is the authoritative record contained in the instrument.

Origination and commencement

• The Liquor Control (Bungardi Restricted Area) Regulations 2017 were published 18 August 2017, with regulations 1 and 2 commencing on that date and the remainder commencing on 19 August 2017 (see r 1-2; compilation table entry for 2017).

Amendments and inserts

• 2020 amendment. The Racing and Gaming Regulations Amendment (Liquor Control) Regulations 2020 (SL 2020/62) amended the regulations, with the amending instrument published 22 May 2020 and coming into effect on 23 May 2020 (compilation table). The marginal note records that regulation 4 of the original instrument was deleted by SL 2020/62 (see marginal note below r 3: “[Regulation 3 amended: SL 2024/157 r. 4.] [4. Deleted: SL 2020/62 r. 4.]”).

• Insertion of r 9. The compilation notes that regulation 9 (Period during which these regulations have effect) was inserted by SL 2020/62 r 5. That insertion created the explicit sunset mechanism recorded in the current regulation 9.

• 2023 amendment. The Racing and Gaming Regulations Amendment (Liquor Control) Regulations (No. 3) 2023 (SL 2023/78), published 20 June 2023 and commencing 21 June 2023, amended aspects of the regulations as recorded in the compilation table.

• 2024 amendment. The Racing and Gaming Regulations Amendment (Liquor Control) Regulations (No. 4) 2024 (SL 2024/157), published 7 August 2024 and commencing 8 August 2024, amended regulation 3 (the definition of Bungardi Aboriginal Community) as indicated in the marginal notes: “[Regulation 3 amended: SL 2024/157 r. 4.]”. The compilation table records that r 3 changes were effected in 2024.

• 2025 amendment. The Racing and Gaming Regulations Amendment (Liquor Control) Regulations (No. 2) 2025 (SL 2025/143) published 6 August 2025 and commencing 7 August 2025, has an entry in the compilation table indicating further amendment to the regulations and their commencement date.

Current sunset provision

• Regulation 9, inserted in 2020 and subsequently amended, currently provides that the regulations expire at the close of 19 August 2026 unless sooner repealed. The insertion and subsequent amendments to r 9 are recorded in the marginal notes: “[Regulation 9 inserted: SL 2020/62 r. 5; amended: SL 2023/78 r. 4; SL 2024/157 r. 5; SL 2025/143 r. 4.]” The compilation table entries record the instrument citations and dates for these amendments.

Other annotation

• The instrument’s compilation indicates which parts came into operation on which dates and records the various serial law numbers for the amending instruments. The marginal notes adjacent to regulation 3 show both the most recent amendment and a deleted provision (r 4), giving readers a trail of textual change.

Taken together, the compilation table and marginal notes provide the complete amendment history recorded in the regulation text. The pattern shows initial establishment in 2017, an insertion of a sunset clause in 2020, and further technical or substantive adjustments to the geographic definition and timing in 2023-2025.

The text of the regulations itself contains no record of judicial decisions, actions, or reported litigation. There are no cases cited, no notes of judicial interpretation, and no recorded proceedings in the statutory text or the compilation material attached to these regulations. As a matter of the instrument’s content, it is therefore silent on any litigation history.

What the instrument does reveal that is relevant to potential litigation

• Procedural defences narrowed. Regulation 6(2) states that a failure to comply with the Director’s posting duty does not invalidate the declaration in regulation 5. That provision reduces the scope for a successful challenge premised solely on signage omissions. A litigant seeking to attack the legal validity of the restricted-area declaration on procedural grounds would therefore confront a statutory statement that posting failures do not affect the declaration’s validity.

• Seizure and “despite” provision. Regulation 8 operates “despite section 155(4) and (5) of the Act”, thereby displacing those subsections to permit seizure and disposal of alleged offending containers. Any judicial dispute that engages the operation of s 155(4) and (5) when the regulation is applied would need to consider the textual primacy of the specific regulation in relation to those subsections. That is a point the instrument itself foregrounds and which could be the focus of litigation about the scope of police disposal powers in this locality.

• Undefined statutory terms. The instrument uses terms that are not defined within its text, for example “customary access route”, and the usual statutory term “reasonable grounds” for seizure. Disputes over the meaning and application of such terms in prosecution or judicial review contexts are foreseeable given their operational centrality: where must notices be posted; what constitutes a customary access route for poster placement; whether police had reasonable grounds to seize; or whether an accused “brought” liquor into the community or merely had possession could be contested.

• Temporal limits and expiry. Because the regulation contains a sunset clause (r 9), questions may arise regarding whether prosecutions relate to conduct committed while the regulation was in force, and whether any action taken near expiry is valid. The regulation’s amendments over time could also give rise to issues of retrospective effect or transitional application in edge cases.

