Biosecurity (First Point of Entry–Port of Thevenard) Determination 2019

The instrument rests on a small set of recurring statutory concepts, defined either in the instrument or by reference to the Biosecurity Act 2015. Those concepts determine scope, duties and triggers.

• First point of entry. The term is used in ss5-6 to identify Port of Thevenard as the location where designated arrivals are first to be processed for biosecurity controls. The instrument both creates that status for the port and limits it to specified classes (s5-6). The instrument’s notes explicitly confirm it is not a first point for goods other than those stated (s6 Note 1).

• Biosecurity entry point. Sections 7-8 designate particular areas within Port of Thevenard (in both tables the area specified is Thevenard Wharf) as the physical locations where vessels and baggage must be brought for biosecurity processing. The instrument links these designations with statutory movement duties: vessels must be brought to a biosecurity entry point as soon as practicable (s7 note referencing s246 of the Act) and goods to be unloaded must be brought to a biosecurity entry point as soon as practicable (s8 note referencing s147 of the Act).

• Vessel and goods. The instrument defines “vessel” and “goods” by reference to the Act (s4). It also adopts the Biosecurity Regulation 2016 meaning for “non‑commercial vessel” (s4). The instrument narrows the port’s first point status to the classes specified: vessels other than non‑commercial and passenger vessels (s5) and baggage carried on such vessels (s6). The instrument clarifies that other goods are not within this determination (s6 Note 1).

• Notification conditions. Part 4 (s9) imposes conditions on the port’s designation: owners and lessees must notify the Agriculture Department in writing as soon as practicable if they become aware of changes to the business entity operating the port or a biosecurity entry point (s9(2)-(3)). Operators must give the Department reasonable notice of proposed changes to procedures, facilities or other arrangements that could affect biosecurity risk management or officials’ ability to perform their functions (s9(4)-(5)).

• Delegated instrument authority. The instrument identifies its legal source as subsection 229(1) of the Biosecurity Act 2015 (s3) and was made by a named delegate acting for the Director of Biosecurity. This locates the instrument as a subordinate legislative instrument rather than primary legislation.

• Temporal commencement. The instrument’s commencement detail is confined to the table in s2 which states that “the whole of this instrument” commenced on 16 June 2019. The instrument records its date (7 June 2019) and the identity of the delegate who made it.

Those core concepts set the legal mechanics: which arrivals the port must receive as a first point of entry, where within the port biosecurity processing must occur, and what information must be furnished to the Department if ownership, lessee relationships, operational control, procedures or facilities change in ways that may affect biosecurity management.

The Determination identifies several distinct groups who bear duties or are directly affected by the designation. The instrument also creates indirect effects for participants in port operations.

• Owners of Port of Thevenard. Section 9(2) places an express written-notice duty on “the owner (or, if there is more than one owner, an owner)” to notify the Agriculture Department in writing as soon as practicable if they become aware of a change to the business entity operating the port or a biosecurity entry point (s9(2)). The drafting choice , allowing “an owner” to discharge the notification duty when there are multiple owners , allocates legal responsibility to an individual owner rather than requiring joint action (s9(2)). Owners are therefore a primary addressee of compliance obligations.

• Lessees of Port of Thevenard. Parallel to the owner duty, s9(3) requires a lessee (or, if more than one, a lessee) to notify the Agriculture Department in writing as soon as practicable after becoming aware that there has been or will be a change to the business entity operating the port or a biosecurity entry point. This duplicates the obligation at the tenancy level and imposes an independent duty on lessees.

• Persons or bodies responsible for carrying out operations at the port. Section 9(4) establishes a forward-looking duty: any person or body responsible for operations must give the Agriculture Department reasonable written notice of proposed changes described in s9(5). This group will typically include port operators, stevedores, terminal operators, and possibly contractors running particular facilities. The operator group is defined functionally rather than by title: the instrument refers to “a person or body that is responsible for carrying out operations at Port of Thevenard” (s9(4)).

