Liquor Control (Mingullatharndo Restricted Area) Regulations 2023

The regulations are compact and revolve around a few core legal concepts that determine who decides, who pays, and what behaviour is altered.

Defined geographic unit. The "Mingullatharndo Aboriginal Community" is precisely defined as Lot 300 on Deposited Plan 45651, being the whole of the land in Record of Qualified Certificate of Crown Land Title Volume 2969 Folio 405 (regulation 3). That cadastral description anchors the legal boundary for the prohibitions and enforcement powers in the instrument. The regulations do not provide a map, nor do they define "customary access route" or other boundary‑related terms; the legal scope is the land comprised in the stated lot.

Statutory basis for restriction. Regulation 4 declares the defined parcel to be a "restricted area for the purposes of section 175(1a) of the Act." The instrument therefore relies on the enabling provision in the Liquor Control Act 1988 (the Act) to give legal effect to a territorial liquor restriction. The regulations do not restate the content of section 175(1a); they instead operate by invoking that head of power.

Prohibitions: bringing and possession. Regulation 6(1) sets two separate offences: (a) bringing liquor into, or causing liquor to be brought into, the Mingullatharndo Aboriginal Community; and (b) possessing liquor in the Mingullatharndo Aboriginal Community. The units of prohibited conduct are both an act of bringing and an ongoing state of possession, which creates two distinct risk points for enforcement,transportation/delivery and on‑site possession.

Tiered penalties linked to regulated actors. The instrument imposes a differentiated fine regime. The penalty for contraventions under regulation 6(1) is $2,000 in general, but regulation 6(2) increases that to $5,000 for offences committed by a licensee, a manager of licensed premises or a director of a body corporate that holds a licence. The regulation therefore targets persons who have legal responsibilities under the Act for licensed premises or who may be in a position to supply or facilitate supply, by attaching an enhanced monetary sanction.

Administrative signage duty. Regulation 5 places a procedural duty on the Director of Liquor Licensing to take "all reasonable steps" to have notices posted at each place where a "customary access route" enters the declared area, and to keep those notices posted while the area remains restricted. The notices must describe the offences in regulation 6(1) and specify their penalties (regulation 5(1)(a)-(b)). The obligation is directional,"must take all reasonable steps",and the instrument also states that failure to comply with this posting duty does not invalidate the restricted area declaration (regulation 5(2)).

Police seizure and disposal power. Regulation 7 expressly provides that, "despite section 155(4) and (5) of the Act," a member of the Police Force may 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 6(1). The regulation thus creates a targeted exception to the procedural or evidentiary limitations referenced in those provisions of the Act, by authorising disposal following seizure where reasonable grounds exist and with prompt disposition.

Temporal limit. The regulations are time‑limited: they are in force until they expire at the close of 2 November 2028 unless sooner repealed (regulation 8). The staged commencement (regulation 2) determines when the legal prohibitions and duties become operational after publication.

Interaction with existing regulations. By regulation 10, the instrument amends the Liquor Control Regulations 1989 by inserting a reference to this instrument's regulation 6(1) into the Table in regulation 27(4) of the 1989 Regulations, thereby aligning penalty or administrative listings in the older instrument with this new offence.

Standards and evidentiary phraseology. The instrument uses two key legal qualifiers: "suspected on reasonable grounds" as the basis for seizure under regulation 7, which embeds an objective/subjective standard used commonly in policing contexts; and "all reasonable steps" in regulation 5(1), which imposes a due‑diligence style administrative obligation on the Director. Those standards will shape practical enforcement, internal decision‑making and potential legal challenge pathways.

What the instrument does not include. The regulations do not provide express exemptions (for example, for medical or ceremonial liquor), do not define "customary access route", do not allocate duties to community members to enforce the restriction, and do not specify procedures for return, compensation, or record‑keeping following disposal. The regulations also do not reprint or summarise the provisions of the Act (for example, the text of section 175(1a) or section 155(4) and (5)); they operate by reference to those statutory provisions.

