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

The Determination employs several Act-defined concepts and creates two straightforward legal statuses (first point of entry for aircraft; not a first point of entry for goods). The instrument draws definitions directly from the Biosecurity Act 2015 and then applies them to Royal Australian Air Force Base Learmonth.

• First point of entry. The instrument makes Royal Australian Air Force Base Learmonth a "first point of entry for aircraft generally" (s 5). The Determination does not define the term beyond referencing the Act: the definition framework in the Biosecurity Act is incorporated by reference in s 4 and the accompanying notes. Mechanically, the designation attaches whatever statutory consequences follow from being a first point of entry under the Biosecurity Act. The instrument itself does not restate those consequences; it only affirms the designation.
• Aircraft and goods. The instrument uses the Act's definitions for "aircraft" and "goods" (s 4, with notes referencing ss 9 and 19 of the Act). It distinguishes between the two by making the base a first point of entry for aircraft but expressly not for goods (ss 5-6). The label "goods" in this Determination expressly includes goods that are subject to biosecurity control and goods in relation to which an exposed goods order is in force (s 4).
• Biosecurity entry point. The Determination addresses the concept of a "biosecurity entry point" for aircraft in a cautionary note to s 7. It restates the statutory trigger that an aircraft must be brought to a biosecurity entry point at a first point of entry if such an entry point exists at that first point of entry (referencing section 238 of the Act). However, the instrument then explicitly states that it does not designate any area of the base as a biosecurity entry point for aircraft (s 7 note). That separates the "first point of entry" administrative status from any on-the-ground designation of specific entry-point locations within the base.
• Notification conditions. The principal operational concept introduced by the Determination is a set of notification duties. These duties require written notice to the Agriculture Department by owners (or one owner if multiple), lessees (or one lessee if multiple), and persons or bodies responsible for carrying out operations at the base when certain changes occur or are proposed (s 8). The instrument specifies thresholds and categories of change that trigger obligations: changes to the business entity operating the base or a biosecurity entry point at the base (ss 8(2)-(3)), and proposed changes to procedures, facilities, or the ability to identify or inform biosecurity risks (ss 8(4)-(5)).
• Timing and manner. The Determination sets two temporal standards: "as soon as practicable after becoming aware" for reactive notices by owners and lessees (ss 8(2)-(3)), and "reasonable notice" for advance notice of proposed changes by persons or bodies responsible for carrying out operations (s 8(4)). The instrument requires notices to be in writing and addressed to the "Agriculture Department" (ss 8(2)-(4)).

Terminology and cross-references in the Determination are intentionally shorthand: several operative terms are defined by reference to the Biosecurity Act 2015 rather than being re-defined in the instrument. The instrument explicitly situates itself within the statutory framework of the Act (s 3) and therefore uses the Act's definitional scaffolding (s 4 notes).

The Determination allocates duties and legal status across a narrow, identifiable set of stakeholders. The primary affected parties are:

• Aircraft operators and aircraft subject to biosecurity control. By designating the base as a first point of entry for aircraft generally (s 5), the Determination directly affects any aircraft that fall within the Act's definition of an aircraft and that are subject to biosecurity control. The instrument does not specify classes of aircraft beyond the statutory term "aircraft"; the Act's definition (referenced in s 4) supplies the technical scope.
• Owners of Royal Australian Air Force Base Learmonth. The instrument places proactive notification duties on an owner, or on one owner where there are multiple owners, to notify the Agriculture Department in writing if they become aware of past or prospective changes to the business entity operating the base or a biosecurity entry point at the base (s 8(2)). The owner obligation is therefore a direct compliance burden.
• Lessees. Where a lessee exists (and where there are multiple lessees, one lessee must act), the lessee must likewise notify the Agriculture Department in writing when they become aware of specified changes to the business entity operating the base or a biosecurity entry point at the base (s 8(3)). That places a parallel obligation on tenants or similar occupation-holders.
• Persons or bodies responsible for carrying out operations at the base. The Determination requires persons or bodies that "are responsible for carrying out operations" at the base to give the Agriculture Department reasonable notice, in writing, of proposed changes of the kinds listed at s 8(5). That category captures operational contractors, base management organisations, or other entities running day-to-day activities, to the extent they bear responsibility for operations.
• The Agriculture Department (Department of Agriculture). The Department is the recipient of the written notices and therefore is centrally placed to receive, record and consider changes affecting biosecurity risk at the base. The Determination treats the Department as the administrative contact and repository of information for these obligations (ss 8(2)-(4)).
• Goods owners and users. The Determination expressly excludes goods from the first point of entry designation (s 6). That means owners of goods subject to biosecurity control or exposed goods orders are not brought within the designation's operational scope. They remain unaffected by the first point of entry designation in the terms set by the instrument, although they might be affected by other parts of the Biosecurity Act not restated here.