• Vessel masters/agents and owners of arriving vessels. Sections 5-8 capture vessels (as defined in the Act) that are subject to biosecurity control, except non‑commercial and passenger vessels. Those vessels, and the persons responsible for their navigation and cargo handling, will be affected operationally by the designation: Thevenard Wharf is the designated biosecurity entry point and arriving vessels must be brought there as soon as practicable (s7 note referring to s246 of the Act). Vessel masters, agents and owners therefore face movement and berthing consequences at the port.

• Persons unloading baggage. Section 6 and s8 designate baggage carried on the captured vessels as captured goods and require that baggage be handled via the designated biosecurity entry point (s8 table and note). Persons responsible for the unloading and onward handling of baggage , terminal staff, baggage handlers, freight forwarders, and shipping agents , are therefore affected by where and how baggage must be brought for biosecurity processing.

• Biosecurity officials and human biosecurity officers. Although the instrument does not regulate officials directly, s9(5)(b) and s9(4) require notice of changes to facilities or amenities available at the port “for biosecurity officials and human biosecurity officers to perform functions or exercise powers under the Act”. This implicates the operational arrangements and working conditions for officials, and therefore indirectly affects the Department’s ability to discharge its statutory functions at the port.

• Parties involved in goods other than baggage. The instrument expressly excludes other goods from designation (s6 Note 1). Those parties transporting or importing goods other than baggage will not be required by this Determination to use Port of Thevenard as a first point of entry; they will be affected to the extent other statutory requirements (Act sections the instrument references) apply, or if they need a separate determination.

The drafting choices in s9 allocate notification duties sharply: an individual owner or lessee can satisfy the notice requirement for multiple owners/lessees, and a distinct category , operators , must give reasonable prior notice of proposed changes to certain procedures or facilities. These choices affect who is legally obliged to act, who must allocate resources to compliance, and who faces potential operational impact when changes are made.

The Determination sets a short list of statutory duties and implied operational obligations. It does not create express procedural rights or compensation mechanisms; it imposes notice duties, movement obligations and area designations.

Primary duties imposed by the Determination

• Obligation to use the port as first point of entry (for captured arrivals). By s5-6 the port is declared a first point of entry for vessels (other than non‑commercial and passenger vessels) and baggage carried on those vessels. Operationally that means the port and responsible parties must treat the port as the arrival point for biosecurity control for those classes of arrivals. The instrument’s supplementary notes direct users to statutory duties about moving vessels and goods to biosecurity entry points (s7 Note, s8 Note), namely that vessels and goods must be brought to the designated biosecurity entry point as soon as practicable (see the Act references provided in the notes).

• Movement to biosecurity entry points. Thevenard Wharf is the designated biosecurity entry point for the captured vessels and baggage (s7-8 tables). Although the Determination itself does not state a separate movement timetable, the notes refer to the Act’s requirements that an arrived vessel be brought to a biosecurity entry point “as soon as practicable” (s7 Note referring to s246 of the Act) and that goods to be unloaded be brought to a biosecurity entry point “as soon as practicable” (s8 Note referring to s147 of the Act).

• Notification by owners and lessees. Section 9(2) and (3) require owners and lessees (each phrased so that any one owner or lessee may give the notice) to 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 the port or a biosecurity entry point. The duty is triggered by either awareness of an actual change or awareness that a change will occur.

• Advance notice by operators of proposed changes. Section 9(4) imposes a duty on the person or body responsible for carrying out operations to give the Agriculture Department reasonable written notice of proposed changes referred to in s9(5). Section 9(5) then enumerates the kinds of changes that attract the advance-notice duty: changes to procedures for biosecurity measures, changes to facilities or amenities available to biosecurity officials and human biosecurity officers, changes to procedures that affect identification of biosecurity risks, changes affecting informing officials of identified risks, and changes for managing other factors that may contribute to or affect biosecurity risk (s9(5)(a)-(e)).

