Biosecurity (First Point of Entry—Essendon Airport) Determination 2019

This instrument uses a small set of recurring legal concepts from the Biosecurity Act 2015, applied at the level of a single airport. The main concepts in the instrument are first point of entry, biosecurity entry point, goods (including baggage and waste), aircraft, and notification/conditions for organisational or procedural change.

First point of entry: The determination names Essendon Airport as a first point of entry for specified subjects. The concept of first point of entry operates as a location-based trigger under the Act for particular obligations; here the instrument specifies that Essendon is a first point of entry for aircraft generally (s 5) and for baggage and waste (s 6). The instrument explicitly limits the goods covered by the airport-level designation, noting Essendon is not a first point of entry for any other goods (s 6, note 1).

Biosecurity entry point: The instrument designates particular areas of Essendon Airport as biosecurity entry points, but only for the goods listed in the instrument’s table (s 8). The airport-level designation as first point of entry and the more granular designation of biosecurity entry points interact with obligations in the Act that require goods or aircraft to be brought to such points when relevant; the instrument’s notes reference section 147 (goods unloading and biosecurity entry points) and section 238 (aircraft and biosecurity entry points) of the Act (ss 7 and 8 notes). The instrument makes clear that no area of Essendon Airport is designated as a biosecurity entry point for aircraft (s 7), which directly affects whether the Act’s aircraft‑focused biosecurity entry point requirement will apply at Essendon.

Goods, baggage and waste: The instrument distinguishes goods classes. It adopts the Act’s definition of goods (s 4), and then applies the first point of entry designation to two particular categories: baggage and waste (s 6). The instrument defines waste by reference to the Act’s goods definition, plus an added element that the goods be intended by the person in charge of the aircraft to be disposed of (s 4). The instrument then designates specific physical areas as biosecurity entry points for baggage only (s 8, table). The notes emphasise the limited scope of these designations, in particular that the instrument does not designate biosecurity entry points for other goods for which Essendon is a first point of entry (s 8, note 2).

Notification and conditions: The instrument attaches conditions to the determination that require certain actors to give written notice to the Agriculture Department when changes occur or are proposed. Owners and lessees must give written notice as soon as practicable after becoming aware of changes to the business entity operating Essendon Airport or a biosecurity entry point at the airport (s 9(2)-(3)). Persons responsible for carrying out operations at the airport must give the Agriculture Department reasonable notice of proposed changes to procedures, facilities or practices that could affect biosecurity risk or the ability of officials to perform or be informed of biosecurity matters (s 9(4)-(5)). The instrument lists the types of change that require reasonable notice, including changes to procedures for biosecurity measures, changes to facilities or amenities for officials, and changes affecting identification and communication of biosecurity risk (s 9(5)(a)-(e)).

Cross‑references to the Act: The instrument relies on the Act for key definitions and for the legal consequences of being a first point of entry or a biosecurity entry point. The instrument explicitly cites the Act’s definitions (s 4), the Act’s provisions on prohibited and conditionally non-prohibited goods for matters relating to whether particular goods may be brought into a first point of entry (s 6, note 2 referencing ss 173 and 174 of the Act), and the Act’s provisions concerning movement of aircraft and goods to biosecurity entry points (s 7 note referencing s 238, s 8 note referencing s 147). The instrument is therefore a location-specific application of the Act’s structural framework.

Legal status and limits: The instrument is a subordinate legislative instrument made by a delegate of the Director of Biosecurity (page header and s 3). It does not itself define offences or penalties, nor does it purport to set detailed operational protocols. Instead, it fixes the spatial and categorical points at which obligations in the Act will attach, and imposes written-notification conditions on owners, lessees and operational managers for the airport (s 9).

The instrument identifies and affects distinct categories of actors by naming obligations and recipients of notices. The primary affected parties are owners of Essendon Airport, lessees of Essendon Airport (if any), persons or bodies responsible for carrying out operations at Essendon Airport, operators of business entities at the airport, passengers and aircraft operators insofar as baggage and waste are involved, and the Agriculture Department as the recipient of notices under the instrument.

Owners and lessees: Section 9(2)-(3) imposes specific written-notification obligations on the owner (or an owner where there is more than one) and on the lessee (or a lessee where there is more than one) of Essendon Airport. If either becomes aware that there has been, or will be, a change to the business entity operating Essendon Airport or a biosecurity entry point at the airport, that owner or lessee must give the Agriculture Department written notice as soon as practicable after becoming aware of the change (s 9(2)-(3)). The drafting means that where multiple owners or multiple lessees exist, the duty falls on an individual owner or lessee to give notice; the instrument does not require that all owners or all lessees notify (s 9(2)-(3)).

