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

The instrument uses a compact set of legal concepts drawn from the Biosecurity Act framework and applies them to one site, Royal Australian Air Force Base Pearce. The key concepts are defined or used as follows in the text.

• First point of entry. The instrument designates the base as a first point of entry for aircraft (s 5) and for goods other than live horses (s 6). The determination does not itself define “first point of entry”; it does, however, place these designations into the statutory framework by being made under s 223(1) of the Biosecurity Act (s 3). The practical effect of a “first point of entry” arises from the Act’s rules that the instrument references (for example sections noted in the instrument such as s 147, s 173, s 174 and s 238), but those Act provisions are invoked by reference rather than restated in the instrument.

• Aircraft and goods, as conditioned. The instrument limits its reach to aircraft and goods “that are subject to biosecurity control” (s 4). It further narrows “goods” for the first point of entry designation to all goods other than live horses (s 6). “Aircraft” and “goods” are thus conditional terms in the instrument’s operation: an aircraft or goods not “subject to biosecurity control” are outside the instrument’s stated scope (s 4).

• Biosecurity entry point. The instrument distinguishes a “biosecurity entry point” from a “first point of entry.” It designates specific areas within the base as biosecurity entry points for specified goods only (s 8 and the table). The only biosecurity entry point created by the instrument is the Air Movements Terminal, designated specifically for “baggage” (s 8, table, item 1). For aircraft, the instrument explicitly does not designate any area as a biosecurity entry point (s 7, note).

• Notification conditions. The instrument makes its designation of the base as a first point of entry subject to ongoing conditions requiring written notification to the Agriculture Department (s 9). There are three notification strands:

  • Owners (one or some owners where multiple), and lessees (one or some if multiple), must give written notice “as soon as practicable” to the Agriculture Department if they become aware 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)).
  • Persons or bodies responsible for operations at the base must give the Agriculture Department “reasonable notice” in writing of proposed changes of certain kinds (s 9(4)-(5)). Subsection 9(5) enumerates the types of procedural or facility changes that attract the reasonable-notice requirement, including changes to procedures that affect the management, identification or reporting of biosecurity risks, and changes to facilities or amenities available for biosecurity officials (s 9(5)(a)-(e)).

• Linkages to the Biosecurity Act. The instrument repeatedly points to operational consequences under the Biosecurity Act: it refers to the Act’s provisions on the unloading and bringing of goods to biosecurity entry points (s 8 notes referencing s 147 of the Act) and to the Act’s provisions concerning prohibited or conditionally non-prohibited goods (s 6 note referencing ss 173-174 of the Act), as well as the requirement to bring aircraft to a biosecurity entry point where one exists at a first point of entry (s 7 note referencing s 238 of the Act). The instrument therefore functions within the Act’s regime: it does not replicate the Act’s powers, but it triggers particular Act-based obligations where the Act requires a biosecurity entry point to be present.

These concepts combine to give the base a specific regulatory posture: a general first point of entry for aircraft and most goods, but with a single operational biosecurity entry point for baggage only, and a set of continuing administrative notification duties on owners, lessees and operators.

The instrument identifies, directly or by necessary implication, the classes of persons and entities that bear duties or are otherwise affected. Those affected are:

• Owners of Royal Australian Air Force Base Pearce. Section 9(2) places a duty on “the owner (or, if there is more than one owner, an owner)” to give written notice to the Agriculture Department as soon as practicable after becoming aware of a change to the business entity operating the base or a biosecurity entry point at the base. The instrument thus imposes a direct written-notice duty on at least one owner in cases of multiple ownership.

• Lessees of the base (if any). Section 9(3) imposes the same “as soon as practicable” written-notice requirement on “the lessee (if any) (or, if there is more than one lessee, a lessee)”, where the lessee becomes aware of changes to the business entity operating the base or a biosecurity entry point. This places operational administrative obligations on tenants as distinct from owners.

