Woomera Prohibited Area Rule 2014 Determination of Exclusion Periods for the Green Zone for June 2017

The determination directly affects any person or entity seeking to enter or remain within the defined part of the Green Zone during June 2017. While the source does not enumerate affected parties, context from the Woomera Prohibited Area regime suggests several groups. Defence personnel and contractors involved in testing activities are likely exempt or authorised, but the instrument does not provide exemptions. Pastoral leaseholders with grazing rights in the area would be unable to access their land during the exclusion periods, potentially affecting livestock management, mustering, and infrastructure maintenance. Mineral exploration and mining companies with tenements in the region would lose access for the entire month, causing operational delays and costs. Aboriginal communities with native title rights or cultural connections to the land may be restricted from accessing sites. Researchers, ecologists, and tourists would also be barred. The instrument’s amendment on 23 May 2017, just over a week before the first exclusion period, imposes a compliance burden: those affected had little time to adjust plans. The recurring monthly nature of such determinations creates uncertainty for long-term planning. The instrument does not mention any compensation mechanism or alternative access arrangements; any such provisions would be in the principal Rule or other instruments. The economic impact is concentrated on private enterprises that depend on access to that part of the Green Zone, while the benefits (defence safety and security) are public and diffuse. The determination illustrates a classic regulatory trade off: broad state power to exclude private parties from large areas for military purposes, with compliance costs borne by a small number of land users. The precise coordinate boundaries make it possible for landholders to check if their property falls within the polygon, but the map is low resolution and the coordinates require GPS conversion. The instrument only covers June 2017; similar determinations for other months would affect the same parties repeatedly.

The instrument itself does not explicitly create duties or rights. It determines exclusion periods; the duties and rights arise from the Woomera Prohibited Area Rule 2014, which is not included. However, the source implies certain things. The primary duty is a prohibition on entry into the specified part of the Green Zone during the exclusion periods. Anyone who enters during those periods likely contravenes the Rule. The determination does not list exceptions; any rights to enter must be found elsewhere in the Rule or in separate permits. The delegate’s power to determine exclusion periods is a duty? No, it is a discretionary power. The instrument is the exercise of that power. The instrument does not require anyone to do anything; it restricts freedom of movement. Potentially, the Rule imposes a duty on the Defence Department to give notice of determinations, but this instrument’s registration and compilation suggest it was published. Rights that may exist include the right to apply for an exemption or permission, but not mentioned. For landholders, there may be a right to compensation under the Rule or at common law, but not referenced. The instrument’s effect is to extinguish any right of access for the duration of the exclusion periods. The source’s endnotes discuss amendments, which is a procedural right of the rule maker to vary the schedule. The determination process itself might have been subject to consultation, but the instrument does not record that. In terms of private rights, the instrument does not provide for review or appeal; any such rights would be under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act or the Rule itself. The only “right” the instrument confers is the right of the delegate to determine exclusion periods, which has been exercised. For the public, there is arguably a right to know the boundaries and dates, fulfilled by registration. The instrument’s text is the authoritative statement; the map is supplementary. The absence of explicit rights means the instrument is purely restrictive. Anyone affected must rely on other legal instruments to understand their duties or seek redress. The burden is on the citizen to ascertain whether they are within the prohibited polygon and to refrain from entry.

The source does not specify penalties for violating the exclusion period. The determination merely sets the dates and boundaries; penalties would be prescribed by the Woomera Prohibited Area Rule 2014 or by other legislation such as the Defence Act 1903. The instrument’s legal effect is to trigger those penalty provisions for the identified period and area. Without the principal Rule, we cannot state the quantum or type of penalty. However, it is reasonable to infer that unauthorised entry into an exclusion period within a defence prohibited area is an offence, possibly with fines or imprisonment. Enforcement is likely carried out by Defence Force personnel or police, but the source does not say. The instrument’s registration on the Federal Register of Legislation gives it legal force. Any enforcement action would require proof that the person entered the defined polygon during the exclusion period. The coordinates provide precise limits, but enforcing such a large remote area is difficult. The instrument’s amendment history shows a change to the Schedule, which could affect the boundaries; if someone relied on earlier coordinates, they might inadvertently trespass. The instrument includes a map, but maps are not legally definitive; the coordinates are. Errors in the coordinates or datum could lead to disputes. The instrument does not provide for any enforcement mechanism, such as signage, notices to landholders, or remote surveillance. The cost of enforcement is borne by the taxpayer. The lack of explicit penalty information in the instrument means that a reader must consult the principal Rule to understand the consequences. The determination itself is an element of the offence: it defines the temporal and spatial scope of the prohibition. Without it, a prosecution could not proceed for June 2017. Thus, the instrument is a crucial piece of evidence for any enforcement action. The absence of penalty details in the source is a significant gap for compliance professionals; they must look elsewhere.