Persons or bodies responsible for carrying out operations: Section 9(4) imposes a complementary obligation on the person or body responsible for carrying out operations at Essendon Airport: they must give the Agriculture Department reasonable notice of proposed changes of particular kinds set out in s 9(5). The list in s 9(5)(a)-(e) includes changes to procedures for biosecurity measures, changes to facilities or amenities for biosecurity officials and human biosecurity officers, changes that may affect the ability of operators to identify biosecurity risks, changes affecting the flow of information to biosecurity officials, and other changes that may affect the level of biosecurity risk associated with operations. The instrument therefore prescribes notice duties for a broad class of operational decision‑makers.

Aircraft operators and persons in charge of aircraft: The instrument makes Essendon Airport a first point of entry for aircraft generally (s 5). It also includes a note referring to section 238 of the Act and clarifies the effect of this instrument on aircraft biosecurity entry points (s 7, note). The instrument, however, does not designate any area of the airport as a biosecurity entry point for aircraft (s 7). That combination affects aircraft operators and persons in charge of aircraft because the Act’s requirements to bring an aircraft to a biosecurity entry point attach only where the first point of entry has a designated biosecurity entry point for aircraft; absent such a designation, the Act’s aircraft‑movement-to‑biosecurity-entry-point requirement does not apply at Essendon (s 7, note).

Passengers and cargo handlers: The instrument designates baggage as a class of goods for which Essendon is a first point of entry (s 6), and the instrument designates specific areas of the airport as biosecurity entry points for baggage (s 8, table). The instrument’s note to s 8 references section 147 of the Act for the obligation that baggage unloaded from an aircraft must be brought to a biosecurity entry point as soon as practicable. Therefore passengers, baggage handlers and cargo agents who are responsible for unloading baggage will be affected by the practical obligation to take baggage to the designated biosecurity entry points on arrival.

Waste handlers and aircraft persons in charge: The instrument includes waste among the classes of goods for which Essendon is a first point of entry (s 6(b)), and defines waste by reference to goods subject to biosecurity control that are intended by the person in charge of the aircraft to be disposed of (s 4). However, the instrument does not designate any biosecurity entry points at Essendon for waste in the table at s 8. The instrument’s note to s 8 states explicitly that because no biosecurity entry points are designated for other goods for which Essendon Airport is a first point of entry, the requirement in s 147 of the Act to bring goods to a biosecurity entry point when unloading does not apply to the unloading of those other goods (s 8, note 2). That construct directly affects persons in charge of aircraft and waste handlers by creating a divergence in treatment between baggage, which has designated biosecurity entry points, and waste, which does not.

Agriculture Department: The Department of Agriculture is the statutory recipient of the written notices required by s 9(2)-(4). The Department therefore becomes the central recipient of information about changes to operators, facilities and procedures at the airport that may affect biosecurity risk. The instrument does not specify subsequent administrative steps the Department will take upon receiving notices; it only prescribes the notification mechanism and the Department as the recipient (s 9).

Other stakeholders: The instrument indirectly affects any business entity operating in the designated biosecurity entry point areas (the named terminals and hangars listed in s 8, table). Changes to the business entity operating the airport or a biosecurity entry point fall within the notification requirements (s 9(2)-(3)). Entities doing business in the listed hangars, terminals or lounges will therefore be implicated when ownership, lease or operational control changes occur. The instrument’s cross‑references to the Act’s provisions on prohibited goods and conditional goods (s 6 note) indicate that whether a particular item may be brought into Essendon as a first point of entry will be governed by the Act, and that third parties handling freight or passengers must take those Act provisions into account in practice.

The instrument specifies a limited set of duties and identifies who must give notice. It does not create express rights for private parties beyond the situational rights or obligations established by the Act. The main duties in the instrument are notification duties (s 9), and the designation outcomes in s 5-8 generate procedural obligations under the Act that will attach to operators, passengers and handlers as referenced in the instrument’s notes.

