EXPLANATORY STATEMENT

Issued by the authority of the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government

Airports Act 1996

Airports (Environment Protection) Regulations 2026
Airports (Environment Protection) (Repeals and Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2026

Purpose and operation

The Airports (Environment Protection) Regulations 2026 (the Regulations) establish the regime for regulating environmental management at federally leased airports that aligns with the environmental management framework under Part 6 of the Airports Act 1996 (the Act). The Regulations establish a cooperative system of environmental regulation, where airport-lessee companies are responsible for environmental management, with appointed airport environment officers providing regulatory oversight. The Regulations prescribe a range of matters to support the operation of the Act, including to:

Set out a regulatory framework that aligns with national environmental standards, guidelines and frameworks for air, water, and soil pollution.
Establish definitions, standards and investigation levels for pollution and offensive noise.
Impose general duties upon operators of undertakings at airports to avoid polluting; preserve a range of heritage and environmental values; report significant environmental or heritage finds in a timely manner; and prevent or minimise offensive noise.
Allow an airport-lessee company to apply to the Minister for a ‘local standard’ for pollution or offensive noise that is different to investigation levels set out in Schedules to the Regulations.
Allow a person to apply for an authorisation to exceed the pollution investigation levels or excessive noise levels set out in the Schedules.
Provide a system for monitoring, reporting, investigating and remediating pollution or offensive noise that aligns with national guidelines and standards.
Provide enforcement mechanisms to address pollution, including notices to require pollution to be remediated or actions to be taken to prevent the generation of pollution or offensive noise.
Provide enhanced provisions to improve airport environment officers’ powers to monitor and ensuring effective reporting, investigation and remedial management of pollution and offensive noise.
Provide for offence provisions for non-compliance with environmental management controls outlined in the Act and the Regulations.
Provide for the issuing of infringement notices for non-compliance with environmental controls outlined in the Act.
Provide for internal review of certain decisions made by an airport environment officer, as well as review of any internal review decisions by the Administrative Review Tribunal.
Set out the process for appointment of airport environment officers and exercise of their powers and responsibilities under appropriate oversight.

This instrument replaces the Airports (Environment Protection) Regulations 1997 (the 1997 Regulations), which sunsets on 1 April 2026. The sunsetting date was altered by the Legislation (Airport Instruments) Sunset-altering Declaration 2018, and subsequently the Legislation (Deferral of Sunsetting-Airport Instruments) Certificate 2022 and the Legislation (Deferral of Sunsetting-Airport Instruments) Amendment Certificate 2025.

The Airports (Environment Protection) (Repeals and Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2026 (the Repeals and Consequential Amendments Regulations) sets out necessary repeals and consequential amendments associated with remaking the Regulations.

Consultation has revealed that while the Regulations are generally fit for purpose, there are opportunities to align them more closely to national standards, simplify the means by which changing pollution standards may be updated in the Schedules, strengthen monitoring, reporting, investigation and compliance options to respond to emerging pollutants of concern, modernise language in the Regulations, and make minor and technical updates.

The purpose of this document is to provide an overview of the Regulations and changes that have been made as part of the remaking process. The Federal Register of Legislation provides the legislative history of the sunsetting instrument, including past explanatory statements.

The latest versions of any Australian Government Acts, Regulations and other legislative instruments referenced in this Explanatory Statement or the Regulations are available at the Federal Register of Legislation (www.legislation.gov.au).

Modernisation

The Regulations have been updated to more closely align with the provisions in the Act, and to meet modern drafting standards, while generally maintaining the intent and effect of the 1997 Regulations they replace. For example:

a range of changes to language have been made throughout the instrument – see the notes on sections at Attachment A for details;
definitions have been consolidated into section 5 in the Regulations (to the extent possible);
outdated references to standards, agencies, and documents have been replaced;
spent and redundant provisions have been removed in the new instrument; and
persons must publish certain notices on their website as well as in a newspaper.

Minor and technical updates

The Regulations have been updated to address a variety of minor and technical issues to streamline processes and clarify regulatory obligations. For example, to:

improve administration, including provisions to extend timeframes, clarify meanings and fix general errors;
permit the Minister to replace the existing Schedules with a Ministerial Instrument containing the type of content currently found in the existing Schedules but updated.
list the source of legislative authority at the beginning of each Part of the Regulations;
update offence and penalty provisions to reflect current drafting standards in the Guide to Framing Commonwealth Offences, Infringement Notices and Enforcement Powers (May 2024), and revise penalty units;
clarify and enhance the powers of airport environment officers to monitor, report, investigate and remediate pollution and offensive noise.
include special provisions for Sydney West Airport (also known as Western Sydney International (Nancy-Bird Walton) Airport) that apply before the airport is operational;
updating provisions enabling the Secretary to appoint an authorised person, and delegate powers to a Senior Executive Service officer employee in the department; and
include Part 10, which sets out transitional arrangements for the smooth transition from the 1997 Regulations to the Regulations.

The notes on sections at Attachment A describe these provisions and changes in more detail.

Legislative authority

The Act establishes a regulatory framework for federally leased airports.

Section 252 of the Act provides that the Governor-General may make regulations prescribing matters required or permitted by the Act to be prescribed, or necessary or convenient to be prescribed for carrying out or giving effect to the Act. The Act identifies a range of matters that may be prescribed by regulations.

Further detail on enabling provisions for specific Parts of the Regulations, and the Repeals and Consequential Amendments Regulations, are included in Attachment A.

The Regulations and the Repeals and Consequential Amendments Regulations are disallowable legislative instruments for the purposes of the Legislation Act 2003 (Cth).

Rationale for inclusion of significant aspects of a regulatory scheme in delegated legislation

As a general proposition, significant elements of a regulatory scheme should ordinarily be included in primary rather than delegated legislation, due to the higher level of Parliamentary scrutiny associated with the legislative process for primary legislation.

Important parts of the scheme exist in the Act, including the offence provisions with the most substantial penalties. However, in the context of environmental management of federally leased airports, some significant parts of the regulatory scheme are provided in delegated legislation. This is justifiable on the basis that the scheme applies in relation to a limited number of federally leased airport sites, and directly regulates only a small proportion of the Australian public, being tenants, operators and airport companies at the 20 airports subject to the Regulations (as of 1 April 2026), and all of whom have chosen to engage in activity on federally leased airports knowing of the regulatory scheme.

Additionally, the Regulations deal to a large extent with state-level environmental regulation of businesses and persons, which are matters not comprehensively otherwise dealt with in Commonwealth laws. Parliament has provided for these matters to be dealt with in delegated legislation so that if needed they can be more readily adjusted, for example to align with changes to state laws in areas adjoining airport sites. Further, the airport leases granted to airport-lessee companies for up to 99 years specifically refer to and rely on the existence of regulations made under the Act for dealing with environmental matters. It is also notable that the Act provides for a regulatory scheme that adopts Australian Standards and national environmental guidelines and other standards, for example those set by the National Environment Protection Council. Accordingly, the pollution levels set in the Schedules to the Regulations adopt standards that have already been through a high degree of expert scrutiny.

Consultation

Policy

The Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications, Sport and the Arts (the department) initially conducted public consultation on airports environmental regulation policy through a survey on the sunsetting regulations in 2017. The department has also conducted extensive public consultation on regulations under the Act, including public consultation to inform development of the Aviation White Paper – Towards 2050 (the Aviation White Paper). Further information on the Aviation White Paper, and associated consultation activities is at www.infrastructure.gov.au/awp.

In 2022, the department commenced parallel consultations with airport-lessee companies which covered proposed reforms to the way in which environmental risks are managed on airports, and potential updates to the Regulations, including to ‘accepted limits’ of pollution in the Schedules.

In 2023 and 2024, the department further briefed all relevant airport-lessee companies and airport environment officers on proposed changes to the Regulations and distributed comprehensive consultation papers on these matters. All airport-lessee companies provided written feedback on the consultation papers, and this feedback was used to inform the drafting of the Regulations.

The approach to remaking the Regulations has also been informed by the department’s regular engagement with airport environment officers, airport building controllers and other relevant departmental stakeholders, airport-lessee companies (including their environment managers) and Airservices Australia during the administration of the airport environment regulatory framework. Engagement with the Australian Airports Association, the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water and state and territory environment protection agencies also provided important relevant information.

In the Aviation White Paper, the Australian Government committed to comprehensively reviewing the Act, and the accompanying legislative and regulatory arrangements for the ownership, planning, development and environmental management of federally leased airports, by 2030. This will be an opportunity to consider more substantial updates to the Act, and complementary regulations, including the Regulations.

Draft Regulations

In December 2025, an exposure draft of the Regulations was released for public consultation and provided directly to airport-lessee companies, accompanied by a request that they share it with their tenants. The department briefed all airport-lessee companies on the changes to the Regulations ahead of and following release of the exposure draft. The department also briefed Airservices Australia on the proposed changes to the Regulations.

Thirty-eight submissions were received during the consultation period. Submissions were received from all airport-lessee companies, airport tenants (including airlines and Airservices Australia), industry groups, environmental consultants and other companies or local/state governments with an interest in environmental regulation of airports. Submissions received covered several key themes (outlined below) with responses and actions required falling into several main categories. These include:

amending the proposed Regulations, including, in some cases, removal of material and reinstating wording from the 1997 Regulations,
including additional wording in the proposed Regulations and/or this Explanatory Statement to improve transparency of intent,
committing to developing additional educational material to support entities meet their obligations under the Regulations and for these to be in place before the Regulations come into effect on 1 April 2027,
capturing issues to be considered as part of the development of a Ministerial Determination for pollutants investigation levels, which will be the subject of extensive consultation through 2026, and
identifying issues that would require consideration in the context of any future reforms to the Act.

Feedback received during consultation covered the following themes:

Requests for clarity on specific clauses, terminology and timeframes - where appropriate timeframes have been extended, and minor updates have been made to the Regulations to improve clarity. Other instances have been fulsomely explained in this Explanatory Statement or will be supported by guidance material that is currently under development.
Offence provisions - stakeholders raised concerns with a perceived, substantial increase in offence provisions. However, with the exception of a small number of genuinely new additions, the majority of the provisions already exist under the Act and the 1997 Regulations; they were simply articulated more explicitly in the exposure draft. This is a modern drafting standard. In response to feedback, 2 of the new offences proposed in the exposure draft have been removed from the Regulations and others have been updated to provide more clarity.
Reviewable decisions – some stakeholders raised concerns with the removal of some reviewable decisions (compared to the 1997 Regulations). These changes were required to bring the Regulations in-line with government policy on when merits reviews are appropriate. In response to feedback, the Regulations reinstate the availability of review of decisions by airport environment officers to issue notices for environmental remediation. This is consistent with the 1997 Regulations.
Polluter pays principle - stakeholder feedback was received regarding who can be issued an environment remediation or environment protection notice, with a clear preference for notices to be issued to ‘the polluter’ as a guiding principle. In response, wording from the 1997 Regulations has been reinstated into the Regulations which provides a hierarchy based on the ‘polluter pays principle’ for deciding who notices can be issued to.
Schedules – content, consultation and rigour in developing a Ministerial Determination – Stakeholders raised concerns about the limited updates proposed for the Schedules and expressed a preference for the investigation levels in the Schedules to refer to national standards and guidelines. Stakeholders also raised concerns about the absence of an explicit requirement for consultation with experts or stakeholders in making a Ministerial Determination. Although consultation was always a requirement due to the operation of Chapter 3 of the Legislation Act 2003 (Cth.), the Regulations have been updated to state that consultation must be undertaken in the making of a Ministerial Determination. This Explanatory Statement provides clarity that the contents of the Schedules will be updated as part of the development of the Ministerial Determination and will be subject to full consultation with stakeholders.
Regulatory burden of some sections – Airport-lessee companies identified a number of sections in the exposure draft that they consider would place undue burden on airport-lessee companies and their tenants, without commensurate environmental benefit. Particular areas of concern included the use of independent auditors to ensure required standards are met, some investigation and reporting obligations and possible overlap of requirements with other regulatory responsibilities (for example in relation to planning approvals). In response to feedback, amendments to the Regulations were made to reduce burden without diminishing the environmental protection standards that have been in place on federally leased airports since the 1997 Regulations were first introduced. Changes include removal of two sections from the Regulations, and for some provisions, linking the use of auditors to high-risk scenarios and allowing reports prepared for other regulatory processes to be used.

The Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water was consulted on consequential amendments to the National Environment Protection Measures (Implementation) Regulations 1999 (Cth.) outlined in Part 2 of Schedule 2 of the Repeals and Consequential Amendments Regulations.

Statement of Compatibility with Human Rights

A Statement of Compatibility with Human Rights is set out at Attachment B.

Attachment A

Details of the Airports (Environment Protection) Regulations 2026

Preconditions to making the Instrument

The Airports Act 1996 (Cth) (the Act) specifies no further conditions that need to be satisfied before the powers to

make the Airports (Environment Protection) Regulations 2026 (the Regulations) may be exercised.

Part 1 – Preliminary

Section 1 – Name

This section names this instrument the Airports (Environment Protection) Regulations 2026 (the Regulations).

Section 2 – Commencement

The section provides that the Regulations commence on 1 April 2026. This is the same date that the Airports (Environment Protection) Regulations 1997 (the 1997 Regulations) are due to sunset.
Section 98 of Part 10 of the Regulations specifies a 12-month transition period before these Regulations enter into effect on 1 April 2027. This 12-month transition period is included in response to stakeholder requests for time to prepare for changing Regulations and regulatory standards.
The Regulations provide for continued application of 1997 Regulations during the transition period.

Section 3 – Authority

This section specifies that the Act provides authority for the making of this instrument.

Section 4 – Objects

The objects and purpose of the Regulations should be read in conjunction with the objects of the Act (see section 3 of the Act), and the provisions of Part 6 of the Act regarding environmental management.
The objects of the Regulations remain unchanged from the 1997 Regulations. The objects are to establish a system of environmental regulation of activities at airports that generate pollution or offensive noise, and to promote improving environmental management practices at airports. This system is established to work in conjunction with National Environment Protection Measures (NEPM) (which are legislative instruments) made pursuant to the National Environment Protection Council Act 1994 (Cth). An example of a relevant NEPM is the National Environment Protection (Assessment of Site Contamination) Measure 1999.

Section 5 – Definitions

Some expressions used in these Regulations are defined in the Act. A non‑exhaustive list of examples is given in the note to section 5 of the Regulations.
In particular, the term State is defined in the Act to include the Australian Capital Territory, and the Northern Territory. As such references to State included in the Regulations and Explanatory Statement are taken to include references to the Australian Capital Territory, and the Northern Territory.
Section 5 provides additional definitions that have effect for these Regulations.
To the extent possible, definitions have been consolidated in section 5. However, definitions can be found throughout these Regulations. For example, Part 2 contains the definitions of air, water and soil pollution and offensive noise.
When the term Act is used in this instrument, it means the Airports Act 1996 (Cth.) (the Act). Other Acts referenced in this instrument are referred to using their short title, such as the National Environment Protection Council Act 1994 (Cth). The latest versions of these Acts and subordinate instruments are available on the Federal Register of Legislation (www.legislation.gov.au).
The term air pollution is defined in section 15 of the Regulations.
The term airport environment officer means a person appointed under section 93 of the Regulations.
The term at an airport clarifies that this includes under and over an airport.
The definition of Australian Standard that appeared in the 1997 Regulations does not appear in the Regulations, which instead rely on the definition in section 2L of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (Cth). Section 11 of the Regulations provides further clarity regarding the application of Australian Standards to the Regulations.
A definition has been included for authorisation, which refers to an authorisation under Division 3 of Part 4. Section 40 provides a more fulsome definition of authorisation.
The term commercial receptor is defined as a business operation, whether or not it is operated for profit, for the purpose of the noise pollution provisions of the Regulations. Commercial receptors are a category of noise receptors referred to in section 18 and in Schedule 4, Part 3 of the Regulations, for the purpose of determining whether noise is offensive noise.
The term environmental site register has the meaning given by section 56(1) of the Regulations, which provides generally that an airport-lessee company for an airport must keep, in written form, an environmental site register containing details including documents and information, reports, investigations, assessments and places of environmental significance as required by section 56.
The term generation means, for pollution, the emission and transmission of pollution in any way. And for noise, generation means the emission or transmission of noise in any way.
The term Internal review decision is defined in subsection 89(6) of the Regulations, with reference to sections 89 and 90. This refers to a decision that is reached after completion of a formal reconsideration of a reviewable administrative decision that is under challenge by an affected person. The internal review is carried out by a separate senior decision maker within the department administering the Regulations, who was not involved in the making of the original decision. Reviewable decisions are listed in section 88.
An Internal reviewer is an eligible person appointed to conduct a formal reconsideration of an administrative decision, and is a person appointed by the Secretary of the department for that purpose, as defined in subsection 89(3), having regard to subsection 89(4).
The term investigation level is used to describe the level above which it is appropriate to investigate whether a substance set out in a table in Schedule 1, 2, or 3 is causing air, water or soil pollution. The Schedules to the 1997 Regulations used the term ‘accepted limit’ of pollution. The term investigation limit is used in the National Environment Protection (Assessment of Site Contamination) Measure 1999 (Cth.) and use of this term better aligns the Regulations with this relevant national standard.
A new definition of local standard clarifies that the term has the meaning given by a local standard made under section 34 of the Regulations.
The term NATA means the National Association of Testing Authorities, Australia. The Australian Government recognises NATA as the national accreditation authority for analytical laboratories and testing service providers in Australia. NATA accredits those laboratories who have been assessed as competent to carry out measurement, testing, calibration and inspection against internationally recognised standards.
The definition of noise has been expanded to include vibration generated by an activity carried out at an airport.
Noise control equipment is equipment that prevents, minimises, measures, records or monitors the generation of noise. Section 28 of the Regulations requires operators of an undertaking at an airport to maintain and use noise control equipment that is fitted to, or supplied with, operating equipment, or that is specified or recommended by the manufacturer or supplier. Subsection 28) (2) specifies that the relevant equipment must be used regardless of the level or type of noise being generated and a failure to use that equipment may be a contravention of the subsection 25(1) duty to minimise offensive noise.
An occupier, except in relation to section 61 where it is defined for the purposes of that section, in relation to an area at an airport, means either the airport-lessee company or, if they have sublet or licensed the area to another person, the person having the right to occupy that area under a sublease or license, whether granted by the airport-lessee company or its tenant.
What is offensive noise can be determined by an airport environment officer following the broad framework definition set out in section 18. An airport environment officer can decide whether noise is offensive having regard to specified factors (including volume, time of day and duration) set out in subsection 18(2). These broad guidelines are supplemented by the detail of the indicators and testing methods for excessive noise given in Schedule 4.
Who is an operator for the purposes of the Regulations is set out in subsections 12(3) and 12(4).
The term pollution is defined to include air, water and soil pollution. More detail about what constitutes air, water and soil pollution is included in Part 2 of the Regulations, read in conjunction with the Schedules.
The term pollution control equipment means equipment to prevent, minimise, measure, record or monitor the generation of pollution. Under section 22, operators of an undertaking at an airport must maintain and use pollution control equipment that is fitted to or supplied with operating equipment or that is specified or recommended for use by the manufacture or supplier.
The definition of rescue and fire-fighting service refers to the international standards and recommended practices for a rescue and fire-fighting service at an aerodrome set out in Annex 14 to the Convention on International Civil Aviation 1944 as done at Chicago on 7 December 1944. This includes the level of protection to be provided, the rescue equipment to be used and the communications and alerting systems to be provided. Annex 14 is available free of charge from the International Civil Aviation Organization E-Library, at elibrary.icao.int.
The term reviewable decision is defined as one of the decisions listed in Column 3 of the table in section 88 of the Regulations. That section lists decisions under the Regulations for which a person whose interests are affected may request a reconsideration of the decision. If a decision is not included in the list of reviewable decisions, it is not intended that it be reviewable either by an internal reviewer or by the Administrative Review Tribunal.
The term sensitive receptor refers to seven categories of land uses or locations that are sensitive to noise, for the purpose of regulating noise pollution. Sensitive receptors are further defined in Part 2 of Schedule 4 of the Regulations.
The definition of soil pollution refers the reader to the definition in subsection 17(1) of the Regulations.
The definition of undertaking refers the reader to the definition in section 12 of the Regulations.
USEPA means the Environment Protection Agency of the United States of America. Generally, testing must be done at a NATA accredited laboratory in accordance with a method approved by NATA. However, where no such method is approved, testing may instead by conducted in accordance with methods approved by several US authorities or bodies, as referred to in subsection 13(c) and some of the items in Tables in Schedules 1, 2 and 3.
Waste is defined to include refuse in any form, discarded or disused plant or equipment and industrial by-products. Some examples of types of waste subject to the Regulations are given in a note.
The definition of water pollution refers the reader to the definition in section 16 of the Regulations.

Section 6 - Application of definitions in Airports Regulations 2024

Section 6 clarifies that where a term is used in these Regulations and it also appears in the Airports Regulations 2024 it has the same meaning in these Regulations as it has in the Airports Regulations 2024.

Section 7 – Limited application to aircraft activities

The Regulations do not apply to pollution generated by aircraft, nor to noise generated by aircraft in flight or when landing, taking off or taxiing at an airport. Nor does the Act provide for the Regulations to deal with this subject matter.
Instead, the Commonwealth regulates the pollution effects of aircraft engines under the Air Navigation (Aircraft Engine Emissions) Regulations (Cth.), and the noise effects of aircraft operations under the Air Navigation (Aircraft Noise) Regulations 2018 (Cth.). These Regulations, made under the Air Navigation Act 1920 (Cth) give effect to requirements set out in the Annexes to the Convention on International Civil Aviation done at Chicago on 7 December 1944 (available free of charge from the International Civil Aviation Organization E-Library, at elibrary.icao.int).
The Commonwealth also has certain specific legislation to deal with environmental impacts associated with aircraft operations. For example, the Sydney Airport Curfew Act 1995 (Cth) applies to Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport. The Regulations are intended not to interfere with these existing environmental controls over aircraft.
Nevertheless, the noise from ground-running of aircraft engines and auxiliary power units will be regulated by the Regulations, The Commonwealth assumed responsibility for these matters following the dissolution of the Federal Airports Corporation, which regulated such matters under its By-Laws prior to the lease of federal airports to airport-lessee companies.
Further, clause 2.05 of Schedule 4 requires that ground-based aircraft running be conducted only in accordance with specific provisions of a final environment strategy (a component of an airport’s final master plan) for that airport. All airports subject to these Regulations have a final environment strategy in place and procedures for ground-based aircraft operations that are published on airport websites.

Section 8 – Airports to which this instrument applies

This section provides that the Regulations apply to those airports subject to the environmental management regime of Part 6, Division 3 of the Act. That division applies to ‘core regulated airports,’ which are listed at section 7 of the Act.
At the time of making the Regulations, there are 13 airports listed in section 7 of the Act, including Adelaide Airport; Alice Springs Airport; Brisbane Airport; Canberra Airport; Darwin International Airport; Gold Coast Airport; Hobart International Airport; Launceston Airport; Melbourne (Tullamarine) Airport; Perth Airport; Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport; Sydney West Airport; and Townsville Airport.
The Regulations apply to any airports for which there is an airport lease, and which are prescribed Regulations, in accordance with paragraph 131A(1)(b) of the Act.
A complete list of the airports to which the Regulations apply can be made by adding the list of core regulated airports in section 7 of the Act to the list of prescribed airports in section 9 of the Regulations.

Section 9 – Prescribed Airports to which Division 3 of Part 6 of the Act applies

Section 9 contains a list of airports that are subject to Commonwealth regulation of environmental standards as prescribed under Division 3 of Part 6 of the Act.
There are seven airports listed in section 9, including Archerfield Airport, Bankstown Airport, Camden Airport, Essendon Fields Airport, Jandakot Airport, Moorabbin Airport, and Parafield Airport.

Section 10 – Operation of State laws

Subsection 136(1) of the Act stipulates that Part 6, Division 3 of the Act, regarding environmental standards, is not to apply to the exclusion of a state law, where that state law is capable of operating concurrently with the Act and the Regulations.
Subsection 10(1) of the Regulations modifies that principle by stipulating a number of classes of state laws that have no effect in relation to an airport site declared under section 6 of the Airports Regulations 2024 (Cth.). Specifically, the Regulations are intended to operate to the exclusion of those State laws that make standards in relation to:

the prevention or minimisation of pollution (including air, water or soil pollution);
the noise generated at airport sites (other than noise generated by aircraft in flight);
monitoring cleaning up remedying or rectifying environmental pollution or noise generated at airport sites (other than noise generated by aircraft in flight).

This intention is given effect by subsection 136(2) of the Act, which provides that the Regulations may declare that a specified class of laws of a State has no effect in relation to a specified airport.
Despite this, the Regulations do not cover the full field of environmental regulation at airports and some State laws related to the environment still apply. Subsection 10(2) of the Regulations preserves the operation of some categories of State environmental laws. Specifically, state laws about pollution from motor vehicles, occupational health and safety, emissions of ozone-depleting substances, and use of pesticides apply on airport sites.
This section has the same intended effect as regulation 1.04 of the 1997 Regulations. The Regulations include an updated reference to the Airports Regulations 2024 (Cth.), and set out the relevant provisions in the Act, to aid interpretation.

Section 11 – References to Australian Standards

Subsections 132(3A) and 133(3A) of the Act enable the Regulations to make provision for or in relation to a matter by applying, adopting or incorporating (with or without modification) any matter contained in a standard proposed or approved by Standards Australia, as in force or existing from time to time.
This means that where an Australian Standard is referred to in the Regulations, the current version of the standard will apply, including updates that have been made since the Regulations were made.
Australian Standards are subject to copyright, and access is subject to copyright restrictions. Such standards may be obtained upon payment from Standards Australia, and several other distributors. In 2025, more information may be viewed at www.standards.org.au.
Free limited public viewing of Australian Standards is available through Standards Australia's online Reader Room. Upon request, and subject to copyright conditions, copies of the relevant standard(s) may be available to view at the offices of the department in Canberra.
Copies of standards may also be available via public libraries. In 2025, the National Library of Australia’s Trove resource provided a search tool to identify resources held in library collections across Australia and was available at www.trove.nla.gov.au.

Section 12 – Undertakings at airports and operators of undertakings

Many duties and obligations contained in the Regulations fall on persons and entities defined as ‘operators of an undertaking at an airport’.
The term undertaking is defined broadly in subsection 12(1) to encompass people operating businesses, facilities, plants, machines or equipment, or carrying out any activity, dealing, operation, process or work; that is, just about everybody on an airport site. An undertaking may exist even where it is not for profit, not authorised by an airport-lessee company, or not otherwise lawful.
However, it is important to note that airport-lessee companies are not considered to be the operators of undertakings which are performed by sublessees on subleased land merely because they are the ‘landlords’. Similarly, the activity of ‘whole-of-airport management’ is not considered to be an undertaking.
An operator of an undertaking at an airport is defined at subsection 12(3) to include person(s) (the relevant person(s)) who are carrying on an undertaking. An operator is also defined to be a person directing and controlling agents or employees to carry out an undertaking or part of an undertaking. A relevant person may include a sublessee, licensee, sublicensee and any other party operating under a licence, access arrangement or lease at an airport site.
Section 12(4) clarifies that an airport-lessee company is an operator of an undertaking when it carries on an undertaking at an airport. Conversely the intent of the Regulations is that an airport-lessee company is not to be regarded as an operator of an undertaking merely because a sub-lessor of that airport-lessee company is carrying out an undertaking at an airport.

Section 13 – Testing

Any testing that is required to be carried out under the Regulations must be carried out by a laboratory accredited by the National Association of Testing Authorities (NATA) to carry out that type of test, using a method approved by NATA for that type of test.
However, if there is no method approved by NATA then the second choice is a State or Territory government approved method. If neither a NATA nor a State or Territory government approved method exist, it is acceptable to use a test approved by either the Environment Protection Agency of the United States of America (USEPA), the American Public Health Association, or the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM International). Giving preference to Australian approved testing methods is intended to better align the Regulations with Australian national standards.
This section has a generally similar effect as regulation 1.08 of the 1997 Regulations.

Section 14 – Minister may determine investigation levels

This new section stipulates the matters that the Minister with responsibility for the Act and Regulations may determine certain matters by legislative instrument in relation to airport sites. Subsection 14(1) specifies that the section relies on the head of power at subsection 132(1) of the Act, which allows the Minister to make remedial standards and impose requirements in Regulations.
Subsection 14(2) specifies the matters that may be determined by the Minister by legislative instrument. This provision allows the Minister to make instruments to replace Schedules 1 to 4 of the Regulations, which deal with air, water and soil pollution, excessive noise and the procedures and standards for measuring noise. This will make it easier to update the Regulations to include additional environmental pollutants and to ensure that specified investigation levels are up to date and more closely aligned with current national environmental standards and guidelines (while still providing for appropriate transparency and Parliamentary scrutiny of any changes to the schedules).
This provision enables the Minister to make standards about other matters such as guidelines for minimising impacts on biota or habitat or for preventing interference with sites of heritage value or sites of significance to Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander people.
Paragraph 14(3)(a) stipulates that the Minister may seek advice in relation to the matters proposed to be covered by the determination. The advice may be sought from relevant independent experts and Commonwealth and State agencies or bodies that have responsibility for, or expertise in, matters proposed to be covered by the determination.
Paragraph 14(3)(b) requires that the Minister consult before making a determination. Specifically, the Minister must advertise that they are considering making a determination, invite submissions and provide 30 days for submissions to be provided.
Subsection 14(4) requires the Minister to have due regard to any expert advice provided to the Minister under paragraph 14(3)(a) and any submission received as result of an invitation under paragraph 14(3)(b)(ii).
Any determination made by the Minister will be in the form of a legislative instrument, in accordance with section 8 of the Legislation Act 2003. They will be registered and published on the Federal Register of Legislation. Subsection 14(6) clarifies that this section does not limit section 17 of the Legislation Act 2003 (rule‑makers should consult before making legislative instruments).