Indirectly affected parties include human biosecurity officers and biosecurity officials who may need to coordinate with the Department when the specified notifications are given. The instrument’s note in s 7 ties the existence of a biosecurity entry point to operational obligations under the Act, but the Determination explicitly records that it does not designate such entry points in the base; accordingly, the immediate effect on where officials exercise powers at Learmonth is not established by this Determination alone.

Practical consequence: the legal duties attach to owners, lessees and operationally responsible persons by text; aircraft operators are affected via the first point of entry designation and any downstream Act provisions that apply to such points (the Determination itself does not restate those downstream provisions).

The Determination’s operative obligations are limited and specific. It sets out duties but does not create express rights for parties other than the administrative status of first point of entry for aircraft.

Key duties

• Written notification by owners. If an owner (or, if multiple owners, an owner) becomes 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, that owner must give written notice to the Agriculture Department "as soon as practicable after becoming aware" (s 8(2)). This duty is reactive in that it triggers once the owner becomes aware of a change that has occurred or will occur.
• Written notification by lessees. A parallel duty applies to a lessee (or, where multiple lessees exist, a lessee): on becoming aware of specified changes to the business entity operating the base or a biosecurity entry point, the lessee must give written notice to the Agriculture Department "as soon as practicable after becoming aware" (s 8(3)). The symmetry between owner and lessee duties suggests both parties are expected to participate in informational flows to the Department.
• Advance written notice by persons/bodies responsible for operations. A person or body that is responsible for carrying out operations at the base must give the Agriculture Department "reasonable notice" in writing of proposed changes of the kinds listed at s 8(5) (s 8(4)). This is a proactive duty applicable where changes are proposed, not merely when they have occurred.
• Scope of changes triggering notice. The Determination defines the kinds of change that attract the advance-notice obligation at s 8(5). These include: changes to procedures providing for biosecurity measures (s 8(5)(a)); changes to facilities or amenities available for biosecurity officials and human biosecurity officers to perform functions or exercise powers under the Act (s 8(5)(b)); changes to procedures that may affect the ability to identify biosecurity risks (s 8(5)(c)); changes that may affect the ability for officials to be informed of identified biosecurity risks (s 8(5)(d)); and changes to procedures for managing any other factors that contribute to or affect the level of biosecurity risk associated with operations (s 8(5)(e)).

Form and recipient of notices

• The instrument requires notices to be "in writing" and addressed to the Agriculture Department (ss 8(2)-(4)). It does not prescribe a particular format beyond that.

Temporal standards

• The instrument uses two qualitative temporal standards rather than fixed timeframes: "as soon as practicable after becoming aware" for reactive notices (ss 8(2)-(3)) and "reasonable notice" for advance notices (s 8(4)). The Determination does not quantify those standards, leaving the precise timing to be judged on the facts.

Rights and non-duties

• No express new rights. The instrument does not grant discrete legal rights to owners, lessees, aircraft operators or third parties (there are no clauses creating entitlements). The principal legal effect is the administrative designation and the imposition of notification duties.
• No biosecurity entry point designation. The Determination explicitly does not designate any area of the base as a biosecurity entry point for aircraft (s 7 note). That means the Determination does not, in itself, create a right to require aircraft to be brought to a specified on-base location; the existence of such a requirement depends on whether a biosecurity entry point is designated, which this instrument does not do.
• No operational procedures specified. The Determination does not set out operational biosecurity procedures, inspection regimes, or powers to be exercised at the base. Any functional rights to access, inspection or exercise of powers must be located in the Biosecurity Act or in subsequent administrative instruments, not in this Determination.