Rights and implied protections

• No express rights of appeal, compensation or review are created within the Determination itself. The instrument establishes obligations and designations; it does not set administrative appeal mechanisms or state compensation rights for owners, lessees, operators or third parties who may be affected. Any rights or review mechanisms would therefore arise, if at all, from the Biosecurity Act or other general administrative law, but those are not set out in the Determination.

• The instrument provides the Agriculture Department with information flow but imposes no prescriptive content standards for the notices. Section 9 requires written notices and uses timing standards such as “as soon as practicable” and “reasonable notice” but does not specify form, content, or how the Department must respond. That structure gives the Department discretion in how to act upon receipt of notice, but the Determination does not describe any direct reciprocal duties on the Department.

Operational consequences (implied duties and expectations)

• Parties operating or using the port should treat Thevenard Wharf as the physical location where biosecurity processing will be conducted for the captured classes (ss7-8). The practical duty to bring vessels or goods to those locations follows from the designations and the cross‑references to the Act in the notes.

• Where there are multiple owners or lessees, the drafting allows any one owner or lessee to provide the written notice required by s9(2)-(3). That allocates an operational compliance burden to at least one member of the ownership or tenancy group rather than requiring unanimous action.

• Operators must plan procedural or facilities changes in advance and ensure the Agriculture Department receives reasonable written notice (ss9(4)-(5)). The instrument identifies concrete categories of change that trigger the notice duty , procedures for biosecurity measures and methods for identifying and reporting biosecurity risks, and facilities for officials , thereby narrowing the scope of notice obligations to operational aspects that bear on biosecurity risk management.

In short, the Determination mandates where biosecurity processing for the specified vessel and baggage classes will occur at Port of Thevenard and creates ongoing notification duties for owners, lessees and operators when relevant operational circumstances change. It does not set out enforcement mechanisms or rights; those aspects remain located in the underlying Biosecurity Act to which the instrument refers.

The Determination itself contains no express penalty provisions, infringement schedules, or enforcement procedures. It is a delegated instrument that makes designations and imposes notification obligations; enforcement and penalties for non‑compliance therefore sit, by necessary implication, within the enforcement framework of the Biosecurity Act 2015 and associated regulations. The instrument records its enabling source as subsection 229(1) of the Act (s3), and its notes cross‑refer to Act sections that govern movement to biosecurity entry points or prohibited goods (s6 Note 2, s7 Note, s8 Note). Those cross‑references indicate that statutory powers and penalties relevant to movement and biosecurity control are found in the Act rather than in this Determination.

Practical consequences from the instrument’s silence on penalties

• No immediate sanction in the Determination. Because no breach, penalty or sanction is specified in the Determination itself, the instrument does not create bespoke fines or criminal offences by its terms. Any civil or criminal consequences for failing to comply with duties under the Determination would derive from the Biosecurity Act and Biosecurity Regulation 2016, which contain the enforcement architecture referred to in the Determination (the instrument cites sections of the Act for related duties and notes that many expressions are defined in section 9 of the Act (s4)).

• Enforcement by reference. The Determination’s notes instruct port users to relevant Act sections , e.g. the notes for ss7-8 point to the Act’s requirements that vessels and goods be brought to a biosecurity entry point “as soon as practicable” (s7 Note, s8 Note, referencing ss246 and 147 of the Act). Those Act provisions likely contain the enforcement teeth for movement obligations; the Determination’s role is to localise the obligation at Port of Thevenard.

• Departmental discretion. Section 9 requires written notice to the Agriculture Department and reasonable prior notice for proposed operational changes. The Determination does not specify how the Department will process notices, what standards it will apply to determine adequacy, or what remedial steps it may take if notice is not received. That discretion creates an enforcement environment where the Department’s administrative responses, and any follow-on action under the Act, determine practical outcomes.

