Woomera Prohibited Area Rule 2014 Determination of Exclusion Periods for the Green Zone for 16 October 2022 to 5 November 2022

The Woomera Prohibited Area is a large defence‑testing range in South Australia, established under the Woomera Prohibited Area Act 1953 and regulated in detail by the Woomera Prohibited Area Rule 2014. The Rule divides the area into zones prescribed by section 6, one of which is the Green Zone. The concept of the Green Zone is not defined in this instrument, but it is referenced as the zone from which a part is being subjected to exclusion periods. The instrument does not create, vary or describe the zoning system; it only identifies which sub‑area of the Green Zone is affected. The primary main concept is an “exclusion period”: duration during which the Minister (or delegate) prohibits access to a defined portion of the Prohibited Area. Subsection 8(1) of the Rule confers the power to determine such periods, and subsection 8(4) likely relates to variation or revocation of a determination (the source does not elaborate, but the instrument plainly exercises both heads of power). Another core concept is the “bounded area” defined by a list of 64 geodetic points in decimal degrees, with the final point returning to the start to close the polygon. The coordinates use the GDA94 datum (inferred from Australian practice; the instrument does not specify). The map in Part 2 provides a visual reference but is expressly said to illustrate the area described in the table; in the event of discrepancy, the coordinate description will prevail under general principles of statutory interpretation. The instrument also incorporates by reference the zones prescribed in section 6 of the Rule, meaning that the reader must consult that section to know what the Green Zone is generally. A further concept is delegation: the Minister for Defence delegated the power under subsections 8(1) and 8(4) to the Director of the Woomera Prohibited Area Coordination Office, implying a standing delegation arrangement. The instrument itself is a determination, not a rule or regulation; it sits at the lowest level of the legislative hierarchy, albeit binding as a legislative instrument once made and registered. The concept of “inclusive” dates matters: each period runs from and includes the start date to and includes the end date, covering seven days each. The three periods are consecutive (22 Oct to 23 Oct, 29 Oct to 30 Oct), creating a continuous 21‑day closure but expressed as three separate blocks. This segmentation may reflect separate testing windows or administrative convenience. The instrument does not specify the purpose of the exclusion, though the Rule’s framework contemplates exclusion periods being set for defence operations that require the area to be free of civilians. The instrument also implies an ongoing regime: the Director will make similar determinations for future periods, so this is a recurring obligation for area users to monitor.

The determination directly affects any person who wishes to enter, be in, or travel through that part of the Green Zone within the defined polygon during the three specified periods (16-22 October, 23-29 October, 30 October-5 November 2022). This includes but is not limited to: pastoralists and station workers grazing livestock on properties that lie within the polygon; mining and exploration companies holding licences or permits over the area; indigenous landholders and traditional owners exercising rights under native title determinations or agreements; recreational visitors, tourists, and prospectors; contractors or employees of entities that have a standing permit to access the Green Zone for non‑defence purposes; and any other person who might otherwise rely on an access exemption under the Rule. Defence personnel and authorised defence contractors involved in the testing activities that caused the exclusion are generally unaffected because they operate under separate authorisation under the Rule. The instrument also affects administrative bodies: the Woomera Prohibited Area Coordination Office must enforce the closure; the South Australian Police and the Australian Federal Police may be called on to remove unauthorised entrants. Mining companies face operational disruption if their exploration or extraction schedules fall within the exclusion periods, potentially delaying drilling campaigns, geophysical surveys, or mine‑site access. Pastoralists may be unable to conduct mustering, fence repairs, fire‑break maintenance, or water‑point inspections during that time. For those holding permits under the Rule that authorise entry into the Green Zone generally, the instrument overrides that permission for the specified part and periods. The instrument does not affect persons whose activities are confined to other parts of the Green Zone outside the polygon, or to other zones (Red, Amber, etc.), although separate determinations for those zones may exist. It also does not affect persons who are physically on the area at the start of the exclusive period? The Rule would ordinarily require them to leave immediately when the period commences; the instrument does not address transitional entry but the underlying Rule would. Civil aviation overflights may also be affected if the exclusion extends vertically (aerial access is usually regulated separately under airspace legislation, but the Rule may restrict landing). In summary, the determination imposes a time‑bound, spatially‑specific, legally binding closure on a substantial land area, with the heaviest impact on commercial and traditional land users whose operations are fixed in time.

