Stock Route Management Act 2002

The Act primarily affects three groups: (1) primary producers and drovers who move or graze livestock; (2) local governments that hold day-to-day management responsibility for the network within their areas; and (3) the chief executive (departmental level) who maintains the State strategy and digital stock route map.

Landowners adjoining the network are directly regulated by fencing notices (s.149), overgrazing reduction notices (s.161) and mustering notices (s.156). They may also enter water facility agreements (s.163). Graziers needing temporary pasture during drought must satisfy strict eligibility criteria before obtaining an agistment permit (s.116(2)(a)). Drovers moving stock on foot require travel permits unless the movement fits the narrow exemption in s.133.

Local governments prescribed under s.104 must prepare, adopt, implement, review and publish stock route network management plans (ss.105, 112, 113, 115). They issue both classes of permit, decide applications against statutory criteria (ss.118, 136), impose and amend conditions (ss.126, 142), cancel permits (ss.128, 144), conduct musters, issue fencing and overgrazing notices, seize stray stock and prosecute offences. They must also maintain travelling stock facilities (s.162) and keep registers of water facility agreements (s.164).

The chief executive certifies and publishes the stock route map (s.97A), prepares and reviews the State strategy (ss.98-103), receives copies of all permits (ss.119, 137), conducts reviews of local decisions on permits (ss.129, 145), and holds residual enforcement powers.

Other affected parties include Aboriginal communities (expressly referenced in s.106(1)(i)), beekeepers, fossickers, mineral explorers and tourism operators whose activities must be considered in plans and strategies. Road managers, conservation agencies and fisheries managers must be consulted when stock routes intersect their tenure (s.107). Authorised persons (including local government officers) exercise entry, seizure and information-gathering powers that may affect any occupier of relevant land.

Key duties fall on local governments and landowners. Local governments must adopt and implement plans consistent with the State strategy and s.97 principles (ss.105(3), 112), maintain facilities (s.162), and consult specified departments before finalising plans (ss.107-108). Landowners must comply with fencing notices (s.150), maintain fences in stock-proof condition (s.151), reduce stock numbers when directed (s.161(4)), and not allow stock to stray onto the network (s.166).

Permit holders must comply with all conditions (s.173(1)-(2)), notify changes in particulars for travel permits (s.140), travel stock at not less than 10 km per day unless the permit states otherwise (s.147(1)), and produce permits on request (s.173(3)). Applicants for permits must pay prescribed fees (ss.116(6), 122(5), 134(4)) and may be required to supply further information (ss.117, 135).

Rights include the ability to apply for agistment or travel permits (ss.116, 134), seek renewal (s.122), request amendment of conditions (ss.127, 143), and apply for internal review by the chief executive of adverse permit decisions (ss.129, 145). Landowners may enter water facility agreements to supply or receive water (s.163) and are entitled to notice before authorised persons enter under certain powers (ss.252, 253, 257). Owners of seized stock may claim them on proof of ownership and payment of costs (s.169) and may inspect seized things before forfeiture or return (s.273).

The public has rights to make submissions on draft local plans (s.109), inspect plans and registers free of charge or on payment of a fee (ss.115, 164), and expect the network to remain available for public use under the s.97 principles.

Penalties are offence-specific. Breaching permit conditions attracts 50 penalty units (s.173(1)-(2)). Failing to produce a travel permit attracts 10 penalty units (s.173(3)). Allowing stock to stray is 100 penalty units for ≤10 head or 400 for more (s.166). Fencing and maintenance obligations carry 400 penalty units (ss.150, 151). Overgrazing non-compliance is also 400 penalty units (s.161(4)). Obstructing authorised persons is 50 penalty units (s.288), as is impersonation (s.289). Failure to give name and address or information is 40 penalty units (ss.279, 281, 283, 264-265). Tampering with seized things is 100 penalty units (s.269). Return of identity cards carries 10 penalty units (s.250).

Enforcement is primarily by authorised persons appointed under s.244. They may enter places with consent, warrant, or in defined circumstances (s.251), stop vehicles (s.260), seize evidence (ss.266-267), issue fencing and mustering notices, seize stray stock (s.167), and destroy stock where public safety requires (s.172). Forfeiture occurs automatically in some cases (s.275) or by court order on conviction (s.276). Proceeds of sale are applied first to costs then to the owner (s.171).

