Biosecurity (First Point of Entry—Broome International Airport) Determination 2020

The instrument rests on a small set of interlocking concepts drawn from the Biosecurity Act 2015 and the Determination text. Understanding them is necessary to translate the Determination into operational practice.

First point of entry: The Determination designates Broome International Airport as a "first point of entry" for two categories: aircraft and goods (ss 5-6). The phrase "first point of entry" is used throughout the Act; the Determination invokes that status to trigger other biosecurity rules in the Act. For aircraft the designation is "generally" (s 5); for goods it is expressly limited to "goods other than live horses" (s 6). The instrument directs readers to sections 173 and 174 of the Act for "other matters" about whether particular goods may be brought into a first point of entry (s 6 note). Those cross-references mean that the determination interfaces with statutory regimes governing prohibited and conditionally non‑prohibited goods, but the Determination itself does not restate or modify those Act provisions.

Biosecurity entry point: The Determination differentiates between a first point of entry and a biosecurity entry point. A first point of entry is a broader designation; a biosecurity entry point is a specific place within that first point of entry to which arriving aircraft or goods must be brought if a biosecurity entry point for the relevant aircraft or goods exists at that first point of entry (see s 7 note and s 8). The Determination designates two named areas at the airport,Cobham Hangar and International Charter Processing Point,as biosecurity entry points for baggage (s 8 and table). Critically, the Determination expressly states it "does not designate any area of Broome International Airport as a biosecurity entry point for aircraft" (s 7 note), which has immediate operational consequence under section 238 of the Act as summarised in the note.

Goods and classes: The Determination uses the statutory definition of "goods" (s 4) and specifies the class of goods covered by the biosecurity entry point designation: "Baggage" (s 8 table, column 1). The table is the operative instrument for goods: column 1 specifies the goods class, column 2 the specific locations at the airport to be treated as a biosecurity entry point for that class. Note 1 under s 8 reminds users of the Act requirement that unloaded goods mentioned in the table be taken to a biosecurity entry point "as soon as practicable" (see s 147 of the Act). Note 2 under s 8 clarifies that no other goods have designated biosecurity entry points at Broome, so the s 147 requirement does not apply to those other goods.

Notification and notice duties: Part 4 establishes duties that attach to the designation. Owners and lessees have an immediate, post‑change written notification duty "as soon as practicable" when they become aware of a change to the business entity operating the airport or a biosecurity entry point (s 9(2)-(3)). Separate from that reactive duty is a proactive duty on "a person or body that is responsible for carrying out operations" at the airport to give the Department "reasonable notice" of proposed changes of types listed in s 9(5), including procedural changes affecting the ability to identify biosecurity risks and facility or amenity changes affecting officials' ability to perform statutory functions (s 9(4)-(5)). Those duties are conditions on the determination: the Determination is "subject to the conditions in this section" (s 9(1)), not unconditional.

References to the Act: The Determination repeatedly relies on and cross‑references specific sections of the Biosecurity Act 2015 (ss 9, 19, 147, 173, 174, 223, 238). The instrument defines "Act" for its purposes as the Biosecurity Act 2015 and uses statutory definitions for "aircraft" and "goods" (s 4). Where the Determination does not define a term it relies on the Act's definitions (s 4 note). Those cross-references mean that the Determination is a piece in a statutory network: its full practical effect depends on the content of the referenced Act sections.

Delegation and authorising power: The Determination is made by a delegate of the Director of Biosecurity. Section 3 records that the instrument is made under subsection 223(1) of the Act. The document records the delegate's name and position,Barbara Cooper, Assistant Secretary, Compliance Division, Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment,indicating the exercise of an administrative power delegated under the Act.

Spatial and practical specificity: The instrument is spatially narrow. It identifies two named internal locations as biosecurity entry points for a single class of goods. It deliberately leaves several matters unspecified: no biosecurity entry points for aircraft, no designated points for other goods, and no on‑face penalties or fees. Its operative mechanics are therefore focused and administrative: designation plus notification/notice conditions.

The Determination assigns duties and creates operational effects that affect identifiable groups. These effects are traceable directly to the text.