Part 2 – Pollution and noise

This Part has been updated to make minor and technical amendments and to meet modern drafting standards, while generally maintaining the intent and effect of the 1997 Regulations it replaces.
This Part has been made under subsection 132(1) of the Act, which provides for regulations that make standards and impose requirements that are to be complied with in relation to pollution, or in relation to the prevention or minimisation of pollution.
Section 15 - Part 2 of the Regulations provides definitions of pollution and offensive noise for the purposes of implementing the Regulations. These definitions are related to the Schedules to the Regulations and may provide a basis for the issue of notices (referred to as environment protection orders in the 1997 Regulations) under Part 6 of the Regulations, to enforce compliance with the general duties specified in Part 3 of the Regulations.
The distinction between pollution and contamination should be noted. Pollution occurs when, for example land, is contaminated by a substance that causes or is reasonably likely to cause an adverse impact (for example, as described for soil pollution in section 17). These Regulations focus on pollution and environmental harm, while treating contamination above certain levels as a trigger for investigation and assessment. Whether contamination is from historical or recent activities, it is when that contamination causes, is suspected to, or is likely to cause an adverse effect (as variously described in sections 15, 16 and 17) that it may be deemed pollution and certain provisions under these Regulations may be enacted. For example, monitoring or testing that identifies an exceedance of an investigation level for a contaminant set out in Schedule 3 may trigger the airport environment officer to require an investigation under section 64.

Division 1 - Pollution

Section 15 – Air pollution

Subsection 15(1) of the Regulations states that air pollution occurs when a pollutant is present in air in a quantity, way, condition or under a circumstance that is likely to: cause harm to the environment or unreasonable inconvenience to a person at a place other than the immediate vicinity of the source of the pollutant; or in a location where members of the public have access, if the source is in that place.
Circumstances where unreasonable inconvenience from an odour is likely to be caused are specified in subsection 15(2). This includes when the odour is generated from something other than the ordinary operations of aircraft, the odour is detectable by an airport environment officer’s unassisted sense of smell, and the odour is objectionable, in the reasonable opinion of the airport environment officer.
The offensiveness of an odour is ultimately a matter requiring subjective assessment, as it a matter of opinion and cannot be measured scientifically. The airport environment officer is an independent statutory officer who is able to offer a disinterested opinion on the offensiveness of an odour. An airport environment officer is generally located on or near an airport site, so is able to assess an odour. In addition, the Regulations provide a safeguard by requiring an airport environment officer’s opinion as to the offensiveness of an odour to be reasonable.
Definitions of pollutant and stationary source are given by subsection 15(3).
A pollutant must be generated from a stationary source and is either one of the substances mentioned in column 1 of Table 1 of Part 1 of Schedule 1, or solid particles, liquid droplets, or an objectional odour.
Pollutants that cause depletion of ozone in the stratosphere do not constitute air pollution for the purposes of the Regulations. Australia’s regulatory framework to manage ozone-depleting substances (ODS) and synthetic greenhouse gases (SGG) is largely driven by its commitment to the Montreal Protocol, which it ratified in 1989. The primary legislation controlling the manufacture, import, export, use and disposal of ODS and SGGs is the Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas Management Reform (Closing the Hole in the Ozone Layer) Act 2022 (Cth), administered by the Environment Department. Australian states also have legislation pertaining to the regulation of ozone depleting substances and, as stated in subsection 10(2) of the Regulations, to the extent that state legislation applies, the Regulations will not have any effect.
This section has the same intended effect as regulation 2.01 of the 1997 Regulations.

Section 16 – Water pollution

The term water pollution is defined in subsection 16(1) as occurring when waters contain a polluting substance or organism that causes, or is reasonably likely to cause, the physical, chemical or biological condition of the waters to be adversely affected.
Water pollution also occurs when waters contain a polluting substance or organism that causes, or is reasonably likely to cause, an adverse effect on beneficial use of the waters (in paragraph 16(1)(b).
The term adverse effect includes the effects described as indicators of adverse chemical effect at clause 1.02 of Schedule 2. Examples include exceedances of the indicators for dissolved oxygen, pH, salinity, turbidity, level of faecal coliforms, and temperature.
Section 16(2) clarifies when waters contain a substance or organism that this includes when a substance or organism is in, under, or on waters, whether or not it can uniformly mix with water.
The definition of an ‘adverse effect’ at paragraph 16(3)(b) has been broadened from the 1997 Regulations to account for situations where the investigation levels in Schedule 2 have been amended by a local standard made under Part 4 of the Regulations.
The term beneficial use is broadly defined in subsection 16(3) to encompass uses of water from which a benefit is derived, including, for example, the use of wetlands as a wildlife sanctuary, as well as aesthetic enjoyment, recreational use, or consumption of aquatic flora or fauna.
Waters are broadly defined to include both fresh water and marine waters, as well as groundwater and water in a channel or pipe as set out subsection 16(3).
This section has broadly the same effect as regulation 2.02 of the 1997 Regulations.

Section 17 - Soil pollution

The term soil pollution is defined by section 17 as occurring when soil (including groundwater) is contaminated by a substance that causes or is reasonably likely to cause one or more of the five adverse effects listed in paragraphs 17(1)(a) to (e).
Soil pollution was defined by section 2.03 of the 1997 Regulations. The Regulations have been modernised to omit the requirement of the 1997 Regulations to assess whether soil pollution had occurred using the soil investigation procedure in Division 2 of Part 6 of the 1997 Regulations. This omission reflects the fact that information about soil condition could be received in a variety of ways, including as part of a detailed site investigation, or a soil investigation ordered by the airport environment officer under Part 5 of the Regulations.
The investigation procedures in Part 5 have been modernised so as to better reflect the procedures required by relevant national environmental standards, including the National Environment Protection (Assessment of Site Contamination) Measure.
The investigation levels for soil pollution are set out in Schedule 3 of the Regulations (which may later be replaced or amended by a Ministerial Determination). The Schedule sets different investigation levels depending on the nature of the receptors of pollution.
Beneficial use in the context of soil pollution is defined as ‘a use conducive to public health, safety, aesthetic enjoyment or other benefit. It is sufficiently broad so as to encompass the use of land for environmental protection purposes, such as a wildlife reserve.

Division 2 – Offensive noise

This Division makes provision for regulation of offensive noise and excessive noise under the Regulations. These provisions are in a separate division of this Part as the Regulations distinguish between air, soil and water pollution and what is termed ‘offensive noise’, rather than ‘noise pollution’

Section 18 – Offensive noise

Subsection 18(1) provides that offensive noise is noise that is generated at a volume, in a way or in a circumstance that, in the reasonable opinion of an airport environment officer, offensively intrudes on an individual, a community or commercial amenity. The definition differs from the 1997 Regulations, by requiring the airport environment officer’s opinion of the offensive nature of the noise to be ‘reasonable.’
The test for offensive noise depends upon an assessment by an airport environment officer who must have regard to a number of factors, as set out in 18(2) and the indicators of excessive noise in Schedule 4 or a relevant local standard. Schedule 4 provides considerable guidance to airport users on when and how they can produce noise.
The airport environment officer has a role in assessing the offensiveness of a noise because it is a matter of subjective opinion and cannot be measured scientifically. The airport environment officer is an independent statutory officer who is able to offer a disinterested opinion. An airport environment officer is generally located on or near an airport site, so they are available to assess a noise. In addition, the Regulations provide safeguards by requiring an airport environment officer’s opinion as to the offensiveness of the noise to be reasonable.
Schedule 4 will be updated in consultation with airport-lessee companies in 2026, which is an opportunity to add appropriate indicators of offensive vibration, to reflect the inclusion of vibration in the definition of noise at section 5 of the Regulations.

Part 3 – Duties of operators of undertakings at airports

This Part has been drafted to more closely align with provisions in the Act and meet modern drafting standards. It maintains the intent and general effect of Part 4 the 1997 Regulations.
Part 3 of the Regulations provides guidance to airport-lessee companies and operators of undertakings at airports on their environmental management obligations. This is set out in environmental duties that every operator of an undertaking at an airport is required to comply with.
Operators of undertakings (as defined in section 12) are obliged to comply with the environmental duties described in Part 3. The primary duty is a general duty to take reasonable steps to prevent the generation of pollution—or if this is not practicable, to minimise the generation of pollution. Additional duties are set out in relation to pollution control equipment, preservation of environmentally sensitive habitat and sites, prevention of excessive noise, and noise control equipment.
Non-compliance with duties is addressed by enforcement provisions elsewhere in the Regulations. For example, airport environment officers may issue a notice requiring remediation works under Part 5, Division 5 of the Regulations and notices to prevent pollution, to preserve biota, habitats, sites and species and to prevent or minimise offensive noise under Part 6 of the Regulations.
Due to the operation of subsection 132(2) of the Act, as part of amendments to modernise and address technical drafting issues, the Regulations clearly identify strict liability offences. These offences provide an alternative to pursuing prosecution of offences under Part 6 of the Act. This gives the regulator more discretion in deciding whether to address more minor breaches of the Part 3 general duties by an issuing of an infringement notice under the Regulations, or whether to rely on the offences of serious environmental harm, material environmental harm and environmental nuisance under Part 6 of the Act, with the requirement that these be prosecuted in a court of law and commensurately greater penalty provisions.

Division 1 – Purpose of this part

Section 19 - Purpose

This Part has been made under subsection 132(1) of the Act, which provides for regulations for and in relation to the prevention or minimisation of: environment pollution, impacts on biota or habitat, interference with sites of heritage value and significance, noise, or waste.
Whenever the Regulations create an obligation on a person under Part 3, the effect of subsection 132(2) of the Act is to make non-compliance with that obligation an offence.

Division 2 – Duties to prevent or minimise pollution

Section 20 – General duty to avoid polluting

The primary duty that all operators of undertakings at an airport must comply with is the general duty to avoid polluting in section 20 of the Regulations. Subsection 20(1) states that operators of undertakings must take all reasonable and practicable measures: (a) to prevent the generation of pollution from the undertaking; or (b) if prevention is not reasonable or practicable - to minimise the generation of pollution from the undertaking.
Subsection 20(2) sets out the minimum matters that must be taken into account in determining whether a measure is reasonable or practicable. These matters include the sensitivity of the receiving environment, the nature of harm to the environment, technical understanding about the prevention and minimisation of the pollution and the nature and impact of measures that might practicably be used to respond to the pollution.
Section 20 is modelled on general duties that may be found in State environmental legislation, for example, section 25 of the Environment Protection Act 1993 (SA) (available at www.legislation.sa.gov.au) and section 319 of the Environmental Protection Act 1994 (Qld) (available at www.legislation.qld.gov.au/).
Note 1 under subsection 20(1) of the Regulations states that failure to take all reasonable and practicable measures to prevent or minimise pollution from an undertaking is an offence against subsection 132(2) of the Act, punishable by a maximum of 50 penalty units, as stipulated in subsection 20(3). Based on the value of a penalty unit at the time of publication this would involve a maximum penalty of $16,500, subject to future indexation.
The number of penalty units specified for this offence against subsection 20(1) of the Regulations is consistent with the Guide to Framing Commonwealth Offences, Infringement Notices and Enforcement Powers (May 2024) (Guide to Framing Commonwealth Offences), published by the Attorney-General's Department at: www.ag.gov.au/legal-system/publications/guide-framing-commonwealth-offences-infringement-notices-and-enforcement-powers. The Guide to Framing Commonwealth Offences states that generally offences in regulations should not exceed 50 penalty units for an individual. The number of penalty units is also relatively low for reasons of proportionality with the penalties for offences under Part 6 of the Act. For example, the penalty for the most serious offence of conduct resulting in serious environmental harm under section 131B of the Act is 500 penalty units for an individual. Based on the value of a penalty unit at the time of publication this would involve a maximum penalty of $165,000, subject to future indexation.
An airport environment officer may issue an infringement notice for this offence as an alternative to pursuing prosecution in a federal court. The maximum penalty that may be imposed under an infringement notice is 10 penalty units for an individual. This is consistent with Guide to Framing Commonwealth Offences, which states that the maximum infringement notice penalty for an individual should be 12 penalty units, or 60 penalty units for a body corporate.
Subsection 4B(3) of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth.) provides the Court with sentencing discretion to impose a pecuniary (i.e. financial) penalty against a corporation that has been convicted of an offence that is five times greater than the maximum penalty that could be imposed on a natural person in the same circumstances.
The value of a penalty unit is prescribed by section 4AA of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth). The current value of a penalty unit is $330, and it will be indexed on 1 July 2026 and each third 1 July following that day (section 4AA(3)). The latest version of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth.) is available on the Federal Register of Legislation at www.legislation.gov.au.
Section 132(2A) of the Act applies strict liability only to the element of the offence that ’the offence was made for the purpose of subsection 132(1) of the Act.’ Although it is the Act, rather than the Regulations, that applies strict liability to this element, it is important to note that applying strict liability to this element is consistent with the principles in Guide to Framing Commonwealth Offences, as it ensures the integrity of the regulatory regime. A defendant’s state of mind as to whether an offence is made for the purpose of section 132(1) of the Act has no bearing on the defendant’s culpability. Permitting a defendant to escape liability for the offence on such a ground would amount to a loophole and undermine the efficacy of the offence provision.
Note 2 under subsection 20(1) explains that the general duty to avoid pollution may be enforced by a notice to prevent or minimise pollution, issued by an airport environment officer under section 74 of the Regulations. In the 1997 Regulations, this notice was referred to as an environment protection order under regulation 7.01.
The factors that an airport environment officer must consider when determining whether it is reasonable and practicable for an airport to take a measure to prevent pollution are described in subsection 20(2).
This section has a similar intended effect as regulation 4.01 of the 1997 Regulations.

Section 21 – Assumed compliance with general duty

There are three ways in which operators of an undertaking will be taken to comply with their general duty under regulation 20. These are:

where pollution is not generated in excess of the investigation levels set out in Schedules 1, 2 or 3 of the Regulations; or
where local standards have been approved by the Minister under section 34 and pollution is not generated in excess of the limits set out in those standards; or
where the person holds an authorisation granted by the airport environment officer under section 43 or 47 and the operator complies with the conditions of the authorisation.

It is important to note that although an operator may not satisfy the requirements specified for assumed compliance with the general duty not to pollute, it may still be possible for the operator to demonstrate they are complying with the general duty by reference to other actions that demonstrate they have taken all reasonable and practicable measures to comply. In simple terms, exceedance of an investigation level set out in Schedules 1, 2 or 3 is not automatically considered to be a breach of the general duty.
Subsection 21(2) allows the Secretary of the department responsible for administering the Act and the Regulations to enter into a ‘dark smoke agreement’, being an agreement with the provider of a rescue and firefighting service conducting fire training activities at the airport. This agreement may permit the limits relevant to dark smoke set in Schedule 1 (relating to levels of air pollution) to be exceeded without breaching the general duty.
Airservices Australia (Airservices), established under the Air Services Act 1995 (Cth), which is available on the Federal Register of Legislation at www.legislation.gov.au, has functions defined by section 8 of that Act, including to provide rescue and firefighting services. Airservices has a current agreement with the Secretary under this section of the Regulations, allowing it to undertake fire training that produces dark smoke. Further information can be found on the Airservices website at Hot fire training - Airservices (www.airservicesaustralia.com/community/ environment/hot-fire-training/).
This section has the same intended effect as regulation 4.01 of the 1997 Regulations.

Section 22 – Duty in relation to use of pollution control equipment

This section provides that operators of undertakings are not complying with their general duty to avoid pollution if they fail to operate certain equipment in a way that prevents or minimises the pollution from that equipment. The equipment to which this regulation applies is equipment that is supplied with pollution control equipment fitted, or to which the manufacturer specifies or recommends pollution control equipment be fitted. Failure to have the supplied, specified or recommended pollution control equipment (or similar equipment) fitted, maintained in a proper and efficient condition, and to use it effectively, is a failure to comply with the general duty under section 20. The intent of this section is to set out a presumption that operators of an undertaking at an airport will be in breach of their general duty to avoid polluting if they operate equipment without pollution control equipment or if that equipment is not properly maintained or used.
This section has the same intended effect as regulation 4.03 of the 1997 Regulations.

Division 3 – Duties to preserve certain biota, habitats, sites and species etc.

Section 23 – General duty to preserve certain biota, habitats, sites and species etc.

Section 23 establishes a general duty to ensure that biota, habitat of native species, listed threatened species or a listed ecological community, within the meaning of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth.) (available on the Federal Register of Legislation at www.legislation.gov.au) and sites of indigenous and heritage significance are properly protected from adverse environmental impacts associated with the operation of undertakings at an airport.
The duty to preserve requires the operator of an undertaking to take all reasonable and practicable measures to ensure that its operation is not inconsistent with action taken or proposed to be taken to lessen the threat to a listed threatened species or ecological community. For example, a potential contravention of the duty could arise where the Environment Department develops a plan for the recovery of a threatened species at an airport that includes protecting its habitat. An operation that destroys its habitat would be inconsistent with the general duty to preserve unless the operator could show that it had taken all reasonable and practicable measures to ensure its action was not inconsistent with the threatened species recovery plan.
The duty also requires the operator of an undertaking to take all reasonable and practicable measures to ensure that their operation is not inconsistent with an international convention, treaty or other agreement to which Australia is a party and that relates to environment protection matters to which the Regulations apply. One example of relevance to some airports is the Convention on Wetlands of International Importance especially as Waterfowl Habitat [1975], Australian Treaty Series No 48, available on the Ramsar Convention website at: www.ramsar.org/sites/default/ files/documents/library/current_convention_text_e.pdf
For the avoidance of doubt, this section is not intended to create an obligation on operators to preserve non-native or invasive species.
Terms used in this section that also appear in the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth) have the same meaning as they do in that Act.
Note 3 under paragraph 23(1)(d) states that the general duty to preserve is varied by the granting of an authorisation under Part 4 Division 3 of the Regulations, provided the operator complies with the conditions of any authorisation.
The term ‘sites of significance to Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander people’ is used in section 23 because the Division is made in reliance on subsection 132(1) of the Act and so section 23 adopts the definition of ‘sites of significance to Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander people’ from that subsection of the Act. See also subsection 24(1), which outlines the general duty to give notice of discovery of a site of previously unrecognised significance to Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander people. This also adopts the meaning of ‘sites of significance to Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander people’ from paragraph 132(1)(d) of the Act.
However, where a provision of the Regulations is made under subsection 133(1) of the Act, it instead adopts the definition of ‘sites of significance to indigenous people’ at paragraph 133(1)(d) of the Act. See for example paragraph 56(2)(c).
The general duty to preserve may be enforced by an airport environment officer issuing a notice to preserve certain biota, habitats, sites and species, etc under section 75 of the Regulations. In the 1997 Regulations, this notice was referred to as an Environment Protection Order under former section 7.02.
As specified in Note 1 to subsection 23(1), failure to take all reasonable and practicable measures to preserve certain biota, habitats, sites and species as specified in section 23 is an offence against subsection 132(2) of the Act and a maximum penalty of 50 penalty units may be applied. Based on the value of a penalty unit at the time of publication this would involve a maximum penalty of $16,500, subject to future indexation.
The number of penalty units specified for this offence against subsection 55(1) of the Regulations is consistent with Guide to Framing Commonwealth Offences, Infringement Notices and Enforcement Powers (May 2024) (Guide to Framing Commonwealth Offences), published by the Attorney-General's Department at: www.ag.gov.au/legal-system/publications/guide-framing-commonwealth-offences-infringement-notices-and-enforcement-powers.
The Guide to Framing Commonwealth Offences states that generally offences in regulations should not exceed 50 penalty units for an individual. The number of penalty units is also relatively low for reasons of proportionality with the penalties for offences under Part 6 of the Act. For example, the penalty for the most serious offence of conduct resulting in serious environmental harm under section 131B of the Act is 500 penalty units for an individual. Based on the value of a penalty unit at the time of publication this would involve a maximum penalty of $165,000, subject to future indexation.
Subject to satisfying the requirement of section 81 of the Regulations, an airport environment officer may issue an infringement notice for this offence as an alternative to pursuing prosecution in a federal court. The maximum penalty that may be imposed under an infringement notice is 10 penalty units for an individual. This complies with the Guide to Framing Commonwealth Offences, which states that the maximum infringement notice penalty for an individual should be 12 penalty units, or 60 penalty units for a body corporate.
Subsection 4B(3) of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) provides the Court with sentencing discretion to impose a pecuniary (i.e. financial) penalty against a corporation that has been convicted of an offence that is five times greater than the maximum penalty that could be imposed on a natural person in the same circumstances.
The value of a penalty unit is prescribed by section 4AA of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) . The current value of a penalty unit is $330, and it will be indexed on 1 July 2026 and each third 1 July following that day (section 4AA(3)). The latest version of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) is available on the Federal Register of Legislation (www.legislation.gov.au).
Section 132(2A) of the Act applies strict liability only to the element of the offence that ’the offence was made for the purpose of subsection 132(1) of the Act.’ Although it is the Act, rather than the Regulations, that applies strict liability to this element, it is worth noting that applying strict liability to this element is consistent with the principles in the Guide to Framing Commonwealth Offences. This is because strict liability for this element ensures the integrity of the regulatory regime. A defendant’s state of mind as to whether an offence is made for the purpose of s 132(1) of the Act has no bearing on the defendant’s culpability. Permitting a defendant to escape liability for the offence on such a ground would amount to a loophole and undermine the efficacy of the offence provision.
Note 2 under paragraph 23(1)(d) explains that an airport environment officer may also issue an environment protection notice in accordance with section 75 of the Regulations, in addition to, or instead of prosecuting an operator for committing an offence against Part 6 of the Act.
Note 3 under paragraph 23(1)(d) explains that there may be circumstances in which the general duty to preserve is varied by the granting of an authorisation under Part 4 Division 3 of the Regulations.
This section has a broadly similar effect to regulation 4.04 of the 1997 Regulations. Some changes have been made to meet modern drafting standards and aid interpretation. For example, including subsection 23(3) to set out that the Environment Department and State agencies with responsibility for biodiversity, habitats and heritage are ‘appropriate persons’ in relation to biodiversity threat abatement.

Section 24 – Duty to give notice of discovery of certain objects, species or ecological communities at certain sites at airport

Allied to the general duty to preserve is an operator of an undertaking’s duty to inform both an airport-lessee company and an airport environment officer if they find an object, species or ecological community that indicates the work site or location of the undertaking is a site of previously unrecognised significance for any of the following:

Local biota or habitats of native species; or
A site of previously unrecognised heritage value or significance to Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander people.

By operation of this duty it is envisaged that a comprehensive environmental site register and information on the habitat, biota, ecosystems, endangered and vulnerable species, and sites of indigenous and heritage significance within an airport will continue to be built up, to enable planning decisions to be informed by well-informed environmental intelligence and for environment protection measures to be put in place.
In accordance with subsection 24(2), the operator of the undertaking must give the notice in writing to the airport-lessee company and the airport environment officer for the airport within 5 days of making the discovery. The intent is for this initial notification to contain any readily available information about the discovery that indicates that the site is a site of significance for any of the reasons noted in subsection 24(2). An area may be considered to be ‘a site of previously unrecognised significance’ for the purpose of section 24 of the Regulations if the discovery has not previously been recorded in the airport’s environmental site register. Subsection 24(4) stipulates the steps that an airport-lessee company must undertake if it receives a notice of a discovery under subsection 24(2). These steps involve recording the discovery in the environmental site register, seeking advice on appropriate conservation measures from an expert within 90 days and providing the airport environment officer with the expert’s report and a report of conservation measures (if any) that the airport-lessee company is taking, or planning to take.
As specified in Note 1 to subsection 24(2), failure by an operator of an undertaking to notify the ‘airport-lessee company and an airport environment officer about a discovery within 5 days is an offence against subsection 132(2) of the Act.
As specified in Note 2 beneath subsection 24(4), if the airport-lessee company fails to take the measures outlined in subsection 24(4), this is also an offence against subsection 132(2) of the Act.
The maximum number of penalty units that could be applied for a contravention of either subsection 24(2) or subsection 24(4) is 50 penalty units. Based on the value of a penalty unit at the time of publication this would involve a maximum penalty of $16,500, subject to future indexation.
The number of penalty units specified for these offences against subsections 24(2) and (3) is consistent with the Guide to Framing Commonwealth Offences, Infringement Notices and Enforcement Powers (May 2024) (Guide to Framing Commonwealth Offences), published by the Attorney-General's Department at: www.ag.gov.au/legal-system/publications/guide-framing-commonwealth-offences-infringement-notices-and-enforcement-powers.
The Guide to Framing Commonwealth Offences states that generally offences in regulations should not exceed 50 penalty units for an individual. The number of penalty units is also relatively low for reasons of proportionality with the penalties for offences under Part 6 of the Act. For example, the penalty for the most serious offence of conduct resulting in serious environmental harm under section 131B of the Act is 500 penalty units for an individual. Based on the value of a penalty unit at the time of publication this would involve a maximum penalty of $165,000, subject to future indexation.
Subject to satisfying the requirement of section 81 of the Regulations, an airport environment officer may issue an infringement notice for this offence as an alternative to pursuing prosecution in a federal court. The maximum penalty that may be imposed under an infringement notice is 10 penalty units for an individual. This complies with the Guide to Framing Commonwealth Offences, which states that the maximum infringement notice penalty for an individual should be 12 penalty units, or 60 penalty units for a body corporate.
Subsection 4B(3) of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth.) provides the Court with sentencing discretion to impose a pecuniary (i.e. financial) penalty against a corporation that has been convicted of an offence that is five times greater than the maximum penalty that could be imposed on a natural person in the same circumstances.
The value of a penalty unit is prescribed by section 4AA of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth.). The current value of a penalty unit is $330, and it will be indexed on 1 July 2026 and each third 1 July following that day (section 4AA(3)). The latest version of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth.) is available on the Federal Register of Legislation (www.legislation.gov.au).
Section 132(2A) of the Act applies strict liability only to the element of the offence that ’the offence was made for the purpose of subsection 132(1) of the Act.’ Although it is the Act, rather than the Regulations, that applies strict liability to this element, it is worth noting that applying strict liability to this element is consistent with the principles in the Guide to Framing Commonwealth Offences. This is because strict liability for this element ensures the integrity of the regulatory regime. A defendant’s state of mind as to whether an offence is made for the purpose of s 132(1) of the Act has no bearing on the defendant’s culpability. Permitting a defendant to escape liability for the offence on such a ground would amount to a loophole and undermine the efficacy of the offence provision.
This section has the broadly the same intended effect as regulation 4.04 of the 1997 Regulations. Some changes have been made to meet modern drafting standards and aid interpretation. For example, including subsection 23(3) to explain that the Environment Department and State agencies with responsibility for biodiversity, habitats and heritage are ‘appropriate persons’ in relation to biodiversity threat abatement.
The previous requirement to consult with the operator of the undertaking about reasonable means of giving effect to the recommended measures has been amended to instead require consultation with the occupier of the area of the airport on which the discovery was made, on the basis that the occupier is the person with the greatest interest in what conservation measures will be taken. The distinction here being that the operator of the undertaking (for example, a contractor undertaking site works for a development) may not be the occupier of the site and may therefore have no enduring interest in the site and how it is managed. Procedural fairness requirements would also apply such that persons affected by the recommended measures would ordinarily be given a hearing before any measures are decided upon.
The requirements to seek advice on appropriate conservation measures (if any) has been retained but a requirement is included for the airport-lessee company to give a written report to the airport environment officer setting out the details of the measures it is taking, or proposes to take, to protect the discovery has been included. It is consistent with the additional reporting requirements relevant to pollution and excessive noise in section 59.
The reference to a ‘site of previously unrecognised significance of the kind mentioned in paragraph 132(1)(c) or (d) of the Act’ has been changed to ‘a site of previously unrecognised heritage value or significance to Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander people,’ which adopts the definition of ‘site of significance to Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander people’ in paragraph 132(1)(d).

Division 4 – Duties to prevent or minimise offensive noise

Section 25 – General duty to prevent or minimise offensive noise

The general duty to prevent offensive noise occurring requires operators of an undertaking at an airport to take all reasonable and practicable measures to prevent the generation of offensive noise, or, if this is not reasonable or practicable, to minimise the generation of offensive noise.
The airport environment officer will have regard to the factors set out in subsection 25(3) when determining whether a measure is reasonable or practicable. These are the:

circumstances in which the noise is generated and best-practice management of the generation of that noise,
current technical knowledge about preventing or minimising the noise being generated, and
the measures that might be used to prevent or minimise the offensive noise, and the probable benefits and detriments of each measure.

