Woomera Prohibited Area Rule 2014 Determination of Exclusion Periods for the Green Zone for May 2016

The Determination turns on a small set of recurring administrative and spatial concepts that are expressly present in the document. Those concepts, and how the instrument uses them, are these.

Exclusion period. The instrument uses the phrase "Exclusion Period" as its organising concept in the Schedule. Two exclusion periods are specified by date: 16 May 2016 to 22 May 2016, and 23 May 2016 to 29 May 2016. The Determination frames those dates as the operative temporal limits for the identified exclusion; it does not supply times of day or any other temporal detail.

Green zone. The instrument refers to "the green zone" and identifies "that part of the green zone" to which the exclusion periods apply. The Determination does not itself define the green zone; it records that zones within the Woomera Prohibited Area are prescribed in section 6 of the Woomera Prohibited Area Rule 2014. Thus the Determination treats the green zone as an existing spatial category created by the Rule 2014 and confines its operation to a portion of that zone.

Spatial definition by coordinates plus map. The bounded area is described by a sequence of geographic coordinates presented as a polygon of points labelled EZ 1 through EZ 13. The textual polygon description commences at "30 13.387 S, 134 11.423 E (EZ 1)" and continues through EZ 2 to EZ 13, concluding with the words "and identified in the map in Part 2 of the Schedule." Part 2 contains an illustrative map. The Determination therefore adopts a hybrid method of legal description: precise decimal-minute coordinates plus an incorporated map for identification.

Delegation and authorisation. The Determination is made by Samantha Higgins, Acting Assistant Secretary Arms Control, and specifies she acts "as a delegate of the Minister for Defence." The instrument also cites subsection 8(1) of the Woomera Prohibited Area Rule 2014 as the enabling provision for the Determination. The document therefore functions as a delegate-made subordinate instrument implemented under the Rule’s authority.

Temporal sequencing. Although the two exclusion periods are listed as separate rows in the Schedule, they are consecutive: the first is 16 to 22 May, the second 23 to 29 May. The spatial description attached to both periods is identical in text. The form indicates either a two-week continuous exclusion segmented administratively into two one-week periods, or two separate but adjacent exclusion weeks; the text does not elaborate on the reason for the split.

Identification labels. Each coordinate point is labelled EZ 1 to EZ 13. Those labels are part of the Schedule’s cross-referencing system and tie the textual coordinates to the associated map in Part 2. The instrument relies on those labels as the link between the table and the map.

Absence of substantive procedural text. The Determination does not set out application, permit, exemption, enforcement, or penalty provisions. It records the exclusion periods and points to the Rule 2014 for the legal foundation. Therefore its main concepts are spatial-temporal specification, incorporation of an identifying map, and exercise of delegated power under the Rule.

The Determination affects any person or entity whose lawful or ordinary activities would place them in the bounded part of the green zone during the listed exclusion periods. The document itself does not list categories of affected persons, but its effect follows from declaring exclusion periods for a defined area during specified dates. Practically, the set of affected parties comprises everyone who would otherwise plan to enter, transit, camp, work, operate vehicles or aircraft, conduct exploration, or carry out any activity that requires being physically present in that part of the green zone during 16-22 May 2016 and 23-29 May 2016.

Because the instrument does not reproduce the Rule 2014’s broader provisions, it does not by itself describe permitted exceptions, permit processes, or exemption categories. The Determination therefore leaves open whether particular classes of user (for example, defence contractors, authorised scientific teams, local landholders, pastoral operations, or emergency services) might retain access under some separate authorisation under the Rule 2014. The Determination points users back to the enabling framework by stating it is made "for the purposes of subsection 8(1) of the Woomera Prohibited Area Rule 2014" and by noting that zones are prescribed in section 6 of that Rule. Any rights to be present in the area during the exclusion periods, or particular classes that may be exempted, must be identified in the Rule or in separate instruments or administrative arrangements under it; they do not appear in this Determination.

