Woomera Prohibited Area Rule 2014 Determination of Exclusion Periods for Amber Zone 1 and Amber Zone 2 for Financial Year 2022 - 2023

The central concept in this instrument is the “exclusion period” for an amber zone. The Woomera Prohibited Area is divided into zones, with amber zones being areas of lower sensitivity than red zones but still subject to periodic closure for defence testing. Section 6 of the Parent Rule prescribes which zones exist; this determination only deals with Amber Zone 1 and Amber Zone 2. An exclusion period is a defined date range during which entry into that zone is prohibited. The instrument does not specify what activities are prohibited or any exceptions; those are contained in the Parent Rule. Each exclusion period is listed as a one‑week block (Monday to Sunday) in the schedule. For Amber Zone 1, the periods are clustered in three blocks: July‑August 2022 (six consecutive weeks), October‑November 2022 (five weeks), February‑March 2023 (six weeks), and June 2023 (four weeks). For Amber Zone 2, the periods are three consecutive weeks in October‑November 2022. The instrument operates under subsection 8(1) of the Parent Rule, which empowers the Minister (or delegate) to determine exclusion periods for amber zones. The determination is a legislative instrument, meaning it is subject to tabling in Parliament and disallowance. This gives a layer of parliamentary oversight, though in practice such instruments are rarely disallowed. The concept of “financial year” is important: the determination applies only to the year ending 30 June 2023. Each financial year requires a fresh determination. The compilation notes indicate that the instrument was amended, which is a key concept: the schedule is not static. Users must track amendments. The instrument also relies on the delegation of power: the signatory is Taylor Seawright, Acting Director of the Woomera Prohibited Area Coordination Office, acting as a delegate of the Minister for Defence. This is a standard administrative arrangement but means that the determination does not require ministerial signature personally. The concept of “amber zone” itself is not defined in the instrument; one must refer to the Parent Rule for definitions. The schedule is the operative part; everything else is formal recitals and endnotes.

This determination primarily affects any person or entity who has a lawful right or interest in entering or using Amber Zone 1 or Amber Zone 2 of the Woomera Prohibited Area during the 2022‑2023 financial year. That includes pastoral leaseholders, mining and exploration companies, native title holders, tourism operators, researchers, defence contractors, and any other individuals who may have legitimate business or recreational reasons to access those zones. Because the Woomera Prohibited Area covers a large area of South Australia used for defence testing, access is ordinarily restricted. However, amber zones are less restricted than red zones, and may be open at certain times. This determination removes the ability to enter during the listed weeks. For pastoral leaseholders, exclusion periods can directly impact livestock management, mustering, infrastructure maintenance, and access to water points. For mining companies with tenements in the zone, exclusion weeks can halt exploration or production activities, affecting operational schedules and costs. Native title holders may be unable to exercise traditional rights during those periods. The instrument also affects the Defence Department itself, although it is the party imposing the exclusion. The determination imposes compliance obligations: anyone who enters the zone during an exclusion period without an exemption from the Parent Rule could face penalties under the Defence Act 1903 or the Parent Rule. The instrument indirectly affects contractors and supply chains that depend on access. Because the determination was amended twice during the year, those affected had to monitor changes to the schedule. The first amendment, registered on 31 January 2023, came in the middle of the financial year, altering periods that may have already been relied upon. The second amendment, registered on 25 May 2023, changed periods only a few weeks before the end of June. This particularly affects people planning activities in June 2023. The determination does not provide any mechanism for exemptions or extensions; those are matters under the Parent Rule. Therefore, anyone affected must consult not only this instrument but also the Parent Rule to understand whether they can apply for a permit or licence to enter during an exclusion period. The instrument does not affect red zones or overlapping areas; only the two named amber zones. However, because the Woomera Prohibited Area is contiguous, access through amber zones may be necessary to reach other parts. The determination therefore imposes a spatial and temporal limitation on movement.

