River Murray Act 2003

The River Murray Act 2003 defines key terms that shape its operation. The River Murray itself means both the main stem of the river and the natural resources of the River Murray (section 3(1)). The natural resources of the River Murray encompass the River Murray system (the river and all anabranches, tributaries, flood plains, wetlands and estuaries, and related beds, banks and shores), soil, ground water, surface water, air, vegetation, animals and ecosystems connected or associated with the system, cultural and natural heritage and amenity and geological values, and minerals and other substances subject to a Mining Act that may have an impact on the River Murray. This broad definition ensures the Act reaches far beyond the water column. The ORMs (Objectives for a Healthy River Murray) are the four sets of objectives under section 7: river health, environmental flow, water quality, and human dimension. They are not merely aspirational; section 8 requires the Minister, the Court, and any person or body involved in administration of the Act or required to consider its operation to act consistently with and seek to further the objects and the ORMs. This mandatory direction extends to decision-makers under other Acts when the River Murray Act is engaged. The general duty of care (section 23) is a central mechanism. It requires a person to take all reasonable measures to prevent or minimise harm to the River Murray through his or her activities. Harm includes a risk of harm and future harm and anything declared by regulation to be harm, but must be more than transient or tenuous in nature. In determining what measures are required, regard must be had to the nature of the harm, the sensitivity of the environment, the practicality and financial implications of alternative action, current technical and scientific knowledge, degrees of risk, the significance of the River Murray, and any prior assessment of harm under a statutory authorisation. The Act creates several types of orders under Part 8: River Murray Protection Orders (section 24) to secure compliance with the general duty of care, conditions of statutory authorisations, management agreements, or other requirements under the Act; River Murray Reparation Orders (section 26) requiring a person who has caused harm to make good the damage or make payments; and Interim Restraining Orders (section 29) to halt an activity for up to 28 days while the Minister gathers information. Reparation Authorisations (section 28) allow the Minister to take direct action to remedy damage and recover the costs. A River Murray Protection Area (section 4) is an area designated by the Governor by regulation for the purposes of the Act or any other Act; regulations may prohibit or restrict activities within such areas (section 42(2)). The Implementation Strategy (section 21) is a plan the Minister must prepare and maintain, setting out priorities and strategies to achieve the objects and further the ORMs. It must be reviewed at least every five years, and is an expression of policy that does not affect rights or liabilities (section 21(8)). Related operational Acts are listed in section 5(2) and include the Planning, Development and Infrastructure Act 2016, Environment Protection Act 1993, Landscape South Australia Act 2019, National Parks and Wildlife Act 1972, and others. The Act interacts with these Acts through the referral process in section 22. Management agreements (section 18) are voluntary agreements between the Minister and an owner of land within the Murray-Darling Basin relating to conservation, management, or enhancement of the natural resources of the River Murray. They may include incentives such as remission of rates or taxes or payments, and once registered against title bind successive owners.

The River Murray Act 2003 casts a wide net. The general duty of care in section 23(1) applies to every person whose activities may cause harm to the River Murray. There is no threshold of scale; it extends to both business activities and domestic activities (defined in section 3(1) as an activity other than one undertaken in the course of a business). A person who breaches the duty does not commit an offence on that account alone (section 23(4)), but becomes liable to enforcement by protection order or reparation order. The Act directly affects applicants for statutory authorisations under related operational Acts. Section 22 requires certain statutory instruments and applications for statutory authorisations (approvals, consents, licences, permits) that may affect the River Murray to be referred to the Minister. The Minister may impose conditions, require bonds, extend decision periods, or oppose the grant of the authorisation. This gives the Minister a powerful supervisory role that affects developers, miners, irrigators, aquaculture operators, and others seeking approvals under the Environment Protection Act 1993, the Planning, Development and Infrastructure Act 2016, the Mining Acts, the Fisheries Act 1982, and other listed Acts. Landholders within the Murray-Darling Basin are affected by the possibility of management agreements (section 18), which can require them to carry out work, restrict activities, or adopt management plans in exchange for financial incentives or rate remissions. Management agreements, once registered, bind all subsequent owners of the land (section 18(7)). Landholders may also be subject to entry onto land by authorised persons under section 19 for works or activities related to the Act, with no compensation payable (section 19(3)). Persons who own or occupy land are also potentially subject to protection orders, reparation orders, or interim restraining orders under Part 8. Those orders may require them to discontinue activities, take specified action, pay money into an approved account, or allow the Minister to take corrective action. The costs of that action can be recovered as a debt and secured as a charge on the land (sections 25, 27, 28). Directors of corporations are directly affected by section 38: if a corporation commits an offence against the Act, each director is guilty of the same offence and liable to the same penalty unless the director proves the offence did not result from a failure to take reasonable care to prevent it. This reverse onus provision significantly raises the stakes for company officers. Public authorities, including councils and statutory authorities, are affected by the requirement to act consistently with the objects and ORMs (section 8) when developing statutory instruments that apply within the Murray-Darling Basin. The Minister’s functions include reviewing the operation of related operational Acts (section 9(1)(j)) and assessing whether the objects are being considered in their administration. Authorised officers appointed under section 13 exercise wide powers to enter places, inspect, take samples, require documents, and give directions (section 14). Persons subject to those powers must comply or risk penalties. Finally, indigenous peoples with an association with the River Murray are recognised: the Minister must give special consideration to their needs when consulting (section 9(2)(b)) and authorised officers must have regard to requests not to enter specified areas (section 14(9)). The Act does not affect native title except where valid under state law or the Commonwealth Native Title Act 1993 (section 34).

