Biosecurity and Agriculture Management (Aerial Application) Regulations 2018

Controlled chemical product - This is the central regulated substance. It means an “agricultural chemical product” as defined in the Agvet Code of Western Australia, but with two exclusions: (a) meat bait products containing sodium fluoroacetate (1080) that are registered under Part 2 of that Code; and (b) any chemical product that the Director General specifies by Gazette notice under regulation 4 is not a controlled chemical product. The Director General’s power to issue a specifying notice is unilateral and does not require a merits review process. This means the scope of substances captured by the regulations can contract (or expand, if a specifying notice is revoked) by Executive action without amendment to the regulations themselves. The effect is that an operator who applies a product that is not a controlled chemical product from an aircraft need not hold a prescribed qualification under these regulations, though other laws (such as the Health (Pesticides) Regulations 2011 or work health and safety laws) may still apply.

Aircraft - Defined in regulation 3 as “a machine that can derive support in the atmosphere from the reactions of the air”. This is a deliberately broad definition that captures fixed-wing aircraft, helicopters, gyrocopters and, critically, drones and other remotely piloted aircraft (RPAs). However, the regulations create a bifurcated regime: full-sized manned aircraft (and presumably also large RPAs that are not “micro to medium weight”) require the Spraysafe or technician licence pathways (or a class authorisation), while the narrow RPA pathway in regulation 5(1)(d) only applies to “micro to medium weight RPA” as defined in the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 (Cth). That definition itself references subcategories (micro, very small, small, medium) based on weight and kinetic energy limits set by Commonwealth aviation law. An RPA outside that weight range, or operated in circumstances that do not satisfy the conditions in regulation 5(2), will require one of the other qualification pathways.

Apply - Defined as “to drop or spray the product on land”. This covers both liquid spraying and dry application (such as granular or powder products dropped from an aircraft). It is limited to application on land, not on water, though in practice most agricultural spraying is over land. The definition does not cover application in or over buildings, structures, or water bodies, but those would likely be regulated under other laws. The definition also does not cover activities such as loading, mixing, or transport, but those may be captured by other provisions of the Act or other regulations.

Micro to medium weight RPA - This is a defined term that imports a classification from the Commonwealth Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 Dictionary Part 1. Those regulations define “micro RPA”, “very small RPA”, “small RPA”, and “medium RPA” based on maximum take-off weight, kinetic energy limits, and operational limitations. The effect is that the WA regulations tie the qualification exemption for RPAs to the Commonwealth airworthiness category, which can change without WA legislative amendment. An operator relying on the RPA pathway must ensure their RPA falls within this band.

Person responsible - Regulation 7(3) attributes responsibility for making and keeping the application record to a specific person depending on the commercial structure. If the applicator is an employee of a business that conducts chemical application, the employer is responsible. If the applicator is acting for or on behalf of another person (a principal) who conducts a chemical application business (but not as an employee, such as a contractor), the principal is responsible. In all other cases, the individual applicator is responsible. This attribution is important because the penalty falls on the person responsible, not necessarily on the person who physically operates the aircraft. A farming business that engages a contractor may find itself liable for record-keeping failures of the contractor, and vice versa.

Transitional period - Regulation 8 provided a three-year period from the commencement date (29 December 2018 to 28 December 2021) during which a person who held a certificate under the repealed Aerial Spraying Control Act 1966 was deemed to hold a prescribed qualification, subject to conditions attached to that certificate. The transitional period has now expired, so anyone who relied on that deemed qualification must have obtained one of the four permanent pathways by 29 December 2021. This is a common temporal trap for those who assumed the old certificate continued indefinitely.

Gazette notice - Several powers in the regulations (regulation 4(1) specifying products, regulation 6(1) issuing class authorisations, regulation 6(2)(b) amending or revoking authorisations) are exercised by publication in the Western Australia Government Gazette. Publication in the Gazette is a form of delegated legislation and has legal effect from the date of publication, without requiring individual notice to affected persons. This creates a compliance risk: a person who does not regularly monitor the Gazette may be unaware that a product has been added or removed from the controlled list, or that a class authorisation has been amended.

These regulations have direct legal effect on several groups.