The determination itself does not create duties or rights; rather, it triggers duties and rights that exist under the Parent Rule and the Defence Act. The primary duty imposed by the existence of this determination is the duty not to enter Amber Zone 1 or Amber Zone 2 during the specified weeks without lawful authority. That duty arises from the prohibition in section 8(2) of the Parent Rule (which is not reproduced here but is referenced by subsection 8(1)). Any person who enters a zone during an exclusion period without an exemption commits an offence. The determination therefore activates that prohibition for those dates. The converse right is the right to be outside the zone during those times. There is no right to compensation for lost access; the determination is an exercise of government power for defence purposes. Pastoralists and other stakeholders may have the right to apply for a licence or permit under the Parent Rule to enter despite the exclusion, but the determination itself does not grant or deny such permission. There is also a duty on the Defence Department to publish the determination in the Federal Register of Legislation, which it has done. The amendments also impose a duty on the Department to ensure that the compiled version is accurate. For the public, there is a duty to check the current version rather than relying on the original. The instrument includes a note that uncommenced amendments are not shown; this places a duty of diligence on the user to verify if later amendments have been made. There is no right to be notified personally of amendments; the only notification is via the register. The instrument also implies a duty on the delegate to act within the scope of subsection 8(1). The determination is valid only if the delegate has the authority and the instrument is properly made and registered. If the instrument were defective, a person charged with unlawful entry could challenge the validity. However, the instrument gives no explicit rights of review or appeal. Those would need to be sought under administrative law. The overall structure is one of unilateral government power to close areas with minimal procedural burden. The only check is parliamentary disallowance, which is rarely used.

This determination does not prescribe penalties. The penalties for entering a prohibited area during an exclusion period are found in the Defence Act 1903 and in the Parent Rule. Typically, entry into a prohibited area without permission is an offence carrying criminal penalties, potentially including fines or imprisonment. The exact penalty amounts are not in this instrument. Enforcement is carried out by Defence Security personnel, the Australian Federal Police, or other authorised officers. They may issue infringement notices, lay charges, or use reasonable force to remove trespassers. The determination itself is the trigger for enforcement: it defines the dates when the zone is closed. Without a valid determination, the zone may be considered open, and entry would not be an offence. Therefore, the accuracy of this instrument is critical for prosecution. The determination’s amendments could also affect enforcement: if the original schedule said a certain week was excluded, but an amendment later removed that week, someone who entered during that week before the amendment might have a defence. However, amendments typically only apply prospectively; the amendment history shows dates of registration and commencement. For example, Amendment No.2 commenced on 26 May 2023 and altered the June 2023 periods. Any entry before that date would be judged under the previous version. This complexity imposes a burden on enforcement agencies to prove which version was in force on the date of the alleged offence. The instrument does not create any civil penalties or administrative fines specific to this determination. There are no demerit points, licence suspensions, or other sanctions provided for. The principal enforcement mechanism is the criminal law. The determination also does not provide for enforcement costs or cost recovery. The government bears the cost of patrolling and monitoring. The possibility of a successful prosecution depends on clear signposting and accurate mapping. Given the large size of the Woomera Prohibited Area, enforcement is likely to be sporadic and dependent on intelligence or reports. The existence of this determination means that anyone found in the amber zone during those weeks will need to prove they had an exemption or that the determination was invalid. The burden of proof in criminal proceedings is on the prosecution to prove the elements of the offence, including that the area was excluded at that time. This is a straightforward element if the determination is properly registered.

This determination sits under the Woomera Prohibited Area Rule 2014, which itself is made under the Defence Act 1903. The Parent Rule prescribes the zones and sets out the general prohibition on entry. The determination is a subordinate instrument that gives effect to that prohibition for specific timeframes. It interacts with other Commonwealth legislation, such as the Native Title Act 1993, to the extent that native title holders may have rights to access or use the land. However, the Parent Rule may provide that the prohibition prevails over native title rights in the interests of defence. This determination does not mention native title, but its effect could prevent the exercise of native title rights during the exclusion periods. Similarly, pastoral leases granted under South Australian law are subject to Commonwealth defence land controls. The determination would override any state‑granted right of access during the exclusion periods. The instrument also interacts with environmental legislation, such as the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, if defence activities during exclusion periods have environmental impacts. However, the determination itself does not authorise any defence activity; it merely closes the zone. The interaction is more about the Parent Rule, which may provide for environmental safeguards. The determination may also intersect with the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 for anyone who works in the zone. Employers must ensure that workers do not enter during exclusion periods without authorisation, or they may face WHS penalties. The determination also interacts with the legislation governing legislative instruments: the Legislation Act 2003. That Act governs registration, tabling, disallowance, and compilation. The determination is subject to section 42 (disallowance) and must be registered to have legal effect. The endnotes in the compilation reference section 15V of the Legislation Act 2003 regarding editorial changes for misdescribed amendments. The instrument’s validity depends on compliance with that Act. There is no mention of state legislation, but the Woomera Prohibited Area is located in South Australia, and state laws (such as trespass or land management) may also apply concurrently. However, the Defence Act and the Parent Rule would likely prevail to the extent of any inconsistency under section 109 of the Constitution. The determination does not interact with any international law explicitly. However, if access restrictions affect the rights of indigenous peoples, there may be implications under the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, though that is not binding domestic law. Overall, the determination operates as a precise temporal lock on a geographic area, and its interaction with other laws is mainly through the Parent Rule.