Absence of reported litigation in the text

• The lack of litigation references in the instrument means practitioners cannot rely on judicial exposition within the text itself to interpret uncertain terms or to predict enforcement outcomes. Any authoritative interpretation will therefore derive from subsequent case law, general principles of statutory interpretation, or litigation that arises after the adoption of these regulations; none of that material is contained in this legislative text.

In summary, the regulation text contains no litigation record. It does, however, create textual features (non‑invalidity clause for signage failures; a “despite” override of s 155(4)-(5); undefined but operative terms such as “customary access route” and “reasonable grounds”) that are plausible loci for future litigation, should disputes arise in enforcement or constitutional contexts. The instrument itself provides the textual positions that any court would be asked to interpret.

The instrument is short and textually specific, but a number of practical and legal traps for the unwary emerge directly from the language used.

Undefined and operationally important terms

• “Customary access route” is not defined. Regulation 6(1) requires notices to be posted “at each place where a customary access route enters the Bungardi Aboriginal Community”. The absence of a statutory definition means there will be factual sensitivity about what counts as a customary access route. Parties will need to determine, on the ground, which entry points meet that description for notices to lawfully be posted and for the Director’s duty to be discharged.

• “Reasonable grounds” is not elaborated. Regulation 8 conditions seizure on reasonable grounds to suspect the container is subject to an offence under r 7. That is a fact-intensive standard that requires police to be able to articulate the facts supporting a reasonable suspicion at the time of seizure. Lack of contemporaneous justification could expose the seizure to legal challenge, although r 6(2) militates against invalidating the declaration due to posting failures and r 8 displaces some s 155 constraints.

Boundary clarity and evidence issues

• The Bungardi Aboriginal Community boundary relies on geographic descriptors and lot numbers. The regulation defines the area by reference to natural features and parts of two Crown Reserve lots (r 3). On‑the‑ground identification and evidentiary questions,especially in prosecution,may arise about precisely where the boundary lies, particularly where the description uses terms such as “east side” or “north side” of local features. Enforcement officers and prosecutors will need accurate mapping and perhaps cadastral evidence to show the defendant’s presence within the area.

• Proving “bringing” or “possession”. Regulation 7 criminalises bringing liquor into, or having liquor in possession in, the Bungardi Aboriginal Community. Proving these elements,especially the act of bringing into the area,may require establishing a timeline of movement or custody of containers. For example, if liquor is carried into the area by a third party, or appears in a vehicle that crosses the boundary, establishing the requisite act and mens rea for the offence may be practically challenging.

Signage does not validate the declaration

• Posting failures do not invalidate the declaration. Regulation 6(2) states that failure to comply with the posting duty does not invalidate the declaration (r 6(2)). This is a potential “gotcha” for defendants who might otherwise rely on inadequate signage as a defence to being unaware of the prohibition; the regulation expressly forecloses invalidating the declaration on that basis alone. That does not mean signage is irrelevant to prosecution or fairness arguments, but it does mean lack of notice at customary access routes will not automatically defeat the legal status of the restricted area.

Seizure and disposal practicalities

• Police can dispose “as soon as is practicable”. Regulation 8 allows disposal of seized containers “as soon as is practicable”, and this disposal may include destruction. The regulation does not set out a retention period, record-keeping obligations, or a claim mechanism for seized containers. Persons whose property is disposed of could find themselves without a statutory route for recovery or compensation as a matter of the instrument’s text.

• The regulation operates “despite” s 155(4) and (5). That phrasing indicates an intended override of those subsections. Practitioners must check the content and possible continuing application of s 155(4) and (5) to understand precisely what constraints have been displaced, because the regulation’s practical effect depends on those external provisions.

Higher liability for licensed actors

• Elevated fine for licence-holders and managers. Regulation 7(2) creates exposure for persons with licenced roles or corporate directorships to a higher penalty ($5 000). Licence-holders who enter or have liquor in the area,whether by oversight or through staff conduct,face harsher financial consequences than ordinary individuals. Companies and directors should note this targeted exposure.

Temporal risks

• Sunset and amendment timing. The regulations include a closing date (r 9). Because the instrument has been amended repeatedly (see compilation table), businesses and enforcement bodies must track the regulatory timeframe and any changes. Acting on outdated assumptions about the instrument’s duration could lead to compliance failures or unnecessary operational expenditures.

In sum, the main practical pitfalls arise from undefined terms, evidentiary burdens about boundaries and possession, the non-invalidity clause for signage failures, the practical consequences of disposal without specified retention or compensation mechanisms, and targeted higher fines for licenced actors. These are not hypothetical; each is directly apparent from the textual formulation of the relevant regulations (r 3; r 6(1)-(2); r 7(1)-(2); r 8; r 9).