Implementation and compliance risk

• Ambiguity in timing standards. The Determination uses temporal standards , “as soon as practicable” (s7 note, s8 note referencing sections of the Act) and “as soon as practicable after becoming aware” for owner/lessee notices (s9(2)-(3)) and “reasonable notice” for proposed changes (s9(4)). These standards are fact-specific and open to interpretation. Enforcement therefore rests on the Department’s assessment of whether the conduct met those standards, and in the absence of internal guidance within the Determination, affected parties face some uncertainty about what will be treated as compliant.

• Administrative enforcement pathway. The Department retains the central role in receiving notices and exercising any enforcement powers available under the Act. The Determination does not create a separate inspection or auditing regime by itself; enforcement action (if any) will therefore flow through the Act’s established mechanisms.

For practitioners advising affected parties, the relevant practical step is to plan to comply with the notice requirements in s9 and the movement expectations from ss5-8, and to be prepared to engage with the Agriculture Department under the Act’s enforcement regime if questions about compliance or remedial measures arise. The Determination’s lack of standalone enforcement language means that enforcement consequences are mediated by the Act, which the Determination repeatedly references.

The Determination is expressly subordinate to, and operates within, the framework of the Biosecurity Act 2015 and associated regulations. It repeatedly cross‑refers to provisions of the Act and to the Biosecurity Regulation 2016 for definitions and for duties that are operationally linked to the Determination.

Direct statutory links stated in the instrument

• Enabling provision. Section 3 states that the Determination is made under subsection 229(1) of the Biosecurity Act 2015. That identifies the Determination as a delegated instrument created under the Act’s authority.

• Definitions drawn from the Act and Regulation. Section 4 notes that a number of expressions are defined in section 9 of the Act and then defines “Act”, “goods” (by reference to section 19 of the Act), “non‑commercial vessel” (by reference to the Biosecurity Regulation 2016), and “vessel” (by reference to section 9 of the Act). Consequently, the scope of “goods” and “vessel” for the purposes of this Determination is governed by the Act and Regulation definitions, whose contents are not repeated in the Determination.

• Movement and prohibited goods references. The notes to ss6-8 point readers to the Act for related rules and duties. The Note to s6 specifically directs to sections 173 and 174 of the Act, which the Determination describes as dealing with prohibited goods and conditionally non‑prohibited goods (s6 Note 2). The s7 note directs to section 246 of the Act for the duty to bring an arrived vessel to a biosecurity entry point as soon as practicable, and the s8 note directs to section 147 of the Act for the duty to bring goods to a biosecurity entry point as soon as practicable.

Consequences of those links

• Scope incorporation. By relying on Act and Regulation definitions, the Determination’s coverage is dynamically linked to those instruments. Any statutory or regulatory changes to the definitions of “vessel”, “goods”, or “non‑commercial vessel” would alter who and what the Determination captures without needing to amend the Determination itself.

• Enforcement and remedy integration. Since the Determination contains no independent enforcement regime, enforcement of movement obligations, biosecurity controls and related offences will rely on the Act and regulation. Practitioners must therefore consult the Act and the Regulation for specific powers, penalties, and procedural safeguards that apply when compliance questions arise.

• Administrative coordination. The Determination places an express administrative interface with the Agriculture Department (s9). Notices required by s9 are to be given to the Agriculture Department; how the Department acts on those notices will be governed by the Act’s administrative powers. The Determination requires the Department be informed of specified changes, but leaves the Department’s obligations and powers to respond to the Act and administrative practice.

Interaction limits and gaps

• The Determination is narrow in subject matter. It addresses only the Port of Thevenard and only vessels and baggage of certain classes. It does not address other national laws that could affect port operations generally, such as transport, occupational health and safety, customs or maritime safety regimes. Those other regimes may apply concurrently; the Determination does not displace them.

• No explicit conflict-resolution clause. The instrument does not include language on how it interacts with inconsistent local laws, port leases, or commercial contractual arrangements. Where a lease or contract imposes conflicting obligations, resolution mechanisms would be located outside the Determination , e.g. in the Act, the lease, or general administrative and contract law , but the Determination itself contains no mechanism for resolving such conflicts.