Airport owner(s) and lessee(s): The owner (or, if multiple owners, an owner) and any lessee (or, if multiple lessees, a lessee) of Broome International Airport have defined obligations to notify the Agriculture Department in writing "as soon as practicable" if they become aware that there has been, or will be, a change to the business entity operating the airport or a biosecurity entry point (s 9(2)-(3)). Those persons therefore bear the immediate administrative compliance cost of monitoring corporate or contractual changes and communicating them in writing to the Department. The Determination places these duties explicitly on owners and lessees; it does not place them on other categories of parties except as specified below.

Persons or bodies responsible for carrying out operations: Subsection 9(4) applies to "a person or body that is responsible for carrying out operations at Broome International Airport". That person or body must give the Agriculture Department "reasonable notice" in writing of proposed changes listed in s 9(5). This catches airport operators, contractors or any third parties who run operational functions at the airport if they are responsible for operations. The notice duty is proactive and applies before the change occurs, imposing planning and communication obligations on operational managers.

Aircraft operators and pilots: The Determination designates Broome as a first point of entry for aircraft "generally" (s 5). That classification engages the operator/pilot cohort insofar as the Act’s obligations attached to first points of entry apply, and as stated in the Determination notes. The Determination does not, however, designate biosecurity entry points for aircraft at Broome (s 7 note). Under the Act’s section 238 (as referenced in the note), aircraft must be brought to a biosecurity entry point at a first point of entry if one exists for that aircraft at that first point of entry; because the Determination specifies none, that particular statutory movement requirement will not apply in the aircraft‑specific way at Broome. Aircraft operators still face other statutory obligations under the Act tied to first points of entry; the Determination’s text, however, does not create additional aircraft-specific spatial obligations at Broome beyond the general first point designation.

Airline passengers and baggage handlers: Baggage arrives as "goods" under the statutory dictionary invoked by s 4. The Determination designates baggage as a class of goods for which two named locations,Cobham Hangar and International Charter Processing Point,are biosecurity entry points (s 8 and table). Note 1 to s 8 informs that when aircraft arrive carrying such goods these baggage items must be brought to a biosecurity entry point for those goods "as soon as practicable" (see s 147 of the Act). Therefore airlines, ground handling agents, baggage handlers and passengers (through baggage movement) are operationally affected: baggage unloading must proceed to the designated areas rather than to any other location at the airport, where that obligation applies.

Biosecurity officials and human biosecurity officers: The Determination addresses the facilities and amenities available to these officials as a category of change that triggers a notice obligation if altered (s 9(5)(b)). The instrument therefore implicates their practical ability to perform statutory functions at Broome; changes to the environment in which they work must be notified. The Determination also identifies the Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment as the recipient of notices, thereby situating departmental biosecurity personnel as the decision‑maker/receiver of information relevant to the designation.

Businesses that import goods: Entities that ship or import baggage or goods into Broome are affected insofar as the Determination creates a spatial requirement for baggage to be taken to designated biosecurity entry points. The Determination excludes live horses from the goods first point status (s 6), so parties importing live horses will face a different regime; the Determination explicitly recognises that by excluding them from the goods designation.

The Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment: The Department is the notice recipient (s 9) and the administrative arm charged with overseeing compliance with the Act more broadly. The instrument places an administrative monitoring and processing role on the Department: it will receive written notifications and reasonable notices and, by implication, may need to act on them or update its records. The Determination does not spell out the Department’s follow-up powers in the instrument itself.

Other airport contractors and third parties: Any contractor whose work involves procedures, facilities, identification or notification flows that would "affect the ability" to identify or inform officials of biosecurity risks falls within the subject matter of the notice obligations (s 9(5)(c)-(d)). Though the Determination does not name contractors, its requirements are operationally relevant to them because a proposed change to their processes may trigger a "reasonable notice" obligation.

Members of the public: Indirectly affected through baggage handling and airport operations. The Determination has practical effects on where baggage may be moved and on the airport’s regulatory status, with consequent, indirect effects on passenger flows and operational protocols.

Entities not affected: The Determination does not designate biosecurity entry points for goods other than baggage at Broome, and therefore the specific requirement in the Act that goods be brought to a biosecurity entry point (s 147) does not apply to those other goods at Broome (s 8 note 2). Also, because no aircraft biosecurity entry points are designated, aircraft are not required to be brought to a biosecurity entry point at Broome (s 7 note), despite the airport being a first point of entry for aircraft generally (s 5).