The central duty imposed by the Act is the general duty of care in section 23(1): a person must take all reasonable measures to prevent or minimise any harm to the River Murray through his or her activities. This is a substantive, ongoing obligation that applies irrespective of whether the activity is authorised under another Act. The duty is not an offence but is enforceable through protection orders and reparation orders. Section 23(2) provides a non-exhaustive list of factors to determine what measures are required, including the nature of the harm, the sensitivity of the environment, practicality and financial implications of alternative action, current scientific knowledge, degrees of risk, and the significance of the River Murray. The Act imposes duties to comply with orders. A person to whom a protection order is issued must comply (section 24(9)). Non-compliance attracts a maximum penalty of $120,000, or $2,500 for domestic activity related to the general duty of care. A person to whom a reparation order is issued must comply, with a maximum penalty of $120,000 (section 26(9)). A person to whom an interim restraining order is issued must comply, with a maximum penalty of $50,000 (section 29(6)). The Act also imposes duties on persons subject to authorised officers’ powers: a person must answer questions put by an authorised officer to the best of their knowledge, information or belief (section 15(1)(b)), and must comply with requirements or directions (section 15(1)(d)). Failure to do so is an offence with a maximum penalty of $20,000. A person must not provide false or misleading information in any information provided under the Act (section 36; penalty $10,000). The Act confers important rights. A person to whom a protection order, reparation order or interim restraining order is issued may appeal to the Environment, Resources and Development Court (section 33). The appeal must be made within 14 days after the order is issued or varied, though the Court may extend that period if just and reasonable. The institution of an appeal does not automatically stay the order (section 33(6)), but the Court may grant a stay having regard to the possible consequences to the River Murray and the interests of affected persons. The right to appeal is an important safeguard against the Minister’s broad powers. A person is not obliged to answer a question or produce a document if to do so might tend to incriminate the person or make the person liable to a penalty (section 16). This protection from self-incrimination applies to requirements under Part 3 Division 2 (authorised officers). An authorised officer must, before exercising powers in relation to a person, provide them with an information sheet about the source and extent of the officer’s powers and the consequences of failing to comply (section 14(10)). This is a procedural right that promotes transparency. Landholders have certain rights in relation to entry onto land. A person authorised by the Minister under section 19 may enter land to undertake works or activities for the Act, but must minimise disturbance, restore the land after completion, and co-operate with the owner or occupier (section 19(2)). However, no compensation is payable for the exercise of that power (section 19(3)). The Act also provides the right to enter into a management agreement with the Minister (section 18). Such agreements are voluntary and may confer benefits including financial incentives, technical assistance, or remission of rates or taxes (section 18(2)(i) to (k)). The Minister should consult with the relevant council before agreeing to a remission of council rates (section 18(3)). Once registered, the agreement binds subsequent owners and occupiers (section 18(7)). A person may also apply to the Registrar-General for cancellation of a registered order or authorisation upon full compliance or payment (section 31(6)). There is no general right to compensation for requirements imposed under Part 8 orders (section 30(3)) or for actions taken by the Minister or authorised officers under the immunity provision (section 35), which extinguishes any liability whether based on a statutory or common law duty of care or otherwise.