Administratively, the issuing actor is the Minister for Defence through a delegate. The instrument names Samantha Higgins, Acting Assistant Secretary Arms Control, as the delegate making the Determination. That identifies the Department of Defence and, more narrowly, the branch responsible for arms control and related activities as the decision-maker for this determination. Entities seeking to know whether they are affected or to obtain relief would therefore need to consult the Department of Defence or the Rule 2014 for the relevant procedural avenues.

Geographically, the Determination targets a specific polygon identified by thirteen coordinate points (EZ 1 to EZ 13). Any person whose intended activities intersect that polygon during the listed dates will be within the affected cohort. For practical planning, those persons will have to consult the instrument’s Part 2 map and the listed coordinates to determine whether their operational areas fall within the bounded lines.

Finally, the Determination does not indicate any compensation, mitigation, or alternative arrangements for those displaced by the exclusion; the document simply fixes the temporal and spatial limits. Whether economic actors or individuals can seek compensation or administrative relief depends on provisions external to this Determination.

The Determination itself is brief and does not reproduce duty-creating provisions or ticketed entitlement clauses. Its operative output is the declaration of exclusion periods for the specified portion of the green zone; accordingly the key legal consequences must be read against the Woomera Prohibited Area Rule 2014, which the Determination expressly invokes (subsection 8(1) and section 6 are cited in the instrument). Two distinct but interrelated points are therefore relevant: what this instrument itself requires, and where to look for the substantive duties, rights, and processes it affects.

What the Determination requires, in terms the instrument itself provides. The Schedule records two exclusion periods and binds them to a spatial polygon by coordinates and an identifying map. The Determination therefore functions as a time-space specification. It directs, by implication, that during the listed dates the identified area is to be treated as excluded under the Rule 2014 framework. The Determination does not recapitulate the operative prohibitions, nor does it state explicit rights to enter, nor does it list permits or exemptions. Consequently, the document’s only express duties are those of the instrument-maker (the delegate) to record the exclusion and to incorporate the map and coordinates; it is silent about the behavioural duties and rights of third parties within the excluded area.

Where to find the substantive duties and rights. Because the Determination is made for the purposes of subsection 8(1) of the Rule 2014 and notes that zones are prescribed in section 6 of that Rule, the substantive prohibitions (for example, an offence against entering an excluded zone), any available permit processes, exemptions, delegated administrative discretion, or notices to landholders will be set out in the Rule 2014 itself or in other instruments made under it. The Determination does not attempt to restate or amend such provisions. Practitioners should therefore treat this Determination as activating or specifying the temporal and spatial objects to which those Rule 2014 provisions apply, rather than as creating new, stand-alone duties or rights.

Practical implications of the document’s silence. Because the Determination provides neither times of day nor procedural provisions, there will be uncertainty if one attempts to interpret start and end points beyond the dates listed. For example, whether an exclusion begins at 00:00 on the first listed date and ends at 23:59 on the final listed date is not specified by the Determination; those interpretive questions must be resolved by reference to the Rule 2014, common administrative practice, or explanatory materials held by the Department of Defence. The Determination’s reliance on the Rule 2014 means that the document both feeds into, and depends upon, the Rule for the allocation of duties, rights, compliance processes, and appeal or review mechanisms.

Labelled points and the map. The coordinates EZ 1 to EZ 13 and the map in Part 2 together constitute the legal description of the bounded area. Thus a practical duty on affected parties is to consult both the textual coordinates and the incorporated map to determine whether an intended presence falls within the excluded area. The Determination makes that consultation necessary by explicitly referencing the map in Part 2 in each table row.

In short: this Determination sets the spatial-temporal object to which substantive duties and rights in the Woomera Prohibited Area Rule 2014 will apply; it does not by itself set out those duties, rights, or procedures.

The Determination does not set out any penalty regime, enforcement mechanisms, or administrative procedures. There is no mention in the instrument of offences, fines, enforcement officers, inspection powers, search powers, or seizure authorities. The only enforcement-related textual content is the reference to subsection 8(1) of the Woomera Prohibited Area Rule 2014 and the note that section 6 prescribes zones. Those cross-references indicate that any penalties or enforcement measures must be located in the Rule 2014 or in other instruments or departmental practices under that Rule.