This Determination creates and conditions specific duties and leaves various rights either to the Act or undefined in the instrument itself. Below are the operative duties and the rights as they can be read from the Determination.

Duties imposed by the Determination

1. Owner/lessee written notification duty: If the owner (or an owner where there are multiple owners) becomes aware that there has been, or will be, a change to the business entity operating Broome International Airport or a biosecurity entry point at the airport, the owner must give the Agriculture Department written notice "as soon as practicable" after becoming aware (s 9(2)). The same obligation falls on the lessee (or a lessee where there are multiple lessees) (s 9(3)). The duty is reactive and attaches when awareness of a change occurs; timing is defined by the phrase "as soon as practicable".

2. Operational notice duty: A person or body responsible for carrying out operations at Broome International Airport that proposes to make certain changes must give the Agriculture Department "reasonable notice" in writing of the proposed change (s 9(4)). The list of changes that trigger this duty is in s 9(5) and includes changes to procedures for biosecurity measures, changes to facilities or amenities for biosecurity officials and human biosecurity officers, changes affecting the ability to identify biosecurity risks or to inform officials of identified risks, and changes to procedures for managing other risk-contributing factors (s 9(5)(a)-(e)).

3. Movement of baggage to designated biosecurity entry points: Where an arriving aircraft is carrying goods mentioned in the table (that is, baggage), those goods must be brought to a biosecurity entry point for those goods "as soon as practicable" (note 1 to s 8, referencing s 147 of the Act). The Determination thereby imposes a spatial handling obligation in connection with baggage unloading.

Conditions attaching to the designation: The Determination is "subject to the conditions in this section" (s 9(1)), meaning compliance with the notification and notice duties is a condition of the instrument’s effect. The text treats these requirements as ongoing conditions, not one‑off record-keeping tasks.

Duties implied by cross‑references to the Act: The Determination directs users to sections of the Act for other consequences. For example, it notes that certain Act provisions govern prohibited goods and conditionally non‑prohibited goods (ss 173, 174) and that section 238 of the Act establishes the principle that an aircraft must be brought to a biosecurity entry point at a first point of entry if such a biosecurity entry point exists (s 7 note). Those cross-references imply additional duties under the Act that may apply in conjunction with this Determination, although their detailed content is not reproduced in the Determination.

Rights and discretions under the Determination

1. Departmental discretion and operational oversight: The Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment is the recipient of required notices. The Determination does not set out rights for the Department explicitly, but by structuring the notification flows it gives the Department the operational role of being informed and, by implication, the administrative discretion to act under the Act on any information received. The Determination does not specify the Department’s steps post-notice.

2. No on‑face offence or penalty: The Determination does not create new criminal or civil penalties in its text. Therefore, any rights to impose sanctions or to adjudicate non‑compliance would derive from the Act rather than from this instrument. The instrument’s silence on penalties leaves enforcement mechanisms to the Act and to administrative responses by the Department.

3. Rights of aircraft operators regarding biosecurity entry points: The Determination designates no area as a biosecurity entry point for aircraft at Broome (s 7 note). That means aircraft operators are not, by this Determination, required to move an aircraft to a designated aircraft biosecurity entry point at Broome. Their rights to land and taxi remain subject to other regulatory regimes and to the general first point status, but this Determination does not add an aircraft-specific spatial constraint.

4. Boundaries of obligations as to goods: The designation of baggage as the only class of goods with specified biosecurity entry points at Broome (s 8) defines both the scope of the spatial goods obligation and the limits of who needs to comply with s 147 at this airport. Goods not listed in the table are not subject to the s 147 biosecurity entry point requirement at Broome (s 8 note 2). This delineation is effectively a grant of non-obligation for other goods at Broome within the Determination’s terms.

Operational implications of duties and rights

• Timing standards: The instrument uses the phrases "as soon as practicable" (s 8 note 1; ss 9(2)-(3)) and "reasonable notice" (s 9(4)). These are flexible legal standards rather than fixed deadlines. They create a compliance obligation with customary legal interpretation that reasonableness will be assessed by context. The Determination does not supply specific timeframes or notice periods.

