mbasko , your a legend with your archives on the legislation, I missed that section because of where it was buried and as I have mentioned before , the regulations give the acts the teeth, so , we can have a small capacity pump pumping water from a watercourse , as permitted by that section of that regulation, the focus again is on that apparatus called a highbanker, if its not physically connected to the pump, then it still remains as how one interperets the context of the legislation , the wording and the intent of the wording will be a test of the application of the legislation in the courts , once a court rules on an issue , that issue then becomes case law, we know that the fossicking activity is a lawful , pumping water under a certain volume is permitted, however, a fossicking permit for fossicking in an approved area of a state forest is likely to have specific conditions endorsed on that permit that clearly indicates small scale hand operation in state forests, back to crown lands,, the verdict is still out, on private land it should be ok as long as you don't exceed a scale that would warrant development consent being required under the provisions of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, where the use of land is one of the criteria which is examined. I am not a legal practitioner but one of my roles in local government did involve regulatory enforcement and I had the authority to issue penalty infringement notices (PIN) when the prima facea evidence required could be established.
In my opinion, if you are challenged on your activity, you are legally required to supply your details, however, if you have have a good understanding and sound knowledge of the legislation, you could debate the issue on site to minimise the possibility of being issued with a PIN, if a PIN is issued , then it is pay the fine or challenge the issue in the court, no other option left, in your onsite interview, be polite and ask to see the officers identification, he or she should have identified themselves and presented such identification upon commencement of their interview with you, never admit to an alleged offence as this is the first thing they try to obtain as prima facae evidence , your acknowledgement. Get a pen and paper to write down what questions have been asked and answered by all parties but give the caution before you start, the caution is , I intend to take notes of our conversation and may use it as evidence in any court proceedings. remember don't be smart, be polite. I can tell you from experience, this puts a lot of pressure on you because you have to be factual and precise with obtaining the evidence for a successful prosecution , cross examination is nerve racking , a good defence lawer will try to trip you up , the taking of contemperaniuos field notes can be used to refresh your mind in the court, and adds weight to your defence, as its hard to question your recollection of the interview, the options for the officer is to issue a PIN , or take your details so he/she can discuss with their supervisor or even better issue you with a warning on their opinion and not proceed with legal proceedings
I feel like a rat writing this but I believe in natural justice not kangaroo court actions, what you do is your decision , just be prepared,
Now for another thought, this morning on the news I heard that politicians with dual citizenships was raised in the early 1990's , it was held then that the elected pollies were not valid pollies in parliament, does that mean that perhaps all legislation made and passed since 1990 by the parliament could be held as invalid , they did not do anything about the issue then, but today the issue has risen and is gathering momentum as to the legal standing of pollies with dual citizenships ,the question has there been a breach of constitutional law