Subsection 25(2) makes it an offence against subsection 132(2) of the Act not to take all reasonable and practicable measures to prevent the generation of offensive noise from an undertaking or - if prevention is not reasonable or practicable – to minimise the generation of offensive noise. The offence is punishable under subsection 25(2) by a maximum of 50 penalty units. Based on the value of a penalty unit at the time of publication this would involve a maximum penalty of $16,500, subject to future indexation.
The number of penalty units specified for an offence against section 26(1) of the Regulations is consistent with the Guide to Framing Commonwealth Offences, Infringement Notices and Enforcement Powers (May 2024) (Guide to Framing Commonwealth Offences), published by the Attorney-General's Department at: www.ag.gov.au/legal-system/publications/guide-framing-commonwealth-offences-infringement-notices-and-enforcement-powers. The Guide to Framing Commonwealth Offences states that generally offences in regulations should not exceed 50 penalty units for an individual. The number of penalty units is also relatively low for reasons of proportionality with the penalties for offences under Part 6 of the Act. For example, the penalty for the most serious offence of conduct resulting in serious environmental harm under section 131B of the Act is 500 penalty units for an individual. Based on the value of a penalty unit at the time of publication this would involve a maximum penalty of $165,000, subject to future indexation.
Subject to satisfying the requirement of section 81 of the Regulations, an airport environment officer may issue an infringement notice for this offence as an alternative to pursuing prosecution in a federal court. The maximum penalty that may be imposed under an infringement notice is 10 penalty units for an individual. This complies with the Guide to Framing Commonwealth Offences, which states that the maximum infringement notice penalty for an individual should be 12 penalty units, or 60 penalty units for a body corporate.
Subsection 4B(3) of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth.) (Cth) provides the Court with sentencing discretion to impose a pecuniary (i.e. financial) penalty against a corporation that has been convicted of an offence that is five times greater than the maximum penalty that could be imposed on a natural person in the same circumstances.
The value of a penalty unit is prescribed by section 4AA of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth.) (Cth) . The current value of a penalty unit is $330, and it will be indexed on 1 July 2026 and each third 1 July following that day (section 4AA(3)). The latest version of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth.) (Cth) is available on the Federal Register of Legislation (www.legislation.gov.au).
Section 132(2A) of the Act applies strict liability only to the element of the offence that ’the offence was made for the purpose of subsection 132(1) of the Act.’ Although it is the Act, rather than the Regulations, that applies strict liability to this element, it is worth noting that applying strict liability to this element is consistent with the principles in the Guide to Framing Commonwealth Offences. This is because strict liability for this element ensures the integrity of the regulatory regime. A defendant’s state of mind as to whether an offence is made for the purpose of s 132(1) of the Act has no bearing on the defendant’s culpability. Permitting a defendant to escape liability for the offence on such a ground would amount to a loophole and undermine the efficacy of the offence provision.
Note 2 under paragraph 25(1)(b) explains that an airport environment officer may issue an environment protection notice in accordance with section 76 of the Regulations, in addition to, or instead of prosecuting an operator for committing an offence against Part 6 of the Act.
This section has the same intended effect as regulation 4.06 of the 1997 Regulations. However, it has been changed slightly to better reflect the types of noise that would be considered ‘offensive.’

Section 26 – Assumed compliance with general duty

There are broadly three ways in which a person is assumed to have complied with the general duty and the duty not to make excessive noise:

where noise is not generated in excess of the guidelines set out in Schedule 4 of the Regulations; or
where the Minister has approved a local standard under section 34 and the noise generated is not in excess of the limits set out in that standard; or
where an operator holds an authorisation granted by the airport environment officer under section 43 or 47 and the operator complies with the conditions of the authorisation.

It is important to note that even where the operator cannot be assumed to be in compliance, there may be other actions the operator can reference to show that it is complying with the duty, and that the airport environment officer can consider, when determining whether all reasonable and practicable measures are being taken.
This section has the same intended effect as regulation 4.07 of the 1997 Regulations.

Section 27 – Duty in relation to noisy operating equipment

If an operator of an undertaking uses equipment that could result in offensive noise being generated, they have a duty under section 27 to maintain and operate that equipment in a proper and efficient way. It is a breach of the general duty to prevent or minimise offensive noise under subsection 25(1) for the operator of an undertaking to use operating equipment that is not maintained in a proper and efficient condition, or to use operating equipment in a manner that is not proper and efficient.
This section has the same intended effect as section 4.08 of the 1997 Regulations.

Section 28 – Duty in relation to noise control equipment

If an operator of an undertaking uses equipment that is fitted or supplied with noise control equipment, or if the use of noise control equipment is specified or recommended for that equipment, then in order to comply with the general duty to prevent offensive noise occurring under subsection 25(1) of the Regulations, the noise control equipment must be maintained properly and used effectively.
This section has the same intended effect as section 4.09 of the 1997 Regulations.

Part 4 – Local standards and individual authorisations

Part 4 of the Regulations enables the making of local environmental standards and the grant and modification of authorisations. Local standards enable some flexibility in the application of environmental standards at particular airports that take into account conditions that are inherent to a specific airport site. Authorisations enable tailored application of detailed pollution control standards in relation to specific environmental issues arising at an airport. This Part has been updated to more closely align with provisions in the Act, and meet modern drafting standards, while generally maintaining the intent and effect of the 1997 Regulations they replace. Minor amendments to procedural provisions are designed to make local standards and authorisations easier to apply for and easier for the regulators to assess and administer for the regulators.

Division 1 – Purposes of this Part

Section 29 – Purposes of this Part

This Part has been made under section 252 of the Act—the necessary and convenient power—except where a section specifically mentions the purposes of subsection 132(1) or subsections 132(1) and (3) of the Act. Section 132(1) is broadly the power to set environmental standards at airports. Subsections 132(1) and (3), when used together, confer powers on a Minister to set standards and impose requirements that are to be complied with in relation to the prevention or minimisation of environmental pollution and other environmental impacts. Division 2 – Local standards
The policy intent of provisions relating to local environmental standards remains unchanged from the 1997 Regulations. Where local standards are made under this Division this will enable flexibility in the administration of the Regulations in instances where, because of climatic, topographic and similar considerations peculiar to an airport, or to the region in which an airport is located, strict compliance with the investigation levels, objectives, indicators, procedures, tests, methods or reference levels set out in a Schedule would be unreasonable.
The pollution investigation levels and noise standards set out in the Schedules to the Regulations may not be appropriate at certain airports. For example, the soil at an airport may naturally contain large quantities of a particular contaminant or groundwater may be naturally acidic, resulting in exceedances of select investigation levels or noise guidelines in the Schedules based simply on ambient levels of naturally occurring contaminants. In these circumstances an airport-lessee company may apply to the Minister for what is, in effect, a variation of one or more investigation level or noise guideline in the Schedules, as they apply to that airport. Such standards, as varied, are called ‘local standards’.
Local standards are not to be seen as alternative standards that allow pollution. They are standards that should take into account the physical attributes of an entire airport site, and may, in practice, set lower limits on the generation of pollution than the Schedules would permit at other airports not affected by the same local conditions.
The Regulations contain some changes to the local standards provisions, compared to the 1997 Regulations, as follows:

The Minister may vary or revoke local standards at the request of an airport-lessee company.
The Minister has a longer period of time to consider applications for local standards.
A ‘stop clock’ provision applies when an airport environment officer makes a request for information (RFI) to aid in the Minister’s consideration of a local standard.

These are described in more detail in their relevant sections, below.

Section 30 – Airport-lessee company may prepare draft local standard

This section allows an airport-lessee company to prepare a draft local standard that it considers should apply at its airport if an airport considers that any of the investigation levels, objectives, indicators, procedures, tests, methods or reference levels set out in a Schedule to this instrument are inappropriate for application at the airport.
Section 30 is intended to have largely the same effect as regulation 5.02 of the 1997 Regulations.

Section 31 – Request for Minister to make local standard

Section 31(1) notes that section 31 has been made for the purpose of subsection 132(1) of the Act, which permits the making of regulations about environmental standards at airport, and also for the purpose of subsection 132(3) of the Act, which allows regulations made under subsection 132(1) to make provision for a matter by conferring a power on the Minister.
Subsection 31(2) states that an airport-lessee company may ask the Minister to make a local standard that the airport-lessee company has drafted under section 30(2) of the Regulations.
Section 31 stipulates that the request to the Minister must be made in writing and must include:

the reasons why the proposed standard is needed;
the names of all bodies and people consulted;
a summary of the views of the bodies and people consulted, any comments given, and how they were considered by the airport-lessee company;
a declaration by the airport-lessee company that the details and statements in the request are true and correct; and
the proposed local standard (This is a new requirement that was not part of the 1997 Regulations, but which appears to have been an oversight, as the Minister logically needs to see the draft local standard that they are being asked to approve.).

Subsection 31(4) states that the airport-lessee company must publish a notice informing the public that it is proposing to make a local standard in a newspaper and on the airport-lessee company’s website—this new requirement is an example of a provision to modernise the Regulations. To comply with accessibility standards, the applicant is required to make the draft local standard available in both print and electronic form The draft local standard must be made available for public comment for not less than 90 days.
The consultation requirements in subsection 31(3) are designed to ensure that the public, and particularly persons whose interests are affected, have visibility of any proposed local standard and are afforded natural justice, including the opportunity to comment on the proposed local standard and have their views considered as part of the decision-making process.
Under subparagraph 31(3)(a)(i), the airport-lessee company must also consult the State body with responsibility for regulating the environment in the State the airport is located, for example the State environment protection authority. This is because there may be implications for the State if pollution migrates from the airport site onto State land.
These Regulations have been changed to combine the requirement to consider public comments on the proposed local standard into the summary of the views of each body and person consulted. This is to streamline the documentation that must be provided with the request. In short, consultation must be undertaken while a proposed local standard is being developed and, following this, a summary of how any comments received were considered by the airport-lessee company must be included in the request to the Minister per paragraph 31(5)(b).
Section 31 is intended to have largely the same effect as regulations 5.02 and 5.03 in the 1997 Regulations, with expanded detail in relation to consultation provisions.

Section 32 – Ministerial decision whether to make local standard

Subsection 32(1) requires the Minister to decide upon an application for approval of a local standard by either making it or refusing to do so.
If the standard is to be made, subsection 34(4) indicates that it can be made in the same form as requested by the airport-lessee company or with modifications such as additions and omissions.
Mandatory statutory considerations to guide and constrain the exercise of administrative decision making by the Minister are included at subsection 32(3). The Minister is required to take six specified matters into account:
1. the views and comments of the bodies and persons consulted by the airport-lessee company;
2. the airport-lessee company’s consideration of those views and comments – this is a new provision, not found in the 1997 Regulations;
3. relevant requirements or standards established under a law of the State in which the airport is located;
4. whether the local standard would be consistent or inconsistent with the objectives and measures of the airport’s environment strategy – this new provision is based on language used in relation to authorisations; and
5. whether the proposed local standard would permit higher levels of contamination at the airport than otherwise would be permitted; and
6. possible inconsistencies with national environment protection measures made under section 14 of the National Environment Protection Council Act 1999 (Cth.).
Current versions of the National Environment Protection Council Act 1999 (Cth) and the National Environment Protection Measures made pursuant to section 14 of that Act are freely available on the Federal Register of Legislation at legislation.gov.au.
In addition, subsection 32(4) clarifies that the Minister’s decision must be based on expert environmental advice, which may be obtained from Commonwealth and State environmental bodies or other relevant independent experts. ‘Independent,’ in this context, refers to independence from the airport-lessee company who have proposed the local standard, and the need for these experts to have not been involved in developing the local standard. An independent expert may include an airport environment officer or environmental consultant who has not been involved in the development of the proposed standard.
Subsection 32(5) provides a mechanism for the airport-lessee company at Sydney West Airport to apply for a local standard even before the final master plan for that airport comes into force, by referring to the ‘airport plan for the airport,’ as a substitute for the environment strategy for the airport.
Subsection 32(6) specifies that if the Minister does not make a decision to make or refuse to make the local standard ‘within 90 days of receiving a request,’ then the local standard will be deemed to have been refused. Specifying a timeframe for the decision-making gives some certainty to airport-lessee companies about the time a request for a local standard will take to be processed. 90 days is a longer period of decision-making time for the Minister than under the 1997 Regulations, which previously provided up to 30 days to make a decision under subsection 5.05(1). This increased time period for a decision reflects our understanding of the complex scientific, technical or policy issues that can arise in assessing an application for a standard and the consequent time it can take for all elements to be considered.
Because a local standard allows an airport-lessee company and all of its tenants at an airport to apply higher pollution investigation levels than those in certain parts of the Schedules to the Regulations for an indefinite period, the decision to issue a local standard must comprehensively consider any ramifications for human and environmental health at airports. For this reason, and to reduce the adverse environmental and health risks associated with a hasty decision, this section includes a deemed refusal provision. Subsection 32(6) specifies that if the Minister fails to make a decision on a local standard within 90 days, the local standard is deemed to have been refused. The productivity impact of such a refusal on the airport-lessee company is minimal: there is no cost associated with applying for a local standard, and no waiting period before an airport-lessee company may resubmit the same, or amended, local standard for consideration of approval. While the airport is waiting to have a local standard approved, it is subject to the same environmental standards and pollution limits as all other federally leased airports.

Section 33 - Minister may request more material for making decision

A ‘stop clock’ provision applies when further material is sought by the Minister in relation to a proposal for the making of a local standard. This is sometimes referred to as a Request for Further Information or RFI. The combination of the stop the clock provision in section 33 with the deemed refusal provision in subsection 32(6) provides the regulator, applicant and the public with appropriate assurance that a local standard will not be automatically made after certain time has passed, but also that further information can be sought and considered throughout the process to ensure that the decision-making process is thorough and keeps progressing in a manner that affords affected parties procedural fairness.

Section 34 - How Minister makes a local standard

If the Minister decides under section 32 to make a local standard, it must be made via legislative instrument. A standard made as a legislative instrument must be published on the Federal Register of Legislation. This ensures that the local standard is readily available to regulated entities and the public and is subject to Parliamentary scrutiny and disallowance
This section clarifies options available to the Minister who has decided to make a local standard. The first option for the Minister is to make the final local standard in the same form as the draft standard prepared by the airport-lessee company who has proposed it. Otherwise, it provides that the Minister can make modifications (such as additions, omissions and substitutions) that they consider necessary.
Subsection 34(1) clarifies the source of power in the Act that is relied upon for the making of a local standard and states that section 34 is made for the purposes of subsections 132(1) of the Act, which stipulates that the Regulations may make environmental standards and requirements; and for subsection 132(3) of the Act, which stipulates that Regulations made for the purpose of subsection 132(1) may make provision for a matter by conferring a power on the Minister - in this case a power to make a local standard.

Section 35 – Notification of Minister’s decision

This section requires the Minister to give the relevant airport-lessee company written notice of the decision about their proposal for a local standard. This notification must be given as soon as possible after the decision. If the decision is to refuse to make a local standard or to make the proposed standard with modifications, the notice must provide reasons.
Some changes have been made to streamline and clarify the notification process (compared to regulation 5.05 of the 1997 Regulations), including:

Removing the timeframe for written notice to be given before the end of 30 days after receipt of the application, as this suggested a decision must also be made within this timeframe and did not provide the relevant authority for a decision to be made.
Removing the requirement for notification through the Government Gazette. As the local standard is a legislative instrument, it will be published on the Federal Register of Legislation.
Allowing for the standard to take effect on a date specified in the standard (rather than on a day of publication in in the Gazette). This will reduce confusion about when the standard takes effect.

Section 36 – Commencement and duration of local standard

This section sets out when a local standard may come into force and how long it would remain in force.
A local standard will take effect on the day it is made or if a later time is specified in the standard and remains in place for the period specified in the standard unless sooner revoked.

Section 37 – Minister may vary or revoke local standard on request or on own initiative

Section 37 describes the two ways in which a local standard may be varied or revoked. The first is if an airport-lessee company asks the Minister, in writing, to vary the local standard. In this case, the airport-lessee company’s written request must provide the information described in subsection 37(3), namely a description of how the local standard is to be varied, why the variation is needed and for how long. In the case of a revocation, the reasons why the revocation is needed should be provided. Second, the airport-lessee company must also provide information about how it has followed the consultation and notification processes described in subsection 31(2).
Alternatively, under subsection 37(1), the Minister may vary or revoke the local standard at their discretion.
Subsection 37(4) clarifies that if it was the airport-lessee company that proposed to vary or revoke a local standard, the Minister may vary the local standard in the manner requested, vary it with changes that the Minister considers necessary or appropriate; or revoke the local standard. If the Minister initiates a variation or revocation, then the Minister may vary or revoke it as they consider appropriate in the circumstances. The Minister’s decision to vary or revoke a local standard must be made in the form of a legislative instrument.
Subsection 37(5) specifies that if the Minister varies or revokes a local standard under section 37, then they must notify the applicant in writing and include reasons for their decision.
Subsection 37(6) provides the Minister explicit flexibility in their decision-making to add, omit or change any proposed or existing local standard. This provision is subject to the usual requirements imposed on Ministers to afford procedural fairness in the administration of the Regulations. In practice, this means, the airport-lessee company and other affected parties would be notified of a proposed revocation or variation and would be given an opportunity to respond to the Minister’s proposal.

Section 38 - Effect of local standard, variation or revocation

This section specifies that if a local standard is revoked then the investigations levels, objectives, indicators, procedures, tests, methods or reference levels set out in the Schedules will once more apply from the later of when the variation or revocation is made and when it is specified to apply.

Section 39 – Commencement of variation or revocation of local standard

Section 39 specifies that a local standard comes into force when the legislative instrument is made or at a later time if specified in the instrument.

Division 3 – Authorisations

This Division of Part 4 provides for the grant of, and variation or revocation of authorisations.
Authorisations, like local standards, should not be viewed as permissions to pollute. Authorisations must be backed by environmental management plans detailing how the applicant intends to minimise the negative environmental consequences associated the applicant’s activities, and to reduce those consequences over time. The system is designed to allow operators of undertakings to exceed pollution limits set out in the Schedules or in local standards, provided they can demonstrate that the environment is no worse off for their activities, or they have a management plan that will, over a period of time, bring the consequences of their activities within acceptable limits. It is envisaged that long-term authorisations will only be granted to those operators of undertakings who can demonstrate a commitment to minimising and improving the environmental performance of their organisations and activities in their proposed environmental management plans. Where this commitment is lacking, it may be more appropriate for an airport environment officer to issue an environment protection notice under section 74 or an environment remediation notice under section 71 of the Regulations.
Part 4 Division 3 of the Regulations has an intended similar effect to Part 5 Division 2 of the 1997 Regulations, with some minor amendments to improve the clarity and modernise the drafting.

Section 40 – Effect of authorisation

An authorisation permits actions or activities that would otherwise contravene the Regulations.
An authorisation allows the investigation levels relevant to air, water or soil pollution or excessive noise in the Schedules to the Regulations to be exceeded for a set period of time.
For an authorisation to be granted, there must be an environment management plan in place that demonstrates the overall pollution or noise generated under the authorisation will not be more damaging than if exact compliance with the limits was achieved or, that incremental improvements will be made during the period of the authorisation towards meeting the investigation levels.
This section has the same intended effect as regulation 5.06 of the 1997 Regulations but has been edited for clarity.

Section 41 – Application for authorisation

An application for an authorisation must be made in writing to an airport environment officer and must include the information listed in subsection 41(2). This includes reasons why the authorisation is required, and the period for which it is required, being not longer than three years.
Paragraph 41(3)(a) states that the application must be accompanied by an environment management plan that details the actions the applicant intends to take during the period of the authorisation to:

ensure pollution emissions overall are not overall more environmentally damaging than if the relevant standards in the Schedules to the Regulations were complied with; or
where the restriction of pollution emissions to ensure they are not more environmentally damaging can only be achieved by incremental improvements over a period of time greater than that of the proposed authorisation, to make satisfactory progress towards achievement of this outcome.

Under paragraph 41(3)(b), if the applicant is not the airport-lessee company, the application must also include a written statement from the airport-lessee company that either endorses the application and environment management plan, or that sets out reasons why it does not endorse the application and plan. This is a new requirement that aims to improve airport-lessee company oversight of activities that may cause pollution or offensive noise at the airport. Previously, an airport-lessee company would submit comments on the application as part of the broader public consultation process.
If an airport environment officer requires further information to determine the application, they may request this information from the applicant in writing under subsection 41(4).
Where an airport-lessee company is not the applicant for an authorisation, the airport environment officer may also (on the basis of a reasonable belief) require the relevant airport-lessee company to provide information and documents (subsection 41(5)). In these circumstances, in return, it is intended that the airport environment officer may provide a copy of the authorisation application to the relevant airport-lessee company.
Section 41 has the same intended effect as regulation 5.07 of the 1997 Regulations.

Section 42 – Public to be notified of certain applications

This section allows an airport environment officer to decide whether public consultation is required on authorisations that would:

be in force for more than 90 days.
have a significantly adverse material impact on another person.
frequently, or repeatedly and protractedly generate pollution or noise in excess of an investigation level under the Regulations.

For the purposes of the consultation, the airport environment officer may require the applicant to publish a notice about the application in one or more of three different ways – including either a local or Statewide newspaper or on the applicant’s website. The airport environment officer may require the applicant’s notice to give details of information, including details of the website where the authorisation application and associated environment management plan can be viewed.
The published notice must specify a period of at least 30 days within which any person may provide comments about the application and an address to which public comments may be sent.
Under subsection 42(3) the applicant is responsible for organising and paying for the public notice, if there are publication costs applicable.
This section has the same intended effect as regulation 5.08 of the 1997 Regulations but has been modified to simplify and modernise the notification and viewing requirements. Previously the documents had to be made available in hard copy, however, it is now more convenient and common for these to be made available online. It is also possible that an applicant may not have an office where the documents can be easily accessed by members of the public.
The minimum period for people to make comments has been extended from 14 days to 30 days to allow more time for people to consider the proposed authorisation. The reference to ‘specifying an address to which comments may be sent’ (subsection 42(2)(iv) offers the flexibility of specifying a postal or email address, or both.
To further increase visibility of the application, a new requirement for the airport environment officer to publish the application on the department’s website has been included.

Section 43 – Determination of application under section 41

Subsection 43(1) provides that, having received an application for an authorisation, an airport environment officer may either grant it, grant it subject to conditions or refuse it. This provision is largely the same as regulation 5.09 of the 1997 Regulations, with the addition of subsections 43(2)(h) and (i), described below.
A number of statutory criteria are included at subsection 43(2) to guide and constrain the airport environment officer in deciding whether to grant an authorisation. The list of considerations includes any reasonable alternative actions that are available to the applicant, the reasonably likely consequences of the proposed actions under the authorisation for the health and safety of any person, as well as the adequacy of the environment management plan and likelihood of it being realised. Subsection 93(2) of the Regulations requires the Secretary to only appoint airport environment officers who, among other requirements, have qualifications and experience suitable to enable the person to properly discharge the functions, powers, duties and responsibilities of an airport environment officer. These functions include assessing and making complex regulatory decisions.
A note to the subsection indicates that an airport environment officer may have to refer to environmental impact assessment documents under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth).
A new requirement has been inserted at paragraph 43(2)(h) and (i) for the decision maker to consider if the airport-lessee company has endorsed the application and the environment management plan, and the reasons given by the airport-lessee company, if it has not endorsed it. To be clear, this requirement only applies if the airport-lessee company is not the applicant for an authorisation. This links to the new requirement under paragraph 41(3)(b) to include a written statement from the airport-lessee company with the application. This provision is designed to help ensure that the airport-lessee company is aware of and consulted on what pollution is occurring and is proposed to occur at the airport. This change was made to address an omission in the 1997 Regulations . Paragraph 41(3)(b) mandates that from now on an airport-lessee company will be informed of an authorisation request and have a formal opportunity to register any concerns as part of the initial application process.
Paragraph 43(2)(l) provides for an airport environment officer to consider any other matter they consider to be relevant. This could include, for example, the consistency of the environment management plan with any relevant national environmental standards, guidelines and frameworks (for example, the Heads of EPA Australia and New Zealand (HEPA), PFAS National Environmental Management Plan, Version 3.0, 2025 (available at www.dcceew.gov.au/ environment/protection/publications/pfas-nemp-3 as at 1 April 2026) and the National Environment Protection (Ambient Air Quality) Measure made under the National Environment Protection Council Act 1994 (Cth.), available on the Federal Register of Legislation (www.legislation.gov.au), and compliance with any previous authorisations.
Under subsection 43(4), an airport environment officer is also required to take into account commitments made by the applicant regarding prevention or minimisation of pollution or noise in relation to the authorisation. The Regulations also provide that an airport environment officer must prefer a decision that will promote improved compliance with the Regulations by the applicant after the period of the authorisation has ended.
Subsection 43(3) ensures that the same considerations apply to Sydney West Airport (also known as Western Sydney International (Nancy-Bird Walton) Airport) despite the fact the relevant documents have different statutory names. In effect, the airport plan for Sydney West Airport serves the same function as an environment strategy. The airport plan is a transitional planning instrument for the initial development of the Airport. Once established, Sydney West Airport will be required to have an environment strategy in the master plan it must prepare and have approved by the Minister under Part 5 of the Act, as do the other airports covered by the Regulations.

Section 44 – Applicant to be notified of decision on application

This section sets out the notification requirements about a decision made by an airport environment officer in relation to an application for an authorisation.
Under subsection 44(1), an airport environment officer must notify an applicant of their decision within 90 days of receiving an application, or if the application is put out for public consultation, 90 days after the end of the period set for comments to be received. If further information about the application is requested by an airport environment officer, the applicant must be notified of the decision within 90 days after the information is received. The effect of paragraphs 44(1)(b) and (c) is for the airport environment officer to be able to make multiple requests for information to support their decision making in relation to the request for an authorisation. The airport environment officer’s time for making a decision will end 90 days after they receive the last information requested from the applicant.
If the authorisation is refused or granted subject to conditions, the notification must set out the reasons for the decision.
The timeframes for notification have been increased from beyond the end of 30 days as required in regulation 5.10 of the 1997 Regulations, to within 90 days. This is a more appropriate timeframe for the airport environment officer to make a decision about an application given the complex technical nature of the documents involved, the numerous matters to be considered, as well as the need to afford interested parties procedural fairness.

Section 45 – Authorisation granted under section 43 is subject to conditions

Section 45 indicates that the grant of an authorisation is subject to conditions, which are to be specified in that authorisation.
In particular, the holder of an authorisation granted under section 43 must comply with an environment management plan lodged with the application under subsection 41(3). By expressing this as a condition of the authorisation it is possible for an airport environment officer to enforce compliance with the environment management plan, under section 79 of the Regulations.
Subsection 45(b) gives an airport environment officer broad discretion to impose any additional conditions upon the grant of an authorisation, provided these are specified in the authorisation. This flexibility and broad discretion are appropriate given that an authorisation is effectively giving a polluter permission to pollute in a manner that would otherwise be unlawful.

Section 46 – Duration of authorisation granted under section 43

The duration of time that authorisations may be granted for is limited by this section to no more than 3 years, inclusive of any extension granted (subsection 46(2). The day the authorisation comes into force must be specified in the authorisation.
For example, if an entity holding an authorisation that is to expire at the end of a three-year period were to seek a further, sequential authorisation, it would be required to make a new, or fresh application for a new authorisation; rather than seeking to extend its existing authorisation by means of a variation. The latter approach of extending an authorisation beyond three years would not be possible due to the operation of subsection 46(2).
The process for seeking and granting a variation of an authorisation is set out in section 49.
This section has the same intended effect as regulation 5.12 of the 1997 Regulations, in terms of the maximum duration of authorisations. It has been modified for additional clarity.

Section 47 – Oral applications for urgently required authorisations

Under subsection 47(1), if an authorisation is needed urgently, and an airport environment officer is satisfied on reasonable grounds that it is not practicable for an application to be made in writing, an application for an authorisation may be made orally to an airport environment officer, either in person or by telephone or other means.
A precondition to the making of an urgent application is that the applicant must give to the airport environment officer the information required under subsection 41(2).
This includes the reasons why the authorisation is required, the actions or activities to be covered, and the investigation levels under Schedule 1, 2, or 3 that are intended to be exceeded.
For clarity, the applicant is not required to provide an environment management plan (paragraph 41(3)(as), airport-lessee company endorsement of the application (paragraph 41(3)(b), or information about public consultation (section 42).
Subsection 47(2) provides that an application for an urgent authorisation may be granted by an airport environment officer, granted with conditions, or refused.
Subsection 47(3) provides that an airport environment officer must notify the applicant when they make the decision to issue an urgent authorisation. A note under paragraph 47(6)(v) specifies that the airport environment officer must give the airport-lessee company a copy of the record of authorisation within 2 days of issuing the authorisation.
Subsection 47(4) states that when deciding whether to grant an urgent authorisation, an airport environment officer must take into account the same measures specified for non-urgent authorisation as described at subsection 43(2), with the exceptions of:

Paragraph 43(2(e) – the adequacy of the environment management plan accompanying the application (because there is no requirement to submit an environmental management plan with an urgent application for an authorisation);
Paragraph 43(2)(h) –whether the airport‑lessee company for the airport has endorsed the application and the environment management plan that accompanied the application (because there is no requirement for an airport-lessee company to be consulted on an urgent authorisation, although this is highly recommended if time and circumstances permit);
Paragraph 43(2)(i) - if the airport‑lessee company for the airport has not endorsed the application and the environment management plan—the reasons why the airport‑lessee company has not endorsed the application and plan (as mentioned above, although airport-lessee company endorsement of an urgent authorisation is desirable, it is not essential given the urgent nature of the application);
Paragraph 43(2)(k) - if, under section 42, comments have been given in relation to the application—the comments (because of the urgent nature of the authorisation, the usual requirements to undertake stakeholder engagement and afford affected parties procedural fairness are waived).

