Biosecurity (First Point of Entry—Royal Australian Air Force Base Amberley) Determination 2019

The instrument builds on a narrow set of statutory concepts taken from the Biosecurity Act 2015, which the Determination expressly adopts by reference. Core concepts used inside the Determination are: first point of entry, biosecurity entry point, aircraft, goods, owner and lessee, and the written-notice obligations for changes to operators or operations (s 4; parts 2-4). The Determination does not expand or redefine those statutory concepts; it applies them to a specific place and set of activities.

First point of entry is the principal designation in parts 2 and 3. Section 5 declares RAAF Base Amberley to be a first point of entry for aircraft generally. Section 6 declares the base to be a first point of entry for goods, except live horses. The instrument therefore brings the base within the Act’s framework for first points of entry in respect of those categories. The instrument uses the statutory definitions of “aircraft” and “goods” rather than restating them, meaning the statutory thresholds and scope in sections 9 and 19 of the Act determine what falls within the Determination’s reach (s 4, note).

Biosecurity entry point is a subsumed designation. The Determination does not create a biosecurity entry point for aircraft at the base; the instrument states explicitly that it does not designate any area of the base as a biosecurity entry point for aircraft (note to s 7). For goods, the Determination designates a specific internal area of the base as a biosecurity entry point for baggage, identifying the Air Movements Section Passenger Terminal as the place where baggage subject to biosecurity control must be taken (s 8 and the table in Part 3). The instrument delegates the handling point for other goods to the Act’s default rules, noting that it does not designate biosecurity entry points for other goods for which the base is a first point of entry and that the section 147 requirement to bring unloaded goods to a biosecurity entry point therefore does not apply to those other goods (note to s 8).

Conditions, notice and timing are expressed with statutory phrasing that imports legal uncertainty in margin terms. The owner or a lessee must give written notice “as soon as practicable” when becoming aware that there has been, or will be, a change to the business entity operating the base or a biosecurity entry point at the base (s 9(2)-(3)). Separate to those post-change notices, a person or body responsible for carrying out operations must give the Agriculture Department “reasonable notice” of any proposed changes that fall within a specified list of changes to procedures, facilities, amenities or other procedural matters that would affect biosecurity risk identification or management (s 9(4)-(5)). The listed items in subsection (5)(a)-(e) enumerate concrete aspects of operations that, if altered, trigger the reasonable notice obligation, for example changes to procedures to identify biosecurity risks, or changes to facilities or amenities for biosecurity officials to perform functions under the Act (s 9(5)(a)-(e)).

Delegation and administrative provenance are also explicit. The instrument was made by Dean Merrilees as delegate of the Director of Biosecurity, and the authority for making the instrument is recorded as subsection 223(1) of the Act (s 3; front matter). The commencement mechanism in s 2 uses a commencement table: the whole instrument is taken to have commenced on 16 June 2019, and the instrument contains the formal note that the table relates only to the provisions as originally made.

Finally, the Determination includes internal guidance notes that reference sections of the Act which affect how the Determination operates, for example referencing the Act’s rules on prohibited and conditionally non-prohibited goods (ss 173 and 174) and the rule that aircraft must be brought to a biosecurity entry point at a first point of entry if one exists there (s 238) and the requirement to bring unloaded goods to a biosecurity entry point as soon as practicable (s 147). These notes do not add statutory obligations to the Determination itself, they flag operative links with the broader statutory framework.

The Determination creates obligations and procedural pathways that chiefly affect the following groups, as defined or identified in the instrument: owners of Royal Australian Air Force Base Amberley, lessees of the base (if any), persons or bodies responsible for carrying out operations at the base, operators of biosecurity entry points, the Department of Agriculture as the recipient of notices, and aircraft operators, passengers and other parties bringing goods into the base.

Owners and lessees: The instrument places explicit written-notice obligations on the owner of the base, and if there is more than one owner, on an owner, to notify the Agriculture Department in writing as soon as practicable when they become aware of a change to the business entity operating the base or a biosecurity entry point at the base (s 9(2)). The same immediate-notice obligation falls on a lessee or a lessee where there is more than one (s 9(3)). The instrument therefore assigns direct compliance duties to these property-interest holders, irrespective of whether they operate the base themselves.