Notification duties: The clearest positive duties in the instrument are the written-notification obligations in Part 4, section 9. Under s 9(2) and s 9(3), the owner (or an owner) and the lessee (or a lessee) must give the Agriculture Department written notice as soon as practicable after becoming aware that there has been, or will be, a change to the business entity operating Essendon Airport or a biosecurity entry point at Essendon Airport. These duties are individualised in that any single owner or lessee may satisfy the requirement; the instrument does not require joint notification by all owners or all lessees. The “as soon as practicable” standard is used in ss 9(2)-(3) as the temporal trigger for those notification duties.

Operational notice duty for proposed changes: Section 9(4) requires that a person or body responsible for carrying out operations at Essendon Airport give the Agriculture Department reasonable notice of proposed changes referred to in s 9(5). The concept of “reasonable notice” is used in s 9(4) to capture timing expectations for proposed operational changes. Section 9(5) enumerates the kinds of proposed changes that attract the reasonable-notice duty, including changes to procedures for biosecurity measures, changes to facilities and amenities for officials, changes that may affect the ability to identify or communicate biosecurity risks, and changes to management procedures that may affect the overall level of biosecurity risk associated with airport operations (s 9(5)(a)-(e)). The duty requires action before proposed changes are implemented, in contrast to the owner/lessee duties in ss 9(2)-(3), which are triggered by awareness of actual or imminent changes.

Movement of goods to biosecurity entry points: The instrument itself does not create the obligation but references the Act for the operative duty that goods unloaded from an aircraft that are mentioned in the instrument’s biosecurity entry point table must be brought to a biosecurity entry point as soon as practicable (s 8, note 1 referencing s 147 of the Act). Through this cross‑reference, the instrument gives practical effect to a duty that will attach when baggage listed in the table is unloaded. For baggage, the instrument names the precise areas where it must be brought as biosecurity entry points (s 8, table). For goods that are covered by the airport-level designation but are not included in the table of biosecurity entry points, the instrument indicates the s 147 obligation will not apply because no biosecurity entry point has been designated for those goods at Essendon (s 8, note 2).

Scope limitation and its effects on duties: The instrument narrows the range of duties that arise under the Act by limiting the classes of goods for which Essendon is a first point of entry to baggage and waste (s 6). The duty to bring goods to biosecurity entry points on unloading only applies where a biosecurity entry point is designated for those goods (s 8, note 2 and s 8, note 1 referencing s 147). Consequently, baggage handlers and persons unloading baggage have a clear duty to bring baggage to the listed biosecurity entry point areas, while persons unloading waste do not have such a duty under the instrument because no BEP for waste is listed (s 6(b), s 8 table, s 8 note 2).

Rights and omissions: The instrument does not create express private rights, nor does it create statutory exemptions or procedural rights for private parties beyond what the Act provides. The instrument also does not specify administrative response options for the Agriculture Department once notices are received, such as approval, rejection or conditions; it only sets the notice duty and the recipient (s 9). The instrument does not itself create offences or set penalties; those matters remain within the Act’s framework (s 3).

Who decides and who must act: The owner, a lessee, and operational managers at Essendon Airport must act to meet the notification duties in s 9. The Agriculture Department is the designated recipient of notices, and therefore the Department is the body to which the Act’s spatial designations and operational changes must be communicated. The instrument does not allocate decision rights to private parties over designation; it is a delegate-made determination that fixes the designations and conditions (s 3).

The determination does not itself set out penalties, offence elements or enforcement mechanisms. The instrument is a subordinate legislative determination made under the Biosecurity Act 2015 (s 3), and it relies on the Act for the substantive enforcement architecture. The instrument refers to the Act’s provisions on movement of goods and aircraft to biosecurity entry points and to the Act’s provisions on prohibited goods and conditionally non‑prohibited goods (see notes to ss 6, 7 and 8 referencing ss 147, 173, 174 and 238 of the Act). Any penalties, offences, compliance measures or enforcement actions that arise from failing to comply with duties that are triggered by being a first point of entry or by the Act’s biosecurity entry point rules will be found in the Act itself; this instrument does not add new penalty clauses.

Practical enforcement channels implied by the instrument: Although the instrument does not prescribe enforcement actions, it creates reporting obligations to the Agriculture Department (s 9). That reporting channel provides a basis for the Department to become aware of changes that may affect biosecurity risk, and therefore for the Department to take any enforcement or regulatory responses authorised by the Act. The instrument thus creates an information flow into the Department but leaves enforcement powers and sanctions to the Act.

