Forests (Licences and Permits) Regulations 2019

This ruleset asks one question: “which licences or permits does this application need?” The applicant describes what they intend to do in a State forest, and for each intended activity the rules switch on a matching requirement.

You provide a fact · Rules work out a conclusion.

Seven independent checks each look at what the applicant intends and, if it matches, switch on the matching requirement. They don't interact — an application can trigger any number.

Two triggers are compound — more than one condition must line up:

One final rule ties the checks together. If the application has triggered any licence or permit, stating a purpose becomes Obligated — the applicant must do it.

Mandatory applicant details: title, given name and family name, plus the address's street number, street name, suburb, state and postcode are Required; the unit number is Optional.

Additional activities are handled with a “for each” check: for every extra activity the applicant lists, the permitted act and the person or class it applies to are required, and an additional-activity request is recorded (which in turn obliges a purpose).

Coverage here is genuinely assertive: 19 of the 22 scenarios check an outcome, and the suites are organised one-per-permit. Most flag checks carry both a positive case (trigger present → permit required) and a negative one (trigger absent → not required), which is exactly the shape you want. The two compound triggers are tested on both sides — the restricted-area suite pairs a “known experimental area” (required) with an “unknown experimental area” (not required), and the research suite separates “for experimentation” from “used in research”.

The gaps worth closing: (1) the purpose-obligation rule is untested — no scenario checks that isPurposeSpecified becomes Obligated once any permit fires; (2) the grazing-licence flag is never asserted, which is consistent with no rule ever setting it (see Observations); (3) the “for each” additional-activities path has a single scenario that asserts nothing, so the per-item Written-Authority requirements and isAdditionalActivityRequested go unverified; (4) the applicant name/address requirements are unchecked — both “8 Applications” scenarios assert nothing; and (5) no scenario triggers several permits at once, so the independence of the checks is untested (low risk, but cheap to add). The restricted-area suite also omits the nursery and fenced branches, and the “prohibited, but not a special-area type” combination.