Persons or bodies carrying out operations: Separate obligations fall on any person or body responsible for carrying out operations at the base to give the Agriculture Department reasonable notice of proposed changes to certain operational matters likely to affect biosecurity risk (s 9(4)-(5)). The Determination lists the types of proposed changes that must be notified, for example changes to procedures that affect the ability to identify biosecurity risks, and changes to facilities or amenities for biosecurity officials to perform functions or exercise powers under the Act (s 9(5)(a)-(e)).

Aircraft operators and goods handlers: By designating RAAF Base Amberley as a first point of entry for aircraft generally, the Determination brings aircraft that are subject to biosecurity control within the base’s first point of entry status, and therefore within obligations created by the Act associated with first points of entry, when those Act obligations arise (s 5; note to s 7 referring to s 238 of the Act). For goods, the base is a first point of entry for goods other than live horses (s 6). Specific handling requirements apply to baggage, which the Determination designates to be brought to the Air Movements Section Passenger Terminal as the biosecurity entry point for baggage (s 8, table). The instrument’s notes highlight that goods unloaded from an arriving aircraft that are mentioned in the table must be brought to the biosecurity entry point as soon as practicable (note to s 8, referring to s 147 of the Act).

Department of Agriculture and biosecurity officials: The instrument makes the Agriculture Department the recipient of the written notices required by s 9. It also presumes that biosecurity officials and human biosecurity officers will need access to facilities and amenities, and that changes to those facilities affect their ability to perform powers under the Act (s 9(5)(b)-(d)). The Determination therefore imposes an administrative information flow to the Department as a condition of the first point of entry designation.

Other affected stakeholders include passengers and freight operators who will be required by the Act’s operational rules to use the designated biosecurity entry point for baggage when bringing goods via Amberley, because the Determination identifies the specific terminal space for such processing (s 8). The Determination excludes live horses from the goods designation at the base, which means exporters, importers or carriers of live horses will be affected by that exclusion because the base will not be a first point of entry for them under this instrument (s 6).

Who decides: The Determination was made by a delegate of the Director of Biosecurity and gives the Agriculture Department a role in receiving notices and in being informed of proposed operational changes. The instrument itself does not allocate decision-making power to the Department beyond being the notice recipient; decisions about operators, approvals or the exercise of powers remain ones governed by the Biosecurity Act and relevant administrative processes referenced in the instrument’s notes.

This Determination embeds a small set of concrete duties and leaves other statutory duties to the Biosecurity Act. The primary duties written into the instrument are notification and prior-notice requirements attached to the first point of entry designation, and duties flowing from the designation itself by reference to the Act. Rights are not expressed in the Determination beyond the implied rights to operate at a place that has been designated a first point of entry subject to the relevant conditions and the Act.

Notification duties: Owners have a duty 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 base or a biosecurity entry point there (s 9(2)). If there is more than one owner, the duty applies to an owner. Lessees, where they exist, have the same duty, and where there is more than one lessee, the duty falls on a lessee (s 9(3)). These duties are framed as conditions to the designation in s 9(1), meaning the first point of entry status is subject to compliance with those obligations.

Prior-notice duties: The Determination imposes a separate duty on any person or body responsible for carrying out operations at the base to give the Agriculture Department reasonable notice of proposed changes that fall within a specified list in subsection 9(5). The listed proposed changes that must be notified include changes to procedures for biosecurity measures, changes to facilities or amenities available for biosecurity officials and human biosecurity officers to perform functions and powers under the Act, changes to procedures affecting the ability to identify biosecurity risks, changes to procedures affecting the ability of biosecurity officials to be informed of identified biosecurity risks, and changes to procedures for managing other factors that may affect the level of biosecurity risk (s 9(5)(a)-(e)). The duty is prospective in nature and requires reasonable advance notice prior to implementing those changes (s 9(4)-(5)).

Procedural duties implicit by designation: By declaring the base a first point of entry for aircraft generally and for goods other than live horses, the Determination imports, by reference, the Act’s obligations that attach to first points of entry. The instrument’s notes cite the Act’s rule that an aircraft must be brought to a biosecurity entry point at a first point of entry if one exists at that first point of entry (note to s 7, referring to s 238 of the Act), and the Act’s rule that goods unloaded from an arriving aircraft that are covered by the table must be brought to the designated biosecurity entry point as soon as practicable (note to s 8, referring to s 147 of the Act). Those procedural duties, insofar as they arise, therefore bind aircraft operators and handlers of the designated goods category.