Notice timing standards without prescribed sanctions: The instrument imposes temporal standards in the notification duties, using the expressions “as soon as practicable” for owner and lessee notices (s 9(2)-(3)), and “reasonable notice” for proposed operational changes (s 9(4)). The instrument does not define these standards nor specify consequences for failing to meet them. Determination of whether a person has complied with these temporal standards, and enforcement of compliance, must therefore be made under the Act or administrative practice.

Administrative discretion: The instrument designates the Agriculture Department as the recipient of notices (s 9). The instrument does not specify what administrative actions the Department may take in response to notices, nor does it instruct the Department to give approvals or impose conditions on owners or operators. Any follow-up powers or regulatory action the Department may exercise are therefore those provided under the Act or other applicable instruments, not under this determination itself.

No internal inspection or enforcement clause: The determination does not provide the Department with separate or additional inspection powers, nor does it set out procedures for audits, penalties, or remedial directions. Those operational enforcement mechanisms, if any, must be traced to the Act rather than to this instrument. The instrument effectively functions as a location-based designation and an information‑collection mechanism; it does not on its face expand or contract the Act’s enforcement toolkit.

This instrument is expressly made under the Biosecurity Act 2015 and therefore operates as a subordinate instrument within the Act’s statutory framework (s 3). It interacts with the Act by fixing spatial designations that trigger obligations under the Act, by cross‑referencing Act definitions, and by pointing to specific Act provisions for matters such as prohibited goods, conditional non‑prohibited goods, and obligations concerning biosecurity entry points.

Dependence on Act definitions: The instrument incorporates the Act’s definitions by reference. Section 4 of the determination defines “aircraft” and “goods” with direct reference to the Act, noting that aircraft means an aircraft as defined by section 9 of the Act and goods means goods as defined by section 19 of the Act (s 4). The instrument also defines “waste” by reference to the Act’s goods definition and by adding the intention-to-dispose element for a person in charge of the aircraft (s 4). Any legal interpretation of those terms in this instrument must therefore adopt the underlying Act definitions.

Triggering of Act duties: The instrument links its designations to duties in the Act. For example, the instrument’s notes advise that whether particular goods may be brought into a first point of entry is governed by sections 173 and 174 of the Act (s 6, note 2). The instrument also references the Act’s requirements about bringing goods unloaded from an aircraft to a biosecurity entry point (s 8, note 1 referencing s 147), and the requirement for aircraft to be brought to a biosecurity entry point at a first point of entry if a biosecurity entry point exists for aircraft at that first point of entry (s 7, note referencing s 238). These cross-references mean that the instrument’s practical effects are mediated by the substantive duties and exceptions in the Act.

Subordinate instrument within the Act’s framework: The instrument is a determination under s 223(1) of the Act, meaning it exercises a delegated power to specify first points of entry and biosecurity entry points. It therefore sits below the Act in the legal hierarchy and must be interpreted and applied in the context of the Act’s powers, duties and limits. The instrument’s operational legal effect is to create locations and categories within the Act’s existing regulatory architecture.

Absence of conflict clauses: The instrument does not specify how it interacts with other Commonwealth, state or local laws, nor does it attempt to displace or vary them. It is focused on applying the Act’s spatial-designation powers to Essendon Airport. Any interaction with other regulatory regimes, such as aviation safety law, occupational health and safety requirements, waste disposal regulation, tenancy and lease law governing hangars or terminals, or local government planning instruments, is not addressed in the text of this determination. Those interactions will therefore arise in practice and will be governed by the respective legal instruments outside this determination.

References to Act provisions for operational effect: The instrument’s effect depends on the operation of the Act’s provisions it cites. For instance, the instrument’s designation of baggage biosecurity entry points establishes where baggage must be brought on unloading because of s 147 of the Act, which the instrument cites (s 8, note 1). Similarly, the instrument’s declaration that Essendon is a first point of entry for aircraft is qualified by the instrument’s explicit statement that no area of Essendon is designated as a biosecurity entry point for aircraft, which interacts with s 238 of the Act so that the Act’s aircraft‑to‑biosecurity-entry-point rule will not apply at Essendon (s 5, s 7 note). The instrument thus relies on and modifies the spatial application of the Act’s rules without changing the Act itself.

Information flow to the Agriculture Department: By requiring written notices to the Agriculture Department for certain organisational or procedural changes (s 9), the instrument creates a statutory channel of interaction between private operators at Essendon and the Department. How the Department will use that information is not specified in the instrument; any follow-up, approvals or regulatory action in response to notices will be conducted under the Act’s broader powers.