Primary affected persons and entities. The regulations create direct legal obligations and potential penalties for any person who brings liquor into, causes liquor to be brought into, or possesses liquor in the Mingullatharndo Aboriginal Community (regulation 6(1)). This includes residents, visitors, contractors, suppliers, transporters, and any private individual. The regulations create two penalty tiers: ordinary persons face a fine of $2,000 for a contravention (regulation 6(1)(b)), while licensees, managers of licensed premises and directors of a corporate licensee face the higher $5,000 fine when they commit the prohibited acts (regulation 6(2)). Therefore, the instrument specifically targets persons connected to the regulated liquor industry as a distinct group.

Regulator and enforcement agencies. The Director of Liquor Licensing is expressly required to take all reasonable steps to post notices at each place where a customary access route enters the declared area and to maintain those notices while the restriction remains in force (regulation 5(1)). The Director is therefore responsible for publicising the prohibition at access points. Failure to comply with this posting duty does not invalidate the restricted area (regulation 5(2)), but the Director remains the named administrative actor for signage.

Members of the Police Force are given a focused enforcement tool: they may seize and, as soon as practicable, dispose of opened or unopened liquor containers suspected on reasonable grounds to be connected to an offence under regulation 6(1) (regulation 7). That assigns primary operational enforcement to police officers rather than to liquor licensing inspectors or community officials.

Licensed businesses and their officers. The regulations single out licensees, managers and corporate directors by attaching the higher fine for contraventions by those actors (regulation 6(2)). Practically, this affects licensed hospitality businesses, bottle shops, suppliers and their management: they have an increased exposure if they bring liquor into the declared area or if their staff or agents do so in circumstances that constitute an offence.

Community members and visitors. Residents of the Mingullatharndo Aboriginal Community and persons who travel into the declared lot are affected because possession within the area is an offence (regulation 6(1)(b)). The regulations do not allocate enforcement responsibilities to the community; policing and regulatory signage are the named mechanisms.

Transporters, delivery services and third‑party carriers. The prohibition on "bringing" liquor into the area (regulation 6(1)(a)) reaches persons who physically transport liquor into the declared lot and persons who cause liquor to be brought into the area (which could include someone who arranges or causes deliveries). Those actors must decide whether to route deliveries elsewhere, refuse to deliver within the declared lot, or seek assurance that a delivery will not result in criminal liability.

Other regulatory instruments and licence holders. By inserting a reference into regulation 27(4) of the Liquor Control Regulations 1989 (regulation 10), the instrument ensures that the new offence is recorded within the older regulatory architecture, which may affect how licences are administered, recorded or subject to inspection under the 1989 Regulations.

Indirectly affected parties. Insurers, logistics providers, local service providers and legal advisers may face secondary effects. For example, insurers may need to consider whether a loss connected with seizure or disposal is covered; logistics providers may alter routing practices; and legal advisers will need to advise clients about exposure when dealing with the declared lot. The regulations do not address insurance or compensation for disposal, so those matters remain for private arrangements or further administrative rules.

Who pays and who decides. Individuals and corporate actors who contravene regulation 6(1) pay the fines specified in the regulations. The Director of Liquor Licensing decides on signage arrangements and must take "all reasonable steps" to post notices at customary access routes (regulation 5(1)). Police officers decide whether there are reasonable grounds to seize and dispose of liquor and exercise operational decisions as to timing and the "as soon as is practicable" disposal requirement (regulation 7). No other decision makers are expressly named in the instrument.

Temporal impact on affected parties. The instrument is temporary, in force until 2 November 2028 (regulation 8). Those affected therefore face a defined period during which the prohibition applies unless the regulations are repealed earlier.

Express duties created by the regulations. The primary statutory duties are:

• Duty not to bring or cause liquor to be brought into the Mingullatharndo Aboriginal Community, and duty not to possess liquor in the area. Those duties are imposed by regulation 6(1), which frames both acts as offences.

• Duty on the Director of Liquor Licensing to take all reasonable steps to cause notices to be posted and to keep them posted at each place where a customary access route enters the declared area while the restriction remains in effect. Those notices must describe the offences in regulation 6(1) and specify their penalties (regulation 5(1)(a)-(b)).