• Persons or bodies responsible for carrying out operations at the base. Section 9(4) requires any person or body responsible for carrying out operations at the base to give the Agriculture Department reasonable written notice of proposed changes of certain kinds (as listed in s 9(5)). The identification of who is “responsible for carrying out operations” is left to fact in each case; the instrument does not prescribe a formal list of operational actors. Practically, this will include entities that manage on-site movements, ground handling, cargo and baggage handling, or other operational activities that affect the management and identification of biosecurity risks.

• Operators of aircraft that are subject to biosecurity control. Section 5 makes the base a first point of entry for “aircraft generally,” but s 4 qualifies “aircraft” as those that are “subject to biosecurity control.” Aircraft operators whose aircraft fall into that category will be within the instrument’s scope. The instrument’s structure means aircraft operators must take account of whether a biosecurity entry point exists at the base (s 7 note).

• Owners, consignees and handlers of goods that are subject to biosecurity control. Section 6 makes the base a first point of entry for goods other than live horses. The instrument’s note at s 8 also ties the unloading obligations to the presence of a designated biosecurity entry point for particular goods; because the instrument designates the Air Movements Terminal as the biosecurity entry point only for baggage, parties dealing with other goods at the base are not subject to the s 147 unloading-to-entry-point requirement as invoked in the instrument’s note.

• The Agriculture Department. The Department of Agriculture is the recipient of the written notices required by s 9(2)-(4). The Department will therefore be an administrative participant in receiving and processing notices, and in any follow-up where the Act empowers the Department to act on information about changes at a first point of entry.

• Biosecurity officials and human biosecurity officers. Although not given specific obligations by this instrument, s 9(5)(b) and s 9(5)(d) expressly concern changes affecting the facilities and procedures available to biosecurity officials and human biosecurity officers. Those officials are therefore functionally implicated because the instrument conditions the base’s designation on maintaining access to appropriate facilities and procedures that allow them to perform functions or exercise powers under the Act.

Notice that the instrument frames affected parties by role at the base (owner, lessee, operator) and by the statutory condition that the aircraft or goods are “subject to biosecurity control” (s 4). The instrument does not spell out penalties or enforcement mechanisms in express terms; it operates instead through designation, reference to Act provisions and specified notice obligations.

The instrument creates a short set of express duties and a small number of implicit rights arising from the statutory framework it invokes. The duties are primarily administrative and procedural; rights are procedural or situational by implication rather than expressly conferred.

Express duties

• Written notification by owners. Under s 9(2), the owner (or, if multiple owners, an owner) must "give the Agriculture Department, in writing, notice of the change 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 at the base. This duty is triggered by knowledge of a present or forthcoming change in the business entity.

• Written notification by lessees. Under s 9(3), the lessee (or, if multiple lessees, a lessee) has the same as‑soon‑as‑practicable written-notice duty with respect to changes to the business entity operating the base or a biosecurity entry point.

• Reasonable written notice by persons/bodies responsible for operations. Under s 9(4), any person or body responsible for carrying out operations at the base must give the Agriculture Department reasonable written notice of proposed changes listed in s 9(5). Subsection 9(5) specifies the scope of changes that trigger this duty and thus defines its subject matter, namely:

  • Changes to procedures providing for biosecurity measures to manage biosecurity risk (s 9(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 9(5)(b)).
  • Changes to procedures that may affect the ability of operational personnel to identify biosecurity risks (s 9(5)(c)).
  • Changes to procedures that may affect how biosecurity officials or human biosecurity officials are informed of identified biosecurity risks (s 9(5)(d)).
  • Changes to procedures for managing other factors that may contribute to or affect the level of biosecurity risk associated with operations at the base (s 9(5)(e)).

• Operational obligations tied to designation. The instrument’s designation of the Air Movements Terminal as a biosecurity entry point for baggage (s 8, table, item 1) interacts with the Act’s unloading requirement referenced in the instrument: goods mentioned in the table that are to be unloaded must be brought to a biosecurity entry point “as soon as practicable” (note at s 8 referencing s 147 of the Act). For the baggage class, that means baggage unloaded from aircraft arriving at the base must be brought to the Air Movements Terminal as the designated biosecurity entry point (s 8 note 1).