In sum, the Determination functions as a localised instrument operating within the Biosecurity Act and Biosecurity Regulation framework. It imports definitions and points to Act provisions for movement duties and prohibited goods. Practitioners should treat the Determination as one part of a multi‑layered legal environment encompassing the Act, the Regulation, port leases and commercial arrangements.

The Determination records a single historical fact about its making and commencement; it contains no subsequent amendments within the instrument text provided.

• Date made and delegate. The instrument header identifies the maker as Dean Merrilees, acting as delegate of the Director of Biosecurity, and is dated 7 June 2019. That appears in the opening lines and delegation signature block.

• Commencement. Section 2 contains a commencement table. Column 1 lists “The whole of this instrument”; Column 2 records the commencement date as 16 June 2019, and Column 3 repeats that date (s2). The instrument includes the formal note that the table relates only to the provisions as originally made and will not be amended to reflect later instrument amendments.

• No recorded amendments. The instrument as supplied contains no schedules or subsequent entries indicating later amendment or revocation. There is no amendment history section, no expiry date, and no sunset clause stated. The Determination therefore stands from its commencement date until amended or repealed by a competent authority under the Act.

Practical implications for users and advisers

• Currentness check required. Because the Determination is a delegated instrument and domestic instruments may be amended, revoked or superseded by later instruments, affected parties should verify current status against the authoritative register of legislative instruments maintained by the Agriculture Department or the official government legislation database. The Determination itself warns that the commencement table applies only to the instrument as originally made and will not be amended in the document (s2 note).

• Amendment mechanism not described. The Determination does not set out the amendment process or any triggers for review. Any amendment or revocation will therefore occur by separate legislative instrument under the Biosecurity Act or by exercise of the relevant statutory power; the Determination itself does not describe that process.

• Continuity of obligations. Until formally amended or revoked, the designation and the notification and movement obligations in ss5-9 remain in force from 16 June 2019. The absence of a sunset date means the obligations are ongoing rather than temporary, subject to any change in the Act, Regulation, or a later instrument.

For clients, the practical steps are: confirm the instrument’s current status with the authoritative legal source; note the commencement and standing obligations; and ensure contractual and operational arrangements reflect the continued status of Port of Thevenard as a first point of entry for the classes identified, unless and until the instrument is changed.

The Determination as provided contains no record of judicial review, challenge, or other litigation. It is a statutory instrument that declares a port’s status and attaches administrative notice requirements; the text supplied does not cite any cases, does not reference any legal proceedings, and contains no annotated litigation history.

What the absence of litigation in the instrument means for practitioners

• No precedent recorded in the instrument. Because the Determination does not mention cases or provide any adjudicative history, there are no situations within the instrument to analyse where courts have interpreted its provisions. Any interpretation issues (for example on what constitutes “reasonable notice” or “as soon as practicable” in the context of s9) would instead be resolved by reference to broader administrative law and Biosecurity Act jurisprudence if and when litigation occurs, but the Determination itself does not record or supply such material.

• Potential areas for future litigation. The Determination contains several open‑textured standards that commonly attract dispute in administrative contexts: timing standards such as “as soon as practicable” and “reasonable notice” (s7 note, s8 note, s9(2)-(4)); the allocation of the notice duty to “an owner” or “a lessee” where multiple owners or lessees exist (s9(2)-(3)); and the Department’s discretionary response to notices (s9 provides the duty to notify but does not prescribe a Departmental response). These features create factual and legal questions that could, in other circumstances, form the basis of litigation or judicial review , for example, disputes over whether notice given was timely or adequate, or over whether actions taken by the Department in response to notice were lawful , but the Determination itself does not record any such cases.