The truncated application process for urgent authorisations means that some of the usual procedural fairness provisions are waived. However, offsetting this consideration is the public interest in ensuring exceedances of pollution – and particularly unexpected exceedances – may be expediently dealt with. Additionally, the urgent authorisation is only valid for a maximum of 2 days, or a shorter period as agreed by the airport environment officer, as stated in subsection 47(5) of the Regulations.
Under subsection 47(7), a person who applies for an urgent authorisation must confirm the application in writing (providing all of the information required to make a valid urgent application) within 2 days of making the application.
This section has the same intended effect as regulation 5.13 of the 1997 Regulations but more detail has been added to clarify its operation. This includes:

specifying the matters that will be considered by the airport environment officer when determining an application, and
consolidating and specifying the timeframes for a written record of the application and airport environment officer’s decision to be made (from regulation 5.14 of the 1997 Regulations) and for written confirmation from the applicant to be given.

Section 48 – Notifying airport-lessee companies and public of authorisations

If an airport environment officer decides to grant an authorisation, they must give a copy of the authorisation to the airport-lessee company within 2 days of granting the authorisation.
For an urgent authorisation, a copy of the record made by the airport environment officer under paragraph 47(6)(a) must be given to the airport-lessee company within 2 days of granting the authorisation.
The airport environment officer’s decision must also be published on the department’s website as soon as is reasonably practicable. Failure to give copies of the authorisation to the airport-lessee company and notify the decision on the department’s website will not invalidate the authorisation.
This section has similar intended effect as regulation 5.14 of the 1997 Regulations but includes more detail to clarify its application to urgent authorisations.
Regulation 5.15 of the 1997 Regulations has been replaced with the new requirement under paragraph 48(1)(b) to publish notification of the authorisation on the department’s website. This publication method is timelier and more accessible than the Gazette, the department’s annual report, or having copies of the authorisation available at a physical location such as the airport-lessee company’s offices.

Section 49 – Authorisations may be varied or revoked

This section sets out the process for varying or revoking an authorisation. This may occur if an airport environment officer is asked to do so by the holder of the authorisation, or if the airport environment officer decides to do so of their own volition.
A note attached to subsection 49(3) states that under subsection 46(2), the period for which an authorisation remains in force cannot be extended beyond 3 years by a variation under this section.
A request to vary or revoke an authorisation must be made in writing to an airport environment officer and must contain the information set out in subsection 49(3), namely: the actions or activities for which the variation is sought; the reasons it is needed; and the period for which it is required; and, for a revocation, the reasons why the revocation is needed.
A variation or revocation will only take effect once the airport environment officer notifies the holder of the authorisation of this, in writing. If the variation or revocation needs to take effect immediately, to deal with an emergency, then the airport environment officer may notify the authorisation holder orally. In such an emergency, a variation will only have effect until the end of 48 hours after the authorisation holder is notified. For a revocation in an emergency, the revocation will be effective from the time the oral notification is given.
If proceedings in court are underway against a person, the fact an authorisation has been varied or revoked must be disregarded if the person does not hold the authorisation and they did not know and could not have reasonably be expected to have known, the authorisation had been varied or revoked.
Subsection 49(7) confirms that the requirements relating to public consultation, determination of an application, emergency authorisations and notification that apply to making of an authorisation also apply to variation of an authorisation.
This section has the same intended effect as the regulation 5.16 of the 1997 Regulations.

Section 50 – Holders of certain authorisations must report annually to airport environment officer

Subsection 50(1) stipulates that this section has been made for the purposes of subsection 132(1) of the Act, which allows for the setting of environmental standards in the Regulations.
Subsection 50(2) states that holders of authorisations that are granted for a period of more than one year, must give the airport environment officer a report, for each year the authorisation is in force. If the authorisation holder is not also the airport-lessee company, then the authorisation holder must also give the annual report to the airport-lessee company, as stated in subsection 50(2)(b) of the Regulations.
The report must contain the information set out in paragraphs 50(2)(c), (d) and (e), which includes the details of the authorisation holder’s implementation of the environment management plan, any progress made in reducing the generation of pollution or noise in excess of the investigation level at the airport, and, if applicable, any failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the authorisation.
This section has broadly the same intended effect as regulation 5.17 of the 1997 Regulations. However, a new requirement has been included in subsection 50(3) for the report to be given to the airport environment officer no later than 60 days after the end of each year the authorisation is in force. This is to ensure the report is given in a timely manner and to assist the airport environment officer to monitor compliance with the authorisation. Failure to report the required information within the specified timeframe is an offence against subsection 132(1) of the Act, punishable by a maximum of 50 penalty units. Based on the value of a penalty unit at the time of publication this is a maximum penalty of $16,500, subject to future indexation.
The number of penalty units specified for this offence against subsection 50(2) or (3) of the Regulations is consistent with the Guide to Framing Commonwealth Offences, Infringement Notices and Enforcement Powers (May 2024) (Guide to Framing Commonwealth Offences), published by the Attorney-General's Department at: www.ag.gov.au/legal-system/publications/guide-framing-commonwealth-offences-infringement-notices-and-enforcement-powers.
The Guide to Framing Commonwealth Offences states that, generally, offences in regulations should not exceed 50 penalty units for an individual. The number of penalty units is also relatively low for reasons of proportionality with the penalties for offences under Part 6 of the Act. For example, the penalty for the most serious offence of conduct resulting in serious environmental harm under section 131B of the Act is 500 penalty units for an individual. Based on the value of a penalty unit at the time of publication this would involve a maximum penalty of $165,000, subject to future indexation.
Subject to satisfying the requirement of section 81 of the Regulations, an airport environment officer may issue an infringement notice for this offence as an alternative to pursuing prosecution in a federal court. The maximum penalty that may be imposed under an infringement notice is 10 penalty units for an individual. This complies with the Guide to Framing Commonwealth Offences, which states that the maximum infringement notice penalty for an individual should be 12 penalty units, or 60 penalty units for a body corporate.
Subsection 4B(3) of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) provides the Court with sentencing discretion to impose a pecuniary (i.e. financial) penalty against a corporation that has been convicted of an offence that is five times greater than the maximum penalty that could be imposed on a natural person in the same circumstances.
The value of a penalty unit is prescribed by section 4AA of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) . The current value of a penalty unit is $330, and it will be indexed on 1 July 2026 and each third 1 July following that day (section 4AA(3)). The latest version of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth.) (Cth.) is available on the Federal Register of Legislation (www.legislation.gov.au).
Section 132(2A) of the Act applies strict liability only to the element of the offence that ’the offence was made for the purpose of subsection 132(1) of the Act. Although it is the Act, rather than the Regulations, that applies strict liability to this element, it is worth noting that applying strict liability to this element is consistent with the principles in the Guide to Framing Commonwealth Offences. This is because strict liability for this element ensures the integrity of the regulatory regime. A defendant’s state of mind as to whether an offence is made for the purpose of s 132(1) of the Act has no bearing on the defendant’s culpability. Permitting a defendant to escape liability for the offence on such a ground would amount to a loophole and undermine the efficacy of the offence provision

Section 51 – Failure to comply with conditions of authorisation

Section 51 addresses situations where the holder of an authorisation contravenes a condition of an authorisation or learns that a condition of the authorisation has been contravened. The latter situation could occur, for example, where an unauthorised exceedance of a pollutant occurs through some automatic process outside of the control of an authorisation holder, for example due to rain causing a drain to overflow.
If a holder of an authorisation contravenes, or becomes aware of a contravention of the authorisation, they must report the contravention to an airport environment officer within 24 hours of contravening the condition, or within 24 hours of the holder learning of the contravention.
Note 1 under subsection 51(3) provides that failing to report in accordance with subsection 51(3) of the Regulations is an offence against subsection 132(2) of the Act and a maximum penalty of 50 penalty units may be applied to an individual, as specified in subsection 51(4) of the Regulations. Based on the value of a penalty unit at the time of publication the maximum penalty is $16,500, subject to future indexation.
The number of penalty units specified for this offence against subsection 51(3) of the Regulations is consistent with the Guide to Framing Commonwealth Offences, Infringement Notices and Enforcement Powers (May 2024) (Guide to Framing Commonwealth Offences), published by the Attorney-General's Department at: www.ag.gov.au/legal-system/publications/guide-framing-commonwealth-offences-infringement-notices-and-enforcement-powers.
The Guide to Framing Commonwealth Offences states that generally offences in regulations should not exceed 50 penalty units for an individual. The number of penalty units is also relatively low for reasons of proportionality with the penalties for offences under Part 6 of the Act. For example, the penalty for the most serious offence of conduct resulting in serious environmental harm under section 131B of the Act is 500 penalty units for an individual. Based on the value of a penalty unit at the time of publication this would involve a maximum penalty of $165,000, subject to future indexation.
Subject to satisfying the requirement of section 81 of the Regulations, an airport environment officer may issue an infringement notice for this offence as an alternative to pursuing prosecution in a federal court. The maximum penalty that may be imposed under an infringement notice is 10 penalty units for an individual. This complies with the Guide to Framing Commonwealth Offences, which states that the maximum infringement notice penalty for an individual should be 12 penalty units, or 60 penalty units for a body corporate.
Subsection 4B(3) of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth.) provides the Court with sentencing discretion to impose a pecuniary (i.e. financial) penalty against a corporation that has been convicted of an offence that is five times greater than the maximum penalty that could be imposed on a natural person in the same circumstances.
The value of a penalty unit is prescribed by section 4AA of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth.). The current value of a penalty unit is $330, and it will be indexed on 1 July 2026 and each third 1 July following that day (section 4AA(3)). The latest version of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth.) is available on the Federal Register of Legislation(www.legislation.gov.au).
Section 132(2A) of the Act applies strict liability only to the element of the offence that ’the offence was made for the purpose of subsection 132(1) of the Act.’ Although it is the Act, rather than the Regulations, that applies strict liability to this element, it is worth noting that applying strict liability to this element is consistent with the principles in the Guide to Framing Commonwealth Offences. This is because strict liability for this element ensures the integrity of the regulatory regime. A defendant’s state of mind as to whether an offence is made for the purpose of s 132(1) of the Act has no bearing on the defendant’s culpability. Permitting a defendant to escape liability for the offence on such a ground would amount to a loophole and undermine the efficacy of the offence provision.
Note 2 under subsection 51(3) provides that an airport environment officer may also require the holder of an authorisation to comply with a condition of an authorisation by issuing a notice to comply under subsection 79(2) of the Regulations.
Note 3 under subsection 51(3) mentions that Part 15 of the Act may be used to seek a Federal Court order requiring the holder of an authorisation to comply with a condition of an authorisation.
This section has the same intended effect as regulation 5.18 of the 1997 Regulations.

Section 52 – Authorisation may be transferred

An authorisation may be transferred from one owner to another if an undertaking that is subject to an authorisation is sold – providing the airport environment officer permits the transfer in accordance with subsection 52(2).
Subsection 52(1) specifies that to transfer an authorisation, the holder of the authorisation must give written notice of the proposed transfer to an airport environment officer. The notice must include a statement that confirms whether or not the airport-lessee company endorses the proposed transfer and a written undertaking from the new authorisation holder that it will comply with the terms and conditions of the authorisation.
Subsection 52(2) provides that if an airport environment officer is satisfied it is appropriate for the authorisation to be transferred, they must give written notice to the holder of the authorisation, and, at the same time, give a copy of the notice to the airport-lessee company, as specified in subsection 52(5). The notice may permit the transfer of the authorisation, permit the transfer subject to conditions, or refuse the transfer.
Under subsection 52(3), the airport environment officer may specify a day by which the holder must transfer the authorisation. If the transfer does not take place by this day, then the permission to transfer is taken to have been revoked under subsection 52(4) and the airport environment officer must notify the airport-lessee company of that revocation as soon as practicable.
To be clear, subsections 52(5) and (6) only ever requires the airport environment officer to give the airport-lessee company one copy of a notice under subsection 52(2), even if the airport-lessee company is also the authorisation holder.
This section has broadly the same intended effect as regulation 5.19 of the 1997 Regulations but has been redrafted to make it easier to follow and clarify processes. It also includes a new requirement to provide evidence of the airport-lessee company’s support, or otherwise, of the intended transfer. This ensures the airport-lessee company has visibility of the proposal and its views can be considered by the airport environment officer.

Part 5 – Monitoring, reporting, investigation and remediation

This Part has been updated to more closely align with national standards for contaminated site investigations and remediations, improve the airport environment officer’s monitoring and investigation powers, and meet modern drafting standards, while generally maintaining the intent and effect of the 1997 Regulations they replace.
The purpose of Part 5 of the Regulations is to investigate and monitor the environmental health of an airport site so that there is a comprehensive body of information on that health, and so that the information can be used to remediate any pollution or identified sources of pollution effectively. Division 2 deals with the monitoring and reporting obligations of both the airport-lessee company and other people at the airport site.
Fundamental to knowledge of the environmental health of the airport is information on the pollution of air, soil and groundwater. Division 2 of Part 5 provides ‘airport-lessee companies and airport environment officers with powers to require information about pollution from persons and access their sites in limited circumstances. It sets requirements for monitoring and reporting environmental matters, including as part of an end of lease report.
Division 3 of Part 5 outlines the investigation processes to be followed if pollution or offensive noise is occurring or has occurred. The processes set out in Divisions 2 and 3 have been updated for improved consistency with relevant national guidelines including the National Environment Protection (Assessment of Site Contamination) Measure 1999 (Cth.), made in accordance with section 14 of the National Environment Protection Council Act 1994 (Cth.). Both instruments are available on the Federal Register of Legislation (www.legislation.gov.au).
If pollution occurs on an airport, Division 4 empowers airport environment officers to order specified remedial work to be undertaken or to undertake that remedial work themselves. Alternatively, an occupier of an area on an airport may voluntarily prepare a remediation plan to rectify pollution or offensive noise in an area, and an airport environment officer may approve that plan, according to their assessment of whether the plan will address the factors and considerations listed in subsection 67(4) of the Regulations.
Division 5 of Part 5 stipulates the powers of airport environment officers to require remediation work and to enter and carry out remediation work at an airport.

Division 1 – Purpose of this part

Section 53 – Purpose of this Part

Part 5 of the Regulations is made for the purposes of subsection 133(1) of the Act, which allows for regulations to be made about monitoring, cleaning up, remedying or rectifying pollution at airport sites, including permitting regulations to be made regarding contraventions of the environmental standards stipulated in sections 131A, 131B and 131C. This includes monitoring and cleaning up air, water or soil pollution, and monitoring and mitigating impacts on biota or habitat or interference with sites of heritage value.
Section 53 is a new section with no equivalent in the 1997 Regulations. It confirms the authority for this Part of the Regulations and is part of the modernisation of drafting of the Regulations.

Division 2 – Monitoring and reporting

Section 54 – Airport environment officer may require information or documents from occupiers about pollution

An airport environment officer may rely on section 54 to obtain information that an occupier of an area of an airport might hold or have available about matters relating to the use of that area and any pollution or waste that may be present. This is to assist the airport environment officer to monitor compliance with the Regulations.
Subsection 54(1) provides for an airport environment officer to give a written notice to an occupier of an area at an airport directing them to give the airport environment officer information, or produce documents that disclose specified things, including former uses of the area, activities conducted in the area, how waste and other materials were disposed of and the nature and extent of any contamination and known impact of pollution on the airport or on an area outside the airport. Consideration of an area outside the airport recognises that pollution generated by on-airport activities may result in impacts beyond the airport boundary, including in non-adjacent areas. Understanding the full extent of those impacts is necessary to regulate the on-airport activities effectively.
Paragraph 54(1)(h) has been added to provide that an airport environment officer may ask for information about the environmental condition of the airport or an area adjacent to the airport. Consideration of an area adjacent to the airport is intended to support an understanding of local environmental conditions (not just impact of pollution) at and immediately surrounding the airport, particularly in the context of environmentally sensitive areas that may cross the airport boundary (for example, a threatened ecological community).
The section is intended to apply to an occupier of an area at an airport, as defined in section 5. If the area is subject to a sublease or licence, the occupier will be the holder of the sublease or licence or any lease or licence granted under the sublease or licence. If there is no sublease or licence over the area, the occupier will be the airport-lessee company.
Under subsection 54(2), the occupier of the area must give the airport environment officer the relevant information or documents no later than 60 days after the notice is given to them. The time frame permitted for occupiers to provide documents requested by an airport environment officer has been reduced from 3 months under the 1997 Regulations to 60 days under the Regulations. This is to ensure the airport environment officer receives it in a timelier fashion, which may be important where the documents contain information pertaining to risks to human or environmental health. The new timeframe also better aligns with the cadence of the airport environment officers’ monthly site inspections and meetings with the airports.
As the information or documents that can be required must already be held by, or available to, the occupier, it should not take a long time for the occupier to identify and provide them. This is as opposed to a circumstance where an occupier may be required to undertake testing or to provide a report from a detailed site investigation, which may take months to organise and complete.
When the occupier gives the information to the airport environment officer, they must also give the same information to the airport-lessee company under subsection 54(3). This is so the airport-lessee company can add any relevant information about the environmental condition of the airport to the environmental site register under section 56. It also avoids double-handling of the relevant information and documents and prevents any occupier from relying on section 96 of the Regulations to avoid giving an airport-lessee company information about the environmental health of the airport site.
Failure to provide the required information to the airport environment officer within 60 days of receiving a notice is an offence against subsection 54(2) of the Regulations, punishable by a maximum of 50 penalty units. Based on the value of a penalty unit at the time of publication this would involve a maximum penalty of $16,500, subject to future indexation.
Failure to give the relevant information to the airport-lessee company is an offence against 54(3) punishable by a maximum of 10 penalty units. Based on the value of a penalty unit at the time of publication this would involve a maximum penalty of $3,300, subject to future indexation.
The number of penalty units specified for these offences against subsection 54(2) and 54(3) of the Regulations are consistent with the Guide to Framing Commonwealth Offences, Infringement Notices and Enforcement Powers (May 2024) (Guide to Framing Commonwealth Offences), published by the Attorney-General's Department at: www.ag.gov.au/legal-system/publications/guide-framing-commonwealth-offences-infringement-notices-and-enforcement-powers.
The Guide to Framing Commonwealth Offences states that generally offences in regulations should not exceed 50 penalty units for an individual. The number of penalty units is also relatively low for reasons of proportionality with the penalties for offences under Part 6 of the Act. For example, the penalty for the most serious offence of conduct resulting in serious environmental harm under section 131B of the Act is 500 penalty units for an individual. Based on the value of a penalty unit at the time of publication this would involve a maximum penalty of $165,000, subject to future indexation.
Subject to satisfying the requirement of section 81 of the Regulations, an airport environment officer may issue an infringement notice for this offence as an alternative to pursuing prosecution in a federal court. The maximum penalty that may be imposed under an infringement notice is 10 penalty units for an individual. This complies with the Guide to Framing Commonwealth Offences, which states that the maximum infringement notice penalty for an individual should be 12 penalty units, or 60 penalty units for a body corporate.
Subsection 4B(3) of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth.) provides the Court with sentencing discretion to impose a pecuniary (i.e. financial) penalty against a corporation that has been convicted of an offence that is five times greater than the maximum penalty that could be imposed on a natural person in the same circumstances.
The value of a penalty unit is prescribed by section 4AA of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth.). The current value of a penalty unit is $330, and it will be indexed on 1 July 2026 and each third 1 July following that day (section 4AA(3)). The latest version of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth.) is available on the Federal Register of Legislation (www.legislation.gov.au).
An individual cannot refuse to give information or a document required by a notice on the basis it would incriminate them or expose them to a penalty, as stated in subsection 54(4). The intent of this subsection is clearly to indicate that the privilege against self-incrimination is not available to natural persons who are required by an airport environment officer to give information or documents about pollution in a specified area.
It is a point of established law in Australia that companies and bodies corporate cannot claim the privilege against self-incrimination, including in relation to notices issued by an airport environment officer requiring them to provide information or documents under subsection 54(1). This point is articulated in the note accompanying subsection 54(4).
While the provision in subsection 54(4) abrogates the common law privilege against self-incrimination that might be claimed by an individual, it is justified by the public benefit that access to information and documents about the human and environmental health of the airport provides. With this information, the nature and extent of any contamination can be better understood, and the potentially harmful effects from the contamination on the environment, human health, or both, can be prevented or managed.
A further reason to override the privilege against self-incrimination in this context is that its use could undermine the effectiveness of the regulatory scheme by preventing information relevant to the protection of the environment being available to appropriate entities: potentially resulting in further environmental harm or risks to public health.
Further, it is possible that some types of information sought under this provision will only be within the knowledge of the person occupying the site, as users of the area. Pollutants may be undetectable to the human eye even when they are present in levels that are harmful to human health. Information about the activities undertaken at the site, and the way they were undertaken, will not be publicly available or otherwise documented. Occupiers may have information about pollution locations that can substantially reduce the time and costs associated with investigating and appropriately responding to pollution.
Balancing the abrogation of the privilege against self-incrimination is the availability of the ‘use’ and ‘derivative use’ immunities set out in subsection 54(5). Paragraphs 54(5)(a) and (b) prevent the use of any information or documents given under this section being used as evidence against the person in any later court proceedings. Paragraph 54(5)(c) prevents the information or documents obtained being used to gather other evidence against the person. These safeguards reflect that the abrogation of individuals’ privilege is for the limited purpose of obtaining documents relevant to environmental protection, and not for the purpose of gathering evidence for the purpose of prosecuting individuals for broader offences.
This section has the same intended effect as regulation 6.01 of the 1997 Regulations, with some modifications to improve its operation.

Section 55 – Airport-lessee company to monitor pollution and noise levels

Section 55 has almost the same intended effect as the former subregulations 6.02(1) and (2) of the 1997 Regulations. Provisions relating to the environmental site register contained in former subregulation 6.02(3) of the 1997 Regulations have been separated out from this section to make it easier to interpret.
Under section 55, airport-lessee companies must monitor pollution and noise at the airport in accordance with technical standards and methods described in subsection 55(2) of the Regulations and with the environment strategy for the airport prepared under the Act.
Paragraph 55(2)(c) specifies that if the monitoring involves testing, this must be done by a laboratory accredited by NATA, Australia, in accordance with section 13 of the Regulations.
Under paragraph 55(2)(d), monitoring must also be carried out in a way that is not inconsistent with any international agreement relating to environment protection that Australia is a party to, or with a provision of a national environment protection measure made under the National Environment Protection Council Act 1994 (Cth) (available on the Federal Register of Legislation (www.legislation.gov.au). For example, air quality monitoring should be undertaken in a way that is consistent with the National Environment Protection (Air Toxics) Measure. As at the date of publication, the current versions of all National Environment Protection Measures are available at www.nepc.gov.au/nepms or on the Federal Register of Legislation at www.legislation.gov.au.
Subsection 55(3) is included in recognition of Sydney West Airport’s current status where it is not yet operational and has an airport plan as per the provisions of the Act relating to this particular airport.
Subsection 55(4) contains an offence provision stipulating that non-compliance with the requirement to monitor pollution and noise at the airport in accordance with subsection 55(1) is a strict liability offence and a penalty of 50 penalty units may be applied. Based on the value of a penalty unit at the time of publication this would involve a maximum penalty of $16,500, subject to future indexation.
The number of penalty units specified for this offence against subsection 55(4) of the Regulations is consistent with the Guide to Framing Commonwealth Offences, Infringement Notices and Enforcement Powers (May 2024 (available at: www.ag.gov.au/legal-system/publications/guide-framing-commonwealth-offences-infringement-notices-and-enforcement-powers), which suggests that generally offences in regulations should not exceed 50 penalty units for an individual. The number of penalty units is also relatively low for reasons of proportionality with the penalties for offences under Part 6 of the Act. For example, the penalty for the most serious offence of conduct resulting in serious environmental harm under section 131B of the Act is 500 penalty units for an individual. Based on the value of a penalty unit at the time of publication this would be a maximum penalty of $165,000, subject to future indexation.
Subject to satisfying the requirement of section 81 of the Regulations, an airport environment officer may issue an infringement notice for this offence as an alternative to pursuing prosecution in a federal court. The maximum penalty that may be imposed under an infringement notice is 10 penalty units for an individual. This complies with the Guide, which states that the maximum infringement notice penalty for an individual should be 12 penalty units, or 60 penalty units for a body corporate.
Subsection 4B(3) of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth.) provides the Court with sentencing discretion to impose a pecuniary (i.e. financial) penalty against a corporation that has been convicted of an offence that is five times greater than the maximum penalty that could be imposed on a natural person in the same circumstances.
The value of a penalty unit is prescribed by section 4AA of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth.). The current value of a penalty unit is $330, and it will be indexed on 1 July 2026 and each third 1 July following that day (section 4AA(3)). The latest version of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth.) is available on the Federal Register of Legislation (www.legislation.gov.au).
The imposition of strict liability in this context is justified by the need to ensure the integrity of the regulatory regime, to protect human health, and to implement the environmental protection objectives of the Regulations. As a strict liability offence, this provision acts to compel polluters to monitor pollution and noise, to manage or prevent harm to the environment and to human health.
The strict liability offence is consistent with the guidance in section 2.2.6 of the Guide to Framing Commonwealth Offences. The offence is not punishable by imprisonment and is punishable by a fine of less than 60 penalty units for an individual. Being an offence of strict liability enhances the effectiveness of the regulatory framework by encouraging airport-lessee companies to guard against committing the offence by monitoring levels of pollution and noise at airports. Effective monitoring and reporting ensure that any changes to pollution or noise levels can be quickly acted on, and the spread of pollution can be prevented, minimising harm to the environment, and avoiding any potential impacts on human health. Additionally, there are legitimate grounds for penalising persons lacking fault—namely, the offence provision applies only to persons who have chosen to engage in regulated activities (by operating on a federally leased airport site), and who are on notice as to the existence of the regulatory scheme. As the offence is one of strict liability, the defence of honest and reasonable mistake of fact is available.

Section 56 – Airport-lessee company must keep an environmental site register

Airport-lessee companies are required to keep an environmental site register that contains information about the environmental condition of the airport.
The register should include all types of information relevant to the airport environment. Subregulation 56(2) provides a prescriptive list of matters that must be included in the register, including the results of monitoring under this Division, information, documents and monitoring reports provided to airport-lessee companies by occupiers, and investigation reports and assessments provided to airport-lessee companies. The register must also include the details of any occurrence of environmental significance at the airport, whether it be detrimental or beneficial to the environment, as well as the details of the airport-lessee company’s environmental management of the airport.
Paragraph 56(2)(d) links back to the Act, and the requirement to include an environment strategy in the airport master plan that details, the airport-lessee company’s objectives for the environmental management of the airport in subparagraph 69(2)(h)(i) of the Act. This would include any environmental management plans for specific areas of the airport and heritage management plans for places with heritage value.
The note to this section serves as a reminder that an airport-lessee company must also record any cultural discovery it receives notice about under subsection 24(2) of the Regulations in the environmental site register.
Section 56(3) provides that the matters mentioned in subsection 56(2) must be included in the environmental register within 60 days of becoming aware of the matter.
Section 56(4) creates a strict liability offence of failing to keep an environmental site register in accordance with subsection 56(1) of the Regulations, with a maximum penalty of 50 penalty units for an individual. Based on the value of a penalty unit at the time of publication this is a maximum penalty of $16,500, subject to future indexation.
The number of penalty units for this offence against subsection 56(4) of the Regulations is consistent with the Guide to Framing Commonwealth Offences, Infringement Notices and Enforcement Powers (May 2024) (Guide to Framing Commonwealth Offences), published by the Attorney-General's Department at: www.ag.gov.au/legal-system/publications/guide-framing-commonwealth-offences-infringement-notices-and-enforcement-powers.
The Guide to Framing Commonwealth Offences states that generally offences in regulations should not exceed 50 penalty units for an individual. The number of penalty units is also relatively low for reasons of proportionality with the penalties for offences under Part 6 of the Act. For example, the penalty for the most serious offence of conduct resulting in serious environmental harm under section 131B of the Act is 500 penalty units for an individual. Based on the value of a penalty unit at the time of publication this would involve a maximum penalty of $165,000, subject to future indexation.
Subject to satisfying the requirement of section 81 of the Regulations, an airport environment officer may issue an infringement notice for this offence as an alternative to pursuing prosecution in a federal court. The maximum penalty that may be imposed under an infringement notice is 10 penalty units for an individual. This complies with the Guide to Framing Commonwealth Offences, which states that the maximum infringement notice penalty for an individual should be 12 penalty units, or 60 penalty units for a body corporate.
Subsection 4B(3) of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth.) provides the Court with sentencing discretion to impose a pecuniary (i.e. financial) penalty against a corporation that has been convicted of an offence that is five times greater than the maximum penalty that could be imposed on a natural person in the same circumstances.
The value of a penalty unit is prescribed by section 4AA of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth.) . The current value of a penalty unit is $330, and it will be indexed on 1 July 2026 and each third 1 July following that day (section 4AA(3)). The latest version of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth.) is available on the Federal Register of Legislation (www.legislation.gov.au).
The imposition of strict liability in this context is justified by the need to ensure the integrity of the regulatory regime, to protect human health, and to implement the environmental protection objectives of the Regulations. As a strict liability offence, this provision acts to compel polluters to keep an environmental site register to monitor and report on pollution.
The strict liability offence is consistent with the guidance in section 2.2.6 of the Guide to Framing Commonwealth Offences. The offence is not punishable by imprisonment and is punishable by a fine of less than 60 penalty units for an individual. Being an offence of strict liability enhances the effectiveness of the regulatory framework by encouraging airport-lessee companies to guard against committing the offence by keeping an updated environmental site register. Effective monitoring and reporting ensure that any changes to pollution or noise levels can be quickly acted on, and the spread of pollution can be prevented, minimising harm to the environment, and avoiding any potential impacts on human health. Additionally, there are legitimate grounds for penalising persons lacking fault—namely, the offence provision applies only to persons who have chosen to engage in regulated activities (by operating on a federally leased airport site), and who are on notice as to the existence of the regulatory scheme. As the offence is one of strict liability, the defence of honest and reasonable mistake of fact is available.
Section 56 has the same intended effect as subregulation 6.02(3) of the 1997 Regulations.