In sum, the Determination's core duties are narrow and administrative: written notices to the Agriculture Department triggered by changes to business entities, lessees or operational procedures/facilities that could affect biosecurity risk. The instrument leaves substantive operational rules and any enforcement apparatus to other parts of the statutory framework.

The Determination contains no express enforcement provisions, penalty clauses, or administrative sanctioning mechanisms. It specifies duties (principally notification duties) but does not prescribe the consequences of non-compliance within the instrument itself.

• No penalties in the Determination. The text lists obligations to give written notice to the Agriculture Department and to provide reasonable notice of proposed changes, but it does not state any penalty for failing to meet those obligations, nor does it create an infringement notice power or civil remedy in the Determination text.
• Enforcement presumed to lie in the Biosecurity Act. The instrument is made under subsection 223(1) of the Biosecurity Act 2015 (s 3), and it repeatedly references statutory concepts from the Act (for example, the definitions of "aircraft" and "goods" and the link to section 238 in the s 7 note). Because the Determination is an instrument under the Act, any enforcement powers, sanctions, or remedies that apply to failure to comply with Act-derived obligations would need to be identified in the Act itself or in other instruments made under the Act. The Determination does not summarise or reproduce such enforcement machinery.
• Administrative handling. The instrument names the Agriculture Department as the recipient of written notices (ss 8(2)-(4)). Practically, the Department will be the administrative centre for receiving notifications and for any subsequent risk-assessment, coordination or follow-up. The Determination does not prescribe internal Departmental processes, timelines for response, or corrective action procedures.
• Uncertainty in compliance consequences. Because the instrument does not specify sanctions, parties facing potential contraventions must consult the Biosecurity Act 2015 or seek Departmental guidance to determine what legal consequences, if any, follow non-compliance with the Determination's notification duties. The Determination’s reliance on statutory cross-reference means that the practical enforcement environment will be set by the Act rather than by this instrument.

In short, the Determination imposes obligations without setting out enforcement steps or penalties within its own text. For enforcement detail and penalties, the Biosecurity Act 2015 and any other related administrative instruments or departmental policies would be the necessary sources of authority; those are not reproduced in this Determination.

The Determination situates itself within the Biosecurity Act 2015 by reference and thereby interacts indirectly with the Act’s broader regulatory architecture. The instrument contains several explicit cross-references which define the boundaries of interaction.

• Made under the Act. The instrument is expressly made under subsection 223(1) of the Biosecurity Act 2015 (s 3). That is the statutory hook authorising the delegate to make this Determination. The Determination therefore operates as a subordinate instrument within the Act’s legal framework.
• Use of Act definitions. The Determination imports definitions from the Act: it states that expressions used in the instrument are defined in section 9 of the Act (note in s 4) and it defines "aircraft" and "goods" with explicit references to the applicable Act sections (s 4 and its note to ss 9 and 19). That means the instrument’s substantive scope depends on the Act’s definitions,what counts as an "aircraft" or "goods" for biosecurity control is governed by the Act.
• Relationship to biosecurity entry point obligations. The instrument reiterates the Act-based rule that an aircraft must be brought to a biosecurity entry point at a first point of entry if there is a biosecurity entry point for the aircraft at that first point of entry (s 7 note, referencing s 238 of the Act). The Determination then clarifies that it does not designate any area of the base as a biosecurity entry point for aircraft (s 7 note). Mechanically, this means the Determination creates the first-point-of-entry status but leaves the question of whether any specific on-site locations are biosecurity entry points to other processes or instruments under the Act.
• No goods designation. Because the Determination states the base is NOT a first point of entry for goods (s 6), the instrument separates the legal handling of goods from aircraft at this location. Any statutory requirements for handling goods that stem from first point of entry designation under the Act do not flow from this Determination for Learmonth.
• Administrative alignment. Notices under s 8 are to be given "to the Agriculture Department, in writing". That aligns the Determination’s administrative process with the Department responsible for implementing biosecurity controls under the Act. The instrument does not, however, specify whether those notices trigger departmental actions under other statutory provisions; such interactions would be governed by the Act or departmental procedures and are not set out in the Determination.
• Limits to the Determination’s reach. The instrument does not reproduce or alter any statutory powers of biosecurity officials or human biosecurity officers under the Act; it references these powers only in the context of facilities and amenities used by such officials (s 8(5)(b)). To determine how officials’ powers interact with the base (for example, whether officials may board, inspect or detain at the base), one must consult the Biosecurity Act itself, as the Determination does not modify or detail those powers.