The Act establishes a tiered enforcement regime centred on administrative orders backed by criminal penalties for non-compliance, rather than making the underlying duty of care a criminal offence. A breach of the general duty of care (section 23) is not itself an offence. Instead, the Minister may issue a River Murray Protection Order (section 24) to secure compliance with the duty, conditions of statutory authorisations, management agreements, or other requirements of the Act. Non-compliance with a protection order carries a maximum penalty of $120,000 (section 24(9)(c)), with lower penalties for domestic activity ($2,500) and where the related operational Act prescribes its own penalty. Expiation fees are set at $500 (or $250 for domestic duty of care). The Minister may take action on non-compliance and recover the reasonable costs as a debt (section 25(4)), with interest and a charge on the person’s land (section 25(5)). Reparation orders (section 26) require a person who has caused harm to the River Murray through a contravention of the duty, a condition, a management agreement, or other requirement to take specified action to make good the damage or make payments into an approved account. Non-compliance with a reparation order carries a maximum penalty of $120,000 (section 26(9)). Again, the Minister may take the required action and recover costs as a debt with interest and a charge on land (section 27). Reparation authorisations (section 28) allow the Minister to authorise officers or other persons to take direct remedial action without first issuing a reparation order to the responsible person. The costs are recoverable as a debt, with the same charge and interest provisions (section 28(7)). Interim restraining orders (section 29) can be issued for up to 28 days, with non-compliance attracting a maximum penalty of $50,000 (section 29(6)). The Act creates specific offences for hindering or obstructing an authorised officer or other person engaged in administering the Act, failing to answer questions, producing false documents, failing to comply with a requirement or direction, using abusive language, or falsely representing as an authorised officer (section 15(1); maximum penalty $20,000). Removing or interfering with markers or equipment placed by an authorised officer is also an offence (section 15(2); penalty $10,000). A person who contravenes a condition of an exemption granted under section 22(18) faces a penalty of $20,000 (section 22(21)). Providing false or misleading information carries a penalty of $10,000 (section 36). Continuing offences are addressed by section 37: a person convicted of an offence involving a continuing act or omission is liable to an additional daily penalty of up to one-tenth of the maximum penalty for each day the contravention continues. If the act or omission continues after conviction, a further daily penalty applies. Director liability is imposed by section 38: if a corporation commits an offence, each director is guilty of the same offence and liable to the same penalty unless the director proves that the principal offence did not result from a failure on their part to take reasonable care to prevent it. This reverse onus provision significantly shifts the burden of proof. Prosecution of a director may proceed whether or not the corporation itself has been prosecuted (section 38(2)). Summary proceedings for offences against the Act must be commenced within three years of the alleged commission of the offence, or within ten years with the authorisation of the Attorney-General (section 37A). The Environment, Resources and Development Court has criminal jurisdiction for offences under the Act (section 39). Enforcement is supported by the registration regime in Division 2 of Part 8. Protection orders, reparation orders, and reparation authorisations can be registered against land (section 31). Once registered, the order is binding on each owner and occupier from time to time (section 31(4)). A charge imposed on land for unpaid costs has priority over any prior charge in favour of an associate of the owner, and over any other charge except those registered before the order or authorisation was registered (section 32). This creates a powerful security mechanism for cost recovery.

Section 5(1) establishes that the River Murray Act 2003 is in addition to and does not limit or derogate from any other Act, unless the contrary intention is expressed. This means the Act overlays existing regulatory regimes rather than replacing them. It lists related operational Acts in section 5(2), including the Aquaculture Act 2001, Coast Protection Act 1972, Crown Lands Act 1929, Planning Development and Infrastructure Act 2016, Environment Protection Act 1993, Fisheries Act 1982, Harbors and Navigation Act 1993, Heritage Act 1993, Historic Shipwrecks Act 1981, Irrigation Act 1994, Murray-Darling Basin Act 2008, National Parks and Wildlife Act 1972, Native Vegetation Act 1991, Landscape South Australia Act 2019, South Eastern Water Conservation and Drainage Act 1992, any Mining Act, and any other Act prescribed by regulation. Part 6 (section 22) is the key operational mechanism for interaction. It applies when a statutory instrument or an application for a statutory authorisation under a related operational Act is referred to the Minister for approval, endorsement, concurrence, consultation, comment or other assessment. The Minister must take into account and seek to further the objects and ORMs (section 22(4)(a)). For statutory instruments, the Minister must also consider the Murray-Darling Basin Agreement and any relevant provision