Section 57 – Airport environment officer may require information in environmental site register

An airport environment officer may direct an airport-lessee company in writing to give them any information that is contained in the environmental site register for the airport and specified in the notice.
This is a new section, which has been included in the Regulations to allow an airport environment officer better oversight of the environmental condition and management of the airport.
Failure of an airport-lessee company to comply with the requirements of a notice given to them by the airport environment officer under subsection 57(1) is a strict liability offence against subsection 57(3) of the Regulations and a penalty of 50 penalty units may be applied. Based on the value of a penalty unit at the time of publication this would involve a maximum penalty of $16,500, subject to future indexation.
The number of penalty units specified for this offence against subsection 57(4) of the Regulations is consistent with the Guide to Framing Commonwealth Offences, Infringement Notices and Enforcement Powers (May 2024) (the Guide), which is available at: www.ag.gov.au/legal-system/publications/guide-framing-commonwealth-offences-infringement-notices-and-enforcement-powers. The Guide states that generally offences in regulations should not exceed 50 penalty units for an individual. The number of penalty units is also relatively low for reasons of proportionality with the penalties for offences under Part 6 of the Act. For example, the penalty for the most serious offence of conduct resulting in serious environmental harm under section 131B of the Act is 500 penalty units for an individual. Based on the value of a penalty unit at the time of publication this would involve a maximum penalty of $165,000, subject to future indexation.
Subject to satisfying the requirement of section 81 of the Regulations, an airport environment officer may issue an infringement notice for this offence as an alternative to pursuing prosecution in a federal court. The maximum penalty that may be imposed under an infringement notice is 10 penalty units for an individual. This complies with the Guide, which states that the maximum infringement notice penalty for an individual should be 12 penalty units, or 60 penalty units for a body corporate.
Subsection 4B(3) of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth.) provides the Court with sentencing discretion to impose a pecuniary (i.e. financial) penalty against a corporation that has been convicted of an offence that is five times greater than the maximum penalty that could be imposed on a natural person in the same circumstances.
The value of a penalty unit is prescribed by section 4AA of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth.). The current value of a penalty unit is $330, and it will be indexed on 1 July 2026 and each third 1 July following that day (section 4AA(3)). The latest version of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth.) is available on the Federal Register of Legislation (www.legislation.gov.au).
The imposition of strict liability in this context is justified by the need to ensure the integrity of the regulatory regime, to protect human health, and to implement the environmental protection objectives of the Regulations. As a strict liability offence, this provision acts to compel airport-lessee companies to share information they hold about environmental and human health risks arising from pollution at an airport.
The strict liability offence is consistent with the guidance in section 2.2.6 of the Guide to Framing Commonwealth Offences. The offence is not punishable by imprisonment and is punishable by a fine of less than 60 penalty units for an individual. Being an offence of strict liability enhances the effectiveness of the regulatory framework by encouraging airport-lessee companies to guard against committing the offence by monitoring levels of pollution and noise at airports. Effective monitoring and reporting ensure that any changes to pollution or noise levels can be quickly acted on, and the spread of pollution can be prevented, minimising harm to the environment, and avoiding any potential impacts on human health. Additionally, there are legitimate grounds for penalising persons lacking fault—namely, the offence provision applies only to persons who have chosen to engage in regulated activities (by operating on a federally leased airport site), and who are on notice as to the existence of the regulatory scheme. As the offence is one of strict liability, the defence of honest and reasonable mistake of fact is available.

Section 58 – Airport-lessee company to provide report to Secretary

Under subsection 58(1) an airport-lessee company for an airport must give the Secretary of the department a report that contains information about the company’s environmental management of the airport each financial year, as listed in paragraphs 58(2)(a) to (e) of this section. An alternative reporting period may be determined by the Secretary.
Paragraph 58(3)(a) ensures that the same requirements apply to Sydney West Airport (also known as Western Sydney International (Nancy-Bird Walton) Airport), despite the fact the relevant documents have different statutory names. In effect, the airport plan for Sydney West Airport serves the same function as an environment strategy. The airport plan is a transitional planning instrument for the initial development of the Airport. Once operational, Sydney West Airport is required to have an environment strategy in the master plan it must prepare and have it approved by the Minister under Part 5 of the Act, as do the other airports covered by the Regulations.
The report must be given to the Secretary not later than 120 days after the end of the reporting period for the company, or other reporting period determined by the Secretary. Under a new power, set out in paragraph 58(4)(b), this timeframe may be extended by the Secretary on the written request of the airport-lessee company. This extension may not be more than 180 days after the end of the reporting period. The airport-lessee company need not provide reasons for any request for an extension of time under this provision
Section 58 has the same intended effect as regulation 6.03 of the 1997 Regulations, with some modifications to improve readability.

Section 59 – Additional reporting requirements for airport-lessee companies

When monitoring at an airport discloses that air, water or soil pollution or excessive noise has occurred, or is occurring, then the airport-lessee company must give an airport environment officer a report about the pollution or excessive noise within 14 days after the disclosure. The guidelines for what constitutes excessive noise (as opposed to offensive noise) can be found in Schedule 4 of the Regulations.
The report must contain the information listed in paragraphs (a) to (d) of subsection 59(1), which includes the nature of the pollution or excessive noise, the location, date and time the pollution or noise occurred or is occurring, and the details of any remediation action being taken in relation to the pollution or noise and the possibility it may occur again.
Under subsection 59(2) an airport-lessee company must also give a report to an airport environment officer if monitoring discloses that an operator of an undertaking has failed, or may have failed, to comply with a duty under Part 3 of the Regulations. The report must be given within 14 days of the disclosure and must set out the nature of the non-compliance, the location of the non-compliance, and the details of any action taken, or that will be taken, to remedy the non-compliance. This is a new provision, to fill an identified gap in the monitoring and reporting regime. Prior to this provision, there were circumstances in which airport environment officers were not finding out about breaches of the general duty and duty not to make offensive noise.
Section 59(3) makes it a strict liability offence punishable by a maximum of 50 penalty units for an individual if an airport-lessee company fails to comply with these reporting requirements. Based on the value of a penalty unit at the time of publication this would involve a maximum penalty of $16,500, subject to future indexation.
The number of penalty units specified for this offence against subsection 59(3) of the Regulations is consistent with
the Guide to Framing Commonwealth Offences, Infringement Notices and Enforcement Powers (May 2024) (Guide to Framing Commonwealth Offences), published by the Attorney-General's Department at: www.ag.gov.au/legal-system/publications/guide-framing-commonwealth-offences-infringement-notices-and-enforcement-powers.
The Guide to Framing Commonwealth Offences states that generally offences in regulations should not exceed 50 penalty units for an individual. The number of penalty units is also relatively low for reasons of proportionality with the penalties for offences under Part 6 of the Act. For example, the penalty for the most serious offence of conduct resulting in serious environmental harm under section 131B of the Act is 500 penalty units for an individual. Based on the value of a penalty unit at the time of publication this would involve a maximum penalty of $165,000, subject to future indexation.
Subject to satisfying the requirement of section 81 of the Regulations, an airport environment officer may issue an infringement notice for this offence as an alternative to pursuing prosecution in a federal court. The maximum penalty that may be imposed under an infringement notice is 10 penalty units for an individual. This complies with the Guide to Framing Commonwealth Offences, which states that the maximum infringement notice penalty for an individual should be 12 penalty units, or 60 penalty units for a body corporate.
Subsection 4B(3) of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth.) provides the Court with sentencing discretion to impose a pecuniary (i.e. financial) penalty against a corporation that has been convicted of an offence that is five times greater than the maximum penalty that could be imposed on a natural person in the same circumstances.
The value of a penalty unit is prescribed by section 4AA of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth.). The current value of a penalty unit is $330, and it will be indexed on 1 July 2026 and each third 1 July following that day (section 4AA(3)). The latest version of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth.) is available on the Federal Register of Legislation (www.legislation.gov.au).
The imposition of strict liability in this context is justified by the need to ensure the integrity of the regulatory regime, to protect human health, and to implement the environmental protection objectives of the Regulations. As a strict liability offence, this provision acts to compel airport-lessee companies to monitor and report pollution or offensive noise, so that its risk to the environment and to human health may be managed.
The strict liability offence is consistent with the guidance in section 2.2.6 of the Guide to Framing Commonwealth Offences. The offence is not punishable by imprisonment and is punishable by a fine of less than 60 penalty units for an individual. Being an offence of strict liability enhances the effectiveness of the regulatory framework by encouraging airport-lessee companies to guard against committing the offence by monitoring levels of pollution and noise at airports. Effective monitoring and reporting ensure that any changes to pollution or noise levels can be quickly acted on, and the spread of pollution can be prevented, minimising harm to the environment, and avoiding any potential impacts on human health. Additionally, there are legitimate grounds for penalising persons lacking fault—namely, the offence provision applies only to persons who have chosen to engage in regulated activities (by operating on a federally leased airport site), and who are on notice as to the existence of the regulatory scheme. As the offence is one of strict liability, the defence of honest and reasonable mistake of fact is available.
Section 59 is intended to have the same effect as the regulation 6.04 in the 1997 Regulations.

Section 60 – Requirement for operators of undertakings to report serious environmental incidents

This section requires an operator of an undertaking at an airport to report serious environmental incidents caused by its undertaking to an airport environment officer.
The intent is to ensure an airport environment officer has oversight of the management of any serious environmental incidents at the airport.
The term ‘serious environmental incident’ is defined in subsection 60(2) as an incident which has an environmental effect which is high impact and irreversible (or has the potential to have such effects), or results, or has the potential to result, in substantial harm to public health or public safety, or substantial damage to property.
The definition mirrors that set out in section 131B of the Act. Section 131B of the Act describes what constitutes an offence resulting in serious environmental harm. An environmental incident will be serious:

when the effect is, or has the potential to be, of high impact and irreversible, or
if the pollution results, or has the potential to result, in substantial harm to public health or public safety, or
if the pollution results, or has the potential to result, in substantial damage to property.

The incident must be reported within 48 hours of the incident occurring or after the operator becomes aware of it having occurred. A report may be given orally or in writing. If the report is given orally in the first instance, a written report must still be given within 48 hours of the oral report being given.
If an operator does not comply with these reporting requirements, they commit a strict liability offence against subsection 60(6) of the Regulations, with a maximum penalty of 50 penalty units. Based on the value of a penalty unit at the time of publication this would involve a maximum penalty of $16,500, subject to future indexation.
The number of penalty units specified for this offence against subsection 60(6) of the Regulations is consistent with
the Guide to Framing Commonwealth Offences, Infringement Notices and Enforcement Powers (May 2024) (Guide to Framing Commonwealth Offences), published by the Attorney-General's Department at: www.ag.gov.au/legal-system/publications/guide-framing-commonwealth-offences-infringement-notices-and-enforcement-powers.
The Guide to Framing Commonwealth Offences states that generally offences in regulations should not exceed 50 penalty units for an individual. The number of penalty units is also relatively low for reasons of proportionality with the penalties for offences under Part 6 of the Act. For example, the penalty for the most serious offence of conduct resulting in serious environmental harm under section 131B of the Act is 500 penalty units for an individual. Based on the value of a penalty unit at the time of publication this would involve a maximum penalty of $165,000, subject to future indexation.
Subject to satisfying the requirement of section 81 of the Regulations, an airport environment officer may issue an infringement notice for this offence as an alternative to pursuing prosecution in a federal court. The maximum penalty that may be imposed under an infringement notice is 10 penalty units for an individual. This complies with the Guide to Framing Commonwealth Offences, which states that the maximum infringement notice penalty for an individual should be 12 penalty units, or 60 penalty units for a body corporate.
Subsection 4B(3) of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth.) provides the Court with sentencing discretion to impose a pecuniary (i.e. financial) penalty against a corporation that has been convicted of an offence that is five times greater than the maximum penalty that could be imposed on a natural person in the same circumstances.
The value of a penalty unit is prescribed by section 4AA of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth.). The current value of a penalty unit is $330, and it will be indexed on 1 July 2026 and each third 1 July following that day (section 4AA(3)). The latest version of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth.) is available on the Federal Register of Legislation (www.legislation.gov.au).
The imposition of strict liability in this context is justified by the need to ensure the integrity of the regulatory regime, to protect human health, and to implement the environmental protection objectives of the Regulations. As a strict liability offence, this provision acts to compel operators of undertaking to report serious environmental incidents, to manage and mitigate harm to the environment and to human health.
The strict liability offence is consistent with the guidance in section 2.2.6 of the Guide to Framing Commonwealth Offences. The offence is not punishable by imprisonment and is punishable by a fine of less than 60 penalty units for an individual. Being an offence of strict liability enhances the effectiveness of the regulatory framework by encouraging airport-lessee companies to guard against committing the offence by promptly reporting serious environmental incidents at airports. Effective monitoring and reporting ensure that any changes to pollution or noise levels can be quickly acted on, and the spread of pollution can be prevented, minimising harm to the environment, and avoiding any potential impacts on human health. Additionally, there are legitimate grounds for penalising persons lacking fault—namely, the offence provision applies only to persons who have chosen to engage in regulated activities (by operating on a federally leased airport site), and who are on notice as to the existence of the regulatory scheme. As the offence is one of strict liability, the defence of honest and reasonable mistake of fact is available.

Section 61 – Occupiers to give assistance and access

Section 61 sets out the ways that an occupier of an area at an airport must assist an airport-lessee company to monitor the levels of pollution and noise at an airport.
Subsection 61(5) stipulates that a person who has the right to occupy an area at an airport under a sublease or licence granted by an airport-lessee company or any lease or licence granted under such a sublease or licence, is an occupier for the purposes of this section.
Subsection 61(1) states that the types of assistance an occupier must give an airport-lessee company include establishing systems to monitor the environmental consequences of the occupier’s activities and the activities of other persons, in the area occupied at the airport, and reporting the results of this monitoring to the airport-lessee company.
A Note under subsection 61(1) advises that airport-lessee companies are obliged to monitor pollution and noise levels at an airport in accordance with section 55 of the Regulations.
Under subsection 61(2) an occupier of an area at an airport must also provide the airport-lessee company and the airport environment officer any reasonable access to an area, or to a document in their control, for the purposes of ascertaining whether the relevant systems or other forms of assistance have been put in place. This is a coercive measure.
Coercive powers should ordinarily be included in primary rather than delegated legislation, due to the higher level of Parliamentary scrutiny associated with the legislative process for primary legislation. However, including this coercive power in the Regulations is appropriate in the context of ensuring that a proper process is in place and being followed to investigate, monitor and report on environmental pollution. This is important in order to mitigate any risks to environmental or human health or safety, on federally leased airports.
The powers of airport-lessee companies to request assistance from occupiers of an area at an airport are subject to safeguards included at subsections 61(1) and (2). Specifically, before exercising the power to access premises or request information, an airport-lessee company must provide the occupier of an area at an airport a request in writing, requesting access to an area, or part of an area, or to a document or part of a document, under the control of the occupier. The occupier is obliged to comply with such a request if the assistance requested is reasonable and if it is for the purpose of ensuring effective monitoring of any pollution or noise generated by the occupier’s activities in the area. It is the responsibility of the airport-lessee company to be able to demonstrate that the request for assistance is based on an airport-lessee company’s beliefs on reasonable grounds that the occupier’s environmental system or systems are inappropriate, or that they are not undertaking effective monitoring or if they are, that it is not being reported to the airport-lessee company.
Under subsection 61(2), the access to premises or information being requested by the airport-lessee company must be in writing, and the occupier must give access at a ‘reasonable time’ (typically this would be interpreted as a mutually convenient time for the airport-lessee company and the occupier, during working hours on a weekday). The tenancy agreement between the occupier and the airport-lessee company may also be used to help determine what is a ‘reasonable time’ in the particular circumstances. The access requested by the airport-lessee company to an area or document (or part of a document) must be ‘reasonable.’ Part of this test of reasonableness would include relevance to the topics of pollution or noise management. Tenancy agreements between the airport-lessee company and their tenants at an airport will frequently also specify who is responsible for the costs of rectifying accidental damage caused by inspections or investigation works on tenants’ sites.
The requirement to offer reasonable access to premises and information applies to only a small proportion of the Australian public, namely tenants or licensees of an area at one of the 20 federally leased airports subject to the Regulations.
Because the airport-lessee company is primarily responsible for environmental management at a federally leased airport, they engage with occupiers on environmental management issues, including conducting regular tenant environmental compliance audits. Because of this, the ‘airport-lessee companies are appropriately placed to approach their tenants for information about pollution. This accords with the Guide to Framing Commonwealth Offences, Infringement Notices and Enforcement Powers (May 2024) (Guide to Framing Commonwealth Offences), published by the Attorney-General's Department at: www.ag.gov.au/legal-system/publications/guide-framing-commonwealth-offences-infringement-notices-and-enforcement-powers. This specifies that the person best placed to exercise a coercive measure should undertake it.
A decision of an airport-lessee company to access an occupier’s lease area or information is not subject to merits review. Instead, if an occupier fails to offer reasonable access and assistance, the airport-lessee company may ask an airport environment officer to give a notice of compliance to the occupier. In deciding whether to issue such a notice, the airport environment officer will need to satisfy themselves that the airport-lessee company’s request for assistance met all the requirements of section 61. As a general principle of administrative law, they will also need to fulfil natural justice requirements by affording the occupier an opportunity to explain why they are not complying with the request for assistance. This is effectively an alternative to an internal merits review process.
As recommended by the Scrutiny of Bills Committee and mentioned at section 7.3.3 of the Guide to Framing Commonwealth Offences, Infringement Notices and Enforcement Powers (May 2024) (Guide to Framing Commonwealth Offences), published by the Attorney-General's Department at: www.ag.gov.au/legal-system/publications/guide-framing-commonwealth-offences-infringement-notices-and-enforcement-powers, the department is developing guidelines for regulated entities in relation to its exercise of coercive powers under the Regulations including guidelines in relation to access to premises and information. These will be available on the department’s website (www.infrastructure.gov.au) from no later than 1 April 2027. These guidelines will build on the Regulatory Practice Statement which supports the accountability of airport environment officers for their exercise and oversight of coercive measures.

If the occupier refuses to give access to an area or to documents an airport environment officer may require them to do so under subsection 61(3). If an occupier does not comply with this requirement a penalty of 50 penalty units may be applied. Based on the value of a penalty unit at the time of publication this would involve a maximum penalty of $16,500, subject to future indexation.
The number of penalty units specified for this offence against subsection 61(4) of the Regulations is determined by subsection 133(2) of the Act and is consistent with the Guide to Framing Commonwealth Offences, which suggests that generally offences in regulations should not exceed 50 penalty units for an individual. The number of penalty units is also relatively low for reasons of proportionality with the penalties for offences under Part 6 of the Act. For example, the penalty for the most serious offence of conduct resulting in serious environmental harm under section 131B of the Act is 500 penalty units for an individual. Based on the value of a penalty unit at the time of publication this would involve a maximum penalty of $165,000, subject to future indexation.
Subject to satisfying the requirement of section 81 of the Regulations, an airport environment officer may issue an infringement notice for this offence as an alternative to pursuing prosecution in a federal court. The maximum penalty that may be imposed under an infringement notice is 10 penalty units for an individual. This complies with the Guide to Framing Commonwealth Offences, which states that the maximum infringement notice penalty for an individual should be 12 penalty units, or 60 penalty units for a body corporate.
Subsection 4B(3) of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth.) provides the Court with sentencing discretion to impose a pecuniary (i.e. financial) penalty against a corporation that has been convicted of an offence that is five times greater than the maximum penalty that could be imposed on a natural person in the same circumstances.
The value of a penalty unit is prescribed by section 4AA of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth.). The current value of a penalty unit is $330, and it will be indexed on 1 July 2026 and each third 1 July following that day (section 4AA(3)). The latest version of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth.) is available on the Federal Register of Legislation (www.legislation.gov.au).
This section has a similar intended effect as regulation 6.05 of the 1997 Regulations. Some modifications have been made to improve its operation:

Including a new provision giving the airport environment officer the same access as the airport-lessee company to the occupied area and related documents. This will allow the airport environment officer to more easily monitor compliance with this section.
Changing the previous provision allowing the Secretary to direct an occupier to comply to instead allow the airport environment officer to do this. This power sits more appropriately with a regulatory officer than the Secretary of a department and will allow for a timelier response to non-compliance.

Section 62 – Report of condition of soil and groundwater before expiration, termination or transfer of sublease or licence

Section 62 applies when an area at an airport is subject to a sublease or licence that is due to expire, or is about to be terminated or transferred, and the area has previously, or is likely to have previously, experienced pollution, as provided for under subsection 62(1).
At least 2 months before the sublease or licence ends, the sublessee or licensee must give a written report to an airport environment officer about the condition of the soil (including groundwater) in the relevant area, under subsection 62(2). The definition of soil pollution per section 17 is inclusive of groundwater.
The report must be prepared in accordance with the requirements set out in subsection 62(3). These requirements aim to ensure the report is prepared and, where required, reviewed by suitably qualified persons and that it contains enough detail about the condition of the soil to determine whether further management or remedial actions need to be taken.
Paragraph 62(3)(d) applies a risk-based approach to requiring an assessor to review the report. An assessor need only be engaged if, after consultation with the airport-lessee company, the airport environment officer considers that the site, and the use of the site, are high-risk.
The exercise of discretion by the airport environment officer for to require an assessor under this section is intended to align with the Airport Environment Regulatory Practice Statement, which requires consideration of factors such as environmental risk, complexity, the adequacy of information provided and whether the engagement of an assessor is necessary and proportionate. This provides assurance that assessor requirements would be applied in a targeted and consistent manner, rather than as a default position. The Airport Environment Regulatory Practice Statement is available on the department’s website at www.infrastructure.gov.au/department/media/ publications/airport-environment-regulatory-practice-statement.
It is a requirement that the person preparing the report, and the assessor (if any), have regard to the National Environment Protection (Assessment of Site Contamination) Measure 1999 when preparing, or assessing, the report.
Subsection 62(4) provides that the airport environment officer may accept a report that has previously been prepared about the condition of soil for the relevant area that complies with the requirements of subsection 62(3). This provision recognises that such reports may be in existence from, for example, previous lease changes and there has been no change in pollution risk profile or management.
Failure to give the airport environment officer the required report, is an offence against subsection 62(2) punishable by a maximum of 20 penalty units for an individual. Based on the value of a penalty unit at the time of publication this would involve a maximum penalty of $6,600, subject to future indexation.
The number of penalty units specified for this offence against subsection 62(2) of the Regulations is consistent with the Guide to Framing Commonwealth Offences, Infringement Notices and Enforcement Powers (May 2024) (Guide to Framing Commonwealth Offences), published by the Attorney-General's Department at: www.ag.gov.au/legal-system/publications/guide-framing-commonwealth-offences-infringement-notices-and-enforcement-powers.
The Guide to Framing Commonwealth Offences states that generally offences in regulations should not exceed 50 penalty units for an individual. The number of penalty units is also relatively low for reasons of proportionality with the penalties for offences under Part 6 of the Act. For example, the penalty for the most serious offence of conduct resulting in serious environmental harm under section 131B of the Act is 500 penalty units for an individual. Based on the value of a penalty unit at the time of publication this would involve a maximum penalty of $165,000, subject to future indexation.
Subject to satisfying the requirement of section 81 of the Regulations, an airport environment officer may issue an infringement notice for this offence as an alternative to pursuing prosecution in a federal court. The maximum penalty that may be imposed under an infringement notice is 10 penalty units for an individual. This complies with the Guide to Framing Commonwealth Offences, which states that the maximum infringement notice penalty for an individual should be 12 penalty units, or 60 penalty units for a body corporate.
Subsection 4B(3) of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth.) provides the Court with sentencing discretion to impose a pecuniary (i.e. financial) penalty against a corporation that has been convicted of an offence that is five times greater than the maximum penalty that could be imposed on a natural person in the same circumstances.
The value of a penalty unit is prescribed by section 4AA of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth.). The current value of a penalty unit is $330, and it will be indexed on 1 July 2026 and each third 1 July following that day (section 4AA(3)). The latest version of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth.) is available on the Federal Register of Legislation (www.legislation.gov.au).
This section has a similar intended effect as paragraph 6.07(1)(c) of the 1997 Regulations (within previous Part 6 Division 2). The provision has been repositioned within the Regulations to make it easier for sublessees and licensees to identify their environmental management and reporting obligations under the Regulations.
Subsection 62(3) also includes details about the content of the report to make the expectations in this regard clearer, more consistent with national standards for soil and groundwater investigation and ensure better consistency of reporting across all airports.

Section 63 – Inaccurate or incomplete information to be corrected

If a person has given information to the Secretary, an airport environment officer or an airport-lessee company for the purposes of Division 2 of the Regulations and they realise it is inaccurate or incomplete, they must correct that information. The same applies if the information is provided on their behalf. It would generally be the case that the reasons for late or inaccurate information would be disclosed when providing the information.
A failure to correct the information as soon as it is practicable after they become aware of the error is an offence against subsection 63(2) of the Regulations, punishable by a maximum penalty of 50 penalty units for an individual. Based on the value of a penalty unit at the time of publication this would involve a maximum penalty of $16,500, subject to future indexation.
The number of penalty units specified for this offence against subsection 63(2) of the Regulations is consistent with the Guide to Framing Commonwealth Offences, Infringement Notices and Enforcement Powers (May 2024) (Guide to Framing Commonwealth Offences), published by the Attorney-General's Department at: www.ag.gov.au/legal-system/publications/guide-framing-commonwealth-offences-infringement-notices-and-enforcement-powers.
The Guide to Framing Commonwealth Offences states that generally offences in regulations should not exceed 50 penalty units for an individual. The number of penalty units is also relatively low for reasons of proportionality with the penalties for offences under Part 6 of the Act. For example, the penalty for the most serious offence of conduct resulting in serious environmental harm under section 131B of the Act is 500 penalty units for an individual. Based on the value of a penalty unit at the time of publication this would involve a maximum penalty of $165,000, subject to future indexation.
Subject to satisfying the requirement of section 81 of the Regulations, an airport environment officer may issue an infringement notice for this offence as an alternative to pursuing prosecution in a federal court. The maximum penalty that may be imposed under an infringement notice is 10 penalty units for an individual. This complies with the Guide to Framing Commonwealth Offences, which states that the maximum infringement notice penalty for an individual should be 12 penalty units, or 60 penalty units for a body corporate.
Subsection 4B(3) of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth.) provides the Court with sentencing discretion to impose a pecuniary (i.e. financial) penalty against a corporation that has been convicted of an offence that is five times greater than the maximum penalty that could be imposed on a natural person in the same circumstances.
The value of a penalty unit is prescribed by section 4AA of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth.). The current value of a penalty unit is $330, and it will be indexed on 1 July 2026 and each third 1 July following that day (section 4AA(3)). The latest version of the Crimes Act 1914 Cth.) is available on the Federal Register of Legislation (www.legislation.gov.au).
This section has the same intended effect as section 6.06 of the 1997 Regulations.