• Written form: All notification and notice duties in Part 4 are framed as written obligations to the Agriculture Department (ss 9(2)-(4)). This sets a minimum formal requirement that can be operationalised through letters, email, or other written communications as accepted by the Department. The Determination does not define acceptable written formats.

• Allocation of monitoring responsibility: Owners and lessees are explicitly obligated to notify; operational managers have a proactive duty. This allocation places monitoring and compliance burdens on multiple layers: property titleholders, tenants and operational parties. Where responsibilities overlap multiple stakeholders, the Determination uses the "or, if there is more than one owner, an owner" language for owners/lessees (ss 9(2)-(3)), creating an obligation on any one owner or lessee to act.

The Determination itself does not articulate penalties, sanctions or enforcement procedures. It is an administrative instrument that confers designations and attaches conditions; any penal or enforcement measures must be found in the Biosecurity Act 2015 or other applicable law. The Determination explicitly states its legislative authority is subsection 223(1) of the Act (s 3), signalling that enforcement and penalty frameworks are those provided by the Act.

What the Determination does include that bears on enforcement is procedural: specified parties must provide written notices to the Agriculture Department under clearly stated standards of timing,"as soon as practicable" (ss 9(2)-(3); note 1 to s 8) and "reasonable notice" (s 9(4)). These standards are legal benchmarks that can be relied upon by an enforcement agency to evaluate compliance. Because the Determination is "subject to the conditions" set out in s 9(1), non‑compliance with those conditions could have administrative consequences under the Act, including potential revocation or amendment of the designation, or further action under the Act. The Determination does not itself state that failing to notify will revoke the designation or will attract a specific penalty.

Enforcement actors: The recipient of notices is the "Agriculture Department" (ss 9(2)-(4)). This locates the Department as the administrative agency tasked with receiving and presumably acting on the information. The instrument does not list particular enforcement powers exercisable by the Department under this Determination; those powers would derive from the parent statute.

Enforcement instruments likely relevant but not reproduced: The Determination refers to provisions of the Act that relate operationally to compliance,section 147 (movement of goods to biosecurity entry points), section 173 and 174 (prohibited and conditionally non‑prohibited goods), and section 238 (aircraft biosecurity entry point movement). Those provisions are invoked to explain consequences of the designations (s 6 note; s 7 note; s 8 notes). Where a duty under the Act is contravened (for example, failure to bring goods to a biosecurity entry point when one is designated and required under the Act), the Act contains enforcement and penalty mechanisms. The Determination does not reproduce those mechanisms, so practitioners must consult the Biosecurity Act to identify specific offences and penalties applicable to particular breaches.

Practical enforcement pathways: In practice the Department can be expected to monitor compliance by (a) receiving the written notices required by s 9 and (b) inspecting whether baggage is being brought to the designated Cobham Hangar or International Charter Processing Point as required under s 8 (and as referenced to s 147 of the Act). The instrument gives the Department information flows that are intended to enable operational oversight. The Determination’s silence on enforcement detail is likely deliberate: enforcement tools and penalties are centralised in the Act rather than in subsidiary instruments.

Discretion and ambiguity that affect enforcement: The Determination uses qualitative standards,"as soon as practicable" and "reasonable notice",which introduce enforcement discretion. What constitutes "reasonable notice" for a proposed change to airport procedures that affects ability to identify biosecurity risk is a matter of factual judgment. The Department will need to exercise discretion in determining whether the content and timing of a notice met the statutory standard. Similarly, the "as soon as practicable" standard for post‑change notification requires an assessment of the circumstances and the speed with which an owner or lessee could reasonably notify.

Absence of timeframes and prescribed notice mechanics increases risk of dispute: Because the Determination does not prescribe notice periods, methods of delivery, or consequences for late or inadequate notices, enforcement will depend on the Department's administrative interpretations and any statutory enforcement tools in the Act. That raises potential for disputes about compliance fidelity, which would be resolved under the Act’s procedures or potentially through administrative review remedies available under general administrative law principles, though the Determination does not itself address those remedies.

This Determination is an instrument made under subsection 223(1) of the Biosecurity Act 2015 and repeatedly cross‑references provisions within that Act. The Determination’s legal effects must therefore be read in conjunction with the Biosecurity Act 2015 and any other statutory or regulatory instruments that govern airport operations, aviation safety, quarantine control, and customs, though the Determination itself only cites the Biosecurity Act.