Implicit duties and operational effects

• Awareness and record-keeping. The “as soon as practicable” and “reasonable notice” standards imply a duty on owners, lessees and operators to maintain systems to detect when the specified changes occur or are proposed, and to provide written notice accordingly. The instrument does not prescribe a form or precise timeline for “reasonable notice” or “as soon as practicable,” so affected parties must interpret those standards in light of operational realities.

• Coordination with the Agriculture Department. Because notices must be given in writing to the Agriculture Department (s 9(2)-(4)), affected parties must allocate resources to prepare and deliver such notices and to engage with the Department if further administrative action follows.

Rights and constraints

• No express new rights conferred. The instrument does not expressly create rights such as appeal rights, exemptions or consent entitlements. Its operative effect is to designate status and impose notice conditions; any procedural rights or review mechanisms would derive from the Biosecurity Act or other statutory or administrative frameworks outside the instrument’s text.

• Situational constraints on aircraft operations. The instrument’s note at s 7 clarifies that an aircraft must be brought to a biosecurity entry point at a first point of entry only if a biosecurity entry point for aircraft exists at that first point of entry (reference to s 238 of the Act). The instrument states it does not designate any area of the base as a biosecurity entry point for aircraft (s 7 note). The practical effect is that the Act’s bringing-to-entry-point requirement does not apply to aircraft at Pearce under this determination because no aircraft biosecurity entry point has been designated in the instrument.

• Specific unloading constraint for baggage. As above, baggage unloaded from an aircraft at Pearce must be brought to the Air Movements Terminal biosecurity entry point as soon as practicable (s 8 note 1, referencing s 147 of the Act). This creates an explicit operational locus for baggage.

The instrument therefore creates narrowly tailored duties for owners, lessees and operational actors at the base, and creates specific operational constraints regarding baggage unloading via the Air Movements Terminal; it does not create express rights, fee regimes or penalties within its text.

The instrument itself does not set out criminal or civil penalties, nor does it describe a discrete enforcement regime; it is a determination made under the Biosecurity Act 2015 (s 3), and enforcement must therefore be understood as functioning through the Act’s powers and enforcement framework rather than through new penalty provisions contained in the instrument.

What the instrument states about enforcement and statutory linkage

• Statutory authority. The instrument is made under subsection 223(1) of the Biosecurity Act 2015 (s 3). The instrument therefore sits within the Act’s statutory architecture; any enforcement action arising from non-compliance with duties established by the Act or by designations under the Act will be administered under the Act’s enforcement powers and offence provisions, which are not reproduced in the instrument.

• References to Act obligations. The instrument references several substantive provisions of the Act to explain operational consequences: s 147 (unloading and bringing goods to a biosecurity entry point) is invoked in the note to s 8; ss 173 and 174 (prohibited goods and conditionally non-prohibited goods) are referenced in the note to s 6; s 238 (requirements for an aircraft to be brought to a biosecurity entry point at a first point of entry) is referenced in the note to s 7. These references show the instrument is intended to trigger or interact with Act-based requirements where the Act so prescribes.

What the instrument does not do

• No penalty clauses. The instrument contains no clause creating an offence, imposing a pecuniary penalty, prescribing infringement notices, or specifying enforcement mechanisms; it only prescribes notification duties and designations. It therefore does not itself create a new penalty regime or specify sanctions for failure to comply with the written-notice obligations it contains.

• No enforcement process specified. The instrument does not set out processes for the Agriculture Department to investigate or respond to notices, nor does it specify how the Department will treat failures to provide notice. Therefore, the instrument leaves enforcement and remedial action to the Act’s mechanisms and to the Department’s administrative practice.