Rights and scope limitations: The Determination does not itself create express rights of appeal, rights to compensation, or rights to specific administrative decisions. It does set specific limits in scope, for example by excluding live horses from the goods designation (s 6) and by not designating any area as a biosecurity entry point for aircraft (note to s 7). The designation for baggage is limited to the Air Movements Section Passenger Terminal; that specificity narrows the place-based rights to use other areas for baggage processing under the Determination (s 8, table).

Form and timing: Notices required by ss 9(2)-(4) must be in writing, and the time standards differ between “as soon as practicable” for post-change notice and “reasonable notice” for proposed changes. Those qualitative standards introduce an element of factual judgement into compliance, which will govern how owners, lessees and operators calibrate their information flows to the Agriculture Department.

Conditionality: The Determination explicitly makes its designation subject to the notification and prior-notice conditions (s 9(1)). Non-compliance with those conditions is therefore a potential ground for administrative action under the Act, given that the Determination ties the base’s first point of entry status to those ongoing duties. The instrument itself does not contain an express list of remedies or sanctions but operates as a conditional administrative instrument under the authority of the Biosecurity Act.

The Determination itself is a regulatory instrument which does not specify criminal penalties, pecuniary penalties, or enforcement procedures inside its text. It records the statutory authority for its making as subsection 223(1) of the Biosecurity Act 2015, and it contains directions that refer to other provisions of the Act to indicate how the Determination interacts with existing statutory obligations (s 3; notes to ss 7 and 8). Because the Determination is made under the Act, enforcement and penalty regimes relevant to non-compliance with duties attached to first point of entry designations or with the Act’s requirements are matters governed by the Act and subordinate instruments, rather than by this Determination itself.

Direct provisions in the Determination that could be enforced administratively are the notice obligations in s 9. Those obligations require notices to be provided in writing and to be given either as soon as practicable after becoming aware of a change, or with reasonable notice in the case of proposed changes (ss 9(2)-(4)). The Determination does not specify the consequences of failing to provide those notices. Any enforcement action in relation to non-compliance therefore must be taken through the powers and processes established in the Biosecurity Act, which the instrument references but does not reproduce.

The Determination’s notes reiterate the Act’s rules on movement to biosecurity entry points and on the handling of certain goods unloaded from aircraft (notes to ss 7 and 8, referring to ss 238 and 147 of the Act). Those Act provisions, rather than the Determination, would be the source of any enforcement measures for failures to comply with obligations to present aircraft or to bring goods to designated biosecurity entry points when those obligations apply.

Responsibility for enforcement: The instrument designates the Department of Agriculture as the recipient of notices required by s 9. That Department, and the biosecurity officials and human biosecurity officers referred to in s 9(5)(b)-(d), are the practical parties who will become aware of proposed or actual changes. The Determination does not specify which administrative unit within the Department has enforcement authority in relation to the notices required by the Determination, or the process the Department will follow on receipt of a notice.

Standards and discretion: The qualitative standards used in the Determination,“as soon as practicable” for post-change notice and “reasonable notice” for proposed changes,leave implementation discretion in the hands of the actors giving notice and in turn require the Department to exercise judgement when assessing timeliness or adequacy of notices. The Determination does not supply objective timelines or formats, nor does it supply a template for the notice content, leaving those matters to operational practice.

Practical enforcement implications: For recipients of the Determination, the immediate effect is that administrative oversight will be exercised by the Department through its receipt of notices and through the Act’s existing enforcement architecture. The Determination does not create a standalone enforcement regime, it makes the base subject to the Act’s first point of entry framework and conditions the designation on written notice obligations, creating routinised information flows that the Department can use to monitor changes affecting biosecurity risk at the location.

The Determination expressly situates itself within the framework of the Biosecurity Act 2015 and repeatedly references particular Act provisions that determine how the Determination operates. The instrument is made under subsection 223(1) of the Act (s 3). It adopts statutory terms from the Act for “aircraft” and “goods” by reference to sections 9 and 19 of the Act (s 4). The instrument’s notes reference sections 173 and 174 of the Act in relation to prohibited and conditionally non-prohibited goods, section 238 in relation to the duty to bring aircraft to biosecurity entry points at first points of entry, and section 147 in relation to the requirement to bring unloaded goods to a biosecurity entry point as soon as practicable (notes to ss 5-8).