Operational enforcement duties. Members of the Police Force are empowered to seize and dispose of liquor containers suspected on reasonable grounds to be connected to an offence under regulation 6(1). The discretion to seize and dispose is subject to the "reasonable grounds" standard and the operational direction to dispose "as soon as is practicable" following seizure (regulation 7). The regulation also disapplies (or operates "despite") the limitations or procedures in section 155(4) and (5) of the Act to the extent necessary to allow this seizure and disposal.

Duties not imposed. The regulations do not impose an express duty on community members to enforce the prohibition, nor do they delegate enforcement powers to community elders or administrators. There is no statutory process in the instrument for authorising exceptions (for example, for cultural, ceremonial or medical use), nor is there a provision requiring community consultation in the text supplied.

Rights and constraints on enforcement. The regulations do not create an express private right to compensation for seized or disposed liquor. They do not, in the text supplied, provide procedural protections such as notice periods prior to disposal, appeal rights against seizure, or requirements for record‑keeping or receipt issuance. Those matters remain governed by the Act (to the extent applicable) or by general policing and administrative law principles, but the instrument itself contains no express procedural safeguards beyond the "reasonable grounds" condition and the "as soon as is practicable" disposal mandate (regulation 7).

Signposting and information rights. The Director's duty to post notices (regulation 5(1)) creates a public information right in practice: persons intending to enter the declared area should be able to see signage that sets out the offences and penalties. However, the instrument also provides that failure to post the notices does not invalidate the declaration (regulation 5(2)), which constrains any right to avoid liability by pointing to absence of signage. That clause prioritises the legal effect of the restriction over compliance with notice posting.

Liability differentiation for regulated actors. Regulation 6(2) creates a specific legal consequence for persons who are licensees, managers of licensed premises, or directors of a corporate licensee: contraventions attract a $5,000 fine rather than the general $2,000 fine. The regulation thus places an additional compliance burden and monetary exposure on regulated actors linked to the liquor trade, reflecting a policy choice visible in the drafting.

Commencement and temporal rights/duties. The staged commencement (regulation 2) creates timing obligations. The Director's posting duty (regulation 5(1)) applies while the area continues to be restricted by operation of regulation 4, and the whole instrument remains in force until its expiry (regulation 8). Individuals do not gain any implied right to bring or possess liquor during any part of the instrument's operation because regulation 6(1) is operative for the declared area once the regulations commence.

Duty/rights hierarchy and non‑invalidating clause. Regulation 5(2) removes an argument that failure to post might invalidate the declaration in regulation 4. That condition clarifies that the legal status of the restricted area does not rest on the Director's compliance with posting obligations. It limits a potential procedural defence and shifts the practical focus to substantive compliance with the prohibitions.

Amendment duty. By amending regulation 27(4) of the Liquor Control Regulations 1989 (regulation 10), the instrument triggers an administrative duty on those who manage the 1989 Regulations to incorporate the new item in their penalty/administrative tables. The regulation itself performs that insertion.

Penalty structure. The regulations provide a two‑tiered monetary penalty for contraventions of regulation 6(1). For most offenders, the penalty is a fine of $2,000 (regulation 6(1)(b)). For specified persons connected to licensed operations , licensees, managers of licensed premises, or directors of a corporate licensee , the applicable fine is $5,000 (regulation 6(2)). The instrument does not provide for imprisonment, community service, or suspension of licences; it prescribes monetary fines only.

Who enforces. Members of the Police Force are the named enforcement agents with an express operational tool to seize and dispose of liquor containers suspected on reasonable grounds to be the subject of an offence under regulation 6(1) (regulation 7). The regulations do not expressly allocate further enforcement powers to the Director of Liquor Licensing or to liquor inspectors within the text supplied.

Seizure and disposal mechanics. Regulation 7 permits seizure of opened or unopened containers of liquor suspected on reasonable grounds to be the subject of an offence under regulation 6(1). The regulation goes on to permit disposal "as soon as is practicable" after seizure. The regulation also operates "despite section 155(4) and (5) of the Act", which indicates the regulation overrides or operates notwithstanding procedural constraints those Act provisions might impose on disposal following seizure. The regulations do not specify the methods of disposal, who bears the cost of disposal, or any record‑keeping obligations following disposal. There is no statutory timetable for how quickly disposal must occur beyond the qualitative standard "as soon as is practicable".