Review rights exist to the chief executive for permit refusals, conditions and cancellations (ss.129, 145). Proceedings are summary, must commence within one year (or two years if the offence recently came to notice) under the Justices Act 1886 (s.294). Evidentiary aids include certificates signed by the chief executive or local government CEO (s.293).

The Act is expressly subject to the Nature Conservation Act 1992 and Forestry Act 1959 (s.6(1)). Consultation with the departments administering those Acts, the Transport Infrastructure Act 1994 and the Fisheries Act 1994 is mandatory when stock routes adjoin protected areas, State-controlled roads or waterways (s.107). Biosecurity considerations dominate permit decisions: agistment and travel permits cannot be granted if invasive biosecurity matter, prohibited matter or restricted matter under the Biosecurity Act 2014 is likely to be introduced or spread (ss.118(2)(e), 136(2)(b)).

Fencing costs become a charge on land “as if it were overdue rates” under the Local Government Act 2009 (s.154). Water facility agreements on freehold or leased land paid for by the State must be notified to the registrar of titles and bind successors (s.165). References to “declared pest” adopt the definition in the Land Act 1994 schedule 6 (s.106(3)).

The stock route map takes effect on publication (s.97A(2)(b)) and overrides earlier regulatory declarations (s.335). Transitional provisions ensure continuity with the repealed Rural Lands Protection Act 1985 (ss.310-328). Authorised-person powers interact with the general principles in the Human Rights Act 2019 (though not expressly referenced in the provided text). Penalty units are those prescribed under the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992.

The most significant recent changes were introduced by the Land and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2023 (No. 2). A new s.97A empowers the chief executive to certify a digital electronic map as the stock route map for the State, publish it on the department’s website, and maintain previous versions with their effective periods. This replaces earlier regulatory declarations (see transitional s.335).

The principles in s.97 were amended to strengthen public awareness of multiple uses, environmental and cultural values, long-term community commitment, consultation and partnership, sustainable management for both stock and other purposes, user-pays, consistent planning across levels of government, and regular monitoring.

State strategy and local plan provisions were substantially redrafted. Notification obligations to prescribed local governments were added (ss.100A, 102(4), 103). Local plans must now be prepared having regard to an expanded list of matters (new s.106) and additional consultation requirements (new ss.107-108). Public notice rules were modernised to include websites and electronic newspapers (s.109). Review and renewal processes were tightened with annual effectiveness reviews (s.113(2)) and mandatory alignment with amended State strategies (s.113(3)-(4)).

Permit provisions were updated to reference the new map and biosecurity language. Application fees may be waived for financial hardship (ss.116(5), 122(3), 134(3)). Travel-rate rules and mustering powers were retained but integrated into the new planning regime.

These changes reflect a policy shift toward digital transparency, recognition of the network’s multiple values beyond pastoralism, improved consistency between State and local planning, and stronger biosecurity and environmental safeguards. The amendments respond to contemporary pressures including climate variability, competing land uses, and the need for contemporary mapping technology.

The provided text contains no reported court challenges or judicial interpretations of the Act. All claims in this deep dive are therefore grounded exclusively in the statutory language. Controversy has historically surrounded the balance between traditional grazing rights and emerging environmental, recreational and cultural uses. The 2023 amendments’ emphasis on “multiple uses” and mandatory consultation with conservation and fisheries agencies may generate disputes over whether a local plan adequately protects travelling-stock access when a protected area or waterway is involved (s.107). The strict eligibility criteria for agistment permits (s.116(2)) and the 3-month “cooling-off” rule in s.118(2)(b)(i) have the potential to create hardship in prolonged drought, yet the Act provides no merits review beyond the internal chief-executive review under s.129. The absence of compensation for destroyed stray stock (s.172(3)) or for land taken up by the network itself has been a long-standing grievance among adjoining landowners. Authorised-person entry powers without warrant in defined circumstances (s.251(1)(d)) and the onus-of-proof provisions in warrant cases (s.256(9)) may attract human-rights scrutiny, although the statute contains procedural safeguards (ss.247, 252, 257).