Because the Determination itself contains no enforcement provisions, an enforcement practitioner or legal adviser must take the following practical steps to identify penalties and enforcement authorities: consult the Woomera Prohibited Area Rule 2014 for offence clauses that make breaching an exclusion period an offence, identify the categories of authorised enforcement personnel under that Rule, and locate any decision-making or review mechanisms that apply to permit or exemption applications. The Determination is silent on whether any particular enforcement approach will be used during the two exclusion weeks; it neither appoints enforcement officers nor delegates specific operational authority within the text.

The absence of temporal specificity in the Determination (it lists dates but not times) may create enforcement ambiguity: without an express time of commencement and expiry included in this instrument, questions could arise about the precise moment enforcement powers can be legitimately exercised. Those questions will need to be resolved by reference to the Rule 2014, any administrative guidance issued by the Department of Defence, and accepted interpretive practice for subordinate instruments.

The instrument also does not address monitoring or notification responsibilities. It does not state whether notices will be posted, whether maps will be circulated to local landholders, or whether GPS-based advisories will be published. Practically, persons expecting to be affected must rely on external communication channels maintained by the Department of Defence or the Rule 2014’s procedural text to discover enforcement details.

In sum, this Determination specifies the spatial-temporal scope of an exclusion but does not itself create or explain the enforcement or penalty architecture that would attach to contraventions. Identifying penalties and enforcement mechanisms therefore requires reference to the Woomera Prohibited Area Rule 2014 and associated administrative instruments or guidance.

The Determination expressly positions itself as a subordinate instrument operating within the legal framework of the Woomera Prohibited Area Rule 2014. It cites subsection 8(1) of that Rule as its enabling provision and notes that zones within the Woomera Prohibited Area are prescribed in section 6 of the Rule. Those two explicit cross-references establish the Determination’s legal relationship: it implements a temporal and spatial specification that the Rule 2014 uses to give effect to its substantive control regime.

Beyond that explicit linkage, the Determination does not refer to any other statutes, regulations, or legal instruments. It does not, for example, cross-reference any Defence Act provision, environmental legislation, property law doctrines, aviation regulations, or native title or landholder obligations. The absence of such cross-references in the text means that any intersection with other legal regimes must be identified by examining the Rule 2014 and how that Rule itself interacts with external laws. Because the Determination relies on the Rule 2014 as the legal vehicle, the Determination’s practical interaction with other laws will flow through the Rule 2014’s own interfaces.

Operationally, the spatial exclusion specified by this Determination will intersect with numerous external legal regimes that typically apply to an area of land or airspace (for example, trespass, property rights, pastoral leases, aviation control, Indigenous tenure, or environmental protection), but the Determination does not address those interfaces. For users, the immediate legal effect is that the Rule 2014’s provisions, as they apply to the exclusion described by this Determination, will bear on those external regimes by potentially pre-empting or overlaying them for the specified times and place. Determining whether the Determination has the effect of temporarily displacing other legal obligations or rights within the polygon requires consulting the Rule 2014 and any relevant external statute; the Determination itself provides no direct guidance.

The instrument’s format as a delegate-made Determination also implies a chain of administrative authority. It identifies a Department of Defence official acting as a delegate of the Minister for Defence. Any questions about the validity of the instrument, the scope of delegated authority, or the relationship between the delegate’s exercise and ministerial powers would require examination of the delegation instrument or of the enabling Act or Rule 2014 provisions that authorise delegation. The Determination does not include that delegation instrument, so any legal challenge or review that invokes separation of powers or delegation limits must source that material elsewhere.

Finally, the Determination incorporates an identifying map in Part 2. That map, as an incorporated document, forms part of the instrument’s legal description of the excluded area. The use of coordinates plus a map is a familiar technique for subordinate instruments that define spatial boundaries; its legal interaction with surveying, cadastral records, and map-based public notices will be shaped by common law and statutory rules about the construction and interpretation of subordinate instruments, none of which appear in the Determination itself.