Overall, the Determination depends on and references the Biosecurity Act 2015 for its definitions, its authority, and for the operational consequences that attach to first point of entry status. The instrument makes a targeted administrative designation and sets notification duties that interact with the Act’s mechanisms, but it does not itself change the Act’s substantive powers, penalties or operational rules.

The Determination provides minimal amendment history material, but it contains the necessary metadata about its making and commencement.

• Making and signature. The instrument is signed by Dean Merrilees, Assistant Secretary, Compliance Division, Department of Agriculture, acting as a delegate of the Director of Biosecurity (document header and signature block). It is dated 7 June 2019.
• Commencement. The table under s 2 records that "The whole of this instrument" commenced on 16 June 2019 (s 2(1) and the commencement table). The instrument therefore took effect nine days after the dated signature.
• Note on amendment table. The Determination contains an explicit note that the commencement table "relates only to the provisions of this instrument as originally made. It will not be amended to deal with any later amendments of this instrument" (s 2(1) note). That indicates the published commencement entry reflects the original instrument and that any subsequent amendments, if made, would be recorded elsewhere or in a consolidated instrument rather than by editing this table.
• No recorded amendments within the text. The Determination text, as provided, does not include any later amendment provisions, transitional clauses, revocation statements or schedules indicating modification. It appears as a self-contained instrument with a single commencement date and no embedded amendment history beyond the initial making.
• Practical implication. Users should treat this document as the original instrument as made on the dates stated, and should check the formal legislative database or the Biosecurity Act instrument registers for any later instruments that might vary or revoke it. The Determination itself does not record subsequent amendments or revocations.

In effect, within the content supplied, the amendment history is limited to the identity of the maker, the signature date and the commencement date. There is no internal record of later change.

The Determination contains no references to litigation, court decisions or legal challenges. The instrument text does not record any judicial consideration, nor does it cite cases or tribunal determinations.

• No cases named. The Determination does not name any judicial or tribunal decisions, nor does it include conditions or explanatory material that refer to litigation history.
• No recorded disputes. The instrument does not record disputes about its validity, implementation or interpretation within the text. There is therefore no litigation history appearing in the instrument itself.
• Practical note. Absence of litigation history in the instrument should not be interpreted as evidence that no disputes have occurred since its making. The text simply contains no mention of court proceedings. Any litigation arising from the Determination would appear in judicial records, which are outside the content of this instrument as supplied.

For users needing to know whether the Determination has been the subject of legal proceedings, a search of external judicial databases or government registers must be undertaken. The Determination itself provides no litigation history.

The Determination is concise, but its brevity creates a number of practical pitfalls and interpretive ambiguities that are material for operational compliance and risk management.

