Biosecurity (First Point of Entry—Port of Yamba) Determination 2019

This Determination rests on a handful of discrete legal and operational concepts drawn from the instrument text. Each concept establishes who is covered, where obligations apply, what is designated, and what procedural conditions attach.

First point of entry: The instrument designates a geographic port, Port of Yamba, as a “first point of entry” for specified vessels and specified baggage (ss 5-6). The concept of first point of entry is operative here as a threshold node in the statutory biosecurity regime: the instrument determines that arrivals of the covered classes of vessels and baggage are to be treated as arriving at that first point of entry for the purposes of the Act.

Vessels and goods classes: The instrument uses defined terms. It draws on the Act’s definitions (noting that many expressions are defined in section 9 of the Act) and then specifies scope. “Vessel” is used in the statutory sense (s 4 definition), and the instrument narrows the first point of entry designation to vessels that are not non‑commercial and not passenger vessels (s 5). For goods, the instrument limits the first point of entry designation to “baggage carried on a vessel other than a non‑commercial vessel or a passenger vessel” (s 6). Note 1 to s 6 emphasises that no other goods are included under this instrument for Port of Yamba.

Biosecurity entry point: Within the port, the instrument specifies the location(s) that serve as the biosecurity entry point. For Port of Yamba, Goodwood Island Wharf is the designated biosecurity entry point for the covered vessels and baggage (ss 7-8 and the associated tables). The instrument includes the operational reminder that “a vessel that has arrived at Port of Yamba must be brought to a biosecurity entry point ... as soon as practicable” (note to s 7) and that goods unloaded must be brought to a biosecurity entry point “as soon as practicable” (note to s 8), with cross‑references to the relevant Act sections.

Notification and procedural‑change conditions: Section 9 imposes conditional obligations on owners and lessees and on persons or bodies responsible for carrying out operations at the port. The concept is that the port’s designation as a first point of entry is subject to ongoing transparency about changes to the operator, and subject to notice where proposed changes affect biosecurity procedures, facilities or the ability to identify or inform about biosecurity risks (s 9(2)-(5)). The instrument distinguishes between retrospective notification of changes “as soon as practicable” after becoming aware and prospective notification requiring “reasonable notice” of proposed changes.

Delegated administrative action: The instrument is made by a delegate of the Director of Biosecurity under subsection 229(1) of the Biosecurity Act 2015 (s 3). The concept of delegated administrative action appears in the heading and signature block; the delegate signs and dates the instrument.

Cross‑references and limits: The instrument expressly limits its scope and points the reader to related Act provisions. It flags that definitions are in s 9 of the Act (s 4 note), and that ss 173 and 174 of the Act relate to prohibited goods and conditionally non‑prohibited goods (note 2 to s 6). The instrument does not purport to set out operational protocols for biosecurity inspection, detention, or enforcement, but rather limits itself to designation and notification conditions.

Taken together, these concepts define a narrow, location‑specific layer of administrative rulemaking: who and what are treated as arriving at Port of Yamba for biosecurity purposes, where within the port biosecurity activity must occur, and which actors have ongoing disclosure obligations to the Agriculture Department about material changes affecting biosecurity management at the port.

This instrument allocates rights and obligations across a small set of actors tied to Port of Yamba. The draft identifies the parties who make decisions, the parties who bear notification duties, and the classes of vessels and goods directly affected.

Owners and lessees of Port of Yamba: Section 9(2)-(3) establishes direct written‑notice obligations on the owner, and where there is more than one owner, on an owner, to notify the Agriculture Department in writing “as soon as practicable” after becoming aware of a change to the business entity operating the port or a biosecurity entry point at the port. The same obligation is placed on a lessee (or, if more than one, on a lessee) in s 9(3). In practical terms, title‑holders and lessees must monitor and report changes to the port’s operating business entity.

Persons or bodies responsible for carrying out operations at Port of Yamba: Section 9(4) requires any person or body responsible for carrying out operations at the port to give the Agriculture Department “reasonable notice” before proposing certain changes. Subsection 9(5) lists the categories of change that trigger this prospective notification duty, including procedural changes concerning biosecurity measures, facility or amenity changes affecting officials, and changes that affect identification or notification of biosecurity risks.