Evidential standard for seizure. The standard for taking action under regulation 7 is "suspected on reasonable grounds". The phrase indicates the need for an objective and fact‑based basis for seizure; it will be a critical element in any defence or administrative review concerning an officer's exercise of discretion. The regulations do not restate or explain how "reasonable grounds" should be assessed; that will fall to operational policing practice and, where necessary, external legal processes.

Interaction with posting. The Director's duty to post notices describing the offences and specifying penalties is designed to inform the public of the criminal sanctions (regulation 5(1)). However regulation 5(2) removes an argument that lack of signage could avoid liability by stating that failure to post does not invalidate the declaration. Practically, this reduces the risk that an enforcement action will be undermined by absence of signage, but it may raise issues regarding fairness of notice in particular cases.

Administrative listing and monitoring. By inserting the new offence into regulation 27(4) of the Liquor Control Regulations 1989 (regulation 10), the instrument ensures that the offence appears in the regulatory tables that administer or catalogue offences and possibly their penalties. Enforcement agencies and licensing authorities should update their internal monitoring lists and compliance checklists accordingly.

Penalties as compliance instruments. The higher fine for licensees, managers and directors (regulation 6(2)) creates a financial deterrent targeted at persons in positions to facilitate supply into the declared area. For compliance teams at licensed businesses, the regulations therefore create an identifiable exposure to be managed through training, contract conditions with staff and delivery partners, and refusal or redirection policies for sales or supply into the declared lot.

Enforcement resource implications. Enforcement is placed principally in the hands of the Police Force for seizure and disposal; this creates a dependency on policing capacity and priorities. The regulations provide no dedicated funding or administrative support for the Director's posting duty. The practical enforcement intensity will therefore depend on police resourcing and administrative follow‑through by the Director's office.

Remedies and appeals. The regulations are silent on remedies, procedures for retrieving seized property, administrative review or appeal pathways specific to seizure and disposal under regulation 7. Any such remedies would therefore arise under the Act or general administrative law principles, or through normal court processes for contesting fines, but the instrument itself does not create them.

Statutory cross‑references. The regulations operate by reference to the Liquor Control Act 1988. The instrument expressly declares the area to be restricted "for the purposes of section 175(1a) of the Act" (regulation 4). It also provides a seizure and disposal power "despite section 155(4) and (5) of the Act" (regulation 7). Those express references indicate that the regulations are not freestanding criminal law; rather they implement delegated powers and modify the application of the Act in limited respects. The regulations do not reproduce the text of the referenced Act provisions, and the precise interaction will depend on the content and scope of those sections in the Act.

Amendment of subordinate instruments. Regulation 10 inserts a reference to this instrument's regulation 6(1) into the Table in regulation 27(4) of the Liquor Control Regulations 1989. That amendment integrates the new offence into the formal catalogue of offences or penalty listings maintained under the 1989 Regulations. Practically, that means administrative processes and penalty records under the 1989 Regulations will reflect the new restriction.

Policing powers and Act‑level constraints. By providing a disposal power "despite section 155(4) and (5) of the Act" (regulation 7), the regulations override or disapply, to the extent necessary, whatever constraints those Act subsections impose in ordinary circumstances. The instrument thereby narrows or eliminates any procedural protections those Act provisions might otherwise provide with respect to disposal. The regulations do not modify other parts of the Act or create new powers of search, entry or arrest beyond the targeted seizure and disposal authority.

Administrative law and natural justice. The regulations do not specify appeal routes, internal review mechanisms, or notice requirements beyond the posting duty for the Director (regulation 5). Any challenges to enforcement action, seizure or fine will therefore engage the Act, the general law and administrative law principles. The instrument's silence on procedural safeguards means that existing legal frameworks outside the instrument will govern disputes.