The determination has been amended twice. The original instrument was registered on 16 March 2022 (F2022L00323) and commenced on 17 March 2022. It contained a schedule of exclusion periods for the financial year 2022‑2023. Amendment No.1 (F2023L00068) was registered on 31 January 2023 and commenced on 1 February 2023. The amendment history note shows that the schedule was amended by both F2023L00068 and F2023L00595, but the specific changes are not detailed in this compilation. However, we can infer that Amendment No.1 likely added or adjusted the periods in February‑March 2023 (and possibly added the June 2023 periods). Amendment No.2 (F2023L00595) was registered on 25 May 2023 and commenced on 26 May 2023. This amendment came very late in the financial year, less than six weeks before the end of June. It probably altered the June 2023 exclusion periods or added the last two periods (24‑30 June). The compilation date is 26 May 2023, which is the date the second amendment took effect. The endnotes indicate that the amendment history shows “Schedule” affected by both amendments. There is no application, saving, or transitional provision recorded for either amendment. That means the amendments were intended to apply from their commencement dates without any grandfathering or transitional arrangements. For anyone who relied on the original schedule for planning, the amendments created uncertainty. For example, if a pastoralist had planned a mustering operation for late June 2023 based on the original schedule (which may not have listed those weeks as excluded), the amendment would have imposed new exclusion periods with only a day’s notice (the amendment was registered on 25 May and commenced 26 May; but note that the first June period begins 3 June, so there was about one week’s notice for that period). The amendment history also shows that no other provisions were amended; only the schedule. This is consistent with the limited scope of the instrument. The amendments were made by the same delegate or a successor. The determination does not explain why the amendments were needed, but the late amendment suggests that defence testing schedules changed or that additional testing was required. This kind of volatility imposes planning costs on all users. The amendment history also demonstrates that the instrument is not a one‑off publication; users must monitor the register throughout the year to stay compliant. The compilation includes the amendments, which is helpful for historical reference but not sufficient for real‑time compliance; one must check for any further amendments after the compilation date.

The source does not mention any litigation history relating to this specific determination. There is no reference to court cases, appeals, or legal challenges. That is not surprising; determinations of exclusion periods for defence areas are rarely litigated directly. However, the absence of litigation does not mean there have been no disputes. Challenges, if any, would likely arise in the context of a prosecution for unlawful entry, where the defendant might argue that the determination was invalid (e.g., not properly made, not registered, ultra vires the Parent Rule). Alternatively, a person affected might seek judicial review of the determination under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977, arguing that the delegate considered irrelevant matters or failed to consider relevant ones. But no such cases are recorded in the instrument. The absence of litigation could suggest that the determinations are accepted without challenge, or that any disputes are resolved administratively. It could also reflect the high cost of litigating against the Commonwealth. The instrument itself is not a fertile ground for litigation because its terms are clear and its authority is transparent. However, if a later determination were found to be procedurally defective (e.g., not signed by a proper delegate, or not tabled in Parliament within the required timeframe), it could be invalidated. In that event, any prosecution relying on that determination could fail. There is also a possibility of civil litigation if the exclusion periods cause financial harm to a business, but the Defence Act likely excludes liability for consequential loss from defence activities. The instrument does not create a private right of action. Therefore, the litigation history is effectively nil for this instrument. For the purposes of this deep dive, we can note that there is no known litigation, but that does not preclude future challenges. The determination is a classic example of a legislative instrument that operates in the background, rarely tested in court but carrying real consequences.