Operators and service providers: The instrument’s notice requirements will apply to whoever the owner, lessee or operator actually is. Where operational functions are contracted out, the on‑going practical obligations will fall on the entity that is responsible for carrying out operations at the port. The instrument does not define “responsible for carrying out operations” in operational detail, but places the duty on the person or body with operational responsibility (s 9(4)).

Commercial vessel masters and shipping agents: Sections 5-8 affect masters, agents and those facilitating arrival and unloading of vessels that are commercial in nature (vessels other than non‑commercial and passenger vessels). The instrument designates that such vessels and their baggage must be treated as arriving at a first point of entry and that they must be brought to the designated biosecurity entry point, Goodwood Island Wharf (ss 5-8 and the notes referencing the Act’s “as soon as practicable” obligations). Vessel operators therefore face an operational requirement to bring vessels and the relevant baggage to Goodwood Island Wharf once arrived at Port of Yamba.

Human biosecurity and biosecurity officials and the Agriculture Department: The instrument puts the Agriculture Department on notice as the recipient of written notices and proposed‑change notifications (s 9). The instrument also contemplates the needs of “biosecurity officials and human biosecurity officers” in s 9(5)(b) and (d), in that notice obligations are triggered where changes affect the facilities or the ability of officials to perform functions or be informed of identified risks.

Other port users: The instrument excludes non‑commercial vessels and passenger vessels from the first point of entry designation (s 5). Those classes therefore are not subject to the instrument’s first point of entry treatment at Port of Yamba. The instrument also limits the goods covered to certain baggage; Note 1 to s 6 states that Port of Yamba is not a first point of entry for any other goods. That leaves other cargo types and port activities outside the instrument’s direct scope.

The Agriculture Department as decision recipient and regulator: Section 3 records that the instrument is made under subsection 229(1) of the Biosecurity Act 2015. Functionally, the Department is the recipient and likely enforcer of the notification obligations, and the entity that will administer any operational interface with the port’s use as a first point of entry.

In short, the immediate burdens fall on port owners, lessees and operators who must monitor and report changes, and on commercial vessel operators and agents who must deliver vessels and covered baggage to Goodwood Island Wharf. The instrument creates a reporting pathway into the Agriculture Department and shapes which classes of port traffic and goods are treated under the first point of entry rules at Port of Yamba.

The instrument sets out a small number of explicit duties and leaves a number of operational rights and enforcement mechanisms implicit or to be determined under the parent Act.

Designations create procedural duties for arrivals: By declaring Port of Yamba a first point of entry for specified vessels and baggage, the instrument engages the Act’s obligations that an arrived vessel be brought to a biosecurity entry point and that goods to be unloaded be brought to a biosecurity entry point “as soon as practicable” (noted in ss 7 and 8). Those operative phrases are included as notes in the instrument and therefore should be treated as operative in directing arrival and unloading behaviour toward Goodwood Island Wharf for covered vessels and baggage.

Owner and lessee duties to notify: Section 9(2)-(3) imposes a duty on an owner (or an owner where there is more than one) and on a lessee (or a lessee where there is more than one) 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 Port of Yamba or a biosecurity entry point at the port. The duty is one of communication and timing: written notice and promptness after awareness.

Operator duty to give reasonable notice of proposed changes: Section 9(4) imposes a prospective duty on the person or body responsible for carrying out operations at Port of Yamba to give the Agriculture Department “reasonable notice” of proposed changes of the types listed in s 9(5). The content of the duty is to give notice before making the change, with reasonableness of notice as the standard.

Categories of changes triggering the prospective notice duty: Section 9(5) enumerates the types of proposed changes that require reasonable notice: (a) changes to procedures providing for biosecurity measures to manage biosecurity risk; (b) changes to facilities or amenities available for biosecurity officials and human biosecurity officers to perform functions or exercise powers; (c) changes affecting the ability of operational personnel to identify biosecurity risks; (d) changes affecting the ability of biosecurity officials or human biosecurity officials to be informed of identified biosecurity risks; and (e) changes to procedures for managing any other factors that may contribute to or affect biosecurity risk.

Form of notice and recipient: The instrument requires notices to be given to the Agriculture Department in writing (s 9(2)-(4)). The Department is identified as the addressee for both retrospective notices of change and prospective notifications.