Local government and property law interactions. The instrument defines its area by reference to a lot number and a Record of Qualified Certificate of Crown Land Title (regulation 3). That interacts with land title systems and local planning or land management regimes in practice, because the precise boundary for enforcement is a cadastral area. The regulations do not reference other land management statutes, Aboriginal land rights instruments, native title determinations or local government bylaws; any interaction with those laws will depend on fact patterns and the broader legal framework, but the instrument itself is limited to the liquor control context.

Industrial law and commercial contracts. The prohibition on "bringing" liquor into the area (regulation 6(1)(a)) and the higher fine for licensees and managers (regulation 6(2)) may affect commercial operations such as supply contracts, delivery arrangements and employment policies. Businesses that supply liquor will need to align their contracts and operational instructions with the prohibition; disputes arising from redirected deliveries or cancellations will interact with contract and employment law, though the instrument does not purport to displace those areas of law.

Criminal procedure and evidentiary rules. The evidential standard embedded in regulation 7 , "suspected on reasonable grounds" , dovetails with policing and criminal evidentiary norms. The regulations do not set out how evidence should be preserved following seizure or how disposal should be recorded; those matters will be governed by the Act and general criminal procedure law.

Temporal limits and expiry. The regulations expire at the close of 2 November 2028 (regulation 8). Where other laws require ongoing notifications or statutory reporting tied to enduring obligations, the sunset will produce a discontinuity that must be reflected in compliance systems. The amendment to the 1989 Regulations (regulation 10) will remain part of that instrument until further amendment; however the practical application of the inserted entry is contingent on this instrument remaining in force.

Compilation and commencement. The regulation is published as the Liquor Control (Mingullatharndo Restricted Area) Regulations 2023, cited in the compilation table as SL 2023/174. The compilation table records publication on 1 November 2023 and staged commencement: Part 1 (other than regulation 3) commenced on 1 November 2023; the remainder of the regulations commenced on 2 November 2023 (see regulation 2 and the compilation table). The instrument was compiled and published by the State of Western Australia in 2023.

Expiry and temporal scope. The instrument contains an express sunset clause: unless sooner repealed, the regulations have effect for the period that ends at the close of 2 November 2028 (regulation 8). The compilation table reiterates that the regulations expire on that date. There is no provision in the text supplied for automatic renewal. Any extension, replacement or repeal would require further subordinate legislation or primary law action.

Amendments to other regulations. Part 5 of the instrument amends the Liquor Control Regulations 1989 (regulation 9). Specifically, regulation 10 inserts a reference to this instrument's regulation 6(1) into the Table in regulation 27(4) of the 1989 Regulations. The instrument does not record any other amendments, nor does it contain transitional provisions beyond the staged commencement in regulation 2.

No recorded subsequent amendments in the source. The text supplied is a standalone compilation that states the instrument is the Liquor Control (Mingullatharndo Restricted Area) Regulations 2023 and provides the compilation table entry. The instrument itself contains no internal amendment history beyond the insert into the 1989 Regulations. The "Other notes" section repeats the expiry and defined term table. No later amending instruments or variation entries are recorded in the material provided.

Publishing authority. The document is attributed to the State of Western Australia 2023 and the Government Printer, reflecting the formal publication and attribution. The work is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 (CC BY 4.0), which is a publication detail rather than a legal amendment detail.

Practical implications for compliance calendars. Given the staged commencement in November 2023 and the sunset in November 2028, regulation users should mark the 2028 expiry in compliance systems. Any decision to continue the restriction beyond that date will require new subordinate legislation or amendments to these regulations before the expiry to avoid a gap in the restriction.

No transitional provisions recorded. The instrument contains no express transitional provisions dealing with liquor already present in the declared area at commencement; it instead sets out the prohibitions and the seizure/disposal power as of commencement dates. For handling pre‑existing liquor in the area at the moment the prohibition becomes effective, the instrument does not specify a grace period or transitional arrangement.

No recorded litigation or adjudications are contained in the instrument provided. The compiled regulations and the accompanying compilation table do not list any cases, challenges, judicial reviews or tribunal determinations referencing these regulations. There is no annex, note or footnote in the text supplied that identifies any court orders, injunctions, or contested proceedings.