Aerial application businesses and their pilots - Any business that conducts aerial spraying of agricultural chemicals from manned aircraft or large drones is the primary target. The pilots they employ must hold the Spraysafe Pilot Accreditation (or the technician licence pathway). The business itself is likely to be the “person responsible” for record-keeping if it is the employer or principal conducting the application business. The $20,000 penalty for record failures falls on the business, not the individual pilot (unless the business structure is such that the pilot is the sole operator). For larger businesses, the record-keeping obligation will require systematic data collection at the time of each application, including wind velocity and exact location, and storage for three years.

Landholders who use their own RPA for crop spraying - A farmer or landowner who owns a micro to medium weight RPA and operates it only over land they own or occupy may use the streamlined RPA pathway, but only if they hold the specified vocational competency units (AHCCHM303 or AHCCHM307 plus AHCCHM304). The conditions in regulation 5(2) are strict: the operator must operate only that one RPA during the operation, must own it or operate it on behalf of the owner, must operate over land owned or occupied by the owner, and no person (owner, operator, landowner, occupier) may receive any remuneration as a direct result of the RPA operation. This means a farmer cannot hire a third-party drone operator to spray their land and rely on this exemption; that would involve remuneration to the operator and likely also to the owner, depending on the arrangement. The exemption is effectively a “own use, non-commercial” exemption. If the farmer uses the RPA to spray a neighbour’s land for a fee, the exemption is lost and the Spraysafe or technician pathways must be used (or a class authorisation obtained). Also, the RPA must remain within the micro to medium weight classification; if the farmer upgrades to a larger drone, the exemption disappears.

Chemical manufacturers and suppliers - While not directly regulated, the Director General’s power to specify that a chemical product is not a controlled chemical product affects the compliance burden on end-users. A manufacturer could petition the Director General to issue an exclusion notice for a particular product, which would reduce the regulatory burden on aerial applicators using that product. Conversely, a product that is currently excluded could be brought back into the controlled category by a subsequent Gazette notice revoking the earlier notice, increasing compliance costs for operators.

Training organisations - The definition of “approved training organisation” in regulation 5(1A) includes registered training organisations under Commonwealth, WA and Victorian vocational education laws. These organisations can deliver the required competency units (AHCCHM303, AHCCHM307, AHCCHM304) and issue statements of attainment. The Aerial Application Association of Australia Ltd also benefits as the issuer of the Spraysafe Pilot Accreditation, which is a pathway that does not require the extra units in transport and storage.

Government regulators - The Director General (presumably the Director General of the Department of Primary Industries and Regional Development, or a delegate) must make decisions on class authorisations and product specifications, and must monitor compliance with the record-keeping requirements. The Gazette publication requirement imposes administrative costs.

Contractors and subcontractors - A person who applies chemicals from an aircraft as a contractor for a principal who conducts a chemical application business makes the principal the “person responsible” for records under regulation 7(3)(b). But the contractor must still hold the prescribed qualification. If the contractor does not properly record the application details, the principal may face the $20,000 fine even if the principal was not present. Conversely, if the principal gives inadequate instructions, the contractor may have difficulty making a complete record.

Owners and occupiers of land - They are not directly regulated, but their name and address must be provided in the record (regulation 7(2)(c)). If they are not the person responsible, they have no legal obligation to ensure records are made. However, they may be asked to provide information to the applicator to enable the record to be completed.

Duty to hold a prescribed qualification before applying - This duty arises from section 56(1) of the Biosecurity and Agriculture Management Act 2007. The regulations define what constitutes a prescribed qualification. A person who applies a controlled chemical product from an aircraft must, at the time of application, satisfy one of the four pathways in regulation 5(1). This is a continuing duty that must be met before each application. The qualification does not need to be repeated for each application, but it must be current. The regulations do not specify expiry periods for the qualifications; that is left to the issuing bodies (e.g., Spraysafe Accreditation may have its own renewal requirements). The technician licence pathway references the Health (Pesticides) Regulations 2011 regulation 38, which has its own renewal regime.

Right to apply if qualified - Conversely, a person who holds a prescribed qualification has the right to apply controlled chemical products from an aircraft, subject to any conditions attached to that qualification (e.g., the conditions of the technician licence or the conditions of the Spraysafe Accreditation). The regulations do not impose additional location-specific or weather-specific restrictions; those may be imposed by other laws (e.g., the Health (Pesticides) Regulations 2011 restrictions near sensitive areas). The Director General’s class authorisation under regulation 6 may include conditions.

