Woomera Prohibited Area Rule 2014 Determination of Exclusion Periods for Amber Zone 1 and Amber Zone 2 for Financial Year 2019 - 2020

The Woomera Prohibited Area Rule 2014 (the Rule) establishes a regulatory framework managing access to the WPA, a large defence testing range in South Australia. The Rule divides the WPA into zones of differing access regimes: Red Zone (highest restriction), Amber Zone 1, Amber Zone 2 (moderate restriction with exclusion periods), and Green Zone (lowest restriction). The instrument at issue only concerns the two Amber Zones. Section 6 of the Rule prescribes the boundaries of these zones, but the instrument does not reproduce those boundaries; it assumes they are known and fixed. The core concept introduced by this determination is the "exclusion period": a defined interval during which entry into the identified amber zone is prohibited for all purposes except those specifically permitted by the Rule (for example, emergency access or access by Defence personnel). The determination does not itself define "exclusion period"; that term is used in the Rule. The instrument's only function is to fix the dates. There is also a concept of "financial year" - the determination is made for the 2019-2020 financial year, implying it is a periodic instrument that lapses at the end of that year. The compilation notes include references to "self-repealing provisions"; this is a standard feature of legislative instruments but confirms that the determination has no continuing operation beyond its specified period. The amendment history shows the Schedule was amended by F2019L01495. That amendment, registered on 22 November 2019 and coming into force on 23 November 2019, almost certainly added or removed some exclusion periods mid-year. The compilation date is 23 November 2019, meaning the text shown is the version in force from that date. The original determination registered on 20 March 2019 included a set of exclusion periods, and the November amendment changed them. This means users could not rely on the March version for the entire year: the determination was unilaterally varied after the financial year had already commenced. The concept of "exclusion period" is therefore not static; it can be modified during the year. The instrument also deals with two distinct zones separately. Amber Zone 1 has more exclusion periods (20 weeks) and a wider spread across the year, including several weeks in July, September-October, November-December, and March-April. Amber Zone 2 has fewer periods (8 weeks) and they are concentrated in September and March. The determination does not explain the rationale for the discrepancy, but it suggests that Amber Zone 2 is either smaller or used less intensively.

The direct subjects of this determination are any persons or entities that hold a right or a permit to enter or remain within Amber Zone 1 or Amber Zone 2 of the WPA. Under the Rule, access to the Amber Zones is generally allowed outside exclusion periods, subject to conditions and permits. This determination therefore primarily affects three categories of private users. First, mineral explorers and mining operators. The WPA overlies the Gawler Craton, a prospective region for copper, gold, uranium and iron ore. Companies such as OZ Minerals, BHP and various junior explorers hold tenements within the amber zones. Each exclusion period forces a complete halt to field work - drilling, geophysical surveys, sample collection, camp operations - for seven days. With 20 weeks of exclusion for Amber Zone 1, that amounts to 20 weeks of forced inactivity over a 52-week year, or roughly 38% of the year. The opportunity cost includes not only lost production but also the cost of mobilising and demobilising personnel and equipment around these dates. Second, pastoralists. Several pastoral leases exist within the WPA boundaries. While the Rule may allow some pastoral activities outside exclusion periods, the determination can still interfere with mustering, fence repairs, or seasonal operations if they fall on an exclusion week. Third, indigenous groups with native title rights or interests. The WPA is entirely within the traditional lands of the Kokatha, Antakirinja and other groups. The determination may limit the exercise of native title rights - for example, hunting, gathering, ceremonial activities - during exclusion weeks, unless an exemption applies under the Rule or the Native Title Act 1993. Fourth, other commercial users such as tourism operators, film crews, or researchers who have obtained permits. For them, the exclusion periods represent a fixed schedule of closures they must work around. The instrument also affects Defence users, but as the beneficiaries of the exclusion: they have unrestricted access during these periods. The determination does not affect the general public, because entry into any zone of the WPA already requires a permit. But it does affect the permit holders' expectations: they planned and invested based on a known schedule of closures, but that schedule was altered mid-year by the November amendment. The broadest economic effect is on the State of South Australia: the WPA covers approximately 122,000 square kilometres, and exclusion periods reduce the productive use of that land for non-defence purposes. The cumulative effect of multiple weekly closures across the year can discourage investment in long-term projects, as operators face regulatory uncertainty about future determinations.