What the absence of litigation in the instrument means for practitioners. The lack of recorded litigation in the available materials does not mean the regulations are immune to judicial challenge. The instrument establishes criminal offences, a police disposal power and an administrative signage duty,each a potential subject of legal dispute. Two broad categories of potential litigation that practitioners should be aware of, derived from the instrument’s text, are:

• Challenges to seizure and disposal. Regulation 7 permits police to seize and dispose of liquor "despite section 155(4) and (5) of the Act," based on "reasonable grounds" to suspect an offence under regulation 6(1). If a person alleges improper seizure, lack of reasonable grounds, or premature disposal, they may seek judicial review or challenge a fine in criminal proceedings. Although no decisions are recorded in the instrument, the regulation’s express override of certain Act subsections suggests a focal point for litigation concerning statutory limits on disposal.

• Challenges to liability and the effects of signage. Regulation 5(2) states that failure to post notices does not invalidate the restricted area declaration. That clause may be the subject of argument in proceedings where an accused contends they lacked notice of the prohibition. The instrument is explicit, but litigation could explore whether the posting duty creates an implied administrative obligation affecting fairness or natural justice; the instrument itself, however, denies invalidation of the declaration due to posting failure.

Potential evidential disputes. The instrument’s use of "suspected on reasonable grounds" for seizure and the criminal standard applied to offences under regulation 6(1) can generate disputes about the factual basis for arrest, seizure and charging decisions. Issues likely to be litigated, if cases arise, would include whether the police had reasonable grounds to suspect an offence, whether the evidence supports a possession or "bringing" offence, and whether the accused falls within the category of licensee, manager or director for the purposes of the enhanced fine.

Absence of procedural detail and litigation risk. Because the regulations do not set out procedures for disposal, record‑keeping, notice of disposal, return of property, or compensation, disputes may engage general administrative law remedies or the Act’s procedural provisions. Practitioners should be alert to the possibility of judicial review claims that rely on broader administrative law principles where the instrument is silent on procedural safeguards.

Practical monitoring recommendation. In light of the absence of reported litigation in the instrument, practitioners advising affected parties,licensees, managers, residents and police agencies,should monitor court lists and Tribunal postings after enforcement activity begins, as the first contested seizures or prosecutions will produce the initial body of case‑law interpreting the scope of "bringing" and "possessing", the meaning of "customary access route", and the proper exercise of the disposal power under regulation 7. The instrument itself provides no litigation history to analyse.

Precise geographic description, not a plain English map. The regulation defines the Mingullatharndo Aboriginal Community by cadastral instrument: Lot 300 on Deposited Plan 45651 and a Record of Qualified Certificate of Crown Land Title volume and folio (regulation 3). Practitioners and affected parties should note that the legal boundary is the cadastral lot, not a colloquial or community boundary. Failure to check the title particulars risks misidentifying whether an activity occurs inside the declared area.

"Bringing" and "causing to be brought" are separate offences. Regulation 6(1)(a) criminalises both physically bringing liquor into the declared lot and "causing liquor to be brought into" the area (regulation 6(1)(a)). The latter language reaches intermediaries and arrangers (for example, a person ordering or arranging a delivery). Businesses should recognise that arranging a delivery into the area could risk liability even if they do not physically transport the liquor themselves.

Possession defined by context. Regulation 6(1)(b) criminalises possession in the Mingullatharndo Aboriginal Community. The regulations do not define "possession" or specify whether possession is actual or constructive. Practitioners must therefore consider typical criminal law constructs of possession (control, knowledge, custody), and that innocent presence with liquor in a vehicle passing through the area could raise issues, even though the instrument does not provide exemptions or thresholds.

Enhanced exposure for regulated actors. Licensees, managers and directors face a $5,000 fine under regulation 6(2). That increased penalty can apply even where the contravention is the same factual act as an ordinary person’s $2,000 offence. Businesses should therefore treat any involvement with deliveries, staff conduct, or supply which could cause liquor to enter the lot as a higher‑risk activity.