Duty to make and keep records - Under regulation 7(1), the person responsible must ensure a record containing the ten specified items is made no later than 48 hours after the product was applied. The record must be kept for three years from the application date. The 48-hour window is tight and requires immediate recording; a person who delays may miss the deadline. The required information includes wind velocity and direction, which may require the operator to have anemometer readings at the time of application. The exact location must be described “in sufficient detail to enable that location to be readily identified”. This likely means GPS coordinates or paddock names with boundaries, not merely “near the dam”. The quantity and concentration per hectare must be recorded, which requires accurate calibration and measurement. The equipment used must be identified, likely with type and serial number.

Right to be recognised as a “person responsible” - The regulations define who is liable for the record-keeping duty. The attribution rules in regulation 7(3) mean that an employer or principal can be the person responsible even if they did not personally operate the aircraft. This gives them the right to insist that the individual applicator provide the necessary information to complete the record. Conversely, an individual applicator who is neither an employee nor acting for a principal (i.e., a solo operator who does not conduct a business) is the person responsible and has no right to delegate that duty.

Right of the Director General to exclude products or authorise classes - The Director General has two discretionary powers. First, under regulation 4, the Director General may specify that a chemical product of a particular kind is not a controlled chemical product, thereby removing the need for a prescribed qualification to apply it from an aircraft. This right is to be exercised by Gazette notice and can be amended or revoked. Second, under regulation 6, the Director General may issue an authorisation for a class of persons if satisfied they are qualified to apply a controlled chemical product from an aircraft. This provides flexibility to cover new technologies or training pathways not captured by the standard pathways.

No duty on owners or occupiers of land - The regulations impose no duties on the owner or occupier of the land over which the product is applied, except that their name and address must be provided to the person responsible for the record. If the owner or occupier also applies the product (e.g., a farmer using own RPA), they are subject to the qualification and record-keeping duties.

The regulations contain one express penalty: a fine of $20,000 for contravention of regulation 7(1), which requires the person responsible to make and keep the application record. This is a significant penalty, especially for a small farming business or a sole operator. The fine is a maximum; a court may impose a lesser amount depending on the circumstances. The penalty attaches to each failure to make a record for a particular application. If multiple applications are made on the same day and no record is made for any of them, each failure may be a separate offence.

The regulations do not themselves create a penalty for applying without a prescribed qualification. That penalty (if any) must be found in the Biosecurity and Agriculture Management Act 2007 section 56(1) or a related provision. The user’s source does not include the Act, so no specific penalty can be stated here. However, typically such offences carry fines or imprisonment, and may also include orders to remedy harm.

Enforcement is likely to be undertaken by the Department of Primary Industries and Regional Development, possibly through authorised officers under the Act. These officers may have powers to enter land, inspect records, and seize evidence. Failure to produce records within the three-year retention period could itself be an offence, though the regulations do not expressly require production on demand; that would be covered by the Act.

The transitional provision in regulation 8 does not create any penalty for transitional non-compliance; it only conferred a deemed qualification during the three-year period. After that period ended on 29 December 2021, a person who continues to rely on an old certificate without obtaining one of the permanent pathways is unqualified and may be prosecuted under the Act.

The regulations do not specify any infringement notice regime (on-the-spot fines) or enforceable undertakings. Enforcement would require court proceedings, which could be costly for both the regulator and the defendant. The high maximum penalty suggests that the regulator views record-keeping as a serious compliance matter, possibly because records are essential for tracking off-target spray drift or chemical misuse.

The penalty applies to the “person responsible”, not necessarily the individual applicator. An employer who fails to ensure records are made cannot shift liability to the employee by claiming the employee was negligent. The attribution rules make the employer strictly liable for the record-keeping failure, subject only to possible defences under the Act (which are not specified in the regulations). However, if the employer can show that they took all reasonable steps to ensure compliance, they may have a defence under general criminal law principles (honest and reasonable mistake of fact), but the regulations do not create a statutory due diligence defence.

Biosecurity and Agriculture Management Act 2007 (the parent Act) - These regulations are made under that Act, specifically under the power to prescribe qualifications for section 56(1). They also rely on the Act for definitions of terms like “Director General” and for enforcement machinery. The Act would contain the offence provision for applying without a prescribed qualification, any defence provisions, and the powers of authorised officers. The Act may also contain provisions relating to the regulation of controlled chemical products more broadly, such as storage, transport, and disposal, which are not covered by these regulations.