The instrument itself imposes only one duty: not to enter or remain in the specified amber zones during the listed exclusion periods. This duty arises from the interaction of the Rule and the determination. Section 8(1) of the Rule empowers the Minister or delegate to determine exclusion periods, and the Rule then provides that entry without a defence authorisation during such a period is prohibited. The duty is absolute: there is no exception for permit holders unless the permit expressly authorises entry during exclusion periods, which standard ambre zone permits do not. A right that the instrument does not affect is the right to apply for a permit to access the zones outside exclusion periods. Users retain the ability to plan operations around the published calendar. However, the instrument creates an informational right: users have a right to know the exclusion periods for their zone. That right is satisfied by publication on the Federal Register of Legislation. The instrument implicitly recognises a right of the delegate to amend the determination mid-year, because the amendment that occurred in November 2019 is reflected in the compilation. Users have no contractual right to stable exclusion periods; the determination can be changed without consultation or compensation. There is also a right of the delegate to delegate the power to make determinations to the Director of the Woomera Prohibited Area Coordination Office, as was done here. The instrument does not create any positive rights for users - it only removes a right to access. The only duty on Defence is to ensure the determination is properly made and registered; there is no duty to minimise the impact on commercial users, to consider economic effects, or to provide advance notice of amendments. The compiled law includes standard endnotes about "editorial changes" and "misdescribed amendments", but these are procedural rights of the Office of Parliamentary Counsel, not rights of users. In practice, the duty to comply is strict. A user who enters an amber zone during an exclusion period - even by mistake, or because they were unaware of the mid-year amendment - faces potential liability under the Defence Act 1903 or the Rule.

The determination itself does not prescribe penalties; penalties are set out in the Woomera Prohibited Area Rule 2014 and the Defence Act 1903. Under the Defence Act, unauthorised entry into a prohibited area is an offence, and the WPA is declared a prohibited area under that Act. The Rule may also create civil penalty provisions. Without the full text of the Rule, we can infer that the maximum penalty is likely a fine, possibly up to 500 penalty units (currently about $111,000 for an individual) or imprisonment, though the source does not specify. The instrument does not list enforcement agencies, but the Australian Federal Police, Defence Police, and possibly state police can enforce. Enforcement is not discretionary in principle: a breach is a breach. In practice, enforcement is sporadic because the WPA is vast and remote, but the risk of detection is real: Defence conducts surveillance, has ground patrols, and may engage in active monitoring of user movements through permit tracking systems. The instrument also does not provide any process for exemptions. If a user needs to enter during an exclusion period for an emergency - for example, a medical evacuation from a remote camp - the Rule may contain a carve-out, but the determination does not. Any breach would be determined by a court or by administrative action (revocation of permits, bans on future access). The amendment history shows one amendment to the Schedule; if the amendment was made in response to a discovered error or changed defence requirements, that suggests the original determination may have contained mistakes. Users who relied on the original version before the amendment could have been in breach after the amendment took effect, if they did not check the updated legislation. That is a practical enforcement risk: the determination is self-executing, and ignorance of an amendment is not a defence. The endnotes also mention "self-repealing provisions", which means the determination ceases to have effect at the end of the financial year; penalties cannot be imposed after that for conduct during the period, but prosecutions can still be brought after the determination has expired. The instrument itself creates no civil liability between private parties, but a breach could affect a mining company's compliance with its own contractual obligations to third parties (e.g., joint venture agreements requiring continuous operations).

The primary interaction is with the Defence Act 1903, which establishes the power to declare prohibited areas and to make rules for their management. The Woomera Prohibited Area Rule 2014 is made under that Act. This determination is made under that Rule. The chain is: Defence Act s. 122 (general regulation-making power) -> Rule -> Determination. The determination also interacts with the Native Title Act 1993. The WPA is located on land subject to native title determinations. The exclusion periods may be inconsistent with the exercise of native title rights, and the determination does not contain any provision addressing native title. This could be an issue of validity: the Commonwealth might need to comply with the future act regime under the Native Title Act if the determination extinguishes or impairs native title rights. The instrument does not state whether it has been assessed under that Act. Next, the determination interacts with the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act). If exclusion periods interfere with access for environmental monitoring or research, that could affect obligations under that Act. The determination also interacts with state laws of South Australia. The WPA is Commonwealth land, but state laws continue to apply except where inconsistent. For example, a mining company holding a state mining lease still needs to comply with state safety and environmental laws, but the federal exclusion period overrides the state right to access. This creates a hierarchy: Defence needs take precedence over state granted rights. The determination also interacts with occupational health and safety laws: a company that cannot access its site for weeks at a time may have obligations to monitor infrastructure, but is prevented from doing so during exclusion periods. That tension could create liability if equipment fails or an environmental incident occurs when the site is unattended. There is also an interaction with the freedom of information regime: the determination is a legislative instrument and must be registered, but the underlying reasons for each exclusion period are not published. Users cannot FOI request the specific testing schedule to plan around it. Finally, the instrument interacts with any private contracts that refer to "exclusion periods" - for example, a mining joint venture agreement may define force majeure events to include exclusions. The determination effectively imposes a scheduled force majeure event. The November amendment changed that schedule partway through the year, potentially triggering contractual disputes.