Direct internal Act cross‑references: The Determination relies on and refers to the following sections of the Biosecurity Act:

• Section 9 of the Act: Definitions. The Determination notes that a number of expressions used in the instrument are defined in section 9 of the Act and adopts the Act's definitions for "aircraft" and "goods" as applicable (s 4). Accordingly, the Determination must be interpreted using those statutory definitions.

• Section 19 of the Act: The Determination defines "goods" in relation to section 19 and says the term means goods that are subject to biosecurity control or in relation to which an exposed goods order is in force (s 4). Therefore the scope of "goods" under the Determination mirrors statutory categories.

• Section 147 of the Act: The Determination’s note to s 8 makes the point that if an aircraft has arrived at Broome and is carrying goods mentioned in the table, those goods must be brought to a biosecurity entry point for those goods "as soon as practicable" (note 1 to s 8). That instruction is explicitly linked to section 147 of the Act. Practitioners must therefore consult s 147 for the detailed statutory duty and any qualifications.

• Sections 173 and 174 of the Act: The Determination directs readers to ss 173 and 174 regarding whether particular goods may be brought into a first point of entry (s 6 note). This situates the Determination within the Act’s prohibited goods and conditional non‑prohibited goods regimes.

• Section 238 of the Act: The Determination’s note to s 7 explains that an aircraft must be brought to a biosecurity entry point at a first point of entry if there is a biosecurity entry point for the aircraft at that first point of entry, citing s 238. Because the Determination does not designate any area at Broome as a biosecurity entry point for aircraft, the s 238 requirement does not operate at Broome in an aircraft‑specific way under this Determination.

• Subsection 223(1) of the Act: The Determination is expressly made under subsection 223(1) (s 3). That is the direct legal basis for the delegate’s power to make the instrument.

Interplay with aviation and airport regulatory regimes: The Determination operates in an airport environment subject to multiple regulatory regimes, including aviation safety, airport leases and security regulation. The Determination does not expressly reference those regimes, but operationally airport owners, operators and third‑party contractors must coordinate compliance with this Determination together with obligations under aviation safety and security laws and any relevant lease terms. For example, the Determination places notice duties on owners/lessees and on operational managers; those contractual and regulatory relationships will determine who actually fulfils those obligations and how responsibilities are allocated.

Customs and quarantine interfaces: The Determination’s subject matter,first points of entry and biosecurity entry points for baggage,sits adjacent to customs and quarantine controls. The instrument does not mention customs law, but baggage movement to designated areas will interface operationally with customs and quarantine processing at an airport. Practitioners must therefore account for the coordination required between customs, quarantine, human biosecurity officers and airport operations. The Determination’s s 9(5)(b) specifically references facilities and amenities for biosecurity and human biosecurity officers, highlighting the built-in expectation of operational co‑operation.

Administrative law and statutory interpretation: As an administrative instrument made under the Act, this Determination is subject to applicable administrative law principles. The Determination’s qualitative standards,"reasonable notice" and "as soon as practicable",will be interpreted in the usual way by administrative decision-makers and courts applying the Act and judicial review principles. The Determination does not define those terms or set hard timeframes.

Possible contractual interactions: Owners and lessees have notification duties. If an airport operator is bound by lease or service contracts, those contracts will be the vehicle for ensuring compliance with the Determination’s obligations. The Determination does not amend leases, but its conditions will need to be implemented through contractual allocation of responsibilities, changes to operational procedures and possibly indemnities for downstream obligations.

Limitations of the Determination’s reach: The Determination’s explicit exclusion of live horses from the goods first point designation (s 6) means that any statutory regimes applicable to live animal imports (which may exist in the Act or elsewhere) will apply independently of this Determination. The instrument does not displace other statutes; it complements the Act by prescribing specific airport designations and notification duties within the statutory framework.

This Determination contains its own commencement table (s 2) and a note that the table relates only to the provisions of the instrument as originally made and will not be amended to deal with later amendments (s 2(1)-(2)). The instrument records a single commencement date: the whole instrument took effect on 16 June 2020 (s 2 table, column 2). The Determination is made under subsection 223(1) of the Biosecurity Act 2015 (s 3), which is recorded as its authority.