• Aircraft-only designation, goods excluded. The Determination makes Learmonth a first point of entry for aircraft generally (s 5) and expressly not a first point of entry for goods (s 6). A common operational mistake would be assuming that all usual first-point-of-entry obligations for both aircraft and goods apply at Learmonth. For goods, this Determination does not create first-point-of-entry status, so any procedures that rely on a goods-first-point-of-entry assumption will be misplaced.
• No biosecurity entry point designated. The instrument’s note in s 7 is important: while the base is a first point of entry for aircraft, the Determination does not designate any area of the base as a biosecurity entry point for aircraft. The statutory rule the note cites,an aircraft must be brought to a biosecurity entry point at a first point of entry where such points exist (referenced to s 238 of the Act),is therefore inapplicable unless and until a biosecurity entry point is separately designated. Operational planners should not assume that a specific on-base arrival location has the legal status of a biosecurity entry point simply because the base is a first point of entry.
• Ambiguous temporal standards. The instrument uses qualitative timing standards: "as soon as practicable after becoming aware" (ss 8(2)-(3)) and "reasonable notice" (s 8(4)). There is no quantitative guidance (days, hours). That ambiguity creates compliance risk: what one party regards as practicable or reasonable may be judged differently by the Department. Parties should therefore err on the side of prompt and early notice, and document their decision-making and the timing of notices.
• Who counts as "owner", "lessee" or "responsible for carrying out operations"? The instrument speaks of "the owner (or, if there is more than one owner, an owner)" and similar wording for lessees (ss 8(2)-(3)), and of "a person or body that is responsible for carrying out operations" (s 8(4)). Where ownership or operational responsibility is shared across multiple entities, the obligation falls on “an owner” or “a lessee” rather than all owners or all lessees. That drafting choice creates practical coordination issues: which owner or lessee should take on notification? The Determination does not resolve inter-party allocation of notification duties or provide tie-breakers. Stakeholders should establish internal protocols to ensure timely notice.
• Scope of "changes" is wide. The list of matters triggering advance notice (s 8(5)) covers procedures and physical changes that may affect ability to identify risk, inform officials, or manage factors affecting biosecurity risk. The last subparagraph (s 8(5)(e)) is open-ended: "any other factors that may contribute to, or affect, the level of biosecurity risk associated with operations". That breadth invites wide interpretation and therefore potential over-notification or uncertainty about materiality thresholds.
• Written notice only, to "the Agriculture Department". The instrument requires writing and directs notices to the Agriculture Department (ss 8(2)-(4)). It does not specify an address, an electronic filing channel, or a Departmental contact point. Parties should not assume email or informal oral communications suffice; they must follow Departmental guidance on the appropriate written channel. Absence of a specified address increases the risk of misdirected notices.
• No operational detail on Departmental response. The Determination does not specify what the Department must do on receipt of notice, or the timeframe for any Departmental response or requirement. Parties should not expect this instrument to produce immediate operational approvals or clearances; it simply creates a duty to inform.
• Enforcement and penalty uncertainty. Because the Determination contains no penalty clauses, parties cannot rely on it for clarity about legal consequences of non-notification; those consequences would be found in the Biosecurity Act or departmental policy. This creates a legal-gap risk: the notification duty exists, but the sanctions and remedial pathways are not set out here.
• Potential duplication of obligations. If other instruments or the Act impose similar notification duties, there may be overlapping obligations on owners, lessees or operators. The Determination does not address duplication or prioritisation of notices to other agencies or bodies.
• Multiple stakeholders and responsibility handover. When the business entity operating the base changes, the Determination requires notice by an owner or lessee as soon as practicable (ss 8(2)-(3)). If a change in business entity occurs during a tenant handover, failure to co-ordinate timely notification could leave both parties exposed to administrative censure or operational disruption.

These "gotchas" are not statutory penalties; they are operational risks and points of legal ambiguity inherent in the Determination’s concise drafting. Parties should build procedures to mitigate these practical pitfalls, document communications, and seek Departmental clarification where necessary.

Compliance under this Determination is primarily an administrative and information-management exercise. Because the instrument’s duties are circumscribed, compliance requires establishing processes that ensure timely written notification to the Agriculture Department and documenting decision-making. Practical steps to comply are as follows, linked to the instrument’s text.

1. Confirm the Determination applies to your activities

• Determine whether the aircraft you operate are "subject to biosecurity control" and therefore fall within the scope of the first point of entry designation (s 5 and the definition in s 4 referencing the Act). If you cannot establish this from your internal records, confirm with the Department.