Division 3 – Investigations

Subdivision A – Investigation if pollution or offensive noise has occurred or is occurring

Section 64 – Airport environment officer may require investigation if pollution or offensive noise has occurred or is occurring

This section replaces regulations 6.07, 6.08, 6.09, 6.10, 6.11, 6.12 and 6.13 of the 1997 Regulations. It also incorporates the investigative elements contemplated by regulations 6.17 and 6.18 of the 1997 Regulations. It provides scope for investigations to include all types of pollution (not just soil) and offensive noise and allow for flexibility around how these investigations are undertaken depending on the type of pollution or offensive noise. The power to require an investigation is a coercive power.
Under subsections 64(1) and (2), if an airport environment officer reasonably believes pollution or offensive noise has occurred or is occurring in an area at an airport, they may give written notice to a prescribed person, requiring them to investigate. The notice will set out what the person is required to do to investigate the pollution or offensive noise, its cause, and any risks it may pose to human health or the environment.
Subsection 64(6) specifies that a prescribed person is determined through a hierarchy of responsibility for pollution that an airport environment officer must follow when deciding to whom they will issue a notice under subsection 64(2). This approach aligns with the polluter pays principle, by assigning responsibility for remediating pollution to the polluter, where possible.
Subsection 64(3) specifies a number of actions that the person to whom a notice is issued may be required to do. These include requiring the person to appoint an investigator and/or an assessor and set out how the investigation should be conducted. The notice may also require the person to give copies of the reports prepared as part of the investigation to the airport environment officer.
Subsection 64(6) defines the term assessor for the purposes of section 64:

for soil pollution - by reference to state laws for appointing, accrediting or recognising environmental auditors; and
for air pollution, water pollution or offensive noise (or any combination of these) – by reference to professional certification, or other recognition through a professional body or scheme, to undertake environmental assessments, investigations or auditing. Typically, as at April 2026, state Environment Protection Agencies administer schemes for the registration or other certification or recognition of environmental auditors and assessors and publish lists of registered or certified professionals on their websites. For example, the Victorian Environment Protection Agency keeps a public register of environmental auditors, available at www.epa.vic.gov.au/public-registers.

The exercise of discretion by the airport environment officer to require an assessor in this section is intended to align with the Airport Environment Regulatory Practice Statement, which requires consideration of factors such as environmental risk, complexity, the adequacy of information provided and whether the engagement of an assessor is necessary and proportionate. This provides assurance that assessor requirements would be applied in a targeted and consistent manner, rather than as a default position. The Airport Environment Regulatory Practice Statement is available on the department’s website at www.infrastructure.gov.au/department/media/ publications/airport-environment-regulatory-practice-statement.
All the actions that a notice may specify under subsection 64(3) are optional and the airport environment officer may prescribe which of them must be followed in the investigation process. In doing so, the airport environment officer will consider the type of pollution, any relevant standards, guidelines, objectives and investigation levels specified in the Regulations and the objects of the Regulations, including the policy objective of alignment with national standards, including relevant National Environment Protection Measures.
Section 64 provides a framework for investigations that, while it broadly follows the investigation process and elements of the National Environment Protection (Assessment of Site Contamination) Measure 1999 (a legislative instrument made under the National Environment Protection Council Act 1994 (Cth) that is applicable to investigations of groundwater and soil pollution), is flexible enough to be adapted for different types of pollution and offensive noise. The way subsection 64(3) is applied to each instance of pollution is non-prescriptive and allows the regulator to include or exclude elements of the investigation according to their relevance. For example, a notice for the investigation of suspected historical hydrocarbon pollution in soil may closely follow all the requirements of subsection 64(3), whereas in the case of localised and low-level pollution, an airport environment officer may only require limited sampling to be done in the first instance, to determine whether pollution or excessive noise has occurred or is occurring, rather than requiring a detailed site investigation.
Depending on the type of pollution or offensive noise, an airport environment officer may also require an investigation be undertaken in accordance with a national standard such as the National Environment Protection (Assessment of Site Contamination) Measure, to ensure a consistent approach and well-known process is being followed, as opposed to an arbitrary and potentially outdated one set out in the Regulations. It is conceivable that an investigation required by notice under this section could, depending on the findings of that investigation, warrant development of a remediation plan (which the occupier may voluntarily prepare under section 67) or for the airport environment officer to require remediation work by a notice issued under section 71. Such a sequence of events, for example in relation to soil pollution, is consistent with the staged and risk-based process set out in the National Environment Protection (Assessment of Site Contamination) Measure.
As a general proposition, coercive powers should ordinarily be included in primary rather than delegated legislation, due to the higher level of Parliamentary scrutiny associated with the legislative process for primary legislation. However, including coercive powers in the Regulations is appropriate in the context of investigations into pollution on federally leased airports.
The power to issue an investigation into pollution or offensive noise is subject to a number of safeguards. First, before an environment pollution notice may be issued, an airport environment officer must be positively satisfied on reasonable grounds that air, water or soil pollution, or offensive noise, has occurred or is occurring in the area. The operator, by contrast, is assumed to be compliant with its duty under section 20(1) of the Regulations – regardless of whether it is taking measures to prevent or minimise pollution – if it is not generating pollution in exceedance of the investigation levels in Part 1 of Schedule 1, Schedule 2 or Schedule 3, or alternatively, if it is not exceeding limits determined by a local standard or the conditions of an authorisation.
The investigation provisions apply to only a small proportion of the Australian public, being tenants, operators and airport-lessee companies at the 20 airports subject to the Regulations (as of 1 April 2026).
Airport environment officers do not investigate pollution themselves. Instead, they may issue notices under section 64 that require a person to appoint an investigator with the relevant qualifications and experience to assess the pollution, its cause and whether it poses human or environmental health risks. The airport environment officer may also order the investigation report be reviewed by an environmental assessor as described at subsection 64(6). This accords with the requirement in the Guide to Framing Commonwealth Offences, Infringement Notices and Enforcement Powers (May 2024) (Guide to Framing Commonwealth Offences), published by the Attorney-General's Department at: www.ag.gov.au/legal-system/publications/guide-framing-commonwealth-offences-infringement-notices-and-enforcement-powers that powers should be exercised by specified, appropriately qualified persons. While the persons conducting the investigation and assessment of the investigation are non-government employees, this is necessary because of the specialised skills required to conduct investigations of air, soil, and water pollution, or offensive noise, or to review such investigations. While airport environment officers are not necessarily qualified to conduct those investigations themselves, they are qualified environmental scientists or environmental engineers with the expertise to oversee these specialised investigations, which is the role they play.
A particular safeguard for the prescribed person issued with the notice is that they control the investigation process (subject to any specified locations for investigation or timeframes contained in the section 64 notice). Specifically, that person employs the investigator and assessor to conduct the investigation. This means they can maintain control over how the investigation proceeds, including when the investigator and assessor visit their site and what access they have to the site and information held on the premises. There is no ability for the investigator or assessor to insist upon entry to the investigation site or access to any information as part of an investigation under section 64.
While the prescribed person bears the cost of the investigation, this is appropriate where they are responsible for pollution. However, where the prescribed person is an airport-lessee company and they identify another person as being responsible for the pollution, section 134 of the Act provides a mechanism for recovering the airport-lessee company’s remediation costs (including potentially the costs of investigating) from the polluter. Tenancy agreements between the airport-lessee company and their tenants at an airport will frequently also specify who is responsible for the costs of remediating pollution and for rectifying accidental damage caused by investigation and remediation works on tenants’ sites.
As recommended by the Scrutiny of Bills Committee and mentioned at section 7.3.3 of the Guide to Framing Commonwealth Offences, Infringement Notices and Enforcement Powers (May 2024) (Guide to Framing Commonwealth Offences), published by the Attorney-General's Department at: www.ag.gov.au/legal-system/publications/guide-framing-commonwealth-offences-infringement-notices-and-enforcement-powers, the department is developing guidelines for regulated entities in relation to its exercise of coercive powers under the Regulations, including guidelines in relation to investigations. These will be available on the department’s website (www.infrastructure.gov.au) from no later than 1 April 2027. These guidelines will build on the Regulatory Practice Statement which supports the accountability of airport environment officers for their exercise and oversight of coercive measures.
Failure to comply with a notice to investigate is an offense punishable by a maximum of 50 penalty units for an individual. Based on the value of a penalty unit at the time of publication this would involve a maximum penalty of $16,500, subject to future indexation.
The number of penalty units specified for this offence against subsection 64 (5) of the Regulations is consistent with the Guide to Framing Commonwealth Offences. The Guide to Framing Commonwealth Offences states that generally offences in regulations should not exceed 50 penalty units for an individual. The number of penalty units is also relatively low for reasons of proportionality with the penalties for offences under Part 6 of the Act. For example, the penalty for the most serious offence of conduct resulting in serious environmental harm under section 131B of the Act is 500 penalty units for an individual. Based on the value of a penalty unit at the time of publication this would involve a maximum penalty of $165,000, subject to future indexation.
Subject to satisfying the requirement of section 81 of the Regulations, an airport environment officer may issue an infringement notice for this offence as an alternative to pursuing prosecution in a federal court. The maximum penalty that may be imposed under an infringement notice is 10 penalty units for an individual. This complies with the Guide to Framing Commonwealth Offences, which states that the maximum infringement notice penalty for an individual should be 12 penalty units, or 60 penalty units for a body corporate.
Subsection 4B(3) of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth.) provides the Court with sentencing discretion to impose a pecuniary (i.e. financial) penalty against a corporation that has been convicted of an offence that is five times greater than the maximum penalty that could be imposed on a natural person in the same circumstances.
The value of a penalty unit is prescribed by section 4AA of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth.). The current value of a penalty unit is $330, and it will be indexed on 1 July 2026 and each third 1 July following that day (section 4AA(3)). The latest version of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth.) is available on the Federal Register of Legislation (www.legislation.gov.au).

Subdivision B—Assessment Regarding of proposed change of use of an area at an airport

Section 65 – Airport environment officer may require assessment if change of use of an area at an airport is proposed

Subsection 65(1) addresses the situation in which an airport environment officer is satisfied the (land) use of an area at an airport is proposed to be changed, and the airport environment officer also reasonably believes that the change is likely to require greater environmental management measures, because the proposed change will cause a greater risk of harm to environmental or human health.
Under subsection 65(2), the airport environment officer may give a person proposing the change of use a written notice requiring them to arrange for an assessment as to the pollution or offensive noise that is likely to occur if the land use is changed. Unlike an investigation, this is not a coercive power in the way that an investigation might be. Rather, it is better characterised as a regulatory monitoring and compliance mechanism, in the same way that airport-lessee companies are required to investigate and monitor a range of environmental matters at an airport and report these to the airport environment officers.
Subsection 65(3) outlines the activities that an airport environment officer may require a person to undertake pursuant to a notice. These may include, but are not limited to, appointing an appropriately qualified and skilled person to assess the relevant type or types of pollution or offensive noise, ensuring that the assessment is conducted in an appropriate manner and time frame, and ensuring that a written assessment report is provided to the airport environment officer at the completion of the assessment. Subsection 65(5) specifies that the airport environment officer may include additional provisions in the notice that are not listed in subsection 65(3).
Under subsection 65(3), the written assessment report must provide details of any type of pollutant or offending noise, its likely cause, and the likely source. If the person undertaking the assessment believes that pollution or offensive noise is likely to occur, the written assessment must set out the polluting substance or offensive noise and its cause and source, or likely cause and source.
Subsection 65(4) provides that if the airport environment officer is satisfied that an adequate pollution assessment has already been prepared for the same site, they may decide not to require the person to prepare another assessment report. This provision recognises that such assessment reports may be in existence from, for example, documentation that may be required for other purposes such as planning approval processes and assessments under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999.
Failure to comply with a notice is an offence against subsection 65(6) of the Regulations, punishable by 50 penalty units. Based on the value of a penalty unit at the time of publication this would involve a maximum penalty of $16,500, subject to future indexation.
The number of penalty units specified for this offence against subsection 65(6) of the Regulations is consistent with the Guide to Framing Commonwealth Offences, Infringement Notices and Enforcement Powers (May 2024) (Guide to Framing Commonwealth Offences), published by the Attorney-General's Department at: www.ag.gov.au/legal-system/publications/guide-framing-commonwealth-offences-infringement-notices-and-enforcement-powers.
The Guide to Framing Commonwealth Offences states that generally offences in regulations should not exceed 50 penalty units for an individual. The number of penalty units is also relatively low for reasons of proportionality with the penalties for offences under Part 6 of the Act. For example, the penalty for the most serious offence of conduct resulting in serious environmental harm under section 131B of the Act is 500 penalty units for an individual. Based on the value of a penalty unit at the time of publication this would involve a maximum penalty of $165,000, subject to future indexation.
Subject to satisfying the requirement of section 81 of the Regulations, an airport environment officer may issue an infringement notice for this offence as an alternative to pursuing prosecution in a federal court. The maximum penalty that may be imposed under an infringement notice is 10 penalty units for an individual. This complies with the Guide to Framing Commonwealth Offences, which states that the maximum infringement notice penalty for an individual should be 12 penalty units, or 60 penalty units for a body corporate.
Subsection 4B(3) of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth.) provides the Court with sentencing discretion to impose a pecuniary (i.e. financial) penalty against a corporation that has been convicted of an offence that is five times greater than the maximum penalty that could be imposed on a natural person in the same circumstances.
The value of a penalty unit is prescribed by section 4AA of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth.). The current value of a penalty unit is $330, and it will be indexed on 1 July 2026 and each third 1 July following that day (section 4AA(3)). The latest version of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth.) is available on the Federal Register of Legislation (www.legislation.gov.au).
This section is similar to subregulation 6.07(2) of the 1997 Regulations and has been modified to make it a standalone provision that is easier to identify and simpler to interpret.

Subdivision C—Inaccurate or incomplete information to be corrected

Section 66 – Inaccurate or incomplete information to be corrected

If a person who has given information to an airport environment officer in a written investigation report or assessment for the purposes of Division 2 of Part 5 of the Regulations subsequently realises the information provided is inaccurate or incomplete, they must provide the corrected report or assessment to the airport environment officer as soon as practicable. The same applies if the information is provided on their behalf.
Under subsection 66(2) of the Regulations, a failure to correct the information as soon as it is practicable after they become aware of the error, is an offence for which a penalty of 50 penalty units may be applied for an individual. Based on the value of a penalty unit at the time of publication this would involve a maximum penalty of $16,500, subject to future indexation.
The number of penalty units specified for this offence against subsection 66(2) of the Regulations is consistent with the Guide to Framing Commonwealth Offences, Infringement Notices and Enforcement Powers (May 2024) (Guide to Framing Commonwealth Offences), published by the Attorney-General's Department at: www.ag.gov.au/legal-system/publications/guide-framing-commonwealth-offences-infringement-notices-and-enforcement-powers.
The Guide to Framing Commonwealth Offences states that generally offences in regulations should not exceed 50 penalty units for an individual. The number of penalty units is also relatively low for reasons of proportionality with the penalties for offences under Part 6 of the Act. For example, the penalty for the most serious offence of conduct resulting in serious environmental harm under section 131B of the Act is 500 penalty units for an individual. Based on the value of a penalty unit at the time of publication this would involve a maximum penalty of $165,000, subject to future indexation.
Subject to satisfying the requirement of section 81 of the Regulations, an airport environment officer may issue an infringement notice for this offence as an alternative to pursuing prosecution in a federal court. The maximum penalty that may be imposed under an infringement notice is 10 penalty units for an individual. This complies with the Guide to Framing Commonwealth Offences, which states that the maximum infringement notice penalty for an individual should be 12 penalty units, or 60 penalty units for a body corporate.
Subsection 4B(3) of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth.) provides the Court with sentencing discretion to impose a pecuniary (i.e. financial) penalty against a corporation that has been convicted of an offence that is five times greater than the maximum penalty that could be imposed on a natural person in the same circumstances.
The value of a penalty unit is prescribed by section 4AA of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth.). The current value of a penalty unit is $330, and it will be indexed on 1 July 2026 and each third 1 July following that day (section 4AA(3)). The latest version of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth.) is available on the Federal Register of Legislation (www.legislation.gov.au).
This section has the same intended effect as regulation 6.06 in the 1997 Regulations.

Division 4 – Voluntary remediation plans

Section 67—Occupier may voluntarily prepare remediation plan

Section 67 provides that an occupier of an area at an airport may provide an airport environment officer with a written assessment that the occupier has arranged to be prepared in accordance with the provisions of section 64 of the Regulations, including the requirement to use an assessor as specified in paragraph 64(3)(d).
Where the assessor believes that pollution or offensive noise is occurring in the area, the occupier of an area may give the airport environment officer a remediation plan to address that pollution or offensive noise.
Subsection 67(3) specifies the requirements for the remediation plan, chief among which is that it must be developed in consultation with an assessor.
Under subsection 67(4), the airport environment officer has 30 days to consider a remediation plan and either approve it or refuse it – providing the occupier with reasons for the refusal.
Subsection 67(5) defines the terms assessor for the purposes of section 67:

for soil pollution - by reference to state laws for appointing, accrediting or recognising environmental auditors; and
for air pollution, water pollution or offensive noise (or any combination of these) – by reference to professional certification, or other recognition through a professional body or scheme, to undertake environmental assessments, investigations or auditing. Typically, as at April 2026, state environment protection agencies administer schemes for the registration or other certification or recognition of environmental auditors and assessors and publish lists of registered or certified professionals on their websites. For example, the Victorian Environment Protection Agency keeps a public register of environmental auditors, available at www.epa.vic.gov.au/public-registers.

The term occupier of an area at an airport is defined in section 5 as either the airport-lessee company or, if they have sublet or licensed the area to another person, the person having the right to occupy that area under a sublease or license, whether granted by the airport-lessee company or its tenant.

Section 68 – Reporting of remediation plan

This regulation requires an occupier who is implementing an approved remediation plan to:

report to the relevant airport environment officer and airport-lessee company at six monthly intervals; and
report to the airport environment officer and airport-lessee company prior to ceasing occupation of an area.

The section also requires the occupier to prepare a final report to the airport environment officer and airport-lessee company if the objectives of a remediation plan have been achieved, in a written report setting out how the objectives have been achieved. The report must be accompanied by test and monitoring results relevant to the remediation plan.
This section is intended to replace regulation 6.15 of the 1997 Regulations.

Section 69– Airport environment officer must monitor remediation plan

This regulation requires an airport environment officer to monitor the implementation of a remediation plan that any airport environment officer has approved under section 67. It is not necessary for the specific airport environment officer who approved the remediation plan to monitor its implementation - any airport environment officer may undertake the monitoring.
This section replaces regulation 6.16 of the 1997 Regulations.

Division 5 – Remediation work – powers of airport environment officers

Section 70 – Definitions

This section defines remediation work for the purposes of Division 5 of Part 5 of the Regulations.
A wide scope of actions is considered remediation work, including monitoring pollution on a site at the airport and identifying measures to prevent, reduce or control any pollution. Anything that is reasonably incidental to these actions is also considered remediation work, for example, preparing reports about the progress of remediation work and obtaining any relevant development or other approvals. This broad definition aligns with relevant national environmental standards, including the National Environment Protection (Assessment of Site Contamination) Measure.
This section has the same intended effect as regulation 6.17 in the 1997 Regulations.

Section 71 – Power to require remediation work

An airport environment officer may issue a notice to a person requiring them to carry out remediation work in relation to pollution at an airport (‘remediation work notice’) under Part 5, Division 5 of the Regulations, provided that the airport environment officer reasonably believes that somebody has caused, or is causing, pollution in an area at an airport. Under this section, pollution includes offensive noise, as well as pollution of air, water and soil pollution, and a polluter includes a person who causes or generates offensive noise, as well as a person who causes air, water or soil pollution. It is conceivable that a notice may be issued under this section for pollution that was suspected and subsequently investigated in accordance with a notice issued under section 64 however this is not a mandatory prerequisite to issuance of a notice under this section.
The provision is substantively similar to regulation 6.18 of the 1997 Regulations, which provided for the issuance of environment remedial orders.
Section 71 includes a number of mandatory statutory considerations to guide and constrain the exercise of administrative decision making by the airport environment officer. For example, subsection 71(2) specifies a hierarchy of responsibility for pollution that an airport environment officer must follow when deciding to whom they will issue a notice under section 71. This approach aligns with the polluter pays principle, by assigning responsibility for remediating pollution to the polluter, where possible.
Subsection 71(3) provides that where an occupier has already submitted a remediation plan under section 67 and is implementing it according to its terms, then an airport environment officer may not issue a section 71 remediation notice to the occupier for the same area. This section is to be read as assuming that the remediation order submitted by the occupier is approved by the airport environment officer, as required by section 67(5). An airport environment officer may however issue another section 71 remediation notice on the same site for different pollution or if new, different or more extensive pollution is identified.
Conversely, where the airport environment officer refuses to approve a remediation plan under subsection 67(5), then the occupier may not rely on subsection 71(3), and the airport environment officer may issue a remediation notice under subsection 71(2).
A valid remediation notice may specify a period within which the remediation work must be completed. Section 71 of the Regulations is otherwise silent on what must be contained in a remediation notice. The policy intent is for airport environment officers to have broad discretion to adapt each notice to the context of the pollution. However, in accordance with the objects of the Regulations, airport environment officers must be guided by relevant national guidelines for the remediation of pollution and offensive noise and by relevant pollution levels and standards contained in the Schedules. The discretion afforded to airport environment officers in the exercise of their regulatory decision making is appropriate because before appointing persons as airport environment officers, the Secretary must first be satisfied that the person has qualifications and experience suitable to enable the person to properly discharge the functions, powers, duties and responsibilities of an airport environment officer and that they do not hold a stake of more than 5 per cent in an airport-lessee company.
For example, in ordering the remediation of soil and groundwater pollution caused by per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), airport environment officers would have regard to the National Environment Protection (Assessment of Site Contamination) Measure, the PFAS National Environment Management Plan and the CRC Care National Remediation Framework (August 2019). Airport environment officers receive training in and are expected to keep abreast of, and apply, the most relevant and up-to-date national guidelines and standards, together with any relevant investigation levels in the Schedules.
Subsection 71(5) stipulates that an airport environment officer may give a person an environment remediation notice even though the pollution is the subject of a prosecution or other proceeding, or the undertaking that generated the pollution is no longer operational, or the undertaking has ceased causing that type of pollution, or the pollution occurred, or is occurring, because of something done before this instrument commenced on 1 April 2027.
This is a coercive power in so far as it may require a polluter to undertake earthworks on their leased or licensed site at an airport, for example.
The power to require remediation work is subject to a number of safeguards. First, it applies to only a small proportion of the Australian public, as specified in subsection 71(2). A polluter for the purposes of section 71 will almost always be either an airport-lessee company, a tenant or an operator of an undertaking at one of the 20 federally leased airports subject to the Regulations.
Additionally, before an environment pollution notice may be issued, an airport environment officer must be positively satisfied on reasonable grounds that someone is causing pollution in an area at an airport. The suspected polluter, by contrast, is assumed to be compliant with its duty under section 20(1) of the Regulations – regardless of whether it is taking measures to prevent or minimise pollution – if it is not generating pollution in exceedance of the investigation levels in Part 1 of Schedule 1, Schedule 2 or Schedule 3, or alternatively, if it is not exceeding limits determined by a local standard or the conditions of an authorisation.
Having formed a reasonable belief that someone has caused, or is causing, pollution, the airport environment officer must then form a reasonable belief as to whom is the most appropriate person in the circumstances to carry out the required remediation work. The starting point for the airport environment officer’s assessment, is the hierarchy of responsibility for pollution listed at subsection 71(2).
Airport environment officers would not usually implement environmental remediation work themselves. Instead, they would typically issue written notices under section 71(2) that require a polluter to appoint a person with the relevant qualifications and experience to assess the pollution and determine the appropriate steps to stop or minimise the generation of pollution in a manner that addresses the human and environmental health risks. Often this plan is then reviewed by an assessor with specialised qualifications and experience in environmental auditing or assessments. This approach of using the person best qualified to exercise the coercive measure accords with the requirement in the Guide to Framing Commonwealth Offences, Infringement Notices and Enforcement Powers (May 2024) (Guide to Framing Commonwealth Offences), published by the Attorney-General's Department at: www.ag.gov.au/legal-system/publications/guide-framing-commonwealth-offences-infringement-notices-and-enforcement-powers.
While the person assessing the pollution is typically a non-government employee, this is necessary because of the specialised nature of the training required to conduct assessments of pollution, or offensive noise. Although airport environment officers are not necessarily qualified to undertake remediation activities themselves, they are qualified environmental scientists or environmental engineers with the expertise to oversee and evaluate the implementation of environment remediation notices, which is the role they play.
A particular safeguard for the person issued with the notice is that they have some control over the remediation process (subject to any specified locations for testing or monitoring, or timeframes, stipulated in the section 65 notice). Specifically, that person employs the experts who conduct any activities required under the notice. This means the person subject to a notice maintains some control over how the notice is implemented, including who may have access to the site and to information held on the premises. There is no ability for the assessor to insist upon entry to the site or access to any information in the ordinary course of implementing a section 71 remediation notice.
While the person to whom the remediation notice was issued bears the cost of implementing the remediation actions specified in the notice, this is appropriate and accords with the polluter pays principle, provided that they are responsible for the pollution. However, where the person to whom the notice was given is an airport-lessee company and they identify another person as being responsible for the pollution, section 134 of the Act provides a mechanism for recovering the airport-lessee company’s remediation costs (including potentially the costs of conducting an assessment) from the polluter. Tenancy agreements between the airport-lessee company and their tenants at an airport will frequently also help determine who is responsible for the costs of remediating pollution and for rectifying accidental damage caused by remediation works on tenants’ sites.
As recommended by the Scrutiny of Bills Committee and mentioned at section 7.3.3 of the Guide to Framing Commonwealth Offences, Infringement Notices and Enforcement Powers (May 2024) (Guide to Framing Commonwealth Offences), published by the Attorney-General's Department at: www.ag.gov.au/legal-system/publications/guide-framing-commonwealth-offences-infringement-notices-and-enforcement-powers, the department is developing guidelines for regulated entities in relation to its exercise of coercive powers under the Regulations, including guidelines in relation to investigations and remediation work. These will be available on the department’s website (www.infrastructure.gov.au) from no later than 1 April 2027. These guidelines will build on the Regulatory Practice Statement which supports the accountability of airport environment officers for their exercise and oversight of coercive measures.
As a decision of an airport environment officer to issue an environment remediation work notice under subsection 71(2) is likely to affect the interests of a person receiving the notice, it is subject to internal merits review and review by the Administrative Review Tribunal. This is unchanged from the 1997 Regulations.
Making decisions to issue an environment remediation notice subject to merits review may potentially hinder the ability of the airport environment officer to ensure timely compliance with polluters’ environmental duties in the Act. However, given the impact that remediation projects may have on time-sensitive airport development projects, there is a strong public interest in allowing such decisions to be reviewed. The department may be able to address pollution even in the absence of an active remediation notice, for example by using the injunctive powers in Part 15 of the Act, stop work actions under section 103 of the Act and prosecution for offences of environmental harm under sections 131B, 131C or 131D of the Act.
Subsection 71(6) establishes a strict liability offence for failure to comply with a requirement of a remediation notice issued under subsection 71(2), punishable by a maximum of 50 penalty units for an individual. Based on the value of a penalty unit at the time of publication this would involve a maximum penalty of $16,500, subject to future indexation.
The number of penalty units specified for this offence against subsection 71(6) of the Regulations is consistent with the Guide to Framing Commonwealth Offences, which states that generally offences in regulations should not exceed 50 penalty units for an individual. The number of penalty units is also relatively low for reasons of proportionality with the penalties for offences under Part 6 of the Act. For example, the penalty for the most serious offence of conduct resulting in serious environmental harm under section 131B of the Act is 500 penalty units for an individual. Based on the value of a penalty unit at the time of publication this would involve a maximum penalty of $165,000, subject to future indexation.
Subject to satisfying the requirement of section 81 of the Regulations, an airport environment officer may issue an infringement notice for this offence as an alternative to pursuing prosecution in a federal court. The maximum penalty that may be imposed under an infringement notice is 10 penalty units for an individual. This complies with the Guide to Framing Commonwealth Offences, which states that the maximum infringement notice penalty for an individual should be 12 penalty units, or 60 penalty units for a body corporate.
Subsection 4B(3) of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth.) provides the Court with sentencing discretion to impose a pecuniary (i.e. financial) penalty against a corporation that has been convicted of an offence that is five times greater than the maximum penalty that could be imposed on a natural person in the same circumstances.
The value of a penalty unit is prescribed by section 4AA of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth.). The current value of a penalty unit is $330, and it will be indexed on 1 July 2026 and each third 1 July following that day (section 4AA(3)). The latest version of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth.) is available on the Federal Register of Legislation (www.legislation.gov.au).
The imposition of strict liability in this context is justified by the need to ensure the integrity of the regulatory regime, to protect human health, and to implement the environmental protection objectives of the Regulations. As a strict liability offence, this provision acts to compel polluters to undertake remediation work to rectify pollution, to manage or prevent harm to the environment and to human health.
The strict liability offence is consistent with the guidance in section 2.2.6 of the Guide to Framing Commonwealth Offences. The offence is not punishable by imprisonment and is punishable by a fine of less than 60 penalty units for an individual. Being an offence of strict liability enhances the effectiveness of the regulatory framework by encouraging airport-lessee companies to guard against committing the offence by monitoring and proactively remediating pollution and noise at airports. Effective monitoring and reporting ensure that any changes to pollution or noise levels can be quickly acted on, and the spread of pollution can be prevented, minimising harm to the environment, and avoiding any potential impacts on human health. Additionally, there are legitimate grounds for penalising persons lacking fault—namely, the offence provision applies only to persons who have chosen to engage in regulated activities (by operating on a federally leased airport site), and who are on notice as to the existence of the regulatory scheme. As the offence is one of strict liability, the defence of honest and reasonable mistake of fact is available.
This section has the same intended effect as regulation 6.18 of the 1997 Regulations. The form of the provision has been changed to be a ‘notice’ instead of an environment remedial order. The reason for change in terminology is because ‘orders’ are typically issued by a court rather than by a regulatory officer. As airport environment officers exercise administrative, not judicial, powers, the term ‘notice’ is more appropriate than ‘order’.
Section 135 of the Act provides that the Commonwealth can recover expenses for environmental remediation in instances where a person has breached applicable environmental standards at an airport covered by the Regulations. In instances where there is a finding of liability for pollution, then amounts payable to the Commonwealth may be recovered in court under subsection 135(2) of the Act.