Practical enforcement implications

• Non-compliance will be handled under the Act. Because the instrument is made under the Biosecurity Act, failure to comply with duties that the Act itself imposes (for example, the duty to bring goods to a designated biosecurity entry point under s 147 of the Act) will expose parties to whatever penalties and powers the Act provides. The instrument’s own notice obligations, however, are not accompanied by specified penalties in the instrument; the Agriculture Department’s response to failure to give notices is accordingly a matter for the Department and for the Act.

• Administrative follow-up. The Department of Agriculture is the recipient of required notices (s 9(2)-(4)). The Department may use the information provided to exercise statutory powers or make administrative decisions authorised under the Act, though the instrument does not itself describe those follow-on steps.

• Uncertainty on timelines and standards. The instrument uses standards such as “as soon as practicable” and “reasonable notice” (s 9(2)-(4)), which require contextual assessment and therefore create practical enforcement discretion. Any determination that a party acted unreasonably, or failed to notify as required, would need to be resolved under the Act’s powers or through administrative dispute processes, because the instrument does not supply a metric.

In short, enforcement and penalties that might arise in practice are not specified in the instrument; instead, the instrument operates through designation and administrative notice duties, with actual enforcement and sanctions to be derived from and implemented under the Biosecurity Act and the Department’s powers and procedures.

The instrument is a statutory determination made under and operating within the Biosecurity Act 2015 framework. It references specific sections of the Act and therefore interacts with the Act’s obligations and administrative apparatus. The instrument does not purport to displace other laws, nor does it reference other statutes; its interactions are therefore with the Biosecurity Act and the Agriculture Department’s administrative responsibilities.

Primary statutory interaction

• Made under the Act. The instrument expressly states its authority: it is “made under subsection 223(1) of the Biosecurity Act 2015” (s 3). Therefore the determination is an Act‑based instrument and must be read as part of the Act’s delegated instruments regime. The instrument’s legal effect is defined by the scope of the Act’s power to make designations of first points of entry and biosecurity entry points.

• Invokes Act provisions for operational effect. The instrument invokes particular Act provisions by reference to identify operational consequences:

  • Section 147 of the Act (referenced in the s 8 note) deals with the requirement that goods unloaded from an aircraft at a first point of entry be brought to a biosecurity entry point if one is designated at that first point of entry. The instrument designates the Air Movements Terminal as the biosecurity entry point for baggage, and explicitly notes the unloading-to-entry-point obligation applies to goods mentioned in the table (s 8 note 1).
  • Sections 173 and 174 of the Act (referenced in the s 6 note) relate to prohibited goods and conditionally non-prohibited goods, and the instrument notes that other matters relating to whether particular goods may be brought into a particular first point of entry should be considered in light of those sections and any determinations made under them.
  • Section 238 of the Act (referenced in the s 7 note) requires an aircraft to be brought to a biosecurity entry point at a first point of entry if there is a biosecurity entry point for aircraft at that first point of entry; the instrument declares that it does not designate any area at the base as a biosecurity entry point for aircraft and therefore the s 238 obligation does not apply at Pearce under this determination.

Consequences for statutory duties

• Partial triggering of Act obligations. The instrument creates only one biosecurity entry point (Air Movements Terminal for baggage). Where the Act requires goods to be brought to a biosecurity entry point when unloaded (s 147 of the Act), that obligation is triggered only for baggage at the base. For other goods (even though the base is a first point of entry for goods other than live horses under s 6), the instrument does not designate a biosecurity entry point, and the unloading-to-entry-point obligation under the Act does not apply at the base for those goods as per the instrument’s note at s 8.

• Aircraft-specific interaction. The instrument’s choice not to designate any area as a biosecurity entry point for aircraft (s 7 note) affects the operation of s 238 of the Act: because no aircraft biosecurity entry point exists at the base by this determination, the Act’s requirement to bring aircraft to an entry point at a first point of entry does not apply to aircraft landing at Pearce pursuant to this determination.