The text includes a formal "Note" about column 3 of the commencement table, which states that any information in column 3 is not part of the instrument and may be edited in published versions (s 2(2)). That is a publishing convention rather than a substantive amendment mechanism.

No subsequent amendments, revisions, revocations or schedules are contained in the instrument text provided. The Determination ends with Part 4 and s 9(5)(e) as its last substantive provision. The instrument therefore stands in the form and with the content recorded. If amendments have been made since the commencement date they are not reflected in the text provided.

Because the Determination is made pursuant to a power in the Biosecurity Act 2015, subsequent changes to the Act or to delegations under the Act could affect the continued operation or validity of the Determination. The instrument itself does not provide an amendment history or indicate any sunset, review or automatic repeal provision. Absent further instruments or legislative changes, its commencement and operative content are as recorded.

For practitioners tracking change, the instrument’s own note that the commencement table applies only as originally made suggests that later versions of the Determination published in consolidated legislative databases could include editorial changes to column 3 without altering the legal text. That convention is administrative and does not indicate substantive amendments.

The Determination contains no reference to litigation, court decisions or administrative appeals. The instrument itself does not record any judicial or tribunal review history. Therefore based on the text provided there is no litigation history to report.

Potential for future litigation or review: While the Determination itself includes no case law, the practical effects it creates,particularly in relation to ambiguous standards such as "as soon as practicable" and "reasonable notice",create potential loci for dispute. For example, factual disagreements could arise about whether a particular written notification met the "as soon as practicable" standard in s 9(2)-(3) or whether notice provided before a proposed change constituted "reasonable notice" under s 9(4). Such disputes could be the subject of administrative review or judicial review actions under general administrative law, or could be engaged in the context of enforcement action under the Biosecurity Act. The Determination does not itself identify dispute resolution pathways, specialised tribunals, or appeal rights; those mechanisms would be those found in the Act and in general administrative law.

Scope for litigation about scope and interpretation: Ambiguities that could give rise to litigation include the scope of "business entity operating" the airport or a biosecurity entry point (s 9(2)-(3)), who precisely qualifies as "a person or body that is responsible for carrying out operations" (s 9(4)), and what changes fall within the s 9(5) categories. Similarly, the interface between the Determination’s exclusion of live horses (s 6) and any other statutory regime governing live animal imports could be litigated insofar as parties claim different interpretations of the combined regulatory scheme. The Determination itself does not elaborate these concepts.

No named cases or precedents are cited in the Determination; therefore any legal argument about the Determination’s interpretation must proceed from the instrument’s text together with the Biosecurity Act and relevant administrative law principles. Practitioners should be attentive to judicial interpretation of the Act’s provisions that the Determination cross-references where those cases become relevant to how the Determination operates in practice.

Several features of the Determination can create practical traps for owners, lessees, operators and handlers if they are not understood and operationalised.

1. Different obligations for aircraft and goods: The Determination designates Broome as a first point of entry for aircraft generally (s 5) and for goods other than live horses (s 6). However, it expressly designates no biosecurity entry point for aircraft (s 7 note) while it designates specific locations for baggage as goods (s 8). Practitioners may misread "first point of entry" to mean aircraft must be brought to an aircraft biosecurity entry point; at Broome that is not the case because no areas are so designated. The practical effect is that baggage movement obligations are spatially specific while aircraft movements are not subject to aircraft-specific biosecurity entry point constraints under this Determination.

2. "Baggage" is the only goods class with designated entry points: Column 1 of the table in s 8 lists only "Baggage". The table thereby limits the s 147 requirement (that goods be brought to a biosecurity entry point) to baggage at Broome. Goods other than baggage are not subject to that spatial requirement at Broome under this Determination (s 8 note 2). If an importing party assumes the s 147 obligation applies to other goods at Broome they may misallocate resources and design processes that are unnecessary under the Determination’s terms. Conversely, failing to send baggage to the specified entry points risks contravening the Act’s requirements as noted in s 8 note 1.

3. Exclusion of live horses: Section 6 expressly excludes live horses from the goods first point designation. The exclusion means special handling and alternative arrangements may be necessary for live horses. If handlers are unaware of this exclusion they could misroute animals or fail to comply with applicable requirements. The Determination doesn’t say how live horses are to be processed; practitioners must look elsewhere in the Act or in other instruments for the applicable process.