This determination is made under the Woomera Prohibited Area Rule 2014, which itself is a legislative instrument made under the Defence Act 1903 or perhaps the Woomera Prohibited Area Act (the source does not specify). The Rule prescribes zones and empowers the Minister to determine exclusion periods. This instrument operationalises those provisions for June 2017. It may interact with other Commonwealth and state laws. For example, the Native Title Act 1993 may require that exclusion periods respect native title rights; the determination does not note any such interaction. The Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 could be relevant if the area contains listed species or heritage sites, but no reference. State laws of South Australia regarding land access, mining, and pastoral leases are likely displaced to the extent of inconsistency under s 109 of the Constitution, but the instrument does not mention this. The determination may affect rights under the Pastoral Land Management and Conservation Act 1989 (SA) for pastoral lessees, but the Defence Act prevails. The source does not list any interactions. The compilation endnotes note that modifications under other laws may apply, but none are listed. The instrument also interacts with the Legislative Instruments Act 2003 (now Legislation Act 2003) regarding registration and compilation. The instrument’s self-repealing provisions (if any) would be noted, but none are present. The amendment history shows an amendment, indicating interaction with amending instruments. The determination is likely just one of a series for each month; it does not operate in isolation. It also interacts with the Woomera Prohibited Area Coordination Office’s administrative practices. For private parties, the determination may interact with contractual obligations (e.g., mining exploration must cease). Insurers may require compliance with exclusion periods. The instrument’s interaction with the common law right to access land is limited: the determination extinguishes any right of access for the period. Overall, the determination sits in a hierarchy of defence area management instruments, but the source provides no details of other laws.

The instrument has one amendment recorded. The original determination was registered on 5 December 2016 as F2016L01865 and commenced on 6 December 2016. That original instrument presumably set exclusion periods for June 2017. Then, on 22 May 2017, Amendment No. 1 (F2017L00575) was registered and commenced on 23 May 2017, amending the Schedule. The endnote for amendment history states: “Schedule am F2017L00575” meaning the Schedule was amended. The nature of the amendment is not specified. It could have changed the dates, the coordinates, or the map. Given that the amendment was made just over a week before the first exclusion period (11 June 2017), it likely reflected a change in defence testing schedules or a correction of coordinates. The instrument as compiled (Compilation No. 1) includes the amendment with a compilation date of 23 May 2017. The compilation note says it includes amendments up to that date. The fact that the original determination was made months in advance (December 2016) and then amended in May 2017 suggests that exclusion periods are not fixed far in advance and can be changed with short notice. This imposes a compliance burden on anyone planning activities in the area: the final boundaries may not be known until late. The amendment process required the delegate to issue a new instrument amending the Schedule. The amending instrument itself is not provided, but its registration number is. The instrument does not contain any transitional provisions or savings; the amending instrument’s entry “,” in the application column indicates none. So the amendment took full effect immediately. This amendment history is crucial for understanding the instrument’s reliability. It shows that the boundaries were changed at the last minute. Anyone who relied on the original determination would have operated under incorrect information. The absence of detailed amendment description means we cannot assess the magnitude of the change.

The source does not mention any litigation concerning this determination. This is unsurprising for a routine administrative instrument setting exclusion periods for a single month. The determination is likely not justiciable in itself; challenges would be to the principal Rule or to a particular decision to deny access. The source provides no cases. It is possible that challenges to similar determinations have arisen in the past, but we cannot cite them as the source is silent. The lack of litigation history may indicate that the regime is accepted or that affected parties lack incentive or standing to challenge. The high cost of litigation relative to the short duration of the exclusion period (one month) may deter legal action. Additionally, the defence and national security justification often discourages judicial review. The instrument is made under delegated legislation; any legal challenge would need to argue that the delegate exceeded power or that the determination was unreasonable, but the source gives no hint of such actions. The endnotes do not list any judicial decisions. Therefore, for purposes of this deep dive, the litigation history is null. This absence is itself informative: it suggests the instrument operates without legal contest, but that does not mean it is without controversy. The compliance burden is borne quietly. If there were litigation, it would likely involve native title holders or mining companies seeking compensation or access. The instrument’s coordinate precision might be a source of technical litigation, but none is recorded. The instrument’s short effective life (one month) makes it a poor target for litigation because any dispute would become moot quickly unless part of a pattern. The Defence Department’s strong immunity from liability in defence areas may also deter suits. The limitation of the source prevents any conclusion about actual disputes.