The instrument’s text contains an explicit commencement table and a note regarding the table’s scope (s 2). The commencement schedule records that the whole instrument commenced on 16 December 2019 (s 2, commencement table). The note in s 2 states that the table relates only to the provisions of this instrument as originally made and will not be amended to deal with later amendments of the instrument. The instrument as provided does not include any subsequent amendment entries, expiry provisions, or revocation clauses.

There are no amendment dates, variation clauses, or legislative repeal provisions contained within the determination text provided. The instrument does not include transitional provisions beyond the commencement entry. The instrument also does not record any condition that would automatically revoke the designations after a specified period. The only rolling obligations that could effectually change the operation of the instrument are the notices required by s 9, which operate as conditions attached to the determination rather than as formal amendment mechanisms.

Because the instrument is made under s 223(1) of the Act, any formal amendment, variation or revocation of the instrument would typically occur by the same delegated legislative mechanism under the Act. This instrument does not itself describe that process, nor does it supply a history of prior versions. The commencement table’s note makes clear that the table is a statement only of the original instrument’s commencement, and that later published versions may add or edit column 3 but not alter the instrument itself (s 2(2)). The determination as provided therefore contains no internal record of amendments beyond the original commencement.

If an interested party requires a formal amendment history, the instrument’s placement within the Biosecurity Act framework means that formal amendment records, revocations and disallowance history will be maintained in instrument registers or by the Department of Agriculture, rather than within the instrument text. The instrument itself contains only the original commencement record and no subsequent amendment log.

The instrument contains no references to case law, disputes, litigation outcomes or judicial consideration. There are no decisions, appeals, or administrative review outcomes referenced in the text. The instrument does not name, cite or describe any legal proceedings concerning its validity, operation or effect.

Because this instrument is a delegated determination under the Biosecurity Act 2015 (s 3), any litigation history relevant to its operation would arise from proceedings under provisions of the Act or from judicial review of administrative decisions made under the Act. The determination text itself does not record such matters. Accordingly, within the confines of this instrument, there is no litigation history to report.

A practitioner seeking litigation history related to this instrument would therefore need to consult external sources such as court records, tribunal determinations, or Departmental administrative records, because the instrument’s text contains none.

The instrument contains several narrowly-drafted choices and cross‑references that produce operational pitfalls and potential compliance traps. These are concrete drafting features that practitioners and regulated entities should note.

1. First point of entry for aircraft, but no biosecurity entry point for aircraft: Section 5 designates Essendon Airport as a first point of entry for aircraft generally. Section 7, however, states that the determination does not designate any area of Essendon Airport as a biosecurity entry point for aircraft. The instrument’s note to s 7 repeats the Act rule that an aircraft must be brought to a biosecurity entry point at a first point of entry only if there is a biosecurity entry point for the aircraft at that first point of entry (s 7 note, referencing s 238 of the Act). The practical effect is that although Essendon is a declared first point of entry for aircraft, the Act’s aircraft-to-biosecurity-entry-point requirement will not be triggered at Essendon because no aircraft biosecurity entry point is designated. Operators or handlers who assume that aircraft must be directed to an area designated for aircraft biosecurity entry at Essendon will be mistaken based on this instrument alone.

2. Baggage vs waste,FPOE for baggage and waste, but BEPs only for baggage: Section 6 declares Essendon to be a first point of entry for baggage and waste. Section 8, however, designates specific areas of the airport as biosecurity entry points only for baggage; the table names ExecuJet Terminal, Hanger 8, Jet City Hanger, Air National Australia Hanger, Luft Aviation Hanger, Platinum Business Aviation Centre, Pratt Aviation Hanger, Shortstop Jet Charter Lounge and Southern Cross Jets Hanger as biosecurity entry points for baggage (s 8, table). The instrument then notes that if goods mentioned in the table are unloaded, they must be brought to a biosecurity entry point as soon as practicable (s 8, note 1 referencing s 147). The instrument also notes that because it does not designate BEPs for other goods for which Essendon is a first point of entry, the s 147 requirement does not apply to those other goods (s 8, note 2). The immediate gotcha is that waste is a class of goods for which Essendon is a first point of entry, but no biosecurity entry point is designated for waste in the table; as a result, the instrument indicates that the s 147 obligation to bring unloaded goods to a BEP does not apply to waste unloading at Essendon (s 6(b), s 8 table, s 8 note 2).