Compliance requires coordinated action by the Director of Liquor Licensing, law enforcement, licence-holders and ordinary persons who enter the Bungardi Aboriginal Community. The steps below flow from the obligations and exposures created by the regulations themselves.

For the Director of Liquor Licensing (statutory duty)

• Identify customary access routes. Determine and document each place where a “customary access route” enters the Bungardi Aboriginal Community, because notices must be posted at each such place while the area remains restricted (r 6(1)). Although the term is undefined, err on the side of inclusive identification of likely entry points used by community members and visitors.

• Post the prescribed notices. Cause notices to be posted at each identified customary access entry point that (a) describe the offences in r 7; and (b) specify the penalties for those offences (r 6(1)(a)-(b)). The content is prescribed by the regulation; ensure that wording accurately tracks r 7’s prohibitions and the specified monetary penalties.

• Keep notices posted while the restriction is in force. Maintain signage for the duration of the declaration (r 6(1)). The regulation requires the Director to take “all reasonable steps” to keep the notices posted; adopt reasonable maintenance, replacement and inspection schedules to evidence compliance with this standard.

• Document steps taken. Keep contemporaneous records of the steps taken to identify access routes, of where notices were posted, photographs of signage, dates and times of posting, and any remedial action in response to vandalism or removal. Regulation 6(2) says non-compliance does not invalidate the declaration, but maintaining records helps defend procedural compliance and demonstrates reasonableness under r 6(1).

For Police and enforcement

• Form and document reasonable grounds. When exercising seizure powers under r 8, ensure that officers form and can contemporaneously record the “reasonable grounds” that justify seizure of a container suspected to be the subject of an offence under r 7. Good practice includes written observations, witness statements, and photographic evidence at the time of seizure.

• Plan for disposal. Develop internal policies about disposal methods consistent with the requirement to dispose “as soon as is practicable” and consistent with any external legal or environmental constraints. Record the disposal process and maintain a chain-of-custody log for seized containers to support actions taken.

• Understand the limits of s 155. Because r 8 operates “despite section 155(4) and (5) of the Act”, police should review those subsections in the Liquor Control Act 1988 to understand what aspects have been displaced and ensure that seizure and disposal decisions are appropriate under the regulation.

For licensees, managers, directors and corporate licence-holders

• Avoid carrying or storing liquor into the area. Be aware that regulation 7(2) subjects licensees, managers and directors to the higher $5 000 fine for breaches. Avoid physical presence with liquor inside the defined community, and ensure staff and contractors are instructed accordingly.

• Update internal policies and staff training. Train staff to refuse deliveries or customer requests that would result in liquor being brought into the Bungardi Aboriginal Community. For businesses operating nearby, incorporate the restricted area boundaries into point-of-sale protocols and delivery routing systems to prevent unintended breaches.

• Contract and supply controls. Review supply contracts and delivery terms to prevent shipments destined to addresses inside the restricted area. Include indemnities and compliance obligations where appropriate to allocate risk within commercial relationships.

For ordinary persons and visitors

• Do not bring liquor into or possess liquor within the Bungardi Aboriginal Community. The text creates a clear prohibition for any person: bringing or possessing liquor in the area is an offence (r 7(1)). Observe posted notices and avoid crossing into the area with containers of liquor.

• Seek clarification if unsure about boundaries or access routes. If unsure whether a route is within the defined area, avoid carrying liquor through the location or seek local guidance.

Recordkeeping and legal preparedness

• Maintain mapping and evidence of boundaries. Keep up-to-date maps showing the Bungardi Aboriginal Community’s boundaries as defined in r 3 and contemporaneous cadastral records showing the parts of Lot 289 and Lot 290 referenced. These may be important in disputes about whether an act occurred within the regulated area.

• Monitor regulatory changes and sunset date. The regulations have a set expiry date (r 9 , close of 19 August 2026 unless sooner repealed). Track any amending instruments referenced in the compilation table (SL 2020/62; SL 2023/78; SL 2024/157; SL 2025/143) for changes to the regulations or the area definition that may affect compliance obligations.

Practical risk mitigation

• Use signage and public information. Where appropriate and within legal bounds, neighbouring businesses and service providers should provide clear public information and signage outside the restricted boundary to warn customers and visitors.

• Legal advice for edge cases. For corporate actors, directors or managers uncertain about whether particular conduct risks liability under r 7(2), obtain legal advice. The text assigns increased fines to those categories, and decisions about operational practices, staff instructions and corporate policies should be informed by legal counsel.

Taken together, compliance is straightforward in theory,do not bring liquor into or possess liquor within the defined area, and ensure notices are posted at customary access points,but the operational realities around defining access routes, evidencing police reasonable grounds, and corporate exposure for licenced actors mean that measured documentation, staff policies and liaison with enforcement agencies will materially reduce enforcement and litigation risk.