Administrative and procedural interaction

• Notification duties feed into Act administration. The written-notice duties in s 9 require owners, lessees and operators to inform the Agriculture Department of certain changes. Those notices will interact with the Department’s administration of the Act, including potential follow-up inspections, approval processes, or further administrative steps permitted by the Act. The instrument does not prescribe the Department’s responses; it only requires the information be provided.

• Relation to determinations under the Act. The instrument notes that for “other matters” relating to whether particular goods may be brought into a first point of entry, one should see ss 173 and 174 of the Act and any determinations made under those sections (s 6 note). That signals the instrument is one of a suite of possible determinations under the Act and that other determinations under the Act may impose different or additional constraints at other places or for other goods.

No stated interaction with non‑Act instruments

• No cross-reference to other statutes. The instrument contains no cross-references to other Commonwealth statutes, nor to state or territory law. It therefore does not expressly modify, supersede or interact with other legal regimes in its text. Any interaction with other laws (for example, aviation safety laws, Defence base security rules, customs law, or state health laws) is not addressed in the instrument and would need to be considered separately.

In sum, the instrument functions as a targeted delegated instrument under the Biosecurity Act. Its legal interactions are primarily with the Act’s operative provisions referenced in the instrument, with duties and operational consequences flowing from those references rather than from new standalone legal constructs introduced by the instrument.

The instrument includes a commencement table and a note about amendment history within its text. The instrument indicates the following about its own status at the time it was made:

• Commencement. The instrument states in section 2(1) that “The whole of this instrument” commenced on 16 June 2019, and the commencement details are set out in the commencement table (s 2 and the table). The instrument also includes the standard note that the table relates only to the provisions of this instrument as originally made and will not be amended to deal with later amendments of the instrument.

• Preamble details. The instrument is dated 7 June 2019 in its header and identifies the delegate (Dean Merrilees) of the Director of Biosecurity who made the determination (preamble). The commencement table records the operative commencement date as 16 June 2019.

• No amendments recorded in the text. The instrument’s internal content does not include any amendment provisions, nor does it append any subsequent variations or revocations. The instrument’s note in s 2(1) that the commencement table relates only to the provisions as originally made implies that any later amendment history would be maintained elsewhere (such as in an external consolidated register), but the instrument text as provided contains no record of amendments, disallowances, revocations or subsequent determinations affecting it.

• Clarifying note on table content. Section 2(2) includes a standard provision stating that any information in column 3 of the commencement table is not part of the instrument and may be inserted or edited in any published version of the instrument. The table as printed in the instrument shows no extra content in column 3 beyond the commencement date.

Practical reading

• As of the instrument text supplied, the instrument has a single original enactment date and a single commencement date. There are no textual amendments, revocations, or variations included in the material provided. Any researcher or practitioner seeking the instrument’s amendment history beyond this instrument text should check the consolidated Commonwealth register of legislative instruments or the Department of Agriculture’s instrument register for any subsequent variations, repeals or revocations not included in the instrument as originally made.

• The absence of amendments in the instrument itself means the legal landscape created by the instrument is as set out in the provisions: first point of entry designations (ss 5-6), biosecurity entry point designation for baggage (s 8), and notification conditions (s 9), with commencement on 16 June 2019.

The instrument contains no recorded litigation history within its text. It does not cite, summarise or reference any judicial decisions, nor does it include any statutory notes about challenges, injunctions, or court actions related to its making or operation.

What the instrument states

• No mention of cases. The instrument does not name any court proceedings or judicial consideration. It is purely a delegated administrative determination made under the Biosecurity Act 2015 (s 3).

Implications for users

• Absence of internal litigation record. Because the instrument itself contains no litigation history, practitioners should not infer from the instrument that no litigation exists. Rather, the instrument does not purport to present case law. Anyone seeking to ascertain whether the instrument has been the subject of litigation must consult external judicial databases, law reports or the consolidated legislative records that indicate whether the instrument has been involved in court proceedings.