3. “Goods” only where subject to biosecurity control or exposed goods order: The instrument’s definition of goods in s 4 borrows the Act’s definition and then limits the instrument’s goods coverage to goods that are subject to biosecurity control or in relation to which an exposed goods order is in force. That means the first point of entry designation for baggage and waste in s 6 applies only to baggage and waste that meet those Act-derived conditions. In practice, handlers will need to determine whether particular baggage or waste items are subject to biosecurity control or an exposed goods order before treating the instrument’s designations as immediately applicable (s 4, s 6).

4. Who must notify is potentially limited to a single owner or lessee: The notification obligations in ss 9(2)-(3) are phrased so that the owner, or if more than one owner an owner, must give notice, and similarly for lessees. The drafting means that only one owner or one lessee is required to give notice, which can create coordination challenges where multiple owners or lessees exist. Relying on a single owner or lessee to carry the obligation may produce uncertainty about whether notice has been given and whether the Department has been properly informed.

5. “As soon as practicable” and “reasonable notice” are undefined: Section 9 uses temporal standards without defining them. Owners and lessees must notify “as soon as practicable” (ss 9(2)-(3)), and operational managers must give “reasonable notice” of proposed changes (s 9(4)). The instrument does not define those standards, nor does it prescribe timelines. That absence of precision leaves parties uncertain about timing compliance and invites administrative interpretation by the Agriculture Department.

6. Named biosecurity entry point areas are private or operator-controlled premises: The list of designated biosecurity entry point areas for baggage (s 8, table) comprises named terminals, hangars and a lounge. These are operationally controlled spaces that may be subject to tenancy, lease and security arrangements. Organising physical movement of baggage to these specific areas may therefore require coordination with hangar operators, tenants or leaseholders. Not all operators may have the same occupancy or access arrangements, which creates a logistical obligation on aircraft operators and baggage handlers to ensure baggage is routed to the correct listed area.

7. No procedural detail for inspections or processing at the named areas: The instrument designates physical areas as biosecurity entry points for baggage but does not set out procedural infrastructure such as hours of operation, staff availability, or processing protocols. Parties designated to bring baggage to those areas must therefore resolve operational details with responsible operators or the Agriculture Department; the instrument itself does not provide those answers.

8. Interaction with prohibited goods and conditional non-prohibited goods left to the Act: The instrument refers users to sections 173 and 174 of the Act for matters about whether particular goods may be brought into a first point of entry (s 6, note 2). The instrument does not state which goods are prohibited or conditionally non-prohibited at Essendon; that determination will turn on the Act’s provisions and any determinations made under those Act provisions. Parties must therefore consult the Act and any other determinations to determine the admissibility of particular items.

9. No express enforcement or penalty in the instrument: Because the instrument does not state enforcement measures, parties cannot rely on the determination alone to understand sanctions for non-compliance. Any penalties must be sought in the Act and other regulatory instruments; that gap may create uncertainty about immediate consequences for failing to give notice or to comply with duties that flow from the Act’s cross-referenced provisions.

10. Recipient is the Agriculture Department but follow-up actions are unspecified: The instrument requires notices be given to the Agriculture Department in writing (s 9(2)-(4)) but does not specify the Department’s response, such as the need for approvals or the imposition of conditions. Parties should not assume notice equals approval or that the Department will take particular regulatory steps in response.

These drafting features are present in the instrument’s text and not inferred beyond it. The practical effect is that operators and owners must manage several coordination and interpretative risks when implementing the instrument’s requirements.

Compliance under this instrument requires a combination of procedural arrangements, recordkeeping, and coordination with the Agriculture Department and with entities controlling named biosecurity entry point areas. The instrument’s obligations are concentrated on owners, lessees and persons responsible for operations at Essendon Airport, and on baggage handlers and persons unloading baggage. The following compliance steps follow directly from the instrument’s text.

1. Establish written-notification procedures to the Agriculture Department: Owners and lessees should put in place a written-notification process to ensure that, if they become aware of an actual or prospective change to the business entity operating Essendon Airport or a biosecurity entry point at the airport, a notice is sent to the Agriculture Department in writing as soon as practicable (s 9(2)-(3)). Because the instrument requires notice from an owner or lessee where there are multiple owners/lessees, each owner/lessee should determine who will carry the notification obligation to avoid gaps. Recordkeeping should capture the date of awareness, the date the notice was sent, the recipient point of contact, and copies of the notice (s 9(2)-(3)).