The text provided contains only a single operative Determination dated 21 April 2016 and no subsequent amendments, repeal, or variation. The Schedule is drafted specifically for May 2016 and lists two contiguous one-week exclusion periods falling in that month. The instrument includes no amendment clause, expiry clause beyond the dates themselves, or savings provision that would operate after those dates. The document therefore appears to be a time-limited, event-specific Determination covering a defined temporal window.

The Determination’s limited scope suggests the typical lifecycle for such instruments: a delegate makes a Determination under the enabling Rule for specific dates and areas; once those dates expire, the Determination is spent in practical effect. The text does not record any ongoing administrative effect beyond those dates and does not purport to create a standing or permanent restriction. There is no express clause preserving evidentiary value, and no express provision that the map or coordinates are to be retained for any purpose beyond the period specified.

Because no amendment instrument or subsequent Determination appears in the text provided, the only recorded historical action is the creation of this Determination on 21 April 2016. If a further or different exclusion were required for later dates or the same area, a new Determination under the Rule 2014 would presumably be required; that process is not described here.

Practitioners seeking to establish the fuller administrative history,whether there were preceding Determinations, whether similar polygons were excluded in other months or years, or whether the same area was excluded by other instruments,must consult the administrative records of the Department of Defence or the published register of instruments under the Rule 2014. The Determination itself contains no internal history beyond its date and the signature of the delegate.

Finally, because the instrument is expressly tied to subsection 8(1) of the Woomera Prohibited Area Rule 2014, any amendment history of the Rule 2014 that affects subsection 8(1) could retroactively change the legal context in which this Determination was made. The Determination does not contain any retroactive amendment or saving clause. To understand any consequential amendment effects, one must compare the text of the Rule 2014 at the time of the Determination against any later changes to that Rule; the Determination does not itself record such changes.

The Determination contains no reference to litigation, judicial review, or any court proceedings. It does not record any challenges, declaratory judgments, or litigation settlements. The document is a record of an administrative act: a delegate-made Determination fixing exclusion periods and a mapped area for May 2016. Any litigation arising from this Determination would therefore be external to this document; the instrument does not provide a litigation history.

Because the Determination does not provide penalties, enforcement provisions, or procedures, it offers no direct record of operational disputes, appeals, or administrative reviews. If parties affected by the exclusion wished to challenge the Determination, any relevant grounds would have to be inferred from the enabling Rule 2014 (for example, whether subsection 8(1) was validly exercised, whether the delegate had authority, whether procedural fairness or statutory requirements were followed, or whether the boundaries or dates were lawfully specified). None of those grounds are discussed in this Determination. The only internal factual record that could feature in any external litigation is the Schedule of dates and coordinates, the signature and title of the delegate, and the statement that the Determination is made under subsection 8(1) of the Rule 2014.

For researchers or litigators, the absence of an internal litigation history in the instrument means that to assemble any case law or administrative review instances connected with this Determination they will need to search court or tribunal records, or Department of Defence public records, for judicial review applications, injunctions, or other proceedings referencing this specific Determination, the dates in question, or the polygon defined by the EZ 1 to EZ 13 coordinates. The Determination itself contains none of that material.

The Determination’s brevity and reliance on the Woomera Prohibited Area Rule 2014 create a number of practical issues and potential pitfalls for legal advisers and operational planners. The instrument’s text should be read carefully to avoid missteps that could arise from ambiguous drafting choices or from reliance on the Determination in isolation.

Temporal ambiguity. The Determination specifies dates but not times. It lists the exclusion periods as "16 May 2016 - 22 May 2016" and "23 May 2016 - 29 May 2016." The absence of start and end times for each listed date creates uncertainty about exact commencement and expiry moments. Practitioners must not assume midnight-to-midnight coverage without confirming whether the Rule 2014 or departmental guidance supplies a default interpretive rule.