• Administrative remedies and review. The Determination does not itself state whether an administrative decision under the Act relating to port designation, notices, or enforcement is reviewable. Any remedies (judicial review, merits review where available, or statutory appeals) would depend on the Biosecurity Act’s provisions and on general principles of administrative law. The Determination’s silence on remedies means advisers must look to the Act and to general litigation practice to assess avenues for dispute resolution.

Practical advice for advisers

• Monitor for cases and Department guidance. Because the Determination has no litigation record in the instrument, advisers should monitor for any Departmental guidance, policy documents, or case law that interpret the Act’s movement and notice requirements as they apply to Port of Thevenard. Administrative guidance may be issued by the Department that clarifies expectations on “reasonable notice” or acceptable forms of written notice.

• Preserve evidence of compliance. Given the open-textured standards and the absence of settled authority in the instrument, parties affected should adopt record-keeping practices (timestamps, formal letters, acknowledgements from the Department) that document compliance with s9’s written-notice requirements and with movement obligations referenced in the notes. Such documentation will be important if any enforcement or review action arises.

In short, the Determination itself records no litigation history; it contains potential factual issues that could give rise to dispute, but any litigation would be resolved against the wider statutory and administrative law framework rather than within the Determination.

The Determination is concise, but its drafting choices create a number of operational and legal traps where affected parties could inadvertently fail to comply. The following points highlight concrete pitfalls apparent from the instrument text.

1. Narrow scope of goods captured. Section 6 designates Port of Thevenard as a first point of entry only for baggage carried on a vessel other than a non‑commercial vessel or a passenger vessel. The instrument’s Note 1 explicitly states the port is not a first point of entry for any other goods (s6 Note 1). Parties that assume all imported cargo must be handled at Thevenard under this Determination will be mistaken: the Determination does not capture other classes of goods. If an operator brings other goods under the presumption they fall within this Determination, they risk non‑compliance with other applicable port or Act requirements.

2. Exclusions for passenger and non‑commercial vessels. Sections 5 and 7 exclude “non‑commercial vessels” and “passenger vessels” from the vessel coverage. The instrument refers to the Biosecurity Regulation 2016 for the meaning of “non‑commercial vessel” (s4). Parties must therefore check the precise regulatory definitions to determine whether a particular vessel is captured; a mistaken classification of a vessel’s status may lead to incorrect handling and possible enforcement under the Act.

3. Ambiguity over who must give notice. Sections 9(2)-(3) require “the owner (or, if there is more than one owner, an owner)” and “the lessee (if any) (or, if there is more than one lessee, a lessee)” to notify the Agriculture Department in writing as soon as practicable of changes to the business entity operating the port or a biosecurity entry point. The drafting allocates the duty to an individual owner or lessee. That may lead to strategic ambiguity in multi‑owner or multi‑lessee contexts: which owner or lessee will be responsible for sending the notice? Absent private contractual allocations, any one owner or lessee could be targeted for enforcement or inquiry if the Department considers notice overdue.

4. Open standards: “as soon as practicable” and “reasonable notice”. The Determination repeatedly uses open‑textured temporal standards without further guidance. Owners and lessees must notify “as soon as practicable after becoming aware” of certain changes (s9(2)-(3)). Operators must give “reasonable notice” of proposed changes (s9(4)). The instrument provides no concrete timeframes or format requirements. Parties who fail to provide notice within a timeframe the Department later deems reasonable could face enforcement action under the Act, even if they believed their conduct was timely. The uncertainty makes conservative behaviour advisable (notify early and in writing).

5. Notice content and Departmental response not specified. Section 9 requires written notice to the Agriculture Department but sets no minimum content requirements, no delivery address or channel, and no response obligations on the Department. That means a notice could be accepted or rejected in whole or in part by the Department depending on its internal processes; there is no procedure in the Determination for obtaining a formal acknowledgment or for resolving disputes about adequacy of notice. Parties should seek written acknowledgements and keep records.