Rights and omissions not addressed in the instrument: The Determination does not set out rights to refuse, to appeal, or to any specific administrative process in the text provided. It likewise does not set out penalties or enforcement mechanisms. It cross‑references the Act for definitions and other matters (s 4 note; notes to ss 6, 7 and 8), but does not reproduce the Act’s broader enforcement or appeal provisions. Therefore, the instrument’s duties are narrowly procedural and communicative in nature, with operational consequences of the designations implicitly routed through the procedures referenced in the Act.

Who decides and who receives information: The primary decision maker named in the instrument is the delegate of the Director of Biosecurity who made the determination, and the Agriculture Department is the recipient and repository of the required notices. Owners, lessees and operators must decide when a change triggers the notice obligations and when a proposed change needs to be notified “with reasonable notice.”

Operational duty to bring vessels and goods to the specified entry point: The instrument’s designations mean that, for the classes covered, masters and agents have a duty in practice to direct arrival and unloading to Goodwood Island Wharf. The instrument does not itself specify the mechanics of that movement beyond the cross‑referenced “as soon as practicable” standard, but the designation functions as an ordering principle for where biosecurity official activity should occur within Port of Yamba.

In summary, the instrument creates duties to notify the Agriculture Department about operator changes and proposed procedural or facility changes, and it creates operational duties to route covered vessels and baggage to Goodwood Island Wharf. It does not set out explicit rights of appeal or specific penalties within the instrument text.

The Determination itself does not include expressly specified penalties, fines, or an enforcement schedule in the text provided. It focuses on designation of first point of entry status, identification of a biosecurity entry point, and procedural notification obligations. The instrument’s enforcement footprint therefore is limited to the duties it prescribes and to any enforcement mechanisms supplied by the Biosecurity Act 2015, which is the statutory source under which the determination is made (s 3).

What the instrument does specify regarding enforceable behaviour is the obligation to provide written notice to the Agriculture Department in defined circumstances (s 9(2)-(4)) and to bring arrived vessels and goods to the designated biosecurity entry point “as soon as practicable,” as referenced in the explanatory notes attached to ss 7 and 8. The text does not say what sanctions, if any, flow from failing to give the required notice or from failing to bring vessels or goods to the biosecurity entry point. It likewise does not specify administrative responses, suspension of first point of entry status, or remedial directions within the instrument itself.

Given that the Determination is made under subsection 229(1) of the Biosecurity Act 2015 (s 3), enforcement measures or penalties would, in practice, be expected to lie in the parent Act or in other instruments made under the Act. The instrument references other Act sections for related matters (for example, notes referencing ss 147 and 246 regarding the “as soon as practicable” obligations, and s 4 noting that many expressions are defined in s 9 of the Act). The Determination does not reproduce those enforcement provisions nor does it state that particular Act provisions are triggered in the event of non‑compliance with its notification conditions.

Operational enforcement implications to consider based on the instrument text:

• The Department of Agriculture is the recipient of mandatory written notices (s 9). The Department therefore is positioned to monitor compliance with the notice obligations and to take any action it considers appropriate under the Biosecurity Act.

• The “as soon as practicable” and “reasonable notice” standards embed elements of judgment and discretionary assessment. The instrument does not define those standards; consequently, any enforcement assessment would require an interpretive exercise guided by the Act’s general standards and the Department’s operational practice.

• The instrument’s silence on penalties means that the practical consequences of non‑compliance are not set out here. The text anchors obligations in writing and timing but leaves enforcement mechanisms and sanctions to the broader statutory framework.

• Because the instrument does not provide an administrative appeal or review mechanism within its text, any challenge to enforcement action that arises from obligations created by the Determination would likely invoke the parent Act’s processes and any general administrative law remedies available outside the instrument itself.

In short, the Determination creates duties and leaves monitoring and any sanctioning power to the Department under the parent Act. The instrument does not itself state fines, criminal offences, or administrative penalties for breach of the notification or routing duties set out in sections 5-9.

The Determination is an instrument made under the Biosecurity Act 2015, and the text repeatedly cross‑references provisions of that Act. The interaction in the instrument is confined to those explicit references and to the reliance on statutory definitions and obligations housed in the Act.