That overlay means the Determination does not seek to displace or supplant the Act, it localises the Act’s general first point of entry and biosecurity entry point framework by applying it to RAAF Base Amberley in specified ways. The Determination acts as a place-specific administrative determination under the Act’s delegation power, so its legal effect is to trigger or qualify the Act’s application at the designated location. The instrument therefore interacts with the Act in a hierarchical relationship: the Act supplies definitions, duties and enforcement mechanisms, while the Determination supplies a location-specific designation and procedural conditions tied to that designation.

Because the Determination uses statutory phrasing such as “as soon as practicable” and “reasonable notice” for required notifications, the Determination presumes standard legal interpretive principles under general administrative law will apply when those terms are contested. The Determination does not itself indicate whether administrative review paths or merits review are available for decisions that flow from the Act when applied to the base, nor does it reference other statutes that might interact with the base’s operation, such as Defence legislation. The instrument therefore leaves any inter-legislative interaction beyond the Biosecurity Act to be resolved by reference to the broader statute book and administrative arrangements beyond the Determination’s text.

The Determination limits its coverage of goods by excluding live horses from the goods designation at Amberley (s 6). That limit means that regulatory or statutory regimes governing live animal imports and movements will not be triggered at Amberley by virtue of this Determination; instead, live horses will remain outside the first point of entry status conferred by this instrument. The Determination does not specify where live horses should be presented; those arrangements are left to other determinations or to the Act’s general rules.

Operational interactions: The Determination designates a single internal facility,the Air Movements Section Passenger Terminal,as the biosecurity entry point for baggage (s 8 and table). That designation will interact with operational obligations on aircraft operators, freight handlers and passengers under the Act to use that facility where the Act’s rules require presentation at a biosecurity entry point. The instrument’s note to s 8 draws that connection by referencing s 147 of the Act. The Determination also references the Act’s categories of prohibited and conditionally non-prohibited goods (ss 173 and 174), indicating that determinations under those sections and those provisions’ substantive rules remain relevant when assessing whether particular goods may be brought into the designated first point of entry.

Administrative reporting and departmental interaction: The written notice duties create a direct channel to the Department of Agriculture for information about changes in ownership, lessee arrangements and operational practices that have biosecurity implications. That reporting requirement positions the Department as the central administrative actor for monitoring changes and for potentially coordinating any further action under the Act.

In sum, the Determination operates as a localising instrument for the Biosecurity Act 2015, making place-specific determinations and attaching process conditions, and it relies on the Act for substantive obligations, enforcement powers and wider obligations concerning prohibited or conditionally non-prohibited goods, aircraft presentation, and the handling of unloaded goods.

The Determination contains a short, explicit amendment and commencement record within its own text. It was made on 7 June 2019 by Dean Merrilees as delegate of the Director of Biosecurity and the instrument records that the whole instrument commenced on 16 June 2019 (front matter and s 2, commencement table). The instrument’s commencement table includes a note that the table relates only to the provisions of the instrument as originally made and will not be amended to deal with later amendments of the instrument. There is no text inside the Determination indicating that it has been amended since the original making.

The Determination’s s 2 contains the formal commencement mechanism. The table lists “The whole of this instrument” with commencement date 16 June 2019, and a further line noting the same date. The accompanying note to the table states that any information in column 3 is not part of the instrument and may be edited in published versions; that note preserves the formal separation between the instrument’s operative provisions and ancillary publication metadata.

No schedule of amendments or successive determinations is included within the instrument’s text. There is no provision in the instrument itself purporting to save or vary earlier determinations, nor is there an express sunset clause or periodic review provision in the Determination. The instrument does condition the designation on ongoing notification and prior-notice obligations, which creates a continuing administrative relationship rather than a one-off designation subject to a separate sunset or review clause (s 9).