• Where disputes may arise. Typical areas that could give rise to litigation,although not referenced in the instrument,include factual disputes about whether a particular aircraft or goods are “subject to biosecurity control” (s 4), disputes over whether a change occurred or whether notice was given “as soon as practicable” or constituted “reasonable notice” (s 9(2)-(4)), or administrative action taken by the Department as a consequence of notices received. The instrument does not itself create or exemplify litigation; it places obligations that could, in a given factual scenario, give rise to administrative decisions or enforcement actions under the Biosecurity Act that might be litigated.

• Recommendation for practitioners. To confirm whether litigation has addressed this instrument or its operation, check Commonwealth court databases and administrative law decisions for any matters concerning determinations made under s 223(1) of the Biosecurity Act, and search for any decisions that mention Royal Australian Air Force Base Pearce in the biosecurity context.

In short, the supplied instrument contains no litigation history; external research is required to determine whether courts or tribunals have considered this specific determination in practice.

This instrument is compact but contains several design choices and drafting features that produce operational consequences practitioners should note. The following items identify features that can give rise to misunderstanding, operational friction or compliance risk, grounded in the instrument’s text.

1. First point of entry versus biosecurity entry point distinction. The instrument distinguishes the status of the base as a “first point of entry” (ss 5-6) from the presence of designated “biosecurity entry points” (s 8). That distinction matters because key operational obligations in the Act (which the instrument references) attach only where a biosecurity entry point is designated at a first point of entry. The instrument makes the base a first point of entry for aircraft and most goods, but designates a biosecurity entry point only for baggage. The effect is that some Act-based requirements (for example, the requirement to bring aircraft to a biosecurity entry point or to bring unloaded goods to a biosecurity entry point) will apply only where the instrument specifically designates the relevant biosecurity entry point. See s 5, s 6, s 7 note, s 8 and the note to s 8.

2. Narrow biosecurity entry point designation. The instrument designates only the Air Movements Terminal as a biosecurity entry point for baggage (s 8, table, item 1). If other goods are unloaded at Pearce (despite the base being a first point of entry for goods other than live horses under s 6), the instrument does not create a specific entry point for them. The instrument’s note at s 8 emphasises this: the unloading-to-entry-point requirement under s 147 of the Act does not apply to the unloading of those other goods at Pearce because no entry points have been designated for them. Practically, parties handling goods other than baggage must not assume the same unloading-to-entry-point obligations will apply at Pearce unless and until an additional designation is made.

3. Live horses excluded from goods designation. Section 6 expressly excludes live horses from the instrument’s designation of the base as a first point of entry for goods. Parties dealing in live horses should not rely on this instrument to establish Pearce as a first point of entry for such animals; the instrument’s exclusion is explicit.

4. “Subject to biosecurity control” qualification. The definitions in s 4 qualify both “aircraft” and “goods” by reference to whether they are “subject to biosecurity control.” The instrument does not provide a stand-alone test for that condition; it imports the concept from the Act. Therefore, the instrument’s operational reach depends on whether an aircraft or goods fall within the Act’s concept of being “subject to biosecurity control.” Users must be attentive to that threshold.

5. Ambiguity in temporal standards. The instrument uses the standards “as soon as practicable” for owners/lessees (s 9(2)-(3)) and “reasonable notice” for persons or bodies responsible for operations (s 9(4)). Neither standard is defined in the instrument. The practical effect is uncertainty on timelines and potential dispute over whether notice was timely, particularly for rapid operational changes or where national security or Defence protocols impose conflicting notice timelines. Parties should assume these are context-dependent standards to be judged objectively in light of circumstances.

6. Who is “responsible for carrying out operations”? Section 9(4) imposes obligations on “a person or body that is responsible for carrying out operations at Royal Australian Air Force Base Pearce.” The instrument does not define this phrase. Responsibility could span Defence contractors, ground handling companies, base management entities, or other operational actors. Parties may face uncertainty about whether they bear the s 9(4) duty in particular fact patterns; owners, lessees and contractors should clarify responsibilities contractually and in practice to align with the notification duties.