Statutory authority and definitions: Section 3 records that the instrument is made under subsection 229(1) of the Biosecurity Act 2015. Section 4 expressly notes that a number of expressions used in the instrument are defined in section 9 of the Act. The instrument’s operative definitions of “Act,” “goods” (as defined in s 19 of the Act), “non‑commercial vessel” (as defined in the Biosecurity Regulation 2016) and “vessel” (as defined in s 9 of the Act) anchor the Determination to the Act’s definitional regime (s 4). That linkage means the scope of the instrument depends on statutory definitions outside the instrument.

Cross‑references to Act sections governing goods and arrivals: Note 2 to section 6 directs readers to sections 173 and 174 of the Act concerning prohibited goods and conditionally non‑prohibited goods. The notes to sections 7 and 8 reference sections 246 and 147 of the Act respectively for the procedural obligations that vessels and goods must be brought to a biosecurity entry point “as soon as practicable.” These explicit references mean the Determination interacts with the Act’s broader controls on goods admissibility, handling of prohibited/conditionally non‑prohibited goods, and obligations after arrival. The Determination does not restate those Act provisions but situates its designations within their scope.

Biosecurity Regulation 2016 linkage: The instrument adopts the meaning of “non‑commercial vessel” from the Biosecurity Regulation 2016 (s 4). That connects the Determination’s exclusions to a regulation, thereby bringing that regulatory definition into play for determining whether a vessel is covered by the port designation.

Administrative and operational interface: The Determination requires written notices and reasonable notice to the Agriculture Department (s 9). That creates an administrative interface between the port’s private governance and the Department’s statutory biosecurity function under the Act. The Department’s receipt of these notices will interact with any departmental processes or directives under the Biosecurity Act. The Determination does not alter or repeal any Act provisions; it operates as a delegated instrument made under the Act to specify a port designation and notice conditions.

Limits and reservation: The instrument explicitly declares that Port of Yamba is not a first point of entry for goods other than the specified baggage (Note 1 to s 6). That statement carves out other parts of the Act’s goods regime from the Determination’s direct effect at Port of Yamba. Users of the port must therefore read the Determination alongside the Act to determine how other classes of goods or vessels are governed.

Absence of conflict or supremacy language: The Determination contains no provision purporting to modify the Act or to override any other Commonwealth or State law. It is presented as an instrument made under the Act and therefore operates within that statutory authority. Any conflicts or enforcement interactions with other laws, including State port laws or maritime regulatory regimes, are not addressed in the instrument text.

In summary, the Determination interacts with the Biosecurity Act 2015 and the Biosecurity Regulation 2016 by using their definitions, cross‑referencing their operative procedural obligations (for arrival routing and goods handling), and setting administrative notice duties that direct information to the Agriculture Department. It does not articulate the content of the referenced Act provisions or provide standalone enforcement mechanisms; those remain within the ambit of the parent Act and other relevant instruments.

The instrument contains a single commencement and provenance block and does not record any amendments in the body of the text provided. The available documentary markers are as follows.

Date of making and signature: The instrument bears a dated signature block showing it was made and signed by Dean Merrilees, Assistant Secretary Compliance Division, Department of Agriculture, dated 7 June 2019. That identifies the delegate who executed the instrument under the delegated authority noted in section 3.

Commencement: Section 2 and the accompanying commencement table specify that “the whole of this instrument” commenced on 16 June 2019. The commencement table is accompanied by a standard note that the table relates only to provisions as originally made and will not be amended to deal with later amendments. The instrument therefore came into legal effect on 16 June 2019 in the form set out in the text.

Authority for the instrument: Section 3 records that the Determination is made under subsection 229(1) of the Biosecurity Act 2015, which provides the statutory power to make such determinations. The instrument therefore appears as a delegated instrument exercising that authority on the date indicated.

Absence of subsequent amendment entries: The text provided contains no amendment history entries, no repeal provisions, and no schedules indicating modification of the text after commencement. The carriage‑return‑style note beneath the commencement table also reminds readers that any column 3 information is not part of the instrument and that information there may be edited in published versions; nothing in the supplied text indicates later edits.