Because the Determination is made under subsection 223(1) of the Biosecurity Act, any future amendment or revocation would require exercise of that delegated authority or a fresh instrument under that statutory power. The Determination does not specify any procedural machinery for amendment or revocation within its text, such as notice periods or consultation requirements, nor does it provide transitional arrangements. Consequently, the amendment history in the instrument is confined to the single making and commencement recorded in the front matter and s 2.

For practitioners tracking instrument status, the Determination’s own note that the commencement table is not amended in published versions means that amendment history, if it occurs, would be located in external legislative databases or in subsequent instruments rather than embedded in the original table. The Determination itself supplies no later amendments, variations, or repeal provisions.

The Determination does not include or summarise any litigation history. There are no cases, appeals, or judicial reviews recorded within the instrument’s text. The instrument is a place-specific administrative determination that does not itself create a statutory cause of action or list adjudicative processes; it relies on the Biosecurity Act for the substantive regime and implicitly on the Act and general administrative law procedures for any challenge to decisions that flow from its application.

Although the Determination is silent on litigation, a number of potential areas of dispute could arise from ordinary factual or legal contestation around the Determination’s operative language. Those potential sources of litigation are implicit in the instrument’s text because the instrument uses qualitative standards, for example “as soon as practicable” for the timing of post-change notices and “reasonable notice” for proposed changes to operations (ss 9(2)-(4)). Disputes could arise about the factual trigger for the post-change notice duty, for instance when an owner or lessee “becomes aware” that a change “has been, or will be” made to the business entity operating the base or a biosecurity entry point (ss 9(2)-(3)). Those phrasing points create interpretive questions that, absent administrative guidance or departmental policy, could be litigated in contentious cases where consequences turn on the timing or adequacy of a notice.

Another conceivable source of legal dispute could be whether particular operational changes fall within the enumerated list at s 9(5). The Determination lists five categories of changes that require reasonable notice, from procedural changes affecting biosecurity measures to changes to facilities or amenities for biosecurity officials. Parties might contest where a proposed change lies on the causal chain of biosecurity risk management, for example whether a particular procedural revision “may affect the ability of a person who carries out operations ... to identify biosecurity risks” (s 9(5)(c)). Such fact-sensitive assessments could give rise to administrative disputes about the proper scope of the Determination’s notice obligations.

The instrument’s interaction with the Act’s provisions that it references may also be a source of litigation, albeit the Determination itself provides only pointers to those Act sections. For example, the notes refer to sections 147 and 238 of the Act in relation to movement to biosecurity entry points and unloading goods; in practical operation, disputes about obligations under those Act sections could be litigated with the Determination’s place-specific designations forming part of the factual matrix.

Finally, the Determination’s exclusion of live horses from the goods designation at Amberley (s 6) is an explicit scope limitation. Litigation could arise if a party contests whether particular animals or consignments fall within the statutory definition of “live horses” or whether an animal is a “good” as defined by the Act, but those matters would depend primarily on the Act’s definitions and the facts of a given matter rather than on the Determination itself.

In sum, the Determination contains no recorded litigation history in its text. It does include several phrasing choices and scope limitations that could, in practice, become the subject of administrative disputes or judicial review when the Department or biosecurity officials apply the Act together with this Determination. Any such litigation would rely on the Biosecurity Act’s procedural and substantive regimes, together with standard avenues for administrative law challenges, none of which are set out inside the Determination.

This Determination contains a number of narrowly framed features and linguistic choices that create practical compliance and operational pitfalls for owners, lessees, operators and users of RAAF Base Amberley. These are concrete mechanics and interpretive points, not policy judgements, drawn from the instrument’s text.

1. Qualitative timing standards: The instrument uses “as soon as practicable” for post-change notices by owners and lessees (ss 9(2)-(3)) and “reasonable notice” for proposed changes by persons or bodies responsible for operations (s 9(4)). Neither term is defined in the Determination, which means those standards will be judged against operational circumstances. Parties should not assume an objectively long window; the Department may expect prompt written notification in practice. The absence of objective time limits increases uncertainty about compliance timing.

2. Who bears the duty where multiple owners or lessees exist: The instrument applies the post-change notice duty to “an owner” or “a lessee” where there are multiple owners or lessees (ss 9(2)-(3)). That drafting choice means the statutory responsibility is not jointly and severally divided among all owners or lessees, but it also creates coordination risk. If one owner or lessee fails to notify, the Department’s view of compliance may hinge on which owner or lessee did or did not provide notice, and on which party the Department expects to notify in multi-party ownership or leasing arrangements.