Section 72 – Power to enter and carry out remediation work

If remediation work is not being completed in accordance with a notice given under subsection 71(2), or because of urgency or in the interests of public health or safety, an airport environment officer may, at any reasonable time, enter an area at an airport and carry out the necessary remediation work. Entering the premises of an airport-lessee company or its tenant is a coercive measure.
As a general proposition, coercive powers should ordinarily be included in primary rather than delegated legislation, due to the higher level of Parliamentary scrutiny associated with the legislative process for primary legislation. However, including this coercive power in the Regulations is appropriate in the context of entering premises to remediate pollution in urgent situations of public health or safety, on federally leased airports. The remediation provision applies to only a small proportion of the Australian public. A person issued with a notice under section 71 will almost always be either an airport-lessee company, a tenant or an operator of an undertaking at one of the 20 airports subject to the Regulations (as of 1 April 2026).
Mandatory statutory considerations to guide and constrain the exercise of administrative decision making by the airport environment officer are included in section 72. Specifically, an airport environment officer must be positively satisfied on reasonable grounds that a person who was given a remediation notice under subsection 71(2) has not carried out the work specified in the notice to the reasonable satisfaction of the airport environment officer and within the specified time (if any).
Second, the airport environment officer must form a positive belief on reasonable grounds that because of circumstances of urgency or in the interests of public health or safety, it is necessary to enter the area and carry out the remediation work. In these circumstances, due to the risk of harm to environment or human health or safety, or to property, there is no requirement to afford the person to whom a notice is being given procedural fairness.
Before appointing persons as airport environment officers, the Secretary must first be satisfied that the person has qualifications and experience suitable to enable the person to properly discharge the functions, powers, duties and responsibilities of an airport environment officer, among other requirements. While airport environment officers are well-qualified to advise on steps required to remediate pollution or excessive noise, they are not pollution remediation practitioners. For this reason, subsection 72(2) provides that an airport environment officer may engage an appropriately qualified, skilled and experienced person to carry out the necessary environmental remediation work on the airport environment officer’s behalf. For that purpose, the person may enter the area and carry out necessary remediation work at any reasonable time. A reasonable time usually means during working hours, but depending on the urgency of the remediation works, this may need to occur after usual business hours.
Examples of common types of environmental remediation work include environmental management functions, such as assessing and investigating pollution and advising on remedial options, which are typically the work of airport environment officers and other environmental scientists or engineers. Additionally, remediation may involve specialised trade skills and qualifications, such as (but not limited to) emptying and cleaning storage tanks, repairing plumbing and electrical infrastructure, removing, transporting and disposing of contaminated soil, water or waste, taking water, soil and air samples for the purpose of testing them for pollution, designing and implementing engineering and construction solutions, and undertaking earth and building works, including operating heavy machinery. These diverse technical activities fall outside of the expertise of an environmental scientist, and, for that reason, an airport environment officer may need to engage technical and specialist experts to conduct remediation works under the oversight of the airport environment officer.
The person to whom the subsection 71(2) notice was issued bears the cost of implementing the remediation works specified in the notice, this is appropriate and accords with the polluter pays principle, provided that they are responsible for the pollution. However, where Commonwealth incurs remediation costs under subsection 72(1), then section 135 of the Act provides a mechanism for recovering the Commonwealth’s remediation costs from the polluter.
As recommended by the Scrutiny of Bills Committee and mentioned at section 7.3.3 of the Guide to Framing Commonwealth Offences, Infringement Notices and Enforcement Powers (May 2024) (Guide to Framing Commonwealth Offences), published by the Attorney-General's Department at: www.ag.gov.au/legal-system/publications/guide-framing-commonwealth-offences-infringement-notices-and-enforcement-powers, the department is developing guidelines for regulated entities in relation to its exercise of coercive powers under the Regulations, including guidelines in relation to powers of entry. These will be available on the department’s website (www.infrastructure.gov.au) from no later than 1 April 2027. These guidelines will build on the Regulatory Practice Statement which supports the accountability of airport environment officers for their exercise and oversight of coercive measures.

Part 6 – Enforcement

Part 6 of the Regulations identifies and details the primary method for enforcing the Regulations – through the issuance of an environment protection notice, formerly referred to as an environment protection order in the 1997 Regulations. An airport environment officer may issue an environment protection notice where they consider that there has been a breach of one or more of the general duties. Environment protection notices generally direct operators of undertakings to do, or not to do specified things to comply with their duties. Failure to comply with an environment protection notice is an offence against subsection 132(1) of the Act.
This Part of the Regulations sets out three types of environment protection notices that can be issued by an airport environment officer:

Notice to prevent or minimise pollution (section 74)
Notice to preserve certain biota, habitats, sites and species, etc. (section 75)
Notice to prevent or minimise offensive noise (section 76)

Part 6 of the Regulations also provides for general offences which are not linked to the Part 3 general duties but are intended to deal with intentional or reckless polluters who cause environmental nuisance or material or serious environmental harm.

Section 73 – Purpose

This section specifies the relevant source of legal authority (head of power) in the Act for the making of this part of the Regulations.
Section 73 identifies this Part as being made for the purposes of subsection 252(b) of the Act, which provides that the Governor-General may make regulations prescribing matters necessary or convenient for carrying out or giving effect to this Act. The exception to reliance on subsection 252(b) is where a provision under Part 7 of the Regulations specifies that it is made for the purpose of subsection 132(1) of the Act, which includes imposing requirements that are to be complied with in relation to the prevention or minimisation of pollution or noise generated at airport sites. These include the offence provisions in Part 6.

Section 74– Notice to prevent or minimise pollution

Under section 74 of the Regulations, an airport environment officer may give written notice to an operator of an undertaking at an airport requiring them to comply with their general duty to prevent pollution under subsection 20(1) of the Regulations. The power to order a person to stop an activity causing pollution is a coercive power.
Mandatory statutory considerations to guide and constrain the exercise of administrative decision making by the airport environment officer are included at subsection 74(2). Specifically, before giving an environment protection notice, an airport environment officer must be satisfied on reasonable grounds that the operator of the undertaking is not taking all reasonable and practicable measures to prevent or minimise the generation of pollution. The environment protection notice must specify actions that the operator must take to prevent or minimise pollution.
Except in the case of an emergency notice or serious environmental incident, the airport environment officer must afford the operator procedural fairness by giving them 48 hours to make a submission in response to the proposed notice and must take into account the operator’s submission in deciding whether to issue an environment protection notice for pollution.
Under subsection 74(3) an airport environment officer may give an emergency notice if they are satisfied on reasonable grounds that the effect of the pollution is, or has the potential to be, high impact and irreversible, or if the pollution is causing or has the potential to cause substantial harm to public health or safety, or substantial damage to property.
Additionally, under subsection 74(4), the airport environment officer may issue an emergency environment protection notice where they are given a report about a serious environmental incident at an airport and believes on reasonable grounds that issuing an emergency environment protection notice under subsection 74(1) is necessary to deal with the serious incident.
The power to issue a pollution prevention notice is subject to a number of safeguards. First, before an environment pollution notice may be issued, an airport environment officer must be positively satisfied on reasonable grounds that the operator of an undertaking is not taking all reasonable and practicable measures to prevent, or minimise, the generation of pollution. The operator, by contrast, is assumed to be compliant with its duty under section 20(1) of the Regulations – regardless of whether it is taking measures to prevent or minimise pollution – if it is not generating pollution in exceedance of the investigation levels in Part 1 of Schedule 1, Schedule 2 or Schedule 3, or alternatively, if it is not exceeding limits determined by a local standard or the conditions of an authorisation.
If the airport environment officer believes on reasonable grounds that an operator is not complying with its duty to minimise or prevent generation of pollution under section 20(1) of the Regulations, then the airport environment officer still needs to afford the operator procedural fairness by giving them 48 hours to respond to a proposed notice (except in limited circumstances of an emergency or a serious environmental incident). The airport environment officer is also obliged to consider the operator’s response in deciding whether to issue the notice.
Airport environment officers would not usually implement pollution prevention measures themselves. Instead, they would typically issue notices under section 74 that require a person to appoint a person with the relevant qualifications and experience to assess the pollution and determine the appropriate steps to stop or minimise the generation of pollution in a manner that addresses the human and environmental health risks.
The airport environment officer may issue an emergency notice in accordance with subsection 74(3) of the Regulations in cases where the pollution will have potentially high impact and irreversible consequences or has the potential to cause substantial harm to public health or safety, or substantial harm to properly. The airport environment officer may also issue an emergency environment protection notice in response to receiving a report about a serious environmental incident under subsection 60(3). In these circumstances, due to the high risk of harm to environmental or human health or safety, or to property, there is no requirement to afford the person to whom a notice is being given procedural fairness in accordance with 74(2)(b).
While the person to whom the notice was issued bears the cost of implementing the actions specified in the notice, this is appropriate and accords with the polluter pays principle, provided that they are responsible for the pollution. However, where the person to whom the notice was given is an airport-lessee company and they identify another person as being responsible for the pollution, section 134 of the Act provides a mechanism for recovering the airport-lessee company’s remediation costs (including potentially the costs of conducting an assessment) from the polluter. Tenancy agreements between the airport-lessee company and their tenants at an airport will frequently also specify who is responsible for the costs of remediating pollution and for rectifying accidental damage caused by investigation and remediation works on tenants’ sites.
As recommended by the Scrutiny of Bills Committee and mentioned at section 7.3.3 of the Guide to Framing Commonwealth Offences, Infringement Notices and Enforcement Powers (May 2024) (Guide to Framing Commonwealth Offences), published by the Attorney-General's Department at: www.ag.gov.au/legal-system/publications/guide-framing-commonwealth-offences-infringement-notices-and-enforcement-powers, the department is developing guidelines for regulated entities in relation to its exercise of coercive powers under the Regulations, including guidelines in relation to its implementation of environment protection notices. These will be available on the department’s website (www.infrastructure.gov.au) from no later than 1 April 2027. These guidelines will build on the Regulatory Practice Statement which supports the accountability of airport environment officers for their exercise and oversight of coercive measures.
As a decision of an airport environment officer to issue an environment protection notice under subsection 74(1) is likely to affect the interests of a person receiving the notice, it is subject to internal merits review and review by the Administrative Review Tribunal. This is unchanged from the 1997 Regulations.
This section has the same intended effect as regulation 7.01 in the 1997 Regulations with some modifications to improve its operation, including:

Modernising the form of the provision to be a ‘notice’ instead of an environment protection order. It is more usual for a court to issue ‘orders’ than it is for a regulatory officer, as they exercise administrative not judicial powers.
Specifying when an emergency notice may be given. Previously an airport environment officer could declare that an environment protection order was an emergency environment protection order but there were no parameters around what this meant.
Linking to the new provisions for reporting a serious environmental incident under subsection 60(2), to allow an airport environment officer to respond if appropriate action to manage the pollution is not being taken.
Removing the option for a submission to be given to an officer authorised for the purpose of this regulation (instead of just an airport environment officer), under paragraph 7.01(2)(b) of the 1997 Regulations, to remove any potential for confusion about who the submission should be given to. Because section 74 more precisely describes when an environment protection notice may be made and when an emergency environment protection notice may be made, it makes it possible for this power to be devolved to the airport environment officers, rather than the Secretary. This is more appropriate given the airport environment officers are appointed to their roles because of their technical environmental science knowledge and experience.

Section 75 – Notice to preserve certain biota, habitats, sites and species, etc

Under section 75, an airport environment officer may give written notice to an operator of an undertaking at an airport requiring them to comply with the general duty to preserve certain biota, habitats, sites and species, etc. under subsection 23(1). This is a coercive power available to an airport environment officer.
This is a type of environment protection notice, and it has a similar intent and purpose to the environment protection order for breach of the general duty not to preserve in regulation 7.02 of the 1997 Regulations.
Subsection 75(2) lists mandatory statutory considerations to guide and constrain the exercise of administrative decision making by the airport environment officer. Specifically, before giving an environment protection notice, an airport environment officer must be positively satisfied on reasonable grounds that the operator of the undertaking is not taking all reasonable and practicable measures to avoid or minimise a particular adverse consequence described in subsection 23(1). The written environment protection notice must specify actions that the operator must take to prevent or minimise the adverse consequence(s).
Under subsection 75(2), except in the case of an emergency notice or serious environmental incident, the airport environment officer must afford the operator procedural fairness by giving the operator 48 hours to make a submission in response to the proposed notice and must take into account the operator’s submission in deciding whether to issue an environment protection notice for preservation of certain biota, habitats, sites and species, etc.
Under subsection 75(3) an airport environment officer may give an emergency notice if they are satisfied on reasonable grounds that the adverse consequence is, or has the potential to be, high impact and irreversible. An example of such a situation would be if an area of habitat for threatened fauna were about to be cleared. Alternatively, if a heritage site were about to be demolished.
Additionally, under subsection 75(4) an airport environment officer may issue an emergency environment protection notice where they are given a report about a serious environmental incident at an airport and believes on reasonable grounds that issuing an emergency environment protection notice under subsection75(1) is necessary to deal with the serious incident.
The power to issue an environment preservation notice is subject to a number of safeguards. First, before a notice may be issued, an airport environment officer must be positively satisfied on reasonable grounds that the operator of an undertaking is not taking all reasonable and practicable measures to avoid adverse consequences for any items listed in subsection 23(1), such as biota or habitats of native species; or sites of heritage value; or listed threatened species or a listed threatened ecological; community within the meaning of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth).
If the airport environment officer believes on reasonable grounds that an operator is not complying with its duty to preserve certain biota, habitats, sites and species, etc. under subsection 23(1) of the Regulations, then the airport environment officer still needs to afford the operator procedural fairness by giving them 48 hours to respond to a proposed notice (except in limited circumstances of an emergency or a serious environmental incident). The airport environment officer is also obliged to consider the operator’s response in deciding whether to issue the notice.
Airport environment officers would not always implement environment preservation measures themselves. Instead, they would typically issue notices under section 75 that require a person to appoint a person with the relevant qualifications and experience to assess the potential adverse impact and determine the appropriate steps to prevent it from occurring.
The airport environment officer may issue an emergency notice in accordance with subsection 75(3) of the Regulations in cases where they are satisfied on reasonable grounds that the adverse consequence is, or may potentially be, high impact and irreversible. The airport environment officer may also issue an emergency environment protection notice in response to receiving a report about a serious environmental incident under subsection 60(3). In these circumstances, due to the high risk of harm to the environmental or heritage, it is appropriate to waive the usual requirement to afford the person being given a notice procedural fairness in accordance with 75(2)(b).
While the person to whom the preservation notice was issued bears the cost of implementing the actions specified in the notice, this is appropriate and accords with the polluter pays principle, provided that they are responsible for the adverse impacts. However, where the person to whom the notice was given is an airport-lessee company and they identify another person as being responsible for the pollution, section 134 of the Act provides a mechanism for recovering the airport-lessee company’s costs from the person responsible for the adverse environmental or heritage impacts. Tenancy agreements between the airport-lessee company and their tenants at an airport will frequently also specify who is responsible for the costs of preserving environment or heritage values and for rectifying accidental damage caused by works on tenants’ sites.
As recommended by the Scrutiny of Bills Committee and mentioned at section 7.3.3 of the Guide to Framing Commonwealth Offences, Infringement Notices and Enforcement Powers (May 2024) (Guide to Framing Commonwealth Offences), published by the Attorney-General's Department at: www.ag.gov.au/legal-system/publications/guide-framing-commonwealth-offences-infringement-notices-and-enforcement-powers, the department is developing guidelines for regulated entities in relation to its exercise of coercive powers under the Regulations, including guidelines in relation to its implementation of environment protection notices. These will be available on the department’s website (www.infrastructure.gov.au) from no later than 1 April 2027. These guidelines will build on the Regulatory Practice Statement which supports the accountability of airport environment officers for their exercise and oversight of coercive measures.
As a decision of an airport environment officer to issue a preservation notice under subsection 75(1) is likely to affect the interests of a person receiving the notice, it is subject to internal merits review and review by the Administrative Review Tribunal. This is unchanged from the 1997 Regulations.
This section has the same intended effect as regulation 7.02 in the 1997 Regulations with some modifications to improve its operation:

Modernising the form of the provision to be a ‘notice’ instead of an environment protection order—It is more usual for a court to issue ‘orders’ than it is for a regulatory officer, as they exercise administrative not judicial powers.
Specifying when an emergency notice may be given—Previously the Secretary could declare that an environment protection order was an emergency environment protection pursuant to subregulation 7.02(3) of the 1997 Regulations, but there were no parameters around what emergency meant in this context.
Linking to the new provisions for reporting a serious environmental incident under subsection 60(2), to allow an airport environment officer to respond if appropriate action to avoid or manage the adverse consequence is not being taken.
Removing the option for a submission to be given to the Secretary or an officer authorised for the purpose of this regulation, at paragraph 7.02(2)(b) of the 1997 Regulations to remove any potential for confusion about who the submission should be given to.
Removing any role for the Secretary in making an environment protection notice under section 75, instead giving the airport environment officer the sole decision-making power—Because section 75 more precisely describes when an environment protection notice may be made and when an emergency environment protection notice may be made, it makes it possible for this power to be devolved to airport environment officers, rather than the Secretary. This is more appropriate given airport environment officers are appointed to their roles because of their technical environmental science knowledge and experience.

Section 76 – Notice to prevent or minimise offensive noise

Under subsection 76(1), an airport environment officer may give written notice to an operator of an undertaking at an airport requiring them to comply with the general duty to prevent offensive noise set out in subsection 25(1) by taking action as specified in the notice to prevent or minimise the generation of offensive noise. This is a coercive power available to an airport environment officer.
This type of environment protection notice replaces the environment protection order for breach of the general duty to prevent offensive noise occurring, contained in former regulation 7.03 of the 1997 Regulations.
Subsection 76(2) lists mandatory statutory considerations to guide and constrain the exercise of administrative decision making by the airport environment officer. Specifically, before giving a notice, an airport environment officer must be positively satisfied on reasonable grounds that the operator of the undertaking is not taking all reasonable and practicable measures to prevent or minimise the generation of the offensive noise.
Except in the case of an emergency notice, the airport environment officer must afford an operator procedural fairness by giving them 48 hours to make a submission in response to the proposed notice. The airport environment officer must take into account that submission in deciding whether to issue an environment protection notice.
Under subsection 76(3), an airport environment officer may make an emergency environment protection notice if the offensive noise is having or has the potential to have a high impact on a commercial receptor or a sensitive receptor.
The power to issue an environment protection notice is subject to a number of safeguards. First, before an offensive noise notice may be issued, an airport environment officer must be positively satisfied on reasonable grounds that the operator of an undertaking is not taking all reasonable and practicable measures (see subsection 25(3) for further detail about what constitutes reasonable and practicable measures) to prevent, or minimise, the generation of offensive noise. The operator, by contrast, is assumed to be compliant with its duty under section 25 of the Regulations – regardless of whether it is taking measures to prevent or minimise offensive noise - if it is not generating noise that would be regarded as excessive under the guidelines in Schedule 4 of the Regulations, or alternatively, if it is not exceeding limits determined by a local standard or the conditions of an authorisation.
If the airport environment officer believes on reasonable grounds that an operator is not complying with its duty to minimise or prevent offensive noise under section 25 of the Regulations, then the airport environment officer still needs to afford the operator procedural fairness by giving them 48 hours to respond to a proposed notice (except in limited circumstances of an emergency or a serious environmental incident). The airport environment officer is also obliged to consider the operator’s response in deciding whether to issue the notice. This requirement to afford the operator procedural fairness does not apply if the airport environment officer is satisfied on reasonable grounds that the offensive noise has the potential to have a high impact on a commercial receptor or sensitive receptor, in which case the airport environment officer may declare the notice to be an emergency notice under subsection 76(1).
Airport environment officers would not usually implement measures to prevent or minimise offensive noise themselves. Instead, they would typically issue notices under this section that require a person to appoint a person with the relevant qualifications and experience to assess the noise and determine the appropriate steps to prevent or minimise the generation of the offensive noise.
While the person to whom the notice was issued bears the cost of implementing the noise prevention actions specified in the notice, this is appropriate and accords with the polluter pays principle, provided that they are responsible for the offensive noise. However, where the person to whom the notice was given is an airport-lessee company and they identify another person as being responsible for the offensive noise, section 134 of the Act provides a mechanism for recovering the airport-lessee company’s noise minimisation costs. Tenancy agreements between the airport-lessee company and their tenants at an airport will frequently also specify who is responsible for the costs of addressing noise minimisation .
As recommended by the Scrutiny of Bills Committee and mentioned at section 7.3.3 of the Guide to Framing Commonwealth Offences, Infringement Notices and Enforcement Powers (May 2024) (Guide to Framing Commonwealth Offences), published by the Attorney-General's Department at: www.ag.gov.au/legal-system/publications/guide-framing-commonwealth-offences-infringement-notices-and-enforcement-powers, the department is developing guidelines for regulated entities in relation to its exercise of coercive powers under the Regulations, including guidelines in relation to its implementation of environment protection notices. These will be available on the department’s website (www.infrastructure.gov.au) from no later than 1 April 2027. These guidelines will build on the Regulatory Practice Statement which supports the accountability of airport environment officers for their exercise and oversight of coercive measures.
As a decision of an airport environment officer to issue a noise prevention or minimisation notice under subsection 76(1) is likely to affect the interests of a person receiving the notice, it is subject to internal merits review and review by the Administrative Review Tribunal. This is unchanged from the 1997 Regulations.
This section has the same intended effect as regulation 7.03 of the 1997 Regulations, with some modifications to improve its operation:

Modernising the form of the provision to be a ‘notice’ instead of an environment protection order. It is more usual for a court to issue ‘orders’ than it is for a regulatory officer, as they exercise administrative not judicial powers.
Specifying when an emergency notice may be given. Previously the Secretary could declare that an environment protection order was an emergency environment protection order but there were no parameters around what this meant.
Removing the option for a submission to be given to the Secretary or an officer authorised for the purpose of this Regulation, to remove any potential for confusion about who the submission should be given to by specifying that this must be the airport environment officer.
Section 76 removes any role for the Secretary in making an environment protection notice, instead giving the airport environment officer the sole decision-making power. Because section 76 more precisely describes when an environment protection notice may be made and when an emergency environment protection notice may be made, it makes it possible for this power to be devolved to the airport environment officers, rather than the Secretary. This is more appropriate given the airport environment officers are appointed to their roles because of their technical environmental science knowledge and experience.

Section 77 – Notices must not conflict with authorisation

This section provides that an airport environment officer must not give a notice in relation to the prevention or minimisation of pollution or offensive noise that is inconsistent with a current authorisation. In effect, an authorisation may allow for the investigation levels for substances relevant to air, water or soil pollution, or the guidelines for excessive noise to be exceeded, or for a particular duty to otherwise not be met. Therefore, a notice requiring compliance with the duties that conflicts with that authorisation cannot be made.
This section has the same intended effect as regulation 7.04 of the 1997 Regulations.

Section 78 – Compliance with notices

This section is made for the purposes of subsection 132(1) of the Act.
This section provides that a person (who is an operator of an undertaking at an airport) who is given an environment protection notice under this Part (specifically notices issued under s.74, 75 and 76, such as a notice to prevent or minimise pollution under section 74) must comply with it and comply within the time specified (if any).
Failure to comply with an environment protection notice is an offence punishable by a penalty of a maximum of 250 penalty units for an individual. Based on the value of a penalty unit at the time of publication (April 2026), this would involve a maximum penalty of $82,500, subject to future indexation.
Section 132(1) of the Act expressly permits the Regulations to impose penalties for an offence of up to 250 penalty units—reflecting the seriousness with which Parliament regards potential offences against this provision.
The penalties are appropriate to the relevant offence of failure to comply with the requirements of various environment protection notices (under sections 74, 75, 76) within the specified time] for several reasons. Firstly, the offence of failure to comply with an environment protection notice is the mechanism by which compliance with the general duties of environmental protection in Part 3 of the Regulations are to be enforced. Therefore, this offence is arguably the most critical offence in the Regulations, because compliance with the general environmental duties in Part 3 is fundamental to environment protection and meeting the objects of the Regulations. For this reason, it is intended that breaches of this provision will attract greater penalties than most other offences under the Regulations (with the exception of section 79, relating to breach of conditions of an authorisation).
Secondly, it is broadly consistent with government drafting guidance that it is appropriate to impose a criminal liability for a breach of environment protection requirements. As the Guide to Framing Commonwealth Offences, Infringement Notices and Enforcement Powers (May 2024) (Guide to Framing Commonwealth Offences), published by the Attorney-General's Department at: www.ag.gov.au/legal-system/publications/guide-framing-commonwealth-offences-infringement-notices-and-enforcement-powers, states, it is appropriate that ‘criminal offences should be used where the relevant conduct involves, or has the potential to cause, considerable harm to society or individuals, [or] the environment...’ (p.16).
Thirdly, the imposition of stronger penalties of greater magnitude in the Regulations is important in this specific regulatory context to communicate a message of general deterrence, to discourage potential offenders from offending (or: to discourage others from committing offences of the same or a similar nature to the specific offence that is penalised).
It is necessary and appropriate to include penalties of this magnitude in delegated legislation, namely the Regulations, rather than in the Act, because its inclusion is integral to the operation of the regulatory regime created by the regulations and administered by airport environment officers. Without inclusion of an offence of failing to comply with an environment protection notice issued by an airport environment officer, there would be insufficient provision to encourage compliance by the regulated community on airports with such a direction in a variety of circumstances.
Section 132(2A) of the Act applies strict liability only to the element of the offence that ’the offence was made for the purpose of subsection 132(1) of the Act.’ Although it is the Act, rather than the Regulations, that applies strict liability to this element, it is worth noting that applying strict liability to this element is consistent with the principles in the Guide to Framing Commonwealth Offences, Infringement Notices and Enforcement Powers (May 2024) (Guide to Framing Commonwealth Offences), published by the Attorney-General's Department at: www.ag.gov.au/legal-system/publications/guide-framing-commonwealth-offences-infringement-notices-and-enforcement-powers. This is because strict liability for this element ensures the integrity of the regulatory regime. A defendant’s state of mind as to whether an offence is made for the purpose of s 132(1) of the Act has no bearing on the defendant’s culpability. Permitting a defendant to escape liability for the offence on such a ground would amount to a loophole and undermine the efficacy of the offence provision.
Subject to satisfying the requirement of section 81 of the Regulations, an airport environment officer may issue an infringement notice for this offence as an alternative to pursuing prosecution in a federal court. The infringement notice would apply a penalty of 50 units for an individual and 250 penalty units for a body corporate. This does not comply with the Guide to Framing Commonwealth Offences, which specifies that the maximum penalty that may be imposed under an infringement notice is 10 penalty units for an individual or 60 penalty units for a body corporate. Further discussion of the policy rationale for including this offence in the infringement notice scheme is contained at section 82.
Subsection 4B(3) of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) provides the Court with sentencing discretion to impose a pecuniary (i.e. financial) penalty against a corporation that has been convicted of an offence that is five times greater than the maximum penalty that could be imposed on a natural person in the same circumstances.
The value of a penalty unit is prescribed by section 4AA of the Crimes Act 1914 ((Cth). The current value of a penalty unit is $330, and it will be indexed on 1 July 2026 and each third 1 July following that day (section 4AA(3)). The latest version of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth.) is available on the Federal Register of Legislation (www.legislation.gov.au).
Further, an environment protection notice is capable of being enforced by injunction in the Federal Court under Part 15 of the Act.
This section has the same intended effect as regulation 7.05 of the 1997 Regulations.