No transitional or savings provisions: The instrument contains no transitional arrangements, savings clauses, or sunset clauses in the text given. There is no earmarked expiry or review date in the sections reproduced.

Implication for users: As of the instrument’s commencement date, the designations and conditions (ss 5-9) applied at Port of Yamba. Any later amendment to the Determination would need to be located in subsequently made instruments under the relevant delegated power or traced in an official register; the text provided does not show such amendments.

In short, the instrument’s amendment history as provided is limited: made 7 June 2019, commenced 16 June 2019, made under s 229(1) of the Biosecurity Act 2015, and no subsequent amendments or modifications are recorded in the supplied text.

The instrument’s text contains no references to litigation, court decisions, appeals, or disputes concerning the Determination. It names no cases and records no judicial or administrative review outcomes. The only adjudicative facts shown are administrative: the Determination was signed by a delegate and commenced on 16 June 2019.

Absent any cases in the instrument, a practical reading is that any litigation arising from obligations created by the Determination would involve questions about:

• the scope of the designation of Port of Yamba as a first point of entry for certain vessels and baggage (ss 5-6);

• the operation and sufficiency of notices required by owners, lessees and operators (s 9), including interpretation of “as soon as practicable” and “reasonable notice” standards;

• the interaction between the Determination and the parent Act’s provisions referenced in the instrument’s notes, such as sections dealing with prohibited goods, conditionally non‑prohibited goods and the obligations on arrival (notes to ss 6-8).

However, the Determination itself does not present any litigation history. There are no named litigants, no recorded injunctions, and no described disputes in the text given. If a reader requires authoritative case law testing the Determination’s terms, that material would need to be sought outside this instrument; the Determination as supplied provides no such material.

This absence of litigation history in the instrument has practical consequences for lawyers and compliance officers. It means there is no settled interpretive authority contained within the instrument to resolve operational ambiguities such as the practical meaning of “reasonable notice” or the precise scope of “business entity operating” for the port and its entry points. Any such dispute resolution would rely on the parent Act’s provisions, any later departmental guidance, contractual arrangements between owners, lessees and operators, and any jurisprudence that might have arisen after the instrument took effect.

In sum, the instrument contains no litigation history in its text. Any legal challenges or judicial interpretation would be recorded and analysed outside the instrument and are not available in the supplied document.

The instrument is short and precise, but its brevity creates a number of practical risk points and interpretive traps for owners, lessees, operators and vessel agents. The following items draw attention to features of the instrument that commonly cause compliance uncertainty or operational friction.

Narrow scope for goods: Section 6 limits the first point of entry designation at Port of Yamba to baggage carried on specified vessels and Note 1 makes explicit that the port is not a first point of entry for any other goods. Users who handle other cargo types at the port should not assume the Determination governs those goods. Failure to appreciate this narrow scope could lead to misrouting or confusion about where other cargo types must be presented for biosecurity assessment.

Exclusions of non‑commercial and passenger vessels: Section 5 excludes non‑commercial vessels and passenger vessels from the first point of entry designation. The boundary between commercial and non‑commercial vessel characterisations matters in practice, and the instrument ties the term “non‑commercial vessel” to the Biosecurity Regulation 2016 (s 4). Port operators and masters need to check whether a given vessel is non‑commercial under that regulation; ambiguous vessel status can create operational delays if not clarified in advance.

Single biosecurity entry point named: Goodwood Island Wharf is the sole biosecurity entry point designated in the instrument for the covered vessels and baggage (ss 7-8). That concentration has consequences: all covered arrivals must be brought to that single location “as soon as practicable” per the notes. Operational constraints at that wharf, such as berth availability, tidal limits, or local restrictions, will affect the ability to comply with the “as soon as practicable” requirement and may produce bottlenecks. The instrument does not provide alternative entry points within the port.

Vagueness of timing standards: The instrument uses “as soon as practicable” (notes to ss 7 and 8) and “reasonable notice” (s 9(4)) without defining those standards. These are fact‑sensitive standards that create uncertainty for compliance officers. What constitutes “reasonable notice” for a major procedural change may differ materially from what is reasonable to notify for a minor administrative change. Owners, lessees and operators must form and document an internal interpretation of these standards to manage risk.