3. Limited internal biosecurity entry points for goods: The Determination designates only the Air Movements Section Passenger Terminal as the biosecurity entry point for baggage (s 8, table). If other classes of goods are unloaded from aircraft at Amberley, the instrument does not designate a biosecurity entry point for those goods and expressly notes that the section 147 requirement to bring unloaded goods to a biosecurity entry point does not apply to those other goods (note to s 8). Operators and handlers cannot rely on the Determination to supply processing locations for other goods categories; they must consult the Act and other determinations.

4. No biosecurity entry point for aircraft: The Determination does not designate any area of the base as a biosecurity entry point for aircraft (note to s 7). The Act contains a rule that an aircraft must be brought to a biosecurity entry point if one exists at a first point of entry, but in the absence of such a designation at Amberley the aircraft presentation rule will not be applied via this Determination. Operators must therefore be careful about whether and when aircraft are required to proceed to other designated points under the Act, and whether procedural obligations will be triggered elsewhere.

5. Exclusion of live horses from goods designation: Live horses are explicitly excluded from the Determination’s goods designation (s 6). Stakeholders dealing with equine movements must not assume Amberley is a first point of entry for live horses because the instrument expressly says it is not. This is a concrete scope trap for carriers and consignors.

6. Narrow facility specification: The designation of baggage processing is location-specific at the Air Movements Section Passenger Terminal (s 8, table). If facilities, amenities or operations change such that baggage processing cannot practically occur at that terminal, the operator must give reasonable notice to the Department of the change under s 9(4)-(5). Failure to provide notice prior to changes that affect biosecurity officials’ abilities might expose operators to administrative intervention under the Act.

7. Notice content and form: Notices must be in writing (ss 9(2)-(4)), but the Determination does not prescribe content, address, or format. Owners, lessees and operational bodies should ensure written notices are sufficient in content to enable the Department to assess the change. The lack of a prescribed form increases the operational risk of returned or inadequate notices.

8. Delegation provenance and administrative point of contact: The Determination was made by a delegate of the Director of Biosecurity (front matter). It does not identify a specific contact point or unit within the Department of Agriculture to receive notices. In practice, notices could be delayed or misdirected if recipients are uncertain about the correct departmental address or process, creating potential compliance gaps.

9. Conditional nature of the designation: The Determination makes the first point of entry status subject to the notification conditions in s 9(1). That framing means non-compliance with the notification regime could have consequences for the continued status of the base as a first point of entry; the Determination itself does not specify what those consequences are, and parties should not assume the designation is unconditional.

10. Reliance on external Act definitions and duties: The Determination depends on the Act for definitions of aircraft and goods, and for the substance of obligations that apply at first points of entry (s 4 and notes). Parties cannot determine their full obligations solely from the Determination; they must check the Biosecurity Act provisions that the Determination references, for example sections 147, 173, 174 and 238, to understand obligations that arise in tandem with the Determination’s place-based rules.

These concrete features of the Determination create administrative and operational obligations that owners, lessees, operators, and transport handlers must manage proactively. The instrument’s limited scope and qualitative standards increase the need for operational clarity, timely written communication and internal processes to identify when a change triggers a notification or prior-notice duty.

Compliance with the Determination requires a small set of practical steps driven by the instrument’s written-notice and prior-notice conditions, together with attention to the Act’s broader obligations that the Determination references. The following checklist is drawn directly from the Determination’s operative text and the practical implications flowing from it.

1. Identify whether you are an owner, lessee, or a person/body responsible for operations: The notice duties in s 9 are allocated to owners and lessees for post-change notices, and to persons or bodies responsible for operations for proposed changes. Entities should document who in their corporate or operational structure qualifies under these categories so that a responsible officer is allocated the notification task.

2. Establish a written-notice process for post-change notifications: Owners and lessees must give the Agriculture Department written notice as soon as practicable after becoming aware of a change in the business entity operating the base or a biosecurity entry point (ss 9(2)-(3)). Practically, this requires an internal monitoring mechanism to surface changes in ownership, corporate control, shareholdings, management contracts or other business-entity changes that affect the operator. Once such a change is identified, the responsible officer must prepare a written notice promptly and send it to the Department. Because the Determination does not supply a prescribed form or timescale, aim to notify as early as possible and keep records of the date the notice was prepared, sent and received, to evidence compliance.