6. Operator-level notice for proposed changes. Section 9(4) requires “a person or body that is responsible for carrying out operations at Port of Thevenard” to give reasonable written notice of proposed changes described in s9(5). The spectrum of “operations” can be broad and may include contractors and service providers. An operator who implements procedural or facility changes without providing reasonable prior notice risks the Department regarding the change as non‑compliant with the Determination’s conditions.

7. Facilities for officials must be considered. Section 9(5)(b) requires notice of changes to the facilities or amenities available at the port for biosecurity officials and human biosecurity officers to perform functions. Operators that, for cost or logistical reasons, reduce or alter facilities that officials use (for example by changing access routes or removing office space) must give reasonable notice. A failure to plan facility changes with the Department could disrupt official activity or prompt Departmental action.

8. Lack of guidance for multi‑party coordination. The Determination imposes overlapping duties on owners, lessees and operators but does not specify how these duties interrelate. For example, an owner may not control operational changes that an operator or lessee plans. Each party nonetheless has an independent duty to notify in prescribed circumstances. Private contracts must be examined and potentially amended to allocate notification responsibilities and avoid breaches.

9. The Determination is limited to Thevenard Wharf. The biosecurity entry point identified in both tables is Thevenard Wharf (ss7-8). If physical operations are dispersed across other berths or areas within the port, parties must ensure that arrivals and baggage subject to the Determination are in fact brought to Thevenard Wharf. Failure to move vessels and baggage to that location as required could be treated under the Act as failure to bring arrivals to a designated biosecurity entry point.

10. Cross‑reference dependence. The instrument frequently relies on the Biosecurity Act for detailed duties (ss6 Note 2, s7 Note, s8 Note). Parties relying only on the Determination without consulting the Act and relevant regulations risk overlooking substantive obligations or penalties embedded in the primary legislation and regulation.

Each of these “gotchas” arises directly from the Determination’s text and its drafting choices. Operational actors and advisers should design compliance processes that address these risks directly: allocate and document who will send notices, adopt early-notice practice, maintain contact and formal acknowledgement with the Agriculture Department, ensure physical movements of vessels and baggage are directed to Thevenard Wharf, and coordinate contractual responsibilities between owners, lessees and operators.

Compliance under this Determination requires a combination of documented policies, operational procedures, and engagement with the Agriculture Department. The following steps translate the Determination’s provisions into practical actions that owners, lessees, operators, vessel masters and freight handlers should perform. Citations to the relevant provision are provided for ease of cross‑checking.

1. Identify whether your arrival or operation is captured by the Determination (ss5-6, s4).

• Determine whether the vessel is subject to biosecurity control and whether it is excluded as a non‑commercial vessel or passenger vessel (s5). Because “non‑commercial vessel” is defined in the Biosecurity Regulation 2016 and “vessel” and “goods” are defined in the Act (s4), confirm the statutory definitions before concluding whether you are captured.
• Confirm whether goods to be unloaded are baggage within the meaning captured by s6; the Determination only designates baggage as a covered class and excludes other goods (s6 Note 1).

2. For captured vessels and baggage, ensure physical movement to Thevenard Wharf (ss7-8).

• Arrange for arriving vessels (other than excluded classes) to berth at Thevenard Wharf or to be brought to that location “as soon as practicable” after arrival, in line with the movement expectations set out in the notes to s7 and as tied to the Act’s movement provisions (see s7 Note, referencing s246 of the Act).
• Ensure baggage that will be unloaded is brought to Thevenard Wharf “as soon as practicable” (s8 and s8 Note, referencing s147 of the Act).
• Update port run sheets, berth allocation plans and agents’ instructions to reflect Thevenard Wharf as the designated biosecurity entry point for the captured classes.