Who must notify and when: Sections 9(2)-(3) require owners, and where there are multiple owners an owner, to give written notice “as soon as practicable” after becoming aware of a change to the business entity operating the port or a biosecurity entry point. The obligation to notify “an owner” where there are multiple owners introduces coordination issues about who is responsible to report. Similarly, lessees are required to notify “a lessee” where multiple lessees exist. This formulation may lead to disputes among multiple title‑holders about who bears the reporting burden if no contractual allocation exists.

Prospective notice for operational changes is on the person or body “responsible for carrying out operations”: Section 9(4) imposes this duty but leaves “responsible for carrying out operations” undefined in the instrument. If operations are subject to short‑term contracting, subcontracting or temporary arrangements, identifying the notifier will require prior contractual clarity between the owner, lessee and contractor.

Notice content and format: The instrument requires written notice to the Agriculture Department but does not specify the content, form, level of detail or address for such notices. There is therefore a risk of invalid or insufficient notices if port stakeholders do not seek departmental guidance or establish a standard notice template.

No penalties specified: The Determination itself does not specify sanctions for failure to comply with the notification duties or for failing to bring vessels or goods to the biosecurity entry point. That absence creates uncertainty about enforcement consequences and may leave operators unsure about the practical risk of non‑compliance absent reference to the Biosecurity Act or Departmental practice.

Interplay with contracts and commercial transactions: The requirement to notify of a change to the “business entity operating” the port may interact with commercial transactions such as sales, leases, or management transfers. Parties to such transactions need to factor in the written notice obligation and the timing standard “as soon as practicable,” or risk regulatory attention if notice is delayed.

Reliance on external definitions: Several operative terms are drawn from the Act or regulations (s 4). Consequently, the Determination’s practical scope depends on the content of those external definitions, which the instrument does not reproduce. Port users must consult the Act and Regulation for precise meanings rather than relying solely on the Determination.

Concentration of duties on small set of actors: Because the instrument’s designations and duties fall on owners, lessees and the person or body carrying out operations, any restructuring of port operations or use of third‑party stevedores and agents creates compliance coordination needs across multiple contracting parties.

In practice, the largest “gotchas” are the instrument’s reliance on undefined timing standards, its narrow and exclusive designation of Goodwood Island Wharf, the textual allocation of responsibility where multiple owners or lessees exist, and the lack of procedural detail about notices. These features require proactive compliance design, clear contractual allocation of responsibility, and early engagement with the Agriculture Department to avoid operational breakdowns.

Compliance with this Determination requires operational, administrative and contractual steps tailored to its narrow designations and notice obligations. The following practical steps map directly to the instrument’s operative sections (ss 5-9) and explanatory notes.

Confirm classification of vessels and goods against the Determination: Determine which vessel arrivals are caught by the first point of entry designation at Port of Yamba. The Determination makes Port of Yamba a first point of entry for “vessels other than non‑commercial vessels and passenger vessels” (s 5) and for “baggage carried on a vessel other than a non‑commercial vessel or a passenger vessel” (s 6). Consult the Biosecurity Regulation 2016 definition of “non‑commercial vessel” referred to in s 4 to confirm whether particular private or recreational vessels are excluded.

Route arrivals to the designated biosecurity entry point: For covered vessels and baggage, ensure operational arrangements bring vessels and goods to Goodwood Island Wharf as soon as practicable after arrival (ss 7-8 and their notes). Practical steps include:

• Updating berthing instructions and port notices to masters and agents to direct vessels to Goodwood Island Wharf for biosecurity processing.

• Allocating berths and timeslots at Goodwood Island Wharf to accommodate expected arrivals and prevent delay.

• Establishing liaison arrangements with biosecurity officials to coordinate inspection, unloading and clearance procedures at Goodwood Island Wharf.

Document internal interpretations of timing standards: The instrument uses “as soon as practicable” and “reasonable notice” without definition (notes to ss 7-8; s 9(4)). Create written internal policies that define what these standards will mean operationally for the port, taking into account vessel schedules, tidal windows, and operational lead times. Record rationale for chosen thresholds so that “as soon as practicable” and “reasonable notice” decisions are defensible if questioned by the Agriculture Department.