Health (Pesticides) Regulations 2011 - These regulations, made under the Health Act 1911 (WA), govern the use of pesticides generally, including licensing of technicians. Regulation 5(1)(b) of the Aerial Application Regulations accepts a technician’s licence under the Health Regulations (regulation 38) as an alternative pathway, provided it is endorsed to allow pest control in crops and pastures. This creates a cross-reference: the technician licence must be current and correctly endorsed. The Health Regulations would also impose their own record-keeping, labelling, and notification requirements, which may overlap with or supplement the Aerial Application Regulations’ record-keeping.

Agvet Code of Western Australia - The definition of “controlled chemical product” imports the definition of “agricultural chemical product” from the Agvet Code, which is the state’s enactment of the national agricultural and veterinary chemicals code. This code governs registration, labelling, and supply of agricultural chemicals. The exclusion for 1080 meat bait products is a specific carve-out. The Agvet Code does not itself regulate aerial application, but it sets the product classification that triggers the regulations.

Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 (Cth) - The definition of “micro to medium weight RPA” is taken from the Commonwealth aviation regulations. These regulations impose operational restrictions on remotely piloted aircraft, such as visual line-of-sight rules, height limits, and licence requirements for operators. The WA regulations piggyback on these classifications, so if the Commonwealth regulations change the classification limits, the scope of the WA RPA pathway will change automatically. For example, if the Commonwealth redefines “medium RPA” to include heavier aircraft, more operators may become eligible for the narrow RPA pathway. Conversely, if the classification is narrowed, some operators may lose the exemption.

Aerial Spraying Control Act 1966 (repealed) - The transitional provision in regulation 8 references certificates under this repealed Act. The repeal was brought about by the Biosecurity and Agriculture Management (Repeal and Consequential Provisions) Act 2007, which was part of a broader consolidation of agricultural legislation. Persons who held certificates under the old Act were given a three-year transition period to convert to the new regime. Since that period has expired, the old Act now has no ongoing relevance except for historical fact.

National Vocational Education and Training Regulator Act 2011 (Cth) and Vocational Education and Training Act 1996 (WA) - These are used to define “approved training organisation”. The WA regulations thus rely on both Commonwealth and Victorian vocational education laws to determine which training organisations can issue the relevant statements of attainment. This creates potential complexity for a training organisation based in another state, but it also provides flexibility by allowing nationally recognised training to satisfy the qualification.

Work Health and Safety Act 2020 (WA) and associated regulations - While not mentioned in the source, aerial application of chemicals involves obvious health and safety risks. The person responsible (employer or principal) has duties under WHS law to ensure the health and safety of workers and others, including the pilot, ground crew, and nearby persons or property. Record-keeping under the regulations may also assist in demonstrating compliance with WHS duties, but the two regimes are separate.

Environmental Protection Act 1986 (WA) - Aerial spraying can cause off-target environmental harm. The Environmental Protection Authority or the Department of Water and Environmental Regulation may impose conditions on spraying near waterways or sensitive areas. The regulations do not reference this, but a person complying with these regulations may still be liable for environmental harm under other laws.

The regulations were originally made in 2018 and published in the Gazette on 28 December 2018. The substantive provisions (regulations 3-8) commenced on 29 December 2018 (regulation 2(b) and the Gazette of that date). The citation and commencement regulations commenced on 28 December 2018.

2021 amendment - The Biosecurity and Agriculture Management (Aerial Application) Amendment Regulations 2021 (SL 2021/216) amended the regulations, effective 18 December 2021 (except for the formal parts which commenced on 17 December 2021). This amendment appears to have introduced the RPA pathway into regulation 5 and added the definitions relating to RPAs and approved training organisations. It also amended regulation 7 to add the “person responsible” definitions at 7(3). The compilation table shows that regulation 5 was amended by SL 2021/216 r. 4, and regulation 7 was amended by SL 2021/216 r. 5. The 2021 amendment was likely a response to the growing use of drones in agriculture and the need to provide a simpler qualification pathway for low-risk, non-commercial RPA operations. It also added the definition of “approved training organisation” to clarify which bodies can issue the required statements of attainment.

2024 amendment - The Biosecurity and Agriculture Management Regulations Amendment Regulations 2024 (SL 2024/150) Part 2 amended these regulations, effective 11 July 2024. The compilation table notes that regulation 5 was amended by SL 2024/151 r. 4 (note that the regulation number 151 may be a consolidation reference). The 2024 amendment likely updated the competency units referenced in regulation 5(3). The original 2018 version of the regulations may have referenced older unit codes. The current text references “AHCCHM303 Prepare and apply chemicals” or “AHCCHM307 Prepare and apply chemicals to control pest, weeds and diseases” for the competency requirement, and “AHCCHM304 Transport and store chemicals” for the transport and storage unit. These units are part of the national Agriculture, Horticulture and Conservation and Land Management Training Package.