The primary duty imposed by the determination is to refrain from entering or being present in the bounded area during the three specified exclusion periods. This duty applies to any person who is not the holder of a specific Defence authorisation or other exemption under the Rule. The instrument does not itself create any rights; rather, it suspends or overrides certain existing rights that persons may hold to access the Green Zone. For example, a right of access granted to a mining company under a permit issued under the Rule will not operate during the exclusion periods in the defined polygon. The determination does not specify whether any compensation is payable for loss of access; the underlying Act and Rule may or may not provide a mechanism. The delegate had the right and duty to make the determination under the delegated power, likely after consultation with defence testing authorities (though the source does not mandate consultation). Persons affected have a right to challenge the determination through judicial review grounds (jurisdictional error, unreasonableness, failure to consider relevant factors) but the instrument is a legislative instrument, so the grounds for challenge may be limited unless the determination lacks procedural fairness or exceeds the delegate’s power. The determination also confers a right on authorised defence personnel to conduct activities in the area without interference from civilians. For permit holders, there may be a right to apply for an exemption from the exclusion periods under section 8(3) of the Rule (if it exists), but this instrument does not mention such a right. The determination must be published and available for inspection; the duty to notify affected persons is not specified in the source but general law requires the instrument to be registered on the Federal Register of Legislation. Affected persons have a duty to consult the register, the map, and the coordinate list before accessing the area during the periods. If the area is subject to a native title determination, the duty to negotiate under the Native Title Act 1993 may not be triggered for a short‑term closure, but consistency with indigenous land use agreements must be considered. The instrument itself does not impose reporting, record‑keeping, or notification duties beyond the prohibition on entry.

The determination does not itself set out penalties; those are found in the parent legislation (the Woomera Prohibited Area Act 1953 and the Woomera Prohibited Area Rule 2014). Under the Act, entering or remaining in a prohibited area without lawful authority is an offence carrying specified penalties. The determination gives the offence a temporal and spatial element: if a person is in the defined part of the Green Zone during an exclusion period, they are prima facie in breach. The maximum penalty would be the one applicable to unauthorised entry into a prohibited area, which is typically a criminal penalty with fines and potential imprisonment (the source does not provide the exact figure, but it is likely a significant sum to deter trespass on defence ranges). Enforcement is primarily the responsibility of the Australian Defence Force security personnel and the Australian Federal Police, who may patrol the area, issue warnings, or make arrests. The determination may also be enforced through civil remedies such as injunctions sought by the Commonwealth to exclude trespassers during the testing window. Given the remote location, practical enforcement relies heavily on self‑compliance by regular users and on spot checks by Defence security. The map and coordinate description are essential for enforcement: a person cannot be penalised unless the prosecution proves that the person’s location fell within the polygon. This creates evidentiary challenges, especially because GPS coordinates may not be precise to the second decimal. The determination is made under a rule that itself has enforcement provisions, including the power to seize goods, to issue directions to leave, and to use reasonable force if necessary. The instrument also indirectly affects third‑party enforcement: for instance, a pastoralist who permits a contractor to access the area during the exclusion period may be liable for aiding and abetting. The determination does not create any civil liability for the Commonwealth if exclusion causes economic harm. For mining companies, the risk of breaching the exclusion may trigger licence conditions requiring compliance with all laws, leading to regulatory action under state mining legislation as well.

The determination is made under the Woomera Prohibited Area Rule 2014, which is itself made under the Woomera Prohibited Area Act 1953. The Rule and Act provide the primary legal framework; the determination adds specificity for a particular time and place. It does not supersede the broader Act but operates within its delegation structure. The determination also interacts with state and territory laws that govern land use in the area. For example, the South Australian Mining Act 1971 and the South Australian Pastoral Land Management and Conservation Act 1989 generally confer rights to access land for mining or pastoral purposes. Those rights are qualified by the overriding operation of the Commonwealth’s defence power; the determination effectively suspends those state‑based rights for the exclusion periods. Similarly, any indigenous land use agreement or native title determination under the Native Title Act 1993 that provides for access to the area would be subject to the Commonwealth’s paramount interest in defence, and the determination would override the agreement unless it contains a specific provision for compensation. The determination interacts with the Defence Act 1903 only to the extent that it implements part of the defence estate management. It also interacts with airspace regulations: the exclusion area on the ground may correspond to a restricted airspace defined by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, but the instrument does not address airspace, so aviators must check separate Notices to Airmen (NOTAMs). The determination is not a Commonwealth environmental approval under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, but if the defence activity causing the exclusion might have significant environmental impacts, a separate approval would be required. The determination itself is purely an access restriction; it does not purport to consent to or regulate the underlying defence activity. If the activity involves hazardous materials, it may also interact with the Nuclear Safety and Radiation Protection Act and other hazardous substances laws. For persons planning to use the area, the determination must be read in conjunction with any existing permits, exemptions, or authorisations under the Rule. A person who holds a permit to be in the Green Zone must still comply with the exclusion periods unless the permit expressly carves out such periods. The determination may also be relevant in civil litigation, for example, if a mining company is sued for failing to safeguard a site, and the access restriction prevented maintenance. Courts would consider whether the determination constituted a force majeure event.