of the Basin Plan under the Commonwealth Water Act 2007 (section 22(4)(b)). For applications for statutory authorisations, the Minister considers the activity’s potential effect on the River Murray, cumulative effects across the Murray-Darling Basin, views of other bodies, the Murray-Darling Basin Agreement, and any published policy (section 22(4)(c)). The Minister may extend any period specified under the related operational Act if further information is needed (section 22(6)). The Minister may direct that the authorisation not be granted without specified conditions (section 22(7)), which may include bonds, payments, environment improvement programs, and compliance with codes (section 22(8)). If the Minister and the responsible minister disagree on a statutory instrument, the matter may be referred to the Governor whose decision is final and has effect despite any other Act or law (section 22(5)). No appeal lies against conditions or determination to oppose if the regulations so provide, despite any other Act or law (section 22(16)). This override power is significant. The Act also interacts with other laws through the general duty of care. Section 23(2)(c)(vi) directs that in determining the measures required, regard may be had to any assessment of potential harm made before a statutory authorisation was granted under a related operational Act and the extent to which harm was intended to be prevented through conditions. A protection order may be issued to secure compliance with a condition of a statutory authorisation (section 24(1)(b)), effectively giving the Minister a backstop enforcement role for conditions imposed by other agencies. Management agreements can provide for remission of rates or taxes despite any other Act or law (section 18(4)), overriding local government or other taxation provisions. They do not affect obligations under other Acts except where the agreement itself provides for remission (section 18(9)). Regulations made under the Act cannot prevent operations under a Mining Act or activities under certain development approvals if the application was referred to the Minister before approval (section 42(4)). This preserves the primacy of those regimes while ensuring the Minister had oversight at the approval stage. The Act interacts with Commonwealth law through references to the Murray-Darling Basin Agreement and the Commonwealth Water Act 2007. The Minister’s functions include furthering the objects of the Murray-Darling Basin Act 2008 and giving effect to the Basin Plan (section 9(5)(d) and (e)). Section 34 provides that nothing done under the Act affects native title in any land or water, unless the effect is valid under state law or the Commonwealth Native Title Act 1993.

The River Murray Act 2003 (Act No 35 of 2003) was assented to on 31 July 2003. Most of its provisions commenced on 24 November 2003 by Gazette proclamation. The Schedule (transitional provisions) commenced on 31 July 2005 by operation of section 7(5) of the Acts Interpretation Act 1915. The Act has been amended by several subsequent statutes. The Natural Resources Management Act 2004 (Act No 34 of 2004) amended the Act effective 1 July 2005, making changes to section 5(2) (deleting and amending references to related operational Acts) and updating section 18(5) and section 21(2). The River Murray (Miscellaneous) Amendment Act 2005 (Act No 58 of 2005) commenced on 8 December 2005 and made several substantive amendments: it substituted the definition of activity in section 3(1), amended section 14(3) regarding residential premises, amended section 23(1) and (2) concerning the general duty of care, amended section 29(4) regarding interim restraining orders, and inserted section 37A providing for extended limitation periods for summary offences. The Development (Miscellaneous) Amendment Act 2005 (Act No 79 of 2005) deleted section 22(3) effective 12 January 2006. The Statutes Amendment (Domestic Partners) Act 2006 (Act No 43 of 2006) inserted the definition of domestic partner and amended the definition of spouse and section 3(2) effective 1 June 2007. The Murray-Darling Basin Act 2008 (Act No 41 of 2008) made substantial amendments effective 15 December 2008: it substituted the definitions of Murray-Darling Basin and inserted the definition of Murray-Darling Basin Agreement in section 3(1); deleted section 3(4); amended section 5(2) to update references; deleted section 9(3); amended section 9(5) and (6) regarding ministerial powers; and amended section 22(4). The Statutes Amendment (Planning, Development and Infrastructure) Act 2017 (Act No 5 of 2017) amended section 5(2) and section 42(4) to update references to the Planning, Development and Infrastructure Act 2016, effective 19 March 2021. The Landscape South Australia Act 2019 (Act No 33 of 2019) amended section 5(2), section 18(2), and section 21(2) effective 1 July 2020. The Biodiversity Act 2025 (Act No 29 of 2025) will amend the Act by Schedule 5 clause 95, but that amendment is uncommenced as of the text provided. Over time, earlier transitional provisions (clauses 1 to 22 of the Schedule) were deleted under the Legislation Revision and Publication Act 2002 effective 1 July 2005. The long title was also amended under that Act. The legislative history notes that references in the legislation to other legislation or instruments or to titles of bodies or offices may be obsolete because they are not automatically updated. Historical versions of the Act are available for various dates including 1 July 2005, 31 July 2005, 8 December 2005, 12 January 2006, 1 June 2007, 15 December 2008, and 1 July 2020.