The amendment history is minimal. The determination was originally made and registered on 20 March 2019 (F2019L00323), and it came into force the next day, 21 March 2019. That original instrument prescribed exclusion periods for the entire 2019-2020 financial year. Then, on 22 November 2019, a second instrument was registered: the Woomera Prohibited Area Rule 2014 Determination of Exclusion Periods for Amber Zone 1 and Amber Zone 2 for Financial Year 2019-2020 Amendment No.1 (F2019L01495). It came into force on 23 November 2019. The amendment affected only the Schedule. The amendment history line in endnote 4 says "Schedule................. | am F2019L01495". Without the pre-amendment text, we do not know exactly what changed. The most likely scenario is that the original determination had fewer or different exclusion periods, and the amendment either added extra weeks, removed some, or adjusted dates. The timing is significant: 23 November 2019 is almost four months into the financial year (which runs 1 July to 30 June). Any change would have immediate effect on operations already underway. Users who had planned their activities around the original schedule would have to reschedule, potentially at cost. The amendment may have been prompted by a change in defence requirements - for example, a new weapons test or exercise was scheduled late in the year. There is no indication that the amendment was consulted on or that affected parties were given notice before registration. The compilation date is 23 November 2019, meaning the text shown in this compilation is the post-amendment version. The instrument does not contain any saving or transitional provisions, so the amendment applies to the entire financial year from 23 November 2019 onwards, but does not retrospectively change conduct before that date. However, if the amendment added exclusion periods after November, those would be effective immediately. The determination as amended includes exclusion periods as late as 4 May 2020, so the amendment could have inserted some of those later periods. There is no second amendment; the determination ceased to have effect after 30 June 2020.

The compilation does not reference any litigation. There is no case law cited in the instrument or in the endnotes. This is not surprising for a narrow, time-limited administrative instrument. However, the absence of reported cases does not mean no legal challenges occurred. Unreported matters in the Federal Court or AAT may have been settled or not published. Potential grounds for judicial review include: the determination was made by a delegate whose delegation was invalid; the determination was not consistent with the Rule (e.g., the Rule requires consultation, or imposes criteria that were not met); the determination breaches the Native Title Act because it was an invalid future act; or the amendment was made without proper authority under the Rule. The determination could also be challenged on the basis of unreasonable exercise of power if the number or length of exclusion periods was arbitrary or disproportionate. However, because the determination is made for defence purposes, courts are likely to accord considerable deference to the executive's assessment of operational needs. The most likely litigation scenario would be a mining company seeking an injunction to prevent Defence from applying an exclusion period that would cause significant economic loss. Such an application would need to establish that the determination was invalid or that the specific exclusion week was not properly authorised. No known case has reached judgment. The instrument also cannot be challenged under the contract law or tort law directly. There is a possibility of a native title claim if the exclusion periods are found to affect the enjoyment of native title rights in a way that was not compensated. That would be a claim against the Commonwealth, not against the instrument itself. As a practical matter, the litigation risk is low but not zero. The endnotes about "misdescribed amendments" and "editorial changes" suggest that the compilation process itself can generate disputes about the accuracy of the text, but such disputes are internal to the legislative process and do not usually lead to court proceedings.