Set up notice procedures for owners and lessees: Section 9(2)-(3) requires written notices “as soon as practicable” after an owner or lessee becomes aware of a change to the business entity operating the port or a biosecurity entry point. Practical compliance measures include:

• Designating a named contact within the ownership and leasing structures responsible for monitoring and sending the required written notice.

• Establishing internal triggers in corporate governance and transaction processes (for example, sale, management transfer, assignment of rights, or lease variation) that generate immediate notification obligations.

• Preparing a standard notice template that includes the nature of the change, effective date, contact details of the new operating entity, and any transitional arrangements affecting biosecurity operations.

Implement procedures for prospective notification by operators: Section 9(4) requires the person or body responsible for carrying out operations at the port to give the Agriculture Department “reasonable notice” of proposed changes listed in s 9(5). Compliance steps include:

• Identifying and documenting who is “responsible for carrying out operations” in contract terms between owner, lessee and operator. Ensure contracts explicitly assign responsibility for compliance with s 9(4) and nominate the party who will give notice.

• For each category in s 9(5), establish an internal change control process that includes an assessment of biosecurity risk impact and a timeline for notifying the Agriculture Department. Categories include procedural changes governing biosecurity measures (s 9(5)(a)), changes to facilities or amenities for officials (s 9(5)(b)), changes that affect identification and notification of biosecurity risks (s 9(5)(c)-(d)), and other procedural changes affecting biosecurity risk (s 9(5)(e)).

• Maintain a rolling schedule of planned changes and ensure the Department receives notice sufficiently ahead of implementation to be “reasonable” under the standard.

Choose and maintain the written notice channel: The Determination requires notices to be in writing and given to the Agriculture Department (s 9(2)-(4)). Practical steps:

• Identify the Department’s preferred address, email address or portal for receiving such notices and confirm receipt procedures.

• Use registered post or email read‑receipt mechanisms for traceability. Retain copies of all notices and any departmental acknowledgements.

• If the Department has published guidance on notice content, follow that guidance; if none exists, include a clear description of the proposed or actual change, effective dates, contact persons, and any operational impacts on biosecurity entry processes.

Coordinate contracting and commercial transactions: Because the instrument triggers obligations when the “business entity operating” the port changes, include notice obligations in sale, lease and management contracts. Steps include:

• Contractually allocating responsibility for making the s 9(2)-(4) notices and indemnities for failure to do so.

• Requiring incoming operators to acknowledge the Determination and to adopt the port’s biosecurity coordination procedures.

Engage early with the Agriculture Department: Given the uncertain meaning of “as soon as practicable” and “reasonable notice,” early engagement with the Department to clarify expectations and to establish procedural lines will reduce compliance risk. Steps include:

• Seeking written confirmation from the Department about preferred notice content and suggested lead times for different categories of proposed changes.

• Establishing a primary departmental contact for day‑to‑day operational communication.

Recordkeeping and audit trails: Maintain auditable records of all arrivals, decisions to route to Goodwood Island Wharf, notices sent to the Department, and internal change control documents. Records should document when owners or lessees became aware of a change and the timing of any subsequent notices to demonstrate compliance with “as soon as practicable.”

Train staff and agents: Provide training to port staff, shipping agents and contractors on the Determination’s scope (covered vessels and baggage only), the designated biosecurity entry point, and the notice obligations. Ensure masters and agents understand that covered arrivals must be directed to Goodwood Island Wharf.

Review contractual allocations where multiple owners or lessees exist: Because ss 9(2)-(3) permit notice by “an owner” or “a lessee” where multiple such parties exist, allocate responsibility contractually to prevent dispute over who must notify and when.

Monitor and update internal procedures when the Act or Regulation definitions change: The instrument relies on the Act’s and the Regulation’s definitions (s 4). If those definitions are updated, the port’s compliance assessment for which vessels are covered may change, so monitor legislative or regulatory changes and adapt internal procedures accordingly.

In summary, compliance requires proactivity: designate responsible persons for notices, adopt defined internal standards for “reasonable notice” and “as soon as practicable,” document notices in writing and retain copies, route covered arrivals to Goodwood Island Wharf, and align contractual arrangements so that owners, lessees and operators know who must notify the Agriculture Department and when.