4. Unspecified formats and timelines for written notices: The Determination requires written notices "as soon as practicable" (ss 9(2)-(3)) and "reasonable notice" (s 9(4)). It does not prescribe acceptable formats, contact points, or specific timeframes. This leaves a risk that a party delivering a notice by email, by post, or by another medium might have their notice challenged as not being "in writing" or not delivered with adequate promptness. Operators should confirm with the Agriculture Department the Department’s preferred means for receiving notices to avoid contested non‑compliance.

5. Multiple owners/lessees: The Determination uses the formulation "the owner (or, if there is more than one owner, an owner)" and the equivalent for lessees (ss 9(2)-(3)). This language imposes the notification duty on any single owner or lessee, which can create coordination problems among multiple titleholders or tenants. If an owner assumes another owner will notify the Department, delay or failure may occur. The Determination places the duty on "an owner", so any owner could be held responsible for failure to notify.

6. Broad scope of proposed-change triggers: The list in s 9(5) that triggers the proactive notice duty is broad and not limited to only major infrastructural changes. It includes "procedures" that might affect the ability to identify or inform about biosecurity risks. Minor procedural adjustments by contractors,such as changes to screening workflows or to who receives certain operational alerts,could conceivably require "reasonable notice". Parties may under-notify due to uncertainty about whether a change falls within the categories listed.

7. Unclear allocation between contractual obligations and statutory duties: The Determination obliges owners, lessees and operational managers to notify the Department, but it does not impose direct obligations on contractors unless they are the "person or body that is responsible for carrying out operations". In practice, the contractual allocation between the airport owner, its lessee and contractors must be carefully managed to ensure statutory duties are discharged. Failure to allocate responsibility properly may leave notification duties unfulfilled.

8. No on‑face enforcement detail: Because the Determination does not provide explicit consequences for failure to notify or to give reasonable notice, parties might underestimate the seriousness of non‑compliance. The Act likely contains enforcement powers, but the Determination’s silence on immediate consequences can create a false sense of security.

9. Publication‑related editorial notes: Section 2 contains an editorial note regarding information in column 3 of the commencement table not being part of the instrument and subject to change in published versions. Users relying on a published version must ensure they are consulting the legal text, not editorial annotations.

10. Reliance on cross‑referenced Act provisions: As the Determination is embedded in the Biosecurity Act framework, practical compliance often requires reference to the Act’s provisions. Parties who work only from the Determination and do not consult the referenced Act provisions risk missing relevant statutory requirements (for instance, those about prohibited goods, exposed goods orders, or the procedural content of s 147).

The Determination sets out a short set of obligations and operational expectations. Below is a practical compliance checklist directly tied to the instrument’s text, and recommended operational steps consistent with the Determination’s wording.

1. Confirm the dates and authority. Record that the Determination commenced 16 June 2020 (s 2) and is made under subsection 223(1) of the Biosecurity Act 2015 (s 3). Ensure that compliance actions are in effect from the commencement date.

2. Identify status categories affecting your operation. Establish whether your role is that of owner, lessee, operator, contractor or baggage handler. The notification and notice duties fall on owners/lessees (ss 9(2)-(3)) and on "a person or body that is responsible for carrying out operations" for proactive notice (s 9(4)). Clarify contractual roles to allocate statutory duties effectively.

3. Implement written notice procedures. Because notifications must be "in writing" to the Agriculture Department (ss 9(2)-(4)), put in place a standard written-notice template and an internal protocol for delivery. The Determination does not mandate a specific method of delivery, so confirm with the Department the preferred contact details and acceptable formats (email address, postal address, electronic portal). Keep dated copies of every notice and evidence of delivery.

4. Monitor corporate and operational changes. Owners and lessees must notify the Department "as soon as practicable" after becoming aware of a change to the business entity operating the airport or a biosecurity entry point (ss 9(2)-(3)). Ensure governance and monitoring systems (board reports, reporting checklists, contract variation controls) capture any change in ownership, corporate control, or the identity of the business operating the airport or biosecurity entry points.