Several traps lurk in this seemingly straightforward determination. First, the coordinates are in decimal degrees, not degrees/minutes/seconds. A user converting to other formats may introduce errors. The datum is not stated; if a different datum (e.g., WGS84 vs GDA94) is used, boundaries could shift by 200 metres, potentially placing a landholder inside the exclusion zone when they thought they were outside. Second, the map in Part 2 is low resolution and labelled “EZMP” (likely a placeholder image). The map is for illustration only; the legal definition is the coordinate polygon. Relying on the map could lead to misidentification. Third, the amendment was made on 23 May 2017 for a period starting 11 June. Anyone who checked the original determination in December 2016 would have the wrong boundaries. The amendment history shows the Schedule was amended, but the nature of the change is hidden; users must obtain the amending instrument to see what changed. Fourth, the instrument does not state whether it applies to overflight or only surface entry. This ambiguity could catch pilots or drone operators. Fifth, the exclusion periods are continuous across the month, but each period is listed separately; if a person enters on the assumption that only “exclusion periods” are block times, they might miss that the entire month is covered. Sixth, the determination refers to “Green Zone” but does not define that zone’s boundaries beyond the polygon. The principal Rule prescribes zones; the polygon here might be only a subset of the Green Zone. So the instrument excludes a part of the Green Zone, not the whole zone. Confusingly, the schedule heading says “Part of the Green Zone to which the Exclusion Period applies”. So it is a subset. Landholders outside the polygon but within the Green Zone may mistakenly think they are covered, or vice versa. Seventh, the instrument is a legislative instrument, but its compilation includes endnotes that warn about uncommenced amendments. For a one-month determination, that is irrelevant, but it could confuse. Eighth, the delegate is the Director of the Woomera Prohibited Area Coordination Office, a public servant. The delegation may be challengeable if the Minister did not properly delegate under the Rule. The instrument does not provide evidence of delegation. Ninth, the instrument does not include a sunset clause; it is self-repealing after June 2017? The endnotes do not indicate self-repeal, but practically it becomes spent. However, legally it remains on the register, which could cause confusion for historical searches. These gotchas highlight the need for careful verification of coordinates, date ranges, and the underlying Rule.

Compliance with this determination requires that no person enter the defined part of the Green Zone during the exclusion periods. However, the instrument does not prescribe compliance steps. A prudent operator would first identify whether their property, tenement, or planned route falls within the coordinate polygon. This requires converting the 19 coordinate points into a usable GIS format and checking against their location. They should verify the datum and precision. Next, they must determine the exact dates: 11-17 June, 18-24 June, and 25-30 June 2017 inclusive. Because the periods are consecutive and cover the entire month, the practical effect is a full month exclusion. They should confirm the exclusion periods have not been further amended by any later instrument (the compilation date is 23 May 2017; subsequent amendments may exist but are not shown). They should also consult the principal Woomera Prohibited Area Rule 2014 to understand any exemptions or permission processes. For example, the Rule may allow access with a permit from the Coordination Office. The determination does not mention permits, so any permission must come from the Rule. If a person needs to enter for emergency or essential purposes, they should seek authorisation well in advance, given the short notice of the amendment. They should also check if the same area has exclusions in other months; the determination is only for June 2017, but similar determinations exist for other months. For ongoing operations, a compliance calendar covering all monthly determinations is essential. The registered instrument should be downloaded from the Federal Register of Legislation to have an authoritative copy. The map is not reliable; rely on coordinates. Keep records of the version used to avoid inadvertent violation. If a person inadvertently enters, they may have a defence if they can show they relied on outdated information, but that is speculative. Finally, engaging a surveyor or GIS expert to mark boundaries on the ground may be prudent for those with long-term interests. The compliance burden is high for those whose activities require continuous access, as there is no provision for partial exemptions in this instrument.