The Act does not refer to any specific decided cases in its text. However, the legislation establishes a clear framework for litigation. The Environment, Resources and Development Court (the ERD Court) has criminal jurisdiction for offences under the Act (section 39). Appeals against protection orders, reparation orders, and interim restraining orders lie to the ERD Court under section 33, which must be brought within 14 days unless the Court extends that period. The Court may confirm, vary or revoke the order, and may make consequential orders. An appeal does not automatically stay the order, but the Court may grant a stay on application (section 33(7)). The Court can also refer an appeal to a conference under section 16 of the Environment, Resources and Development Court Act 1993 (section 33(5)). The Act provides for the Court to be involved in the enforcement process. The Minister may also take action on non-compliance with orders without court involvement initially (sections 25, 27, 28), but recovery of costs as a debt may require court proceedings. A charge on land imposed under sections 25(5), 27(5) or 28(8) may need enforcement through the court system. Section 22(17) provides that if a decision of the Minister or a condition specified by the Minister with respect to an application for a statutory authorisation is the subject of an appeal under a related operational Act, the Minister is a party to that appeal. This ensures the Minister can participate in appeals under Acts such as the Planning, Development and Infrastructure Act 2016 or the Environment Protection Act 1993 when the Minister’s referral decision is challenged. The immunity provision in section 35 would likely be tested in litigation concerning alleged negligence or other liability for actions taken under the Act; it provides a broad bar to any liability, including for changing water flows, inundating land, or damaging property. The general duty of care in section 23 is not directly enforceable by civil action; it operates through the order-making provisions. However, a person who suffers loss from another’s breach of the duty would need to rely on the Act’s mechanisms rather than a private right of action. Proceedings for summary offences may be commenced within three years, or within ten years with the Attorney-General’s authorisation (section 37A(1)). An apparently genuine document purporting to be signed by the Attorney-General authorising proceedings must be accepted as proof in the absence of proof to the contrary (section 37A(2)). The Act has been in force since 2003, and while no cases are named in the text, practitioners should be aware that the ERD Court has likely heard appeals under section 33 and prosecutions under the various offence provisions.

Several features of the Act may catch practitioners and regulated persons by surprise. First, the general duty of care in section 23 applies to every person, not just those undertaking commercial or industrial activities. Domestic activities are included. The duty requires a person to take all reasonable measures to prevent or minimise harm. This is a broad, open-textured obligation that goes beyond what a statutory authorisation may require; the factors in section 23(2)(c) include the nature of the harm, the sensitivity of the environment, and the significance of the River Murray. There is no de minimis exception. The duty is not an offence, but non-compliance can expose a person to potentially expensive protection or reparation orders. Second, the penalty for non-compliance with a protection order can be $120,000 (section 24(9)(c)), even though the underlying duty breach is not itself punishable. This creates a high-stakes enforcement lever. Third, the immunity provision in section 35 is extraordinarily broad. It extinguishes any liability (whether based on a statutory or common law duty of care or otherwise) for the Minister, any person engaged in the administration of the Act, or any person acting under the Minister’s authority, for any act or omission done with a view to exercising a power, protecting the River Murray, or furthering the ORMs. The provision specifically lists examples: changing the flow of the River Murray, causing water levels to rise or fall, inundating any place, causing or allowing water to escape or be redirected, taking action that may damage land or property, or adversely affecting the use or enjoyment of land or property. This means a landholder whose property is flooded by a Ministerial action to protect the River Murray would have no right to compensation or damages. Fourth, no compensation is payable for entry onto land under section 19 (section 19(3)), even if the entry causes disturbance. The Minister must minimise disturbance and restore the land, but the landholder has no remedy for economic loss. Fifth, no compensation is payable for requirements imposed under Part 8 orders (section 30(3)). A protection or reparation order can require a person to spend significant sums without any right to compensation. Sixth, director liability under section 38 operates with a reverse onus: a director is guilty of a corporation’s offence unless the director proves the offence did not result from a failure to take reasonable care to prevent it. This shifts the evidential burden entirely. Directors cannot simply rely on delegation or ignorance. Seventh, the Minister’s power to extend time for decisions under related operational Acts (section 22(6)) can disrupt project timelines. The Minister may issue a notice extending the period without any limit specified in the text, and such notice has effect despite the provisions of the related operational Act. Eighth, the Minister may issue a protection order requiring an act or omission that might otherwise constitute a contravention of the Act, and in that case a person incurs no criminal liability for complying with that requirement (section 24(7)). This power to authorise what would otherwise be unlawful is significant and could be used to require positive action that might itself cause environmental harm. Ninth, a protection order or reparation order can require a person to enter into a bond, pay money into an approved account, or comply with a specified code or standard (sections 24(2)(d)(vi) and 26(2)). These requirements may be open-ended. Tenth, management agreements once registered bind all subsequent owners of the land (section 18(7)), regardless of whether the new owner was a party or knew of the agreement. A purchaser of land should therefore conduct due diligence for any registered management agreement that may impose ongoing obligations. Finally, regulations made under the Act may have retrospective effect (section 42(7)), but only so far as they do not prejudicially affect the rights of any person other than the Crown, or impose liabilities for things done before publication. This means the Crown can retrospectively impose burdens on itself, but not on others.