Signage is the regulator’s duty, but absence does not negate the rule. Regulation 5(1) requires the Director to take all reasonable steps to post notices at each place where a customary access route enters the declared area and keep them posted (regulation 5(1)). However, regulation 5(2) states that failure to comply with this posting obligation does not invalidate the declaration. Practically, this means persons cannot necessarily rely on lack of signage as a defence; conversely, the Director’s failure to post does not create a legal escape hatch for offenders. Parties should not assume that absence of signs equals absence of legal obligation.

"Customary access route" is not defined. The posting duty hinges on notices being posted at each place where "a customary access route enters the community" (regulation 5(1)). The instrument does not define that phrase. This creates uncertainty for the Director when identifying posting locations, and for the public when assessing whether signage is required at a particular approach or track. The undefined term is a practical ambiguity.

Seizure and disposal without detailed safeguards. Regulation 7 authorises seizure and disposal "as soon as is practicable" and permits disposal "despite section 155(4) and (5) of the Act" (regulation 7). The instrument does not set a maximum holding period, record‑keeping standards, or a process for reclaiming property. Those absences create potential disputes and practical uncertainty for owners of seized liquor and for police in documenting disposal decisions.

No express exemptions or exceptions. The regulations do not list exceptions for ceremonial, medical or cultural uses of liquor. If such situations arise, they will fall for adjudication under the Act or general defences, but the instrument provides no built‑in operational exception. That may create tension between community practices and the statutory prohibition.

Temporal certainty and potential policy gap after expiry. The regulations expire at the close of 2 November 2028 (regulation 8). If the policy intent is to create a longer‑term restriction, those seeking continuity must seek extension or replacement prior to that date; failure to do so will produce a termination of the legal prohibition.

Who bears disposal costs? The regulations do not specify who bears the cost of seizure and disposal. Police resources will be used to dispose of liquor, but the instrument does not provide for recovery of disposal costs from offenders or for compensation. This absence may create operational costs for policing agencies.

Interaction with the 1989 Regulations requires checking both instruments. Regulation 10 inserts a reference into regulation 27(4) of the Liquor Control Regulations 1989 (regulation 10). Practitioners must consult the 1989 Regulations to understand the full administrative and penalty architecture, rather than relying on this instrument alone.

Potential issues with proving "reasonable grounds." The standard for seizure is "suspected on reasonable grounds" (regulation 7). Police must record and be able to justify their grounds. Poor documentation may expose seizures to legal challenge.

No community enforcement role or appeal built in. The regulations assign enforcement to police and administrative duties to the Director, not to the community. Members of the Mingullatharndo Aboriginal Community who wish to manage or enforce the restriction locally do not receive statutory powers under this instrument. The regulations also do not provide an explicit appeals mechanism for seized or destroyed liquor.

For residents and visitors

• Avoid bringing liquor into the declared lot. Regulation 6(1)(a) and (b) make bringing or possessing liquor in the Mingullatharndo Aboriginal Community an offence. The simplest compliance step is to ensure that any liquids classified as liquor are stored outside the lot prior to entry and are not carried through the declared area.

• Be aware of delivery arrangements. Persons who cause liquor to be brought into the area,by arranging delivery or permitting goods to be brought in,risk contravention under regulation 6(1)(a). Ensure that delivery instructions explicitly exclude the declared lot or confirm that the delivery address is outside the lot.

• Use signage as practical guidance but not as the sole defence. Regulation 5(1) requires posting at customary access routes, but regulation 5(2) makes clear that absence of signage does not invalidate the declaration. Do not rely solely on the presence or absence of notices to determine compliance.

For licensees, managers and directors

• Implement and document strict no‑delivery policies for the declared lot. Because regulation 6(2) applies an enhanced fine of $5,000 to licensees, managers and directors who contravene regulation 6(1), licensed businesses should prohibit sales or deliveries into the lot and document the policy in written procedures.

• Train staff and contractors. Ensure that drivers, delivery personnel and frontline staff are aware of the declared lot and the prohibition. Create checklists and pre‑delivery verification processes to confirm the destination is outside the lot.