2. Implement a “reasonable notice” protocol for proposed operational changes: The person or body responsible for carrying out operations must give the Agriculture Department reasonable notice of proposed changes described in s 9(5). Operators should therefore create internal procedures to identify when proposed changes fall within s 9(5)(a)-(e), and to calculate and document a reasonable notice period that permits the Department to assess potential biosecurity risk implications. The instrument does not define “reasonable notice”; operators should document their assessment of what is reasonable in each case and keep correspondence with the Department (s 9(4)-(5)).

3. Map internal responsibilities for baggage handling to the designated biosecurity entry points: The instrument designates a specific list of named areas as biosecurity entry points for baggage (s 8, table). Entities that receive, unload or handle baggage must ensure baggage is taken to one of those named areas as soon as practicable after unloading, in accordance with the instrument’s note referencing s 147 of the Act (s 8, note 1). Practical steps include: identifying which of the listed areas is appropriate for specific flights or operators; ensuring access permissions for staff; establishing transfer points and documented chain‑of‑custody procedures to show that baggage has been transported to a designated area; and training staff on the list of designated areas.

4. Clarify waste handling procedures given no BEP designated for waste: The instrument designates waste as a class of goods for which Essendon is a first point of entry (s 6(b)) but does not designate a biosecurity entry point for waste (s 8 table, s 8 note 2). Operators that handle waste should therefore adopt procedures that recognise this distinction. Practical steps include: engaging with the Agriculture Department to clarify expectations for waste handling at Essendon, documenting internal waste handling and disposal protocols, and retaining records showing compliance with any Departmental guidance. Do not assume that the absence of a BEP for waste relieves operators of all biosecurity obligations under the Act; consult the Act provisions referenced in the instrument where relevant (s 6, s 8 note 2).

5. Coordinate with hangar and terminal operators: The listed biosecurity entry points are physical areas that may be controlled by third-party tenants or operators (s 8, table). Organisations should secure arrangements with hangar or terminal operators to permit biosecurity activities, including access for biosecurity officers, facilities for inspection, and handling space for baggage. Ensure that lease and access agreements permit the movement of baggage and presence of biosecurity officials where necessary.

6. Maintain documentation and proof of notifications: Because the instrument requires written notices to the Agriculture Department (s 9(2)-(4)), parties should keep copies of written notices, date-stamped receipts or acknowledgements from the Department, and logs of any follow-up communications. Records should also include evidence of when a party became aware of a change and, where appropriate, internal approvals to send the notice.

7. Monitor Act provisions referenced by the instrument: The instrument repeatedly cross‑refers to provisions of the Biosecurity Act 2015,section 9, section 19, section 147, section 173, section 174 and section 238 (s 4, notes to ss 6-8). Compliance requires familiarity with those provisions as they determine the substantive scope of biosecurity control, prohibited goods, and the Act’s obligations tied to biosecurity entry points. Ensure legal advisers or compliance officers have access to the text of the Act and any other determinations under those sections.

8. Prepare for timing uncertainty: Because the instrument uses “as soon as practicable” (s 9(2)-(3)) and “reasonable notice” (s 9(4)) without numerical timeframes, parties should adopt conservative standards for timing,documenting the date of awareness, an internal assessment of urgency, and sending notice promptly to reduce the risk of later dispute about timeliness. Keep contemporaneous records that explain why the notice timing is consistent with the instrument’s standards.

9. Establish contact channels with the Agriculture Department: Designate an official contact point or compliance officer to be responsible for sending notices and for handling queries from the Department. Because the instrument specifies written notices to the Agriculture Department (s 9), ensure that the contact details used are current and that delivery methods provide proof of transmission.

10. Audit and training: Given the instrument’s limited but specific designations, create a brief compliance audit checklist covering who must be notified, when, what constitutes the classes of goods covered, where baggage must be brought, and how waste is to be handled. Train ramp staff, baggage handlers, operations managers, tenancy managers and administrative staff on the distinctions between baggage and other goods under the instrument, the list of designated biosecurity entry points, and the internal procedures for notification and recordkeeping.

Following these steps implements the instrument’s duties as they appear in the text. The instrument does not itself provide operational detail on inspections, sanctions, or Departmental responses; parties should therefore anticipate needing to coordinate with the Agriculture Department for specifics beyond the notice requirement.