3. Establish and document a written‑notice procedure to the Agriculture Department (s9(2)-(4)).

• Owners and lessees: adopt an internal trigger system to detect changes to the business entity operating the port or a biosecurity entry point. When an owner or lessee becomes aware of an actual or imminent change, issue written notice to the Agriculture Department “as soon as practicable after becoming aware” (s9(2)-(3)). Because the Determination allows “an owner” or “a lessee” to give notice where there are multiple owners/lessees, document who has authority to act on behalf of the ownership or tenancy group.
• Operators: where you are responsible for carrying out operations, implement a procedure to give the Agriculture Department “reasonable notice” in writing of proposed changes falling within s9(5). Reasonable notice should be interpreted conservatively: provide as much lead time as operationally possible and seek an acknowledgement from the Department.

4. Specify the content and delivery of notices.

• While the Determination does not prescribe content, notices should include: identification of the port or biosecurity entry point; a clear description of the change (actual or proposed); the effective date or proposed implementation timetable; contact details for further information; and details of any interim risk mitigation measures.
• Use traceable delivery methods (registered mail, courier with receipt, or Departmental online submission channels if available). Request and record written acknowledgements from the Agriculture Department. Keep contemporaneous records of when notices were sent, received and any follow-up communications.

5. Map internal responsibilities and contractual allocations.

• Given overlapping duties between owners, lessees and operators (s9(2)-(4)), update commercial contracts, port leases and service agreements to allocate responsibility for statutory notices, berth allocation, crew and baggage handling, and facility changes. Specify who will act as the notifying party and how costs arising from compliance will be apportioned.
• Where multiple owners or lessees exist, formally appoint a coordinating party (authorised sender) and ensure that allocation is documented and that the appointed party is willing to discharge the notice obligations required by the Determination.

6. Plan and consult before making procedural or facility changes (s9(4)-(5)).

• Before changing procedures that affect biosecurity measures, methods for identifying biosecurity risks, or reporting mechanisms to officials, provide reasonable written notice to the Agriculture Department. The enumerated changes in s9(5)(a)-(e) cover procedural changes, facility changes that affect officials’ ability to perform functions, and changes affecting identification or reporting of biosecurity risks.
• Where changes reduce access or amenities for biosecurity officials, offer temporary mitigation measures and document the impact assessment and communications with the Department.

7. Provide facilities and amenities for officials (s9(5)(b)).

• Ensure that any facilities required by biosecurity officials to perform functions remain available or that the Department is given reasonable notice of proposed alterations. While the Determination does not list facility standards, the Department is the recipient of notice of changes affecting facilities, so early engagement will assist in ensuring operational continuity.

8. Maintain records and evidence of compliance.

• Keep copies of all written notices, Departmental acknowledgements, berth instructions, cargo movement records and internal approvals. Because the Determination uses open‑textured timing standards, having contemporaneous documentary evidence of when notices were given and when movements occurred will be vital if questions arise.

9. Coordinate with shipping agents, stevedores and baggage handlers.

• Ensure that agents and handlers are aware Thevenard Wharf is the designated biosecurity entry point for the covered classes and that they have instructions to route vessels/baggage accordingly. Update operational checklists and arrival notifications to port authorities to reflect the Determination.

10. Verify the Determination remains current and monitor related legal instruments.

• Periodically confirm the Determination’s current status against the authoritative legislative instrument register and monitor for any changes to the Biosecurity Act or Regulation definitions that could expand or contract the classes captured by the Determination (s2 note, s4). Also monitor Departmental guidance for any administrative expectations about notice form and timing.

11. Seek Departmental clarification where uncertainty exists.

• Where uncertainty exists about whether a proposed change triggers s9(5), or about the sufficiency of notice already given, seek written clarification from the Agriculture Department. Because the Determination delegates significant assessment discretion to the Department, contemporaneous written confirmations reduce compliance risk.

These practical steps implement the Determination’s requirements as stated in ss5-9. They emphasise early, documented communication with the Agriculture Department, conservative timing for notices, formal allocation of notification responsibilities among owners/lessees/operators, and operational arrangements to ensure Thevenard Wharf is used as the biosecurity entry point for the specified vessels and baggage classes.