7. Written-notice form and content. The instrument requires notices to be “in writing” to the Agriculture Department (s 9(2)-(4)). It does not specify required content, format, addresses, or the Departmental office to receive such notices. Absent further guidance, parties should adopt conservative drafting and record-keeping practices: provide clear descriptions of the change, the parties involved, and contact details, and retain proof of delivery.

8. Interaction with Defence and security regimes. Though the instrument designates a Defence base, it does not engage with Defence or base security protocols. The instrument imposes duties that may require sharing information with the Agriculture Department about operational changes at the base. In practice, operational actors on a Defence base will need to reconcile these notice duties with Defence confidentiality, security clearance and access rules. The instrument does not resolve conflicts between biosecurity notification duties and security or classified‑information controls; resolving those conflicts will require operational coordination outside the instrument’s text.

9. No specified departmental response. The instrument does not state what the Agriculture Department will do upon receiving the written notices. That creates potential uncertainty about whether and what operational approvals, inspections, or additional requirements may follow. Parties should not assume notices are merely informational; the Department may exercise its statutory powers under the Act in response, but the instrument itself does not set out those steps.

10. Potential practical complexity where multiple owners or lessees exist. The instrument requires notification by “an owner” or “a lessee” where multiple owners or lessees exist (s 9(2)-(3)). That drafting choice places the burden on at least one owner or lessee to notify, but it also raises coordination issues where multiple parties may dispute who should notify, or where internal governance means no single party is in a clear position to comply. Parties should establish internal communication and delegation arrangements to ensure the s 9 notice obligations are met.

These features are directly grounded in the instrument’s text (ss 4-9) and create discrete operational risks and compliance traps if affected parties do not take them into account.

The instrument sets out limited but specific written-notice duties and operational obligations that are actionable. The following practical checklist maps the instrument’s requirements (with specific references) and offers concrete steps to operationalise compliance within the instrument’s textual constraints.

1. Determine whether your aircraft or goods are “subject to biosecurity control.”

• Refer to the instrument’s definition: “aircraft means an aircraft (as defined by section 9 of the Act) that is subject to biosecurity control” and “goods means goods (as defined by section 19 of the Act): (a) that are subject to biosecurity control; or (b) in relation to which an exposed goods order is in force” (s 4). Although the Act’s definitions are not reproduced here, you must assess whether the aircraft or goods fall within the Act’s biosecurity control scope because the instrument applies only in that case.

2. Where you handle baggage arriving at Pearce, ensure arrivals are directed to the designated biosecurity entry point.

• The instrument designates the Air Movements Terminal as the biosecurity entry point for baggage (s 8, table, item 1). The instrument’s note references the Act’s obligation that goods mentioned in the table and unloaded from aircraft must be brought to the biosecurity entry point as soon as practicable (s 8 note referencing s 147 of the Act). Practically, if you unload baggage at Pearce, plan for the baggage to be routed immediately to the Air Movements Terminal.

3. Confirm whether goods other than baggage require a biosecurity entry point at Pearce.

• The instrument makes Pearce a first point of entry for goods other than live horses (s 6), but it does not designate biosecurity entry points for other goods. If you handle other goods, do not assume there is a biosecurity entry point at Pearce for them; consult the Agriculture Department or check whether separate determinations or arrangements exist before unloading other goods intending to bring them into the Australian biosecurity system.

4. Implement a written-notice protocol for owners and lessees.

• Owners must give the Agriculture Department written notice “as soon as practicable” after becoming aware of a change to the business entity operating the base or a biosecurity entry point at the base (s 9(2)). Lessees have the same duty (s 9(3)). Establish internal triggers for these notices: changes of ownership, management contracts, operator arrangements, or structural changes affecting the business entity operating the base or an existing biosecurity entry point.

• Practical steps:

  • Identify who (position or role) within your organisation will be the nominated notifier for the purposes of s 9(2) and s 9(3).
  • Prepare a template written-notice form that captures the facts of the change, the parties involved, the effective date, and contact details.
  • Establish a tracked delivery method (email with read receipt where accepted by the Department, registered post, or other verifiable method) and retain copies.