Compliance with the River Murray Act 2003 requires a proactive approach tailored to the nature of a person’s activities. For any person whose activities may affect the River Murray, the starting point is section 23: identify all potential harms to the River Murray arising from the activity, including risks of harm and future harm. The Act requires a person to take all reasonable measures to prevent or minimise that harm. In determining what is reasonable, the person should assess the nature and sensitivity of the environment, the practicality and financial implications of alternative actions, the current state of technical and scientific knowledge, and any degrees of risk involved. It is prudent to document this assessment and to update it as circumstances change. Persons who hold or are applying for a statutory authorisation under a related operational Act (listed in section 5(2)) need to be aware that the Minister has a referral role under section 22. The application may be referred to the Minister for consideration. The applicant should ensure all relevant information about potential impacts on the River Murray is provided upfront to allow the Minister to make an informed assessment. The Minister may require further information and can extend decision periods. The Minister may also impose conditions on the authorisation, including bonds, payments into an approved account, environment improvement programs, or compliance with codes. It is advisable to review any policies published by the Minister under section 22(11) before lodging an application, as those policies may specify matters the Minister will consider, conditions likely to be imposed, or cases where the Minister will oppose the grant. If a protection order, reparation order or interim restraining order is issued, the recipient must comply strictly with its terms within any specified period. The order may require discontinuation of an activity, taking specified action, preparing a plan, entering into a bond, or making payments. Non-compliance attracts significant penalties and cost recovery. However, the recipient has a right to appeal to the ERD Court within 14 days (section 33). The appeal does not automatically stay the order, but the Court may grant a stay on application. It is important to seek legal advice promptly if an order is received. Landholders within the Murray-Darling Basin may consider entering into a management agreement with the Minister under section 18. Such agreements are voluntary and can provide financial incentives, technical assistance, or remission of rates and taxes. The agreement will specify obligations such as carrying out works, restricting activities, or implementing a management plan. Once registered, the agreement binds subsequent owners and occupiers, so current owners should consider the long-term implications. For corporations, compliance requires attention to director liability under section 38. Directors should ensure that the corporation has adequate systems in place to prevent offences against the Act, including systems to identify and assess activities that may cause harm to the River Murray, to comply with conditions of statutory authorisations, and to respond to any orders issued. The reverse onus means a director bears the burden of proving that any offence did not result from a failure to take reasonable care. Directors should document their oversight, including board-level review of environmental compliance. Any person who may be approached by an authorised officer should be aware of their rights and obligations. The officer must produce an identity card and an information sheet (sections 13(4) and 14(10)). The person must answer questions and comply with requirements, but may refuse to answer or produce documents if it would tend to incriminate them (section 16). It is an offence to hinder or obstruct an authorised officer. Public authorities and bodies responsible for statutory instruments within the Murray-Darling Basin must ensure that those instruments are developed taking into account the objects and ORMs, as required by section 8. The Minister may review such instruments and may refer disagreements to the Governor. Authorities should engage early with the Minister to avoid conflict. Regular checking of the Gazette for regulations designating River Murray Protection Areas, amendments to the Implementation Strategy, and policies published by the Minister is advisable. Compliance with regulations made under section 42 is mandatory; they may prohibit or restrict activities in protection areas. Finally, any person undertaking monitoring, testing, or research in relation to the River Murray should be aware of the Minister’s role in supervising programs and collecting data (section 9(1)(g) and (h)). Cooperation with the Minister’s initiatives may assist in avoiding later enforcement action.