Several aspects of this instrument can trap the unwary. First, the determination is only for one financial year, but the compilation date is 26 May 2023, which is before the end of that financial year. Anyone using the compilation after that date must check if further amendments (beyond No.2) have been made before 30 June 2023. The compiled version is a snapshot; it may not be the current law. The endnotes warn about uncommenced amendments. There could be a third amendment that commenced after the compilation date but is not shown. Second, the instrument was amended twice, meaning that relying on the original version registered in March 2022 would have led to non‑compliance. For instance, the original schedule may not have included the June 2023 periods. A person who read the original instrument early in the financial year and assumed the schedule was fixed could have inadvertently entered the zone in June 2023 without realising it had become an exclusion period via amendment. Third, the signatory is an Acting Director as delegate. If the delegation were later challenged on the basis that the Acting Director did not have valid authority at the time, the determination could be invalid. This is a rare event but a risk. Fourth, the instrument uses week‑long blocks running Monday to Sunday. A person who enters on a Monday that is the start of an exclusion period may assume the exclusion begins at midnight, but the determination does not specify a start time. In the absence of a specification, the exclusion likely takes effect from the beginning of the first day (midnight) or from registration. This ambiguity could be problematic for prosecutions. Fifth, the instrument does not differentiate between times of day. The exclusion applies for the entire seven‑day period. Sixth, the instrument does not provide any grace period after an amendment. Amendment No.2 commenced on 26 May 2023, only eight days before the first June exclusion period. If someone had planned activities before that amendment, they would have had very little time to adjust. Seventh, the instrument only applies to Amber Zones 1 and 2. There may be other amber zones not covered, and a person might mistakenly think all amber zones are excluded. The schedule is narrow. Eighth, the instrument does not list any red zone exclusion periods; those are dealt with separately. Ninth, the parent Rule may define “exclusion period” differently; one must cross‑reference. Tenth, the instrument does not contain a map. A person must know the boundaries of the zones, which are defined in the Parent Rule or elsewhere. Relying on this determination alone is insufficient for compliance.

To comply with this instrument, any person who wishes to enter Amber Zone 1 or Amber Zone 2 of the Woomera Prohibited Area during the 2022‑2023 financial year must first determine whether the date of intended entry falls within any of the exclusion periods listed in the schedule. This requires obtaining the current, up‑to‑date version of the determination from the Federal Register of Legislation. Because the instrument was amended twice, it is essential to use the compilation that includes the amendments, and to check for any further amendments after the compilation date. The user should note the commencement date of each amendment and confirm which period applies. Next, the user should consult the Parent Rule (the Woomera Prohibited Area Rule 2014) to understand whether an exemption, permit, or licence is available that would allow entry despite the exclusion. The Parent Rule may contain provisions for pastoral access or emergency access. If no exemption applies, the person must refrain from entering the zone during the specified weeks. For businesses that rely on regular access (e.g., mining or pastoral operations), the compliance strategy involves adjusting work schedules to avoid the exclusion weeks. Given that the exclusion periods for Amber Zone 1 total 20 weeks out of 52, this is a substantial limitation. Operations may need to plan around these blocks. The instrument also requires ongoing monitoring. The Department of Defence does not provide individual notifications of amendments; the onus is on the user to check the register. A practical compliance step is to set up alerts on the Federal Register of Legislation for the Woomera Prohibited Area Rule 2014 series. Additionally, the user should verify that the boundaries of Amber Zone 1 and Amber Zone 2 are correctly mapped. Incorrect mapping could lead to unintentional trespass. If a user is uncertain, they should contact the Woomera Prohibited Area Coordination Office for confirmation. Records of checking should be kept. For employers, there is a duty under work health and safety laws to ensure that employees do not enter prohibited areas during exclusion periods. This may require training and clear communication. Compliance also involves respecting the exclusion periods even if no physical barrier is present; the area may be monitored by surveillance or patrols. Finally, anyone who enters during an exclusion period without an exemption should be prepared to face legal consequences, including prosecution. A defence may exist if the determination was not properly registered or was invalid, but this is risky to rely upon. In summary, compliance is a matter of careful date checking, obtaining the correct version of the instrument, understanding the Parent Rule’s exemption provisions, and planning operations around the exclusion periods.