Apparent continuity masked by tabular split. The two exclusion periods are consecutive weeks with identical spatial descriptions. Visually they appear as two rows in the Schedule. That format could lead an unwary reader to treat them as separate events requiring separate permissions or notifications. In practice the effect may be continuous exclusion from 16 May through 29 May 2016 inclusive; the Determination does not explain why the exclusion was segmented administratively. Advisers should therefore treat the two rows as functionally contiguous for operational planning and verify whether distinct administrative steps are required for each week.

Reliance on both coordinates and map. The instrument incorporates a set of coordinates (EZ 1 to EZ 13) and an identifying map in Part 2. The Determination explicitly states the bounded area is "contained within and bounded by a line commencing at [EZ 1] ... and identified in the map in Part 2 of the Schedule." That dual reliance can create interpretive questions if the map and the coordinates do not correspond perfectly, or if there is uncertainty about the map’s scale, datum, or projection. The Determination does not specify the geodetic datum or projection used for the coordinates. Advisers and surveyors should confirm the coordinate datum and reconcile any discrepancies between the textual polygon and the map.

Label and sequence irregularities. In the textual table row the sequence of coordinates includes one instance where punctuation or phrasing departs from the otherwise repetitive pattern ("then to a point 28 58.760 S, 133 49.041 E (EZ 8); 29 14.811 S, 134 14.768 E (EZ 9); then to a point 29 26.926 S ..."). There is an omission of the phrase "then to a point" before EZ 9 in that row. While likely stylistic, in strict constructional arguments such differences sometimes invite contest about intent. Practical users should rely on the full set of coordinates and the map, not on micro-punctuation differences.

Delegation and authority. The Determination is signed by an Acting Assistant Secretary "as a delegate of the Minister for Defence." If an aggrieved party wished to challenge the validity of the Determination, issues might be raised about the scope of the delegate’s delegation instrument or whether the delegate had the authority to exercise subsection 8(1). The Determination does not include the instrument of delegation or cite its empowering provision. Practitioners evaluating procedural risk should therefore confirm that an authorised delegation existed at the relevant time.

No statutory cross-references beyond the Rule 2014. The instrument does not reference other potentially relevant laws or obligations (for example, obligations to notify landholders, environmental assessment obligations, or native title consultation requirements). Where other legal obligations intersect with a spatial exclusion, the Determination’s silence does not relieve administrators of those external obligations, but it does mean those obligations are not managed within this document. Advisers should therefore map out other potential legal interfaces externally to the Determination.

No penalties or enforcement details. The instrument contains no enforcement mechanics. That silence can create risk when operational actors attempt to plan logistics. For example, a contractor contracted to perform work on dates that fall within the exclusion will need to determine whether they must reschedule, obtain a permit under the Rule 2014, or take other steps. The Determination does not set out how to do any of those things.

Map not self-explanatory. The incorporated map in Part 2 is an identifying attachment. The Determination does not specify whether the map is schematic or precise, nor does it provide a key, an inset, or coordinate grid in the text. Users should not assume the map is sufficient alone; they should cross-check the coordinates and consult the Department of Defence for authoritative geospatial files if precise mapping is required.

No recorded consultation or notice record. The Determination does not record whether any notice was given to local landholders or whether consultations occurred. Where statutory duties require notice or consultation under other laws, that absence may be material. The Determination makes no attempt to record or discharge such obligations.

In short: the Determination’s brevity, lack of procedural detail, and dependence on coordinates plus a map create several concrete interpretive and operational risks which must be addressed by cross-referencing to the Rule 2014 and by seeking departmental clarification.

Compliance with the effects of this Determination requires combining the instrument’s spatial-temporal specification with the substantive obligations and procedures set out in the Woomera Prohibited Area Rule 2014. The Determination itself supplies only the dates and the spatial polygon; it does not provide permit procedures, exemptions, or enforcement details. The following practical compliance steps are therefore rooted in what the Determination actually contains and the actions a regulated actor must take to avoid inadvertent non-compliance.