3. Prepare a prior-notice protocol for proposed operational changes: If your organisation is responsible for carrying out operations at the base, you must give the Agriculture Department reasonable notice of proposed changes that fall within the categories listed in s 9(5). Those categories include changes to biosecurity procedures, to facilities or amenities for biosecurity officials, to procedures affecting identification and communication of biosecurity risks, and similar matters. Adopt an internal change management process that triggers a written prior notice to the Department when proposed changes touch those subjects. Document the rationale for why a proposed change does or does not fall within s 9(5), and keep records of the notice and any departmental correspondence.

4. Use the designated biosecurity entry point for baggage: For baggage that is subject to biosecurity control and is unloaded from an aircraft at Amberley, ensure baggage is brought to the Air Movements Section Passenger Terminal as the Determination designates that area the biosecurity entry point for baggage (s 8, table). Ensure ground handling and passenger processing procedures direct baggage to that facility and that signage and staff instructions reflect the Determination’s location-specific requirement.

5. Do not assume Amberley is a biosecurity entry point for aircraft or for live horses: The Determination does not designate any area of the base as a biosecurity entry point for aircraft (note to s 7). It also excludes live horses from the goods designation (s 6). Operators should check whether other determinations or the Act require presentation elsewhere for aircraft or live animals, and ensure contractual and operational arrangements reflect these exclusions.

6. Make notices in writing and retain records: All notices required by s 9 must be in writing (ss 9(2)-(4)). In the absence of a prescribed format, include the following minimum content in each notice: identity of the notifying party, a clear description of the change or proposed change, the likely effective date, the biosecurity functions or entry points affected, and contact details for follow-up. Keep copies of all sent notices, certified delivery receipts, and any reply from the Department.

7. Engage early with the Department on significant operational shifts: For changes to facilities, amenities or procedures that could affect the ability of biosecurity officials to carry out functions or exercise powers under the Act, provide reasonable advance notice and where possible invite discussion with the Department before implementation. This reduces the risk that a post-implementation regulatory intervention will follow and helps to clarify what the Department will regard as reasonable notice in the circumstances.

8. Coordinate among multiple owners or lessees: Where more than one owner or lessee exists, appoint a single responsible officer or corporate nominee to fulfil the “an owner” or “a lessee” notice duty (ss 9(2)-(3)). Ensure contractual documents allocate the obligation and indemnity arrangements among co-owners or co-lessees to avoid disputes about who should provide the notice.

9. Keep operational manuals and staff procedures updated: Update ground handling manuals, standard operating procedures for passenger processing, and staff training materials to reflect the designated baggage processing location and the notification obligations. Train staff to recognise when a change might trigger s 9(5), and ensure escalation channels are in place so proposed changes are assessed by legal or compliance teams before implementation.

10. Preserve evidence of compliance and be prepared to explain timing and reasonableness: Because the Determination uses qualitative standards of timeliness and reasonableness, preserve contemporaneous records showing when parties “became aware” of a change, when notices were drafted and sent, and the factual basis for the timing chosen. These records will be important if the Department questions compliance or if there is later administrative review.

11. Review interface with the Biosecurity Act: The Determination references several Act provisions without reproducing them (for example sections 147, 173, 174 and 238). Organisations should review those sections of the Biosecurity Act to understand the substantive obligations that may apply when the Determination’s designations are engaged. The Determination is not a standalone source of all obligations.

12. Identify internal contact points for the Department: Because the Determination does not specify an address or departmental unit for notices, seek confirmation from the Department of Agriculture as to the appropriate recipient and address for s 9 notices, and use that recipient consistently. Maintain a register of departmental correspondents and any protocol for urgent communication.

Following these practical steps aligns operational practice with the Determination’s specific textual requirements. The two core compliance themes are: timely, written communication to the Department in the situations set out in s 9, and adherence to the Determination’s place-specific designation of baggage processing at the Air Movements Section Passenger Terminal. Documentation and early engagement with the Department will reduce uncertainty where the Determination’s qualitative standards apply.