2. Identify the responsible parties

• Ascertain who counts as "an owner" where multiple owners exist and who counts as "a lessee" where multiple lessees exist, and record the nominated notifiers. The Determination permits notice by "an owner" or "a lessee" where there are multiples (ss 8(2)-(3)), so internal allocation of that duty reduces the risk of delay or dispute.
• Identify the person(s) or body(ies) "responsible for carrying out operations" at the base and record a primary contact for providing "reasonable notice" of proposed changes (s 8(4)).

3. Set up written-notification procedures

• Because notices must be "in writing" to the Agriculture Department (ss 8(2)-(4)), establish a clear written-notice template and process. Document the date of discovery, nature of the change, anticipated timing, and contact details.
• Keep records of when an owner, lessee or operational body "became aware" of a change; because the statutory trigger uses "as soon as practicable after becoming aware" (ss 8(2)-(3)), documenting the timeline will support the reasonableness of the notification.

4. Proactive consultation for proposed changes

• For proposed changes to procedures or facilities of the kinds listed at s 8(5) (procedures for biosecurity measures, facilities for officials, procedures affecting identification of biosecurity risks, procedures affecting informing officials, other changes affecting biosecurity risk), give the Agriculture Department "reasonable notice" in writing ahead of implementation (s 8(4)-(5)). Where possible, provide sufficient technical detail, diagrams of facility changes, and an impact assessment on biosecurity risk to facilitate Departmental review.

5. Conservative timing

• Because "as soon as practicable" and "reasonable notice" are qualitative standards, adopt conservative timeframes in practice. For example, provide written reactive notices within 24-72 hours of discovery where feasible, and give advance notice of proposed changes several weeks in advance for facility or procedural changes that could affect biosecurity risk.

6. Use secure and verifiable delivery channels

• The Determination specifies written notice to the Agriculture Department but does not set the delivery channel. Use traceable delivery methods (registered post, signed delivery, or an agreed Departmental email channel) and retain delivery receipts and copies.

7. Prepare documentation on biosecurity procedures and facilities

• Maintain up-to-date documented procedures that explain how biosecurity risks are identified, how officials will be notified, and the facilities or amenities available to officials and human biosecurity officers (s 8(5)(a)-(d)). This will both reduce the likelihood of required notifications and streamline any notifications that are required.

8. Internal change-control governance

• Before implementing changes that might affect biosecurity risk, conduct an internal change-control process that assesses whether a notification is required under s 8(5). If the internal assessment identifies possible effects on biosecurity risk, provide written "reasonable notice" to the Department.

9. Records retention

• Keep a dedicated compliance register that records all notices sent to the Agriculture Department, the date of sending, the recipient details, the content summary, and any Departmental responses. The Determination imposes notification duties without specifying consequence timelines; robust records protect the notifying party in any subsequent review.

10. Seek Departmental clarification where necessary

• For ambiguous points,such as whether a proposed change falls within s 8(5)(e)'s catch-all, or what constitutes reasonable notice,seek written clarification from the Agriculture Department. The Determination does not specify a contact point; obtaining one and documenting the Department’s guidance will reduce uncertainty.

11. Coordinate between owners, lessees and operators

• Given the Determination’s multiple potential notifiers, ensure a memorandum of understanding or contractual allocation of notification duties among owners, lessees and operational bodies. That prevents duplication, delay, or gaps in notification responsibilities.

12. Monitor for biosecurity entry point designations

• The Determination does not designate any on-base biosecurity entry point for aircraft (s 7 note). If the Department later designates entry points or issues further instruments, update your procedures accordingly. Stay alert to departmental instruments that might modify on-site requirements.

13. Legal review and insurance

• Given the absence of penalties in the Determination itself and the likely role of the Biosecurity Act in enforcement, consider legal review of notification triggers and ensure insurance or contractual protections are in place to cover operational disruption arising from Departmental responses to notifications.

Following these steps will address the Determination’s expressed requirements: providing written notification to the Agriculture Department when specified changes occur or are proposed, and ensuring that the base’s first point of entry status for aircraft is managed in an auditable and Department-aligned manner.