5. Implement a written-notice protocol for persons or bodies responsible for operations.

• If you are responsible for carrying out operations at the base, you must give the Agriculture Department reasonable written notice of proposed changes of the kinds listed in s 9(5) (s 9(4)). The listed categories include procedural changes affecting biosecurity measures, facility changes for biosecurity officials, changes to risk identification procedures, and changes to reporting and management procedures affecting biosecurity risk (s 9(5)(a)-(e)).

• Practical steps:

  • Map operational procedures that could trigger s 9(5) (for example, changes in cargo handling workflows, security screening processes, or ground handling contracts).
  • Agree internal thresholds for what constitutes a “proposed change” requiring notification (for example, any procedural change with a net effect on how biological material is handled or identified).
  • Establish a review process for proposed changes that identifies whether the change falls within s 9(5) and, if so, prepare a written notice describing the proposed change, rationale, anticipated timing and any mitigations, and send it to the Agriculture Department with reasonable notice.

6. Coordinate with Defence and security stakeholders.

• The instrument applies to a Defence base; where classified, security-cleared or operational constraints exist, coordinate with relevant Defence authorities to ensure that notification to the Agriculture Department does not conflict with security requirements. The instrument does not resolve conflicts between biosecurity notices and Defence confidentiality; therefore, obtain internal clearance to provide required information in a manner consistent with security protocols.

7. Maintain documentary evidence of notices and timings.

• Because the instrument uses standards such as “as soon as practicable” and “reasonable notice” (s 9(2)-(4)), it is important to keep contemporaneous records showing when you became aware of a change, when the notice was prepared, and proof of delivery. This evidence will be relevant if there is any administrative follow-up or dispute about timeliness.

8. Where multiple owners/lessees exist, allocate notification responsibilities contractually.

• The instrument allows “an owner” or “a lessee” to discharge the s 9(2)-(3) duty where multiple owners or lessees exist. To avoid ambiguity, incorporate a contractual clause in joint-ownership or lease agreements designating who will perform statutory notices to the Agriculture Department and setting out internal notification flows and timelines.

9. Engage early with the Agriculture Department about operational arrangements at the Air Movements Terminal.

• If you are an operator handling baggage at Pearce, proactively clarify with the Agriculture Department which functions will be performed at the Air Movements Terminal and what facilities or amenities biosecurity officials will require to exercise their powers under the Act (s 9(5)(b)). Early engagement reduces the risk of surprise departmental requirements or operational mismatches.

10. Seek confirmation about goods excluded from the instrument and about prohibited or conditionally non-prohibited goods.

• The instrument explicitly excludes live horses from the goods designation (s 6). For questions about whether particular goods are prohibited or conditionally non-prohibited, the instrument points users to ss 173 and 174 of the Act and any determinations made under those sections (s 6 note). Obtain written confirmation from the Agriculture Department if you handle unusual consignments whose status is uncertain.

11. Build crisis/change-management procedures that respect “reasonable notice” and “as soon as practicable.”

• For rapid operational changes, emergencies, or urgent security-driven modifications to operations, implement a dual-track communication plan: immediate notification to the relevant internal stakeholders, and timely written notification to the Agriculture Department consistent with the instrument’s standards. Where immediate operational changes are essential, document the urgent circumstances and the steps taken to notify the Department as soon as practicable.

12. Keep an eye on further determinations or amendments.

• The instrument is one determination under the Act. Additional determinations could designate further biosecurity entry points or change the base’s status for particular goods or aircraft types. Monitor the Department’s instrument register and relevant regulatory updates.

By following these steps , mapping obligations to internal roles, documenting notices and timings, coordinating with Defence and the Agriculture Department, and ensuring baggage handling is routed to the Air Movements Terminal , affected parties can align operations with the instrument’s requirements (ss 4-9).