The determination itself was made on 13 September 2022 and became effective on 16 October 2022 for the three specified weekly periods ending 5 November 2022. It has no amendment history because it was a standalone, one‑off instrument for that specific window. Once the three periods expired, the determination had no further operative effect. It was never amended during its brief life. However, it is part of a continuous series of determination instruments issued under the same authority for different periods. The Woomera Prohibited Area Rule 2014 has been amended multiple times since its commencement, but this instrument does not amend the Rule. The Rule’s amendment history includes changes to zone boundaries, the addition of the Director delegation power, and refinements to the exclusion‑period machinery. The source does not provide details of those amendments, but a reader should be aware that the Rule itself may have changed since September 2022, affecting the legal basis for such determinations. For example, if section 6 (zones) was amended, the definition of Green Zone might have altered, potentially affecting the validity of this determination if it referred to a now‑superseded zone boundary. No subsequent determination purported to revoke or replace this one; it simply expired by its own terms. The instrument was registered on the Federal Register of Legislation on an unknown date (likely shortly after 13 September 2022) and would be listed in the register with an expiry notation. For historical research, the instrument remains on the register as a historic record. The Woomera Prohibited Area Coordination Office issues numerous such determinations each year, sometimes with only a few weeks’ notice. There is no public amendment history for each individual determination because they are not legislative amendments; they are discrete exercises of delegated power.

The determination itself has not been the subject of any reported litigation. No case law exists challenging this specific instrument. Broader litigation concerning the Woomera Prohibited Area, its access restrictions, and the validity of ministerial determinations is limited. The most relevant class of cases would involve challenges by mining companies or pastoralists alleging that exclusion periods unreasonably interfere with their lawful activities. Australian courts have generally upheld the Commonwealth’s broad discretion over defence areas, provided the power is exercised within the statute. There is no indication that this determination exceeded the authority under subsections 8(1) and 8(4) of the Rule. Potential grounds for a challenge could include: the delegate failed to properly identify the area (e.g., coordinate errors, mismatched map), the exclusion periods were not adequately published, or the determination breached implied procedural fairness requirements. However, the determination was likely made after internal consultation and was published. Given the short duration and the established regime, the cost of litigation would generally outweigh any benefit. The determination’s validity also depends on the validity of the delegation from the Minister to the Director. If that delegation was invalidly made or had lapsed, the entire determination could be void. No such challenge has been reported. There is also no known litigation concerning the map‑versus‑coordinates discrepancy for this instrument. The broader Woomera Prohibited Area Act has been considered by courts in a few contexts, including criminal prosecutions for unauthorised entry, but those cases turn on the Act’s penalty provisions, not on the validity of a particular exclusion determination. Potential future litigation could arise if a person claims that the determination caused economic loss and that the Commonwealth breached a duty of care or committed an acquisition of property without just terms. The just terms guarantee under section 51(xxxi) of the Constitution might apply if the exclusion amounted to an acquisition of property. Most defence‑area restrictions have been held not to amount to acquisition because they are exercises of the defence power and do not transfer any proprietary interest to the Commonwealth. The legal landscape is stable, and this instrument has not disturbed it.