Several features of this instrument can catch users off guard. First, the mid-year amendment is a trap. A user who printed the Schedule from the Federal Register in March 2019 and relied on it for the rest of the year would be operating under a superseded version after 23 November 2019. Anyone who entered during a new exclusion period added by the amendment would commit an offence, even if they had checked the Register earlier. The compilation notes make it clear that the law as amended is the law in force; the pre-amendment text is not reproduced. Users must monitor the Register for amendments throughout the year. Second, the exclusion periods are weekly blocks, but they are not necessarily contiguous. For Amber Zone 1, there are gaps between blocks (e.g., mid-July to early September 2019 is free). That creates a trap: a user might assume that if one week is free, the next week is also free. They need to check every single week. Third, the instrument does not provide a map. Zones are defined by boundaries that are described in the Rule (section 6), but the determination does not repeat those boundaries. A user who is unsure whether their operation lies in Amber Zone 1 or Amber Zone 2 could be in the wrong zone at the wrong time. Fourth, the determination applies only to amber zones; but there are also red zones and green zones. A user might mistakenly believe they are in a green zone when they are actually in an amber zone, because the boundary descriptions are complex. Fifth, the instrument does not include any exception for contractors working under Defence direction. If a contractor is hired by Defence to perform maintenance during an exclusion period, the instrument does not exempt them; they would need a specific permit or direction. The general duty not to enter applies to everyone except "Defence personnel" as defined. Sixth, the instrument has no provision for unforeseen events. If a mineral explorer has a medical emergency or must evacuate personnel due to weather, entry during an exclusion period could still be a breach. The Rule may contain a general emergency provision, but the determination does not. Seventh, the exclusion periods are expressed in local time? The instrument does not specify a time zone. The Woomera Prohibited Area is in the Australian Central Time Zone (ACST). Uncertainty about the exact start and end of each period (e.g., 00:00 to 24:00?) could cause accidental trespass if the switchover hour is ambiguous. Eighth, the instrument does not state whether entry is prohibited for any purpose including transit. Can a pastoralist drive through an amber zone on a public road to access their property on the other side? The determination likely prohibits any entry, but the underlying Rule may have a public road exception; the determination does not mention it. Users cannot rely on the determination alone. They must read the Rule in full. Ninth, the amendment was registered on a Friday (22 November 2019) and came into force the next day (Saturday, 23 November 2019). There was no grace period. Anyone planning to enter on that Saturday would have been caught if the amendment added an exclusion period starting that day. This lack of lead time is a significant fairness issue, but legally valid. Tenth, the instrument is only for one financial year. A user may assume that the same pattern will repeat in subsequent years, but each year's determination is made separately. Relying on historical patterns is risky.

Compliance begins with identifying whether your site, tenement, or operation falls within Amber Zone 1 or Amber Zone 2. That requires consulting the Woomera Prohibited Area Rule 2014 (section 6) for the defined boundaries, which are described by coordinates or cadastral references. The determination itself does not provide this information. Once you confirm your zone, you must maintain a current copy of the Schedule as amended. Because the determination can be amended during the year, you need to monitor the Federal Register of Legislation for any new determination or amendment. An automated alert (e.g., through the Register's subscription function) is advisable. Mark all exclusion periods on a calendar, ensuring you use the correct zone. For Amber Zone 1, there are 20 separate weeks; for Amber Zone 2, 8 weeks. The periods are typically Monday to Sunday, but verify for the first period which starts on a Monday. Ensure your operational planning avoids any presence in the zone during those weeks. This includes physical entry by personnel, vehicles, machinery, drones, or aircraft. If you hold a permit for activities such as exploration drilling, ensure the permit does not purport to authorise entry during exclusion periods - typically it will not. If you have a legal right to access outside exclusion periods, plan your field seasons to avoid the scheduled closures. Given that Amber Zone 1 is closed for 20 weeks (nearly 5 months of the year), this may require compressing operations into the remaining 32 weeks, which can increase cost and reduce flexibility. Maintain communication with the Woomera Prohibited Area Coordination Office (WPACO) to confirm any changes or to seek clarification. While the determination does not provide for individual waivers, the Rule might permit the delegate to issue a direction allowing access in an emergency. However, that is not within the determination itself. If you are affected by a mid-year amendment, reassess your schedule immediately. For example, if an exclusion period is added after you have already mobilised, you may need to abort operations at short notice. Consider contractual protection: include force majeure clauses in service and supply contracts that reference exclusion periods, and specify who bears the risk of a mid-year change. Keep records of your compliance: logs of when your team was in the field, copies of permits, and evidence that you checked the Register before each entry. In the event of a dispute, you need to show that you did not intentionally breach. If you have a native title claim or agreement, ensure that the determination does not conflict with your rights; if it does, seek legal advice about whether a future act determination is required. Finally, do not assume that the pattern of exclusion periods will be similar next year. Each financial year's determination is made separately. For compliance purposes, treat each year as a blank slate. Most importantly, read the Rule itself; the determination is only one piece of the legal puzzle.