Most practitioners miss that the stock route map published under s.97A(2)(a) is conclusive as to the network’s extent from the publication date; earlier regulatory declarations cease on the first map publication day (transitional s.335). A local government that fails to adopt a plan within the one-year statutory period after notification under s.100A nevertheless remains under a continuing duty; the 2023 amendments removed any discretion.

The “relevant land” definition interacts with the map in subtle ways. Even if land was historically a stock route, if it is not shown on the current map it may lose “relevant land” status for permit purposes, yet transitional s.336(2) preserves existing permits on such land until they expire. Permit applicants must prove both that pasture and water exceed travelling-stock needs and that the land is not leased or permitted under the Land Act (s.118(2)(c)-(d)). An approval from the State-controlled road manager is an additional mandatory precondition for roads (s.118(3)), and its conditions must be imposed verbatim (s.126(3)).

The minimum 10 km per day travel rate in s.147 is calculated between local-government-authorised inspections at least 24 hours apart; rain, flood or lawful detention periods are excluded, but the onus is on the drover to prove those exclusions. Failure to notify changed particulars under s.140 within a reasonable time after the change triggers a 50-penalty-unit offence even if the permit is later replaced under s.141.

Fencing notices under s.149 create personal liability that survives sale of the land; unpaid costs become a charge on the land under s.154 and rank with rates. Water facility agreements paid for partly by the State bind successors in title (s.165(7)), yet many older agreements pre-dating the 2002 Act were deemed to expire four years after commencement unless terminated earlier (former transitional s.325(4)).

Authorised persons must produce identity cards at the first reasonable opportunity if immediate production is impracticable (s.247(2)), yet entry to ask for consent does not itself trigger the production obligation (s.247(3)). The chief executive’s review under ss.129 and 145 does not stay the original decision, so a cancelled permit is ineffective during review.

Compliance begins with checking the current stock route map on the department’s website (s.97A(2)(a)) and the local government’s adopted plan (s.115). Before any grazing or travel, determine whether the land is “relevant land” and whether an exemption applies (s.133 for short daylight husbandry movements between common-ownership parcels). If a permit is required, lodge the application (written, electronic or oral) with the prescribed fee or hardship waiver request (ss.116, 134). For agistment, ensure the applicant meets one of the three eligibility limbs in s.116(2) and that the land contains surplus pasture and water. For travel, demonstrate sufficient feed and water, no biosecurity risk, adequate travel rate and road-safety compliance (s.136).

Local governments must maintain an up-to-date plan consistent with the State strategy, publish it, and review it annually (ss.113(2), 115). When preparing or amending plans, document consultation with the interested departments under ss.107-108 and consideration of all s.106 factors. Public notice must use at least one of the three specified methods and allow 28 days for submissions (s.109).

Landowners facing a fencing notice should build and maintain the fence within the stated reasonable period or risk 400-penalty-unit fines and recovery action (ss.150-154). Adjoining owners must not allow stock to stray (s.166) and should monitor numbers to avoid overgrazing directions (s.161).

Permit holders must observe every condition (s.173), notify changes for travel permits immediately (s.140), travel at the prescribed rate (s.147), and produce permits on demand. Records of compliance with conditions (enclosure, signage, insurance) should be kept. If a permit is cancelled or conditions imposed, the internal review to the chief executive must be lodged promptly; the decision is not stayed (s.129(5)).

Authorised-person requests for information or documents must be answered unless self-incrimination is genuinely engaged (ss.264-265, 281, 283). Water facility agreements should be reduced to writing containing the mandatory particulars in s.163(2) and, where State-funded on freehold or leasehold land, notified to the registrar of titles (s.165).

Compliance systems for larger operators include annual reconciliation of permits against the published map, training for drovers on travel-rate recording, and protocols for responding to mustering or fencing notices within the stated periods. Local governments should maintain audit trails of plan preparation, consultation and submission consideration to defend any future judicial review. All parties should monitor the department’s website for new State strategies or map updates, as these trigger fresh local planning cycles (ss.100A, 113(3)-(4)).