5. Provide "reasonable notice" for proposed operational changes. For proposed changes listed in s 9(5), develop a pre-change notification workflow that allows the Department to receive "reasonable notice" in writing. The list in s 9(5) includes:

   • changes to procedural biosecurity measures (s 9(5)(a));
   • changes to facilities or amenities for biosecurity officials and human biosecurity officers (s 9(5)(b));
   • changes to procedures that may affect the ability to identify biosecurity risks (s 9(5)(c));
   • changes to procedures that may affect the ability for officials to be informed of identified risks (s 9(5)(d));
   • changes to procedures for managing other factors contributing to biosecurity risk (s 9(5)(e)).

   For each category, map internal processes that could trigger the notice duty and set internal lead times adequate to provide reasonable notice to the Department.

6. Designate internal points of contact. Nominate a compliance officer or a small team responsible for biosecurity notices and for liaising with the Agriculture Department. Document their authority to send written notices and keep records of communications.

7. Ensure baggage is directed to the designated biosecurity entry points. The Determination designates the Cobham Hangar and the International Charter Processing Point as biosecurity entry points for baggage (s 8 table, column 2). Where aircraft arrive carrying baggage, ensure those items are brought to one of those two areas "as soon as practicable" after unloading (note 1 to s 8, referencing s 147 of the Act). Operational protocols, signage and ground handling contracts should be updated to reflect this routing requirement.

8. Adjust contracts and lease terms. Because the Determination’s duties fall on owners, lessees and operational managers, ensure that contracts allocate responsibility for monitoring, notifying and for routing baggage to the biosecurity entry points. Insert clauses requiring contractors to give the airport operator advance notification of proposed procedural or facilities changes that could engage s 9(5).

9. Train staff and contractors. Provide training to ground handlers, baggage staff, operations managers and any party involved in cargo or baggage movement so they understand that baggage must be taken to the Cobham Hangar or International Charter Processing Point. Train administrative staff on the "as soon as practicable" and "reasonable notice" standards and on the requirement for written notice.

10. Maintain records demonstrating compliance. Keep contemporaneous records of:

• notices given to the Agriculture Department, with timestamps and delivery confirmation (ss 9(2)-(4));
• internal approvals for proposed changes and copies of notices sent (s 9(4));
• logs showing baggage movement to the designated areas and timing of transfers from aircraft (s 8 note 1).

Such records will be useful if the Department queries compliance or if there is an administrative review.

11. Clarify handling of live horses and other excluded goods. The Determination excludes live horses from its goods first point designation (s 6). For any party importing or exporting live animals, confirm alternative arrangements and statutory requirements elsewhere in the Act or in separate instruments. Do not assume the baggage routing or biosecurity entry point procedures specified for baggage apply to live animals.

12. Coordinate with biosecurity officials. Because s 9(5)(b) specifically refers to facilities and amenities available to biosecurity and human biosecurity officers, consult with the Department and relevant officers before making changes that affect their working conditions, such as office relocations, security access changes, or equipment alterations.

13. Confirm Department contact and procedural expectations. Given the Determination’s lack of prescribed formats and timeframes for notices, establish a standing liaison with the Department to agree on pragmatic standards for "reasonable notice" and "as soon as practicable" in the context of the airport’s operations. A brief memorandum of understanding or confirmation email can reduce the risk of disputes about procedural compliance.

14. Review and update emergency procedures. Changes made in response to operational exigencies,such as those prompted by public health emergencies,may nonetheless require notification under s 9(4) if they affect biosecurity procedures or facilities. Develop contingency notice protocols for emergency changes so "reasonable notice" and "as soon as practicable" standards can be met ex post if prior notice is impossible.

15. Legal review and liaison with counsel: Because this Determination references statutory duties under the Biosecurity Act and leaves many interpretive issues to the Act or to administrative discretion, seek legal advice where novel factual scenarios arise,such as ambiguous changes to operational procedures, conflicts between contractual obligations and statutory notices, or situations involving live animals,so that notices to the Department are framed correctly.

Following these steps will align airport ownership, leasehold and operational practice with the Determination’s express terms. Because the Determination is short and focused, compliance is largely administrative: ensuring the right written notices are sent to the Department, that baggage is brought to the two specified locations, and that changes affecting biosecurity capacity at the airport are communicated in advance.