• Amend commercial contracts and terms of service. Include clauses in supply and delivery contracts that prohibit delivery into the declared area, allocate liability for inadvertent delivery, and require indemnities where appropriate.

• Review internal compliance and risk registers. Entry on corporate compliance or risk registers should record the $5,000 exposure, outline mitigations, and assign responsibility for oversight.

For the Director of Liquor Licensing

• Identify customary access routes. Regulation 5(1) requires posting at each place where a customary access route enters the declared area. The Director should undertake a practical survey, in consultation with local authorities or land managers if necessary, to identify those points and determine the number and positioning of notices.

• Take "all reasonable steps" to post and maintain notices. Administrative records should document actions taken to comply with regulation 5(1), including dates of posting, photographs, maintenance checks and replacement of damaged notices. Although failure to post does not invalidate the declaration (regulation 5(2)), good administrative practice supports enforceability and legal defensibility.

• Coordinate with police. Because enforcement and disposal powers are vested in the Police Force under regulation 7, the Director should communicate signage locations and ensure police are aware of the restriction and the expectations for enforcement.

For police

• Use and document "reasonable grounds". Regulation 7 authorises seizure and disposal where containers are "suspected on reasonable grounds" to be the subject of an offence under regulation 6(1). Officers should record the factual basis for suspicion (who, what, where, when, how) contemporaneously to support later scrutiny.

• Follow "as soon as is practicable" disposal standard with documented steps. While the regulation permits disposal as soon as practicable, officers should document actions taken after seizure (storage, notices, disposal method and timing), both to demonstrate reasonableness and to protect against potential legal challenges.

• Coordinate with the Director for signage and public information. Where enforcement becomes operational, police and the Director should coordinate to ensure the public is informed and enforcement actions are consistent with administrative communications.

For logistics and delivery companies

• Implement address validation and routing exclusions. Add the declared lot to exclusion lists in dispatch and routing systems so orders directed to that cadastral lot are flagged for cancellation or redirection.

• Add contractual protections. Ensure terms of carriage include client warranties that deliveries are lawful and exclude delivery into restricted areas. Consider indemnities against fines or liabilities arising from deliveries into the declared lot.

For community organisations and leaders

• Communicate locally. Even though the instrument places posting duties on the Director and enforcement powers with police, local community organisations should inform residents and visitors about the prohibition to reduce inadvertent contraventions.

• Keep records of local issues and incidents. If community members encounter problems with seizures or enforcement, maintain incident logs, witness statements and photographs. These will assist legal advisers and administrative agencies in resolving disputes.

For advisors and compliance officers

• Update compliance checklists and regulatory maps. Ensure legal and compliance databases reflect the declared lot boundary (Lot 300 on Deposited Plan 45651) and the expiration date of 2 November 2028 (regulation 8).

• Cross‑check the updated Liquor Control Regulations 1989. Regulation 10 inserts a reference into regulation 27(4) of the 1989 Regulations. Practitioners should check the 1989 Regulations for how the inserted entry operates in concert with the 2023 instrument.

• Prepare for seizure disputes. Develop templates for demands, records and advice in the event of seizure or disposal, including evidence preservation, witness statements and communications with police and the Director.

Administrative best practice

• Maintain all records of signage and posting efforts by the Director (photographs, site logs, contractor invoices), because they will demonstrate that "all reasonable steps" were taken under regulation 5(1). Even though non‑posting does not invalidate the restriction, documentation evidencing proactive posting aids enforcement legitimacy and public information.

• Keep personnel training and policy materials current for licensees and delivery staff, and demonstrate that reasonable steps were taken to prevent contraventions, to reduce exposure to the enhanced $5,000 penalty for licensees, managers and directors.

• Note expiry and plan ahead. Because the regulations expire on 2 November 2028 (regulation 8), affected parties who need continuity should monitor legislative developments and be ready to adapt to any repeal, renewal or modification before that date.

Legal advice triggers

• Seek legal advice promptly if seized or fined. The instrument provides limited procedural detail on disposal and no express compensation mechanism; early legal advice will help preserve evidence and assess grounds for contesting seizure or penalties.