The regulations are a compilation that incorporates both amendments. The compilation table confirms that the 2021 and 2024 amendments are the only changes to the original regulations as at the last compilation date (presumably 2024). No further amendments are shown. The regulations are not sunsetted and remain in force until repealed or amended.

The source document does not refer to any court cases. The regulations themselves contain no litigation history, no savings provisions that would override court decisions, and no mention of any pending challenges. This is unsurprising for a relatively narrow set of delegated regulations. It is possible that there have been prosecutions under the Biosecurity and Agriculture Management Act 2007 for applying without a prescribed qualification or for failure to keep records under these regulations, but those would not appear in the regulations text.

One could infer that the transitional provision (regulation 8) may have generated disputes if a person argued they were entitled to rely on an old certificate but the regulator took a different view. However, no case law is mentioned in the source, and it would be improper to invent litigation. The absence of referenced litigation does not mean no disputes have arisen; it simply means the regulations do not cite any.

It is also possible that the Director General’s decisions to issue or refuse a class authorisation, or to specify a chemical product, could be judicially reviewed under the Judicial Review Act 2004 (WA) or the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth) if applicable. The regulations do not provide for merits review, but the parent Act might. Again, nothing in the source indicates any such challenges.

For the purpose of this deep dive, the correct observation is that the regulations themselves do not contain any litigation history sections, and no cases are cited in the notes or defined terms. The practitioner should be aware that case law on the interpretation of “controlled chemical product” or “person responsible” may develop over time, but as of the current compilation there is no judicial authority referenced.

Transitional period has expired - The three-year transitional period under regulation 8 ended on 28 December 2021. Any person who held a certificate under the old Aerial Spraying Control Act 1966 and assumed that certificate continued indefinitely is now unlawfully applying chemicals from an aircraft if they have not obtained one of the four permanent qualifications. This is a harsh but clear legal trap.

Narrow RPA exemption is easy to breach - The RPA pathway in regulation 5(1)(d) and (2) is conditional on several cumulative requirements: the operator must operate only that one RPA during the operation; must be the owner or operate on behalf of the owner; must operate over land owned or occupied by the owner; and no person (owner, operator, landowner, occupier) may receive any remuneration as a direct result of the RPA operation. Breaking any one of these conditions, even inadvertently, means the operator cannot rely on the RPA pathway and must hold the Spraysafe Accreditation or technician licence. For example, if the farmer’s neighbour pays for the spraying (cash, barter, or fuel), the no-remuneration condition is breached. Flying two drones simultaneously or sequentially to cover a larger area would breach the “only that RPA” condition. Allowing a contractor to use the farmer’s RPA over the farmer’s land would involve remuneration to the contractor (unless done for free).

Record-keeping deadline is 48 hours, not “as soon as practicable” - The duty under regulation 7(1)(a) is to ensure the record is made “no later than 48 hours after the product was applied on the land”. This is an absolute time limit. If the applicator is sick, the weather is bad, or equipment fails, the 48-hour clock still runs. The penalty attaches to the failure to make the record, not to the act of applying. A record made 49 hours after application would technically be non-compliant, even if the content is accurate.

Three-year retention period is long - The record must be kept for three years from the application date. For a business that makes many applications over several seasons, this means maintaining an archive of records for multiple years. The penalty for failing to keep records is $20,000 per failure. If records are lost or destroyed before the three years is up, the person responsible may be liable. The regulations do not specify the form of the record (paper or electronic), but it must be retrievable.

“Person responsible” may not be the person who holds the qualification - The individual who holds the Spraysafe Accreditation or the technician licence may be the pilot, but the record-keeping duty may fall on the employer or principal who conducts the application business. That employer or principal may not have direct access to the application data (wind speed, exact location, etc.) and may be unable to make the record unless the pilot provides that information. If the pilot fails to provide it, the employer/principal is still liable. Effective contractual arrangements and internal reporting procedures are essential.

Gazette notices are easy to miss - The Director General can change the list of controlled chemical products or issue class authorisations by Gazette notice. A person who does not monitor the Gazette regularly may miss an exclusion or inclusion, or the revocation of an authorisation. The regulations do not require the Director General to notify affected persons individually. Reliance on outdated information is not a defence.