1. Confirm the affected polygon by coordinates and map. The Schedule lists thirteen labelled coordinate points. For ease of reference they are:

   • EZ 1: 30 13.387 S, 134 11.423 E
   • EZ 2: 30 02.020 S, 133 16.127 E
   • EZ 3: 29 45.911 S, 133 00.845 E
   • EZ 4: 29 19.185 S, 132 40.072 E
   • EZ 5: 28 55.533 S, 132 55.127 E
   • EZ 6: 28 49.754 S, 133 06.609 E
   • EZ 7: 28 52.769 S, 133 19.454 E
   • EZ 8: 28 58.760 S, 133 49.041 E
   • EZ 9: 29 14.811 S, 134 14.768 E
   • EZ 10: 29 26.926 S, 134 22.179 E
   • EZ 11: 29 31.995 S, 134 26.556 E
   • EZ 12: 29 45.357 S, 134 28.744 E
   • EZ 13: 30 01.983 S, 134 22.292 E

   Cross-check these coordinates against the Part 2 map. Where precise geolocation is required for operational planning, obtain geospatial files or an authoritative digital map from the Department of Defence to reconcile projection and datum. Do not rely on the map alone if high precision is necessary.

2. Treat both listed weeks as operationally contiguous unless told otherwise. The Determination lists 16-22 May 2016 and 23-29 May 2016 as two rows with identical polygons. For planning, assume exclusion applies continuously from 16 May through 29 May 2016 inclusive, and seek confirmation from the Department of Defence if separate authorisations are required for each week.

3. Determine whether your activity falls within the excluded area. Use accurate GPS or GIS tools to overlay your intended operations against the polygon described by EZ 1 to EZ 13. If any part of your planned activity intersects that polygon during the listed dates, treat the activity as potentially subject to the Rule 2014’s exclusion consequences.

4. Consult the Woomera Prohibited Area Rule 2014 for procedural steps. The Determination is made under subsection 8(1) of the Rule 2014 and notes section 6 prescribes zones. To learn whether the excluded area admits permits, exemptions, or emergency access arrangements, and to identify any applicable offence or penalty, consult the Rule 2014 text and any departmental guidance referenced by it. The Determination does not supply those procedures.

5. Seek confirmation of start and end times. Because the Determination lists dates without times, confirm with the Department of Defence whether the exclusion begins at 00:00 on the first listed date and expires at 23:59 on the last listed date, or whether different timing conventions apply. Obtain written or published guidance where timing is operationally important.

6. If you believe you require access during the exclusion, seek authorisation through the channels set out in the Rule 2014. The Determination does not create an application route; it only identifies the spatial-temporal scope. Any application for access, permit, or exemption must follow the Rule 2014’s processes and any administrative guidance issued under it.

7. Implement notification and logistical changes. If activities must be rescheduled or relocated, update contractors, insurers, transport arrangements, and relevant stakeholders. The Determination does not provide compensation or relocation arrangements; operational costs of shifting activities will fall on the organiser unless other arrangements exist under separate legal instruments.

8. Keep documentary evidence of compliance efforts. Because the Determination itself is terse, maintain records of correspondence with the Department of Defence, copies of the Determination, GIS overlays, permit applications, and any replies received. Those records will be critical if an enforcement question or dispute arises.

9. If in doubt about enforcement exposure, seek legal advice and departmental confirmation. The Determination does not state enforcement measures or penalties. Confirmation from the Department and advice about likely enforcement practice under the Rule 2014 are sensible risk-management steps.

10. For surveyors and planners, validate datum and mapping standards. Ensure any coordinates used in operational maps and GPS devices are converted to the correct datum and projection. The Determination provides coordinates but does not specify the datum; inappropriate conversions could produce materially different boundaries on the ground.

Following these steps aligns operational behaviour with the Determination’s limited output,the dates and the polygon,and situates further compliance actions within the Rule 2014 framework the Determination expressly invokes.