Several practical traps lie in wait for anyone relying on this determination. First, the boundary is defined by 64 coordinate points, but the list does not explicitly state the datum. Australian geodetic coordinates are typically expressed in GDA94 or GDA2020. If a person uses a consumer GPS receiver set to a different datum (e.g., WGS84), the position error may be up to several metres, potentially placing a person just inside or outside the polygon. The instrument does not specify the datum, but the default in Australian Commonwealth instruments is GDA94. Using WGS84 would give near‑identical results for most purposes, but the risk of a 1-2 metre discrepancy could be critical near the boundary. Second, the map in Part 2 is described as “illustrative”. If the map appears to show a slightly different shape or location, the coordinate description in Part 1 prevails. A person who checks only the map and enters an area that appears on the map to be outside the polygon, but is inside according to the coordinates, commits an offence. Third, the three exclusion periods are inclusive, meaning each period includes both the start and end dates. A person who enters at 11:59 pm on 22 October 2022 (the end of the first period) would be in breach, but if they enter just after midnight on 23 October, the second period begins, so they are still in breach. The continuous nature (three consecutive weekly blocks) means there is no gap between the periods; the area is effectively closed for the full 21 days. Fourth, the determination only covers that “part of the Green Zone” defined by the polygon. There are other parts of the Green Zone not covered. A person in a different part during the exclusion periods may still access that other part, provided no other restriction applies. Fifth, the determination was made only one month before the first exclusion period (13 September for 16 October). Anyone with operational plans that require frequent access to the area should monitor the WPA Coordination Office website or register for alerts, as the one‑month notice may not be sufficient to rearrange work programs. Sixth, the instrument refers to subsections 8(1) and 8(4) of the Rule. Subsection 8(4) likely relates to varying or revoking a previous determination or to specifying that the determination takes effect from a certain date. The source does not confirm whether this instrument revoked any earlier determination covering the same area. A mining company should check whether an earlier determination for earlier periods was still in force and whether this instrument superseded it or added additional exclusions. Seventh, pastoralists and miners with permits allowing entry to the Green Zone generally must check that those permits do not contain a term stating they are subject to exclusion periods. The determination prevails over a general permit. Eighth, the coordinates are listed in a single column with each point starting at S latitude and proceeding east. The polygon self‑evidently closes by returning to Point 1, but there is a typographical risk: the table ends “and then to the of commencement” (a clear drafting error - it should read “and then to the point of commencement”). This error does not affect the legal description because the start point is clear. Ninth, the instrument does not contain any provision for applications for exemption from these specific exclusion periods. If a person urgently needs access (e.g., for emergency repairs), they must apply under the Rule’s general exemption provisions, which may not be processed quickly enough. Tenth, the instrument may be invalid if the delegate did not have actual authority or if the instrument was not registered before the first exclusion period began (the Legislation Act requires registration as soon as practicable). A diligent compliance professional should verify the registration date on the Federal Register of Legislation.

To comply with this determination, any person who intends to enter, or who already has a legitimate interest in, the green zone area bounded by the coordinate polygon must first verify whether their planned activities fall within any of the three specified periods (16-22 October, 23-29 October, 30 October-5 November 2022). The most reliable method is to obtain the coordinate list from the instrument (available on the Federal Register of Legislation) and plot the polygon using GIS software or a mapping service that accepts decimal‑degree coordinates. Enter all 64 points in order and confirm that the polygon closes. Then overlay the intended operational area. If the intended area falls outside the polygon, no further action is needed under this determination, though other exclusion periods for other parts of the Green Zone may apply. If it falls inside, the person must not enter or remain in that area during the three weekly periods. There is no general exemption in the instrument. The only way to lawfully enter during an exclusion period is to hold a specific authorisation under the Rule (for example, a permit that explicitly overrides exclusion periods, or a direction from an authorised Defence officer). If such authorisation exists, the person should carry written evidence and be prepared to produce it on request. If no such authorisation exists, the only compliant course is to stay out. Pastoralists and miners should integrate these periods into their operational calendars as downtime. They should also maintain a record of the determination, the map, and any communication with the WPA Coordination Office to show due diligence if a compliance issue arises. For property managers, it is prudent to check the instrument’s registration date and ensure that the coordinate list matches the official version, as unofficial copies may contain errors. If an emergency arises (e.g., a fire, a sick stock, a burst tailings dam), the person should contact the WPA Coordination Office immediately to request an exemption, but this determination does not provide any expedited process. In practice, Defence may grant a temporary exemption for genuine emergencies, but there is no guarantee. The safest approach is to avoid any need for entry during the exclusion periods by rescheduling activities to outside the 21‑day window. Where multiple persons (employees, contractors, visitors) may access the area, the operator should impose a clear policy and procedure: require all personnel to check the instrument and the dates before entering; install physical or GPS‑based restrictions; and conduct a pre‑activity briefing. Non‑compliance could result in criminal prosecution, so a low‑tolerance approach is warranted. After the last exclusion period ends on 5 November 2022, normal access rules for the Green Zone resume, subject to any later determinations. Compliance is straightforward once the polygon is properly delineated and the dates are diarised. The main effort is in the initial mapping and in communicating the restrictions to all potential entrants.