Competency units may change - The units referenced in regulation 5(3) (AHCCHM303, AHCCHM307, AHCCHM304) are part of a national training package that may be updated or replaced. The regulations do not include a dynamic reference that automatically adopts updated units. If the training package supersedes these units, a person holding a statement of attainment in the replaced units may need to check whether the Director General accepts them as still valid. The 2024 amendment updated the units, suggesting that the original references were out of date.

No exemption for spot treatment or low-volume application - The regulations apply to any application of a controlled chemical product from an aircraft, regardless of the area or volume. Even a single spot treatment using a small drone on a hobby farm is covered. The only exemption is for products excluded by the Director General. There is no de minimis exemption.

Step 1: Determine whether the product is a controlled chemical product - Check whether the chemical to be applied is an “agricultural chemical product” under the Agvet Code. If it is a meat bait containing 1080, it is excluded. Also check the Director General’s current Gazette notices (available on the WA legislation website) to see if any product is specifically excluded. If the product is not a controlled chemical product, the regulations do not apply to its aerial application (though other laws may apply).

Step 2: Ensure the applicator holds a prescribed qualification - Select one of the four pathways.

• Pathway A: Obtain a Spraysafe Pilot Accreditation from the Aerial Application Association of Australia Ltd. This is likely the standard pathway for commercial manned aircraft pilots.
• Pathway B: Hold a current technician’s licence under the Health (Pesticides) Regulations 2011 regulation 38 that is endorsed for pest control in crops and pastures. This may be suitable for persons who already hold that licence.
• Pathway C: Ensure the Director General has issued an authorisation covering the class of persons (e.g., a specific training course accredited by the DG). Monitor the Gazette for such authorisations.
• Pathway D (RPA only): If the aircraft is a micro to medium weight RPA and the operation meets the strict conditions in regulation 5(2), ensure the operator has completed the units AHCCHM303 or AHCCHM307 and AHCCHM304 from an approved training organisation. Obtain a valid statement of attainment. Keep evidence of the units.

If none of the pathways apply, do not apply the product from an aircraft.

Step 3: Comply with the RPA conditions (if relying on that pathway) - Confirm that the operator will only operate a single RPA during the operation; that the operator is the owner or operates on behalf of the owner; that the land is owned or occupied by the owner; and that no person receives any remuneration directly from the operation. Document the ownership and occupancy of the land, and the absence of remuneration. If any of these conditions changes before operations begin, reconsider whether the pathway remains available.

Step 4: Establish a record-keeping system - The person responsible (employer, principal, or individual applicator) must ensure that for each application, a record containing the ten items in regulation 7(2) is made within 48 hours. The system should capture the data at the time of application, ideally using a digital device that records GPS location, time, wind speed, and chemical data. The record must include:

• date and time;
• name and residential address of the person who applied the product;
• name and address of an owner or occupier of the land;
• total area;
• exact location (sufficient detail to identify);
• estimated wind velocity and direction;
• product name;
• quantity and concentration per hectare;
• equipment used;
• type of crop.

The person responsible must keep the record for three years. Consider storing records electronically in a searchable database, with backup copies. Ensure that employees are trained to provide the necessary information promptly.

Step 5: Assign responsibility contractually - If the applicator is an employee of a business that conducts chemical application, the employer is responsible. Include record-keeping obligations in employment agreements and provide training. If the applicator is a contractor (principal relationship), specify in the contract that the principal is responsible and that the contractor must supply the necessary data within 24 hours. If the applicator is a solo operator not conducting a business, they are responsible directly.

Step 6: Monitor the Gazette for changes - Regularly check the WA Government Gazette for notices under regulations 4 and 6. The Department of Primary Industries and Regional Development website may also issue media statements. Set up alerts for changes to the list of controlled chemical products and class authorisations.

Step 7: Stay up to date with amendments to the regulations and related laws - The regulations have been amended twice. Future amendments may change qualification requirements or add new pathways. The competency units may be updated; confirm the validity of any existing statements of attainment with the issuing organisation. Also monitor changes to the Health (Pesticides) Regulations 2011 and the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 (Cth).

Step 8: Prepare for enforcement audits - The regulator may conduct random inspections or investigate drift complaints. Have all records readily accessible and be able to demonstrate that each applicator holds a valid prescribed qualification. Maintain a copy of the applicator’s certificate or statement of attainment on file, along with proof of identity.