Section 79 – Compliance with conditions of authorisations

This section enables an airport environment officer to issue a notice to the holder of an authorisation issued under Part 4 to requiring them either to comply with a condition of that authorisation or to take specified action to minimise the generation of pollution or offensive noise, as the case may be.
The power to issue a section 79 notice by an airport environment officer is subject to a number of safeguards. First, the airport environment officer must believe on reasonable grounds that the authorisation holder is not complying with a condition of the authorisation. Second, the notice must be issued by an airport environment officer that has been appointed as an authorised officer by the Secretary, as specified in subsection 93(2). Before appointing persons as airport environment officers, the Secretary must first be satisfied that the person has qualifications and experience suitable for properly discharging the functions, powers, duties and responsibilities of an airport environment officer and that they do not hold a stake of more than 5 per cent in an airport-lessee company. A further safeguard is that the Regulations are considered by the Federal Executive Council, are subject to disallowance and available on the Federal Register of Legislation.
Subsection 79(3) provides that failure to comply with a requirement of an environment protection notice, within any time as specified in the notice, is an offence for which the maximum penalty is 250 penalty units for an individual. Based on the value of a penalty unit at the time of publication (April 2026), this would involve a maximum penalty of $82,500, subject to future indexation. Section 132(2) of the Act provides specific legislative authority for imposing penalties of up to 250 penalty units for an offence in the Regulations that is made for the purposes of subsection 132(2) of the Act.
The penalties are appropriate to an offence against section 79(3). First, the offence is directly related to questions of compliance with the general duties of environmental protection set out in Part 3 of the Regulations. The intended deterrent effect of this offence provision is vital to the integrity of operation of the authorisation mechanism in Part 4, Division 3. The intent is to ensure that authorisations are not breached, potentially resulting in consequential breaches of the environmental duties under Part 3 of the Regulations.
Second, it is broadly consistent with the government drafting guidance that says it is appropriate to impose a criminal liability for a breach of environmental protection requirements. As the Guide to Framing Commonwealth Offences, Infringement Notices and Enforcement Powers (May 2024) (Guide to Framing Commonwealth Offences), published by the Attorney-General's Department at: www.ag.gov.au/legal-system/publications/guide-framing-commonwealth-offences-infringement-notices-and-enforcement-powers, states, it is appropriate that ‘criminal offences should be used where the relevant conduct involves, or has the potential to cause, considerable harm to society or individuals, [or] the environment...’ (p.16).
Third, imposing greater financial penalties in the Regulations is important in this specific regulatory context to communicate a message of deterrence to potential offenders.
Fourth, the authorisation mechanism (in Part 3 of the Regulations) that this section and its offence provision seeks to enforce is also contained within the Regulations. On that basis, for reasons of proximity, regulatory coherence, and visibility of offences, it is logical to include the related penalties for enforcement of the authorisation mechanism within the Regulations rather than the Act.
Further, the Act provides for more substantial penalties than those indicated in section 79(3). For example, the offence in section 131B of the Act (‘offence resulting in serious environmental harm’) is subject to a maximum penalty of 500 penalty units. On the basis of that comparison, the inclusion of a penalty within the Regulations to a maximum of 250 penalty units is not out of proportion with the provisions of the Act.
In summary, it was considered necessary to include offences with significant penalties in delegated legislation because of the public interest in maintaining high standards of environmental protection, as supported by the Regulations. The intent of the Regulation is to include a strong penalty provision to improve accountability of operators at federally leased airports and to ensure high levels of compliance with the Commonwealth environmental protection regime.
This section is made for the purposes of subsection 132(1) of the Act. The offence at subsection 79(3) of the Regulations is not a strict liability offence. However, subsection 132(2A) of the Act applies strict liability to one element of the offence, namely that ‘the offence was made for the purpose of subsection 132(1) of the Act’. The explanation for inclusion of subsection 132(2A) of the Act is that if this subsection 132(2A) were not included, then a prosecutor might be required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a defendant was reckless or intentional as to whether Regulations were made for section 132(1). It would be difficult or impractical to attempt to prove such a fault element of an offence.
Although it is the Act, rather than the Regulations, that applies strict liability to this element, it is worth noting that applying strict liability to this element is consistent with the principles in the Guide to Framing Commonwealth Offences. This is because strict liability for this element ensures the integrity of the regulatory regime. A defendant’s state of mind as to whether an offence is made for the purpose of s 132(1) of the Act has no bearing on the defendant’s culpability. Permitting a defendant to escape liability for the offence on such a ground would amount to a loophole and undermine the efficacy of the offence provision.
Subject to satisfying the requirement of section 81 of the Regulations, an airport environment officer may issue an infringement notice for this offence as an alternative to pursuing prosecution in a federal court. The infringement notice would apply a penalty of 50 units for an individual and 250 penalty units for a body corporate. This does not comply with the Guide to Framing Commonwealth Offences, which suggests that the maximum penalty that should generally be imposed under an infringement notice is 12 penalty units for an individual or 60 penalty units for a body corporate. Further discussion of the policy rationale for including this offence in the infringement notice scheme is contained at section 82.
Subsection 4B(3) of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth.) provides the Court with sentencing discretion to impose a pecuniary (i.e. financial) penalty against a corporation that has been convicted of an offence that is five times greater than the maximum penalty that could be imposed on a natural person in the same circumstances.
The value of a penalty unit is prescribed by section 4AA of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth.). The current value of a penalty unit is $330, and it will be indexed on 1 July 2026 and each third 1 July following that day (section 4AA(3)). The latest version of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth.) is available on the Federal Register of Legislation (www.legislation.gov.au).
Further, such a notice is capable of being enforced by injunction in the Federal Court under Part 15 of the Act.
An authorisation will cease to have effect if the holder of the authorisation fails to comply with a notice and the airport environment officer has given them a notice stating the authorisation no longer has effect.
This section has the same intended effect as regulation 7.06 of the 1997 Regulations.

Part 7 – Infringement notices

This Part has been updated to more closely align with provisions in the Act, and meet modern drafting standards, while generally maintaining the intent and effect of the 1997 Regulations it replaces.

Section 80 – Purpose of this Part

The section states the legislative authority in the Act supporting the making of regulations relating to infringement notices. This Part has been made under section 138 of the Act, which provides for regulations enabling a person who is alleged to have committed certain offences to pay a penalty to the Commonwealth as an alternative to prosecution.

Section 81 – When an infringement notice may be given

Under the Regulations, an authorised airport environment officer may give an infringement notice to a person whom the officer believes on reasonable grounds has committed an offence against Part 6 of the Act or against part of the Regulations made for the purposes of section 133 of the Act, where these offences under section 133(1) of the Act are specified in section 82 of the Regulations.
Under section 81(2), an infringement notice must be given within 12 months of the alleged offence occurring.
Subsections 81(3) and (4) mean that each infringement notice may only be issued for a single contravention of the Regulations. However, an airport environment officer may make an exception and issue a single infringement notice relating to multiple contraventions of a single provision if the contraventions relate to a requirement to act within a certain period or before a particular date and the person fails to comply within the required time frame, or by the required date. If that failure or refusal to comply occurs on more than one day, then this is considered to be a breach of the Regulations or Part 6 of the Act for every day that it occurs. These multiple contraventions of the same provision may be issued on a single infringement notice.
A note below section 81(4) refers to subsection 4K(2) of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth.) (Cth). This note replaces Regulation 8.01 of the 1997 Regulations, which stipulated that section 4K of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth.) applied to the Regulations. Regulation 8.01 was superfluous and has been omitted as part of the drafting modernisation process. This is because section 4K(2) of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth.) applies whether or not it is referenced in the Regulations. To be clear: for the purposes of section 4K of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth.), a requirement in a provision of Part 6 of the Act in the Regulations to do or not do, an act or thing is a requirement that arises every day and is to be complied with on that day. For example, failure to comply with a condition of a Part 3 authorisation may constitute a separate offence for each day that the failure to comply continues.
Subsection 138(2) of the Act requires that the penalty for these infringement notices must equal one-fifth of the maximum fine that a court could impose as a penalty for that offence.
This system of ‘on-the-spot fines’ is intended to act as an incentive for sound environmental practices where it is apparent that such practices are not being followed. Infringement notices are typically applied as an intermediate step between environment protection notices and prosecution. However, an airport environment officer may issue both an infringement notice and an environment protection notice for the same activity. Noting that infringement notices have rarely been issued in relation to these offences over the period in which the 1997 Regulations have been in place, whereas unofficial and official warnings have frequently been issued, the potential for significant penalties has demonstrably been an effective deterrent to ensure compliance with requirements around environmental monitoring and remediation to-date.
As with the 1997 Regulations, the inclusion of this Part does not mean that an infringement notice must be issued for an alleged contravention of an infringement notice provision. The Regulations also provide that a person issued with an infringement notice may elect to not pay the notice, noting that in that case the person may subsequently be prosecuted in court for an alleged contravention.

Section 82 – Specified infringement notice offences

Section 82 lists offences made under section 133(1) of the Act for which infringement notices may be issued. These are:

subsection 54(2); occupier must give information requested by airport environment officer no later than 60 days after a notice is given;
subsection 54(3) which provides that occupier must also give information requested by an airport environment officer to the airport-lessee company;
subsection 55(4); airport-lessee company must monitor levels of pollution and noise in accordance with statutory requirements of subsection 55(2) and its environment strategy;
subsection 56(4); airport-lessee company must keep an environmental site register;
subsection 57(3); failure of an airport-lessee company to comply with requirements of a notice given by an airport environment officer to give specified information in an environmental site register to that airport environment officer;
subsection 59(3); airport-lessee company must report if monitoring discloses pollution at an airport;
subsection 60(6); operator must report a serious environmental incident to an airport environment officer;
subsection 61(4); occupier must give assistance or access to airport-lessee company or airport environment officer;
subsection 62(2); sublessee or licensee must give report to airport environment officer about condition of soil;
subsection 63(2); a person must correct inaccurate or incomplete information;
subsection 64(5); contravention of requirements of a notice given to an occupier to undertake an investigation regarding pollution or offensive noise;
subsection 65(6); contravention of a requirement of a notice given to a relevant person requiring a pollution investigation regarding a proposed change of use of an area at an airport;
subsection 66(2); failure to correct inaccurate or incomplete information given to an airport environment officer; and
subsection 71(6) failure to comply with requirements of a notice requiring remediation work.

Infringement notice offences in the Regulations

The extent to which the infringement notice offences listed at section 82 comply with policy requirements in the Guide to Framing Commonwealth Offences, Infringement Notices and Enforcement Powers (May 2024) (Guide to Framing Commonwealth Offences), published by the Attorney-General's Department at: www.ag.gov.au/legal-system/publications/guide-framing-commonwealth-offences-infringement-notices-and-enforcement-powers, is detailed below.
Chapter 6 of the Guide to Framing Commonwealth Offences states that offences subject to an infringement notice scheme should be clearly specified. Listing offences in the infringement notice scheme at section 82 fulfils that requirement.
Infringement schemes should only apply where a high volume of contraventions is expected. The offences listed in section 82 fit this criterion. The offences made for the purpose of section 133(1), relate to obligations detailed in Part 5 of the Regulations to monitor, report, investigate and remedy: pollution; impacts on biota, habitat and heritage; offensive noise; or waste. Part 5 is the primary source of provisions that allow the department to monitor how the regulated community at federally leased airports are managing environmental responsibilities, by ensuring that sufficient records are kept and that monitoring of environmental issues is undertaken in a manner that is sufficient to manage the environmental and human health risks. Undertaking these day-to-day environmental management processes requires steady commitment over time and, as a result, there are frequent instances in which operators of undertakings at an airport fall short of the standards in the Regulations. A review of warning letters and departmental responses to airports’ annual environment reports reveals that most alleged contraventions of the 1997 Regulations related to failures to comply with obligations under Part 5 of the Regulations (Part 6 of the 1997 Regulations), which are a part of the infringement notice scheme.
The infringement notice penalty for each of the offences in the table has been calculated as one‑fifth of the maximum fine that a court could impose on the person as a penalty for that offence, consistent with the requirement in subsection 138(2) of the Act and with the Guide to Framing Commonwealth Offences. All of the penalties stipulated for the offences listed at section 82 comply with the policy for imposing infringement notice penalties in the Guide to Framing Commonwealth Offences, with none of the infringement notice penalties exceeding 12 penalty units for an individual or 60 penalty units for a corporation.
Infringement notices should be issued by a class of authorised persons that has the qualifications and experience suitable for determining whether a person has committed an offence under the Regulations. Airport environment officers, who issue infringement notices for offences against Part 6 of the Act and against the Regulations, are appointed by the Secretary as authorised officers, based on their tertiary qualifications in environmental science or a similar field, ensuring they have the knowledge necessary to oversee environmental management at airports.
Infringement schemes should only apply to minor offences with strict or absolute liability. The offences listed at section 82 fit the criteria of being minor offences. Specifically, none is punishable by imprisonment, and they are all made under section 133(1) of the Act, which limits the penalty payable for a contravention to 50 penalty units for offences against those regulations.
While most offences listed in section 82 are strict liability offences, there are a number that are not. These are identified in the Table 1 below, together with a justification as to why they should nevertheless be included in the infringement notice scheme.

Infringement notice offences in the Act

Section 81 of the Regulations read in conjunction with section 138 of the Act has the effect of making the infringement notice scheme apply to all offences against section 132(1) of the Act and to the three flagship environmental offences at Part 6 of the Act, namely sections 131B (the offence of serious environmental harm), 131C (the offence of material environmental harm) and 131D (the offence of environmental nuisance).
Section 6.2.1 of the Guide to Framing Commonwealth Offences states that infringement notice schemes should only apply to:

minor offences with strict or absolute liability, and where a high volume of contraventions is expected, and
offences which are readily understood and easily proven and where failure to comply is obvious, unacceptable and deserving of penalty.

This is to minimise the risk that innocent people will pay the infringement notice penalty to avoid the expense of contesting proceedings.
Most offences outlined in Part 6 of the Act are not strict or absolute liability offences, and experience in administering the 1997 Regulations to date suggests that a high volume of contraventions is not to be expected.
The offences at sections 131B, 131C and 131D of the Act contain fault provisions. By contrast, the effect of section 132(2A) of the Act is to make all offences made for the purpose of subsection 132(1) partial strict liability offences. This is because subsection 132(2A) specifies that, ‘Strict liability applies to the element of an offence against subsection (2) that regulations were made for the purposes of subsection (1).’

Rationale for including offences in the infringement notice scheme that do not satisfy every aspect of the Guide to framing infringement notice offences

Section 138 of the Act recognises that there are good policy reasons to include Part 6 offences in the infringement notice scheme. It also recognises that some offences made for the purposes of subsection 133(1) of the Act should also be in an infringement notice scheme. However, not all of the offences captured by section 138 of the Act comply with every element of the requirements for an infringement notice offence as outlined in the Guide to Framing Commonwealth Offences. At the next opportunity to consider changes to the Act, the policy rationale for including all Part 6 offences in the infringement scheme may be reviewed.
The main types of non-compliance with the Guide to Framing Commonwealth Offences to framing infringement notices are:

offences of partial strict liability, or offences with fault elements;
non-strict liability offences with complex offence elements that may be difficult to determine with certainty; and
offences that exceed the number of penalty units suitable for an infringement notice offence.

The rationales for including offences in an infringement notice scheme even though they are not entirely compliant with the policy for framing infringement notice offences under the Guide to Framing Commonwealth Offences are described in the following paragraphs.

Rationale 1: Offence of partial strict liability or non-strict liability

As the Scrutiny of Legislation Committee has previously noted, ‘strict liability may be appropriate where it is necessary to ensure the integrity of a regulatory regime such as, for instance, those relating to public health, the environment, or financial or corporate regulation; as with other criteria, however, this should be applied subject to other relevant principles,’ (Report sourced from www.aph.gov.au/-/media/Committees/Senate/committee/scrutiny/bills/2002/ b06.pdf). Section 138 of the Act provision that Part 6 offences are covered by the infringement notice is a clear indication of Parliament’s intent to include Part 6 offences in the infringement notice scheme, even though they are not strict or absolute liability offences. This recognises the importance of compliance with the environmental standards set by section 132(1) of the Act and regulations made for the purposes of section 132(1). Failure to comply with such environmental standards may result in irreversible harm to human and environmental health.
Despite the application of this infringement scheme to some fault-based offences, the framing of these offences in the Regulations remains consistent with the purpose and operation of offences as outlined in Part 6 of the Act.
In considering whether non-strict liability offences may be included in an infringement notice scheme, we have assessed a number of factors that the Guide to Framing Commonwealth Offences considers important, including whether the class of persons authorised to issue infringement notices under the Regulations have the skills and experience to assess compliance of a person with each element of the offences.
The class of authorised persons issuing infringement notices for Part 6 offences are airport environment officers, who are appointed by the Secretary based on their environmental science qualifications and experience. Many have experience as regulators before becoming airport environment officers, and all airport environment officers receive formal and on-the-job training in professional environmental regulation. Airport environment officers work as a nation-wide network, sharing their diverse areas of knowledge about pollution and environmental protection at airports. This class of person is well-equipped to assess compliance with the Regulations.
It is also generally readily understood and easily proven whether or not a person or company would have committed an offence against Part 6 of the Act or the Regulations, and that a failure to comply with the provision would be obvious and unacceptable. These factors align with expectations set out in the Guide to Framing Commonwealth Offences.
The Regulations make clear where non-compliance with requirements or standards in the Regulations are offences against the Act. For example, Note 1 at paragraph 20(1)(b) states that ‘A person that contravenes subsection (1) of this section commits an offence against subsection 132(2) of the Act.’
The elements of offences are also clear, making it simple for an airport environment officer to determine whether an offence occurred. Typical examples of this include offences requiring specified information to be provided within a certain time period (see for example section 57).
It is also useful to consider the question of whether a failure to comply with a provision of the Regulations would be ‘obvious and unacceptable’. Operators of undertakings at the 20 federally leased airports regulated under Part 6 of the Act and the Regulations are typically inducted into the environmental regulation system when they begin work at an airport, including because training in ‘appropriate environmental management of the airport’ is mandatory for employees of airport-lessee companies and their tenants that are major employers, under paragraph 16(2)(c) of the Airports Regulations 2024 (Cth.). Each airport-lessee company has one or more staff responsible for environmental management and compliance with the airport’s environmental obligations and these staff meet regularly with the airport environment officers to discuss environmental management issues. In these circumstances, the specialised knowledge and training of the regulated entities means that it will be obvious to them when they have failed to comply with an offence provision.

Rationale 2: Assessing complex elements of a non-strict liability offence with a high degree of certainty

Several of the more complex Regulations (for example, section 78) are written so as to allow the airport environment officer to stipulate the conditions to be included in a notice issued to a person who is alleged to have contravened a provision of the Regulations or Part 6 of the Act. Because the airport environment officer has authored the conditions of that notice, they can readily determine whether or not the person issued with a notice has complied with its conditions. And because the person to whom a notice is given is afforded natural justice, they will have had an opportunity to question and clarify the meaning of those conditions prior to a final notice being issued. In these circumstances, even when the offence might involve failing to comply with multiple conditions of a complex regulatory notice, the airport environment officer will be able to determine with clarity whether the alleged offence has occurred or not because of their specialist environmental regulation qualifications and skills and because they drafted the regulatory notice, usually with an opportunity for comment from the person to whom they issued the notice.
There is obviously great public utility in encouraging regulated entities to provide accurate information. Without accurate information being provided to the regulator, there can be no effective assessment of the environmental and human health risks at federally leased airports, which puts the public and the environment at risk. Including offences in the infringement notice scheme that require a person to correct the record in the event that they have failed to provide the regulator with all of the facts, or the correct facts, acts as a deterrent to persons or operators who might consider withholding information.

Rationale 3: Offences for which the penalty exceeds 12 penalty units for an individual or 60 for a body corporate

Two offences in the Regulations (subsections 78(3) and 79(4)) set the penalty for an offence at a maximum of 250 penalty units for an individual or 1250 penalty units for a corporation. In accordance with section 138(2) of the Act, the penalty to be imposed by an infringement notice for an offence against either section 78 or 79 is 50 penalty units for an individual or 250 penalty units for a corporation. This is considerably above the maximum penalties considered appropriate to framing infringement notices in the Guide to Framing Commonwealth Offences. The arguments that weigh in favour of including these provisions in the Regulations include: (a) Parliament obviously intended to include offences of this type in the infringement scheme, as section 138 of the Airports Act 1996 (Cth.) cast the net widely to include all Part 6 offences, except those made for the purposes of subsection 133(1) and purposely excluded from list at section 82 of the Regulations.
Sections 78 and 79 contain offence provisions related to a failure to comply with a notice to stop polluting or having other adverse impacts on environmental or heritage values at airports, and compliance with a notice to stop breaching the conditions of an authorisation to pollute or generate offensive noise. Not all contraventions of conditions of environmental protection notices or authorisations will be equally serious. Including the option for minor contraventions to be dealt with by way of a fine provides airport environment officers with a useful additional tool to ensure they can escalate compliance notices gradually, instead of having to move, for example, straight from a warning letter to prosecution for an offence in a federal court.

Table 1. Infringement notice offences that do not comply with the Guide to Framing Commonwealth Offences

The following table outlines those offences in the Regulations that are part of the infringement notice scheme, but which do not entirely comply with the rules on framing infringement notice offences. By reference to the table and to the rationales for including offences in the infringement scheme as described above [rationale 1, 2 and 3] it is possible to assess why it is appropriate to include an infringement notice offence in the Regulations despite it having a particular non-conformity with the Guidelines for framing infringement notice offences.

Key: Rationale for inclusion in the infringement notice scheme:

[1] – See above section on partial strict liability or non-strict liability offences.

[2] - See above section on assessing elements of the offence with a high degree of certainty.

[3] - See above section on offences with infringement notice penalties in excess of 12 penalty units for an individual or 60 penalty units for a corporation.

Section and summary of offence	Authority for the offence in the Act	Nature of non-conformity with policy for drafting infringement notice offences Rationale for inclusion in the infringement notice scheme - [1], [2] or [3]
Subsection 20(1) – General duty to avoid polluting.	Subsection 132(2)	Offence of partial strict liability. Difficulty in assessing guilt or innocence of the alleged offender. Rationale: [1] and [2]
Subsection 23(1) – General duty to preserve certain biota, habitats, sites and species, etc.	Subsection 132(2)	Offence of partial strict liability. Difficulty in assessing guilt or innocence of the alleged offender. Rationale: [1] and [2]
Subsection 24(2) – Duty to give notice of discovery of certain objects, species or ecological communities.	Subsection 132(2)	Offence of partial strict liability. Rationale: [1]
Subsection 24(4) -airport-lessee company fails to report to the airport environment officer.	Subsection 132(2)	Offence of partial strict liability. Rationale: [1]
Subsection 25(1) – general duty to prevent or minimise offensive noise.	Subsection 132(2)	Offence of partial strict liability Difficulty in assessing guilt or innocence of the alleged offender. Rationale: [1] and [2]
Subsections 50(2) and (3) – requirement to provide an annual report on compliance with an authorisation within a timeframe.	Subsection 132(2)	Offence of partial strict liability Difficulty in assessing guilt or innocence of the alleged offender (applies to the offence under subsection 50(3). Rationale: [1] and [2]
Subsection 51(3) – duty to report a contravention of a condition of an authorisation within 24 hours.	Subsection 132(2)	Offence of partial strict liability. Difficulty in assessing guilt or innocence of the alleged offender. Rationale: [1] and [2]
78(2) – failure to comply with a notice under section 74, 75 or 76.	Subsection 132(2)	Offence of partial strict liability. Difficulty in assessing guilt or innocence of the alleged offender. Penalty for the general offence is 250 penalty units for an individual or 1250 penalty units for a corporation and for an infringement notice is 50 penalty units for an individual and 250 penalty units for a corporation. Rationale: [1], [2] and [3]
Section 79 – failure to comply with a requirement of a notice to comply with an authorisation.	Subsection 132(2)	Offence of partial strict liability. Difficulty in assessing guilt or innocence of the alleged offender. Penalty for the general offence is 250 penalty units for an individual or 1250 penalty units for a corporation and for the purpose of an infringement notice is 50 penalty units for an individual and 250 penalty units for a corporation. Rationale: [1], [2] and [3]
Subsection 54(2); Failure of an occupier to give information requested by airport environment officer within 60 days after a notice is given.	Subsection 133(1)	Not an offence of strict liability. However, whether or not an occupier has met these requirements may be assessed on an objective basis - Either the occupier provides relevant information and documents it holds, within the specified timeframe, or it does not. Rationale: [1]
Subsection 54(3): Failure of an occupier to also give information requested by an airport environment officer to the airport-lessee company,	Subsection 133(1)	Not an offence of strict liability. However, whether or not an occupier has met these requirements may be assessed on an objective basis - Either the occupier provides relevant information and documents it holds, within the specified timeframe, or it does not. Rationale: [1]
Subsection 55(4) – Failure of an airport-lessee company to monitor levels of pollution and noise in accordance with statutory requirements of subsection 56(2) and its environment strategy.	Subsection 133(1)	Not an offence of strict liability. However, whether or not an occupier has met these requirements may be assessed on an objective basis - Either the occupier provides relevant information and documents it holds, within the specified timeframe, or it does not. Rationale: [1]
Subsection 55(4) failure by an airport-lessee company to monitor pollution or noise (in the manner stipulated in its airport environment strategy).	Subsection 133(1)	None.
Subsection 56(4) – Failure of an airport-lessee company to keep an environmental site register.	Subsection 133(1)	None.
Subsection 57(3) - Failure of an airport-lessee company to comply with f a notice to give specified information in an environmental site register to that airport environment officer.	Subsection 133(1)	None.
Subsection 59(3) – Failure of an airport-lessee company to report if monitoring discloses pollution at an airport.	Subsection 133(1)	None.
Subsection 60(6) – Failure of an operator to report a serious environmental incident to an airport environment officer.	Subsection 133(1)	None.
Subsection 61(4) – Failure of an occupier to give assistance and access to airport-lessee company and airport environment officer to monitor pollution and noise within a specified period.	Subsection 133(1)	Not an offence of strict liability. Difficulty in assessing guilt or innocence of the alleged offender. Rationale: [1] and [2]
Subsection 62(2) – Failure of a sublessee or licensee to give report to airport environment officer about condition of soil at least two months before end of lease at an airport.	Subsection 133(1)	None.
Subsection 63(2) – Failure to correct . information given under a provision of Division 2 of Part 5 as soon as practicable.	Subsection 133(1)	Not an offence of strict liability. However, whether or not an occupier has committed an offence may be assessed on an objective basis: Did the Secretary, an airport environment officer or an airport-lessee company receive incorrect or incomplete information from a person or operator under a provision of this Division? Did the person or operator fail to provide further information that is accurate and complete as soon as practicable? Rationale: [1]
Subsection 64(5) - Contravention of requirements of a notice given to an occupier to undertake an investigation regarding pollution or offensive noise.	Subsection 133(1)	This is not an offence of strict liability. Difficulty in assessing guilt or innocence of the alleged offender. Whether or not a person has met the requirements of a notice may be assessed on an objective basis, although the assessment needs to be done by a trained environmental science expert who can assess whether the investigator’s report and the assessor’s review of it meet the requirements of the notice. Rationale: [1] and [2]
Subsection 65(6) – Offence of contravening a requirement of a notice given to a relevant person requiring a pollution investigation regarding a proposed change of use of an area at an airport.	Subsection 133(1)	This is not an offence of strict liability. Difficulty in assessing guilt or innocence of the alleged offender. Subsection 65(1) specifies that an airport environment officer may give a person a notice requiring the person to do certain things at the discretion of the airport environment officer. It is an offence to contravene a requirement of the notice. Whether or not a person has met these requirements may be assessed on an objective basis provided that the authorised officer giving the infringement notice has experience in environmental management: The notice may order a pollution assessment be conducted by a person with suitable qualifications. Either the person complies with the terms of the notice and employs an assessor to conduct the, or they do not. If they do, the airport environment officer may rely on the findings of the assessor to determine the sufficiency of the assessment report. Rationale: [1] and [2]
Subsection 66(2) - Failure of a person to correct information given under a provision of Division 3 of Part 5.	Subsection 133(1)	This is not an offence of strict liability. However, whether or not a person has met these requirements may be assessed on an objective basis: Did an airport environment officer receive incorrect or incomplete information from a person in a written investigation report or a written assessment under a provision of Division 3 of Part 5 of the Regulations? Did the person fail to provide further information that is accurate and complete as soon as practicable? Rationale: [1]
Subsection 71(6) - Failure to comply with requirements of a notice requiring remediation work.	Subsection 133(1)	This is not an offence of strict liability. However, whether or not a person has committed an offence may be assessed by an airport environment officer on an objective basis, by considering whether a person who received a notice has complied with its conditions within the specified time, if any. Compliance with the requirements of a notice can be difficult to assess. Rationale: [1] and [2]

Section 83 – Matters to be included in an infringement notice

Subsection 83(1) sets out the information that must be included in an infringement notice, such as the name of the person it is being given to, the details of the alleged contravention and the amount that is payable. These requirements are consistent with the Guide to Framing Commonwealth Offences, Infringement Notices and Enforcement Powers (May 2024) (Guide to Framing Commonwealth Offences), published by the Attorney-General's Department at: www.ag.gov.au/legal-system/publications/guide-framing-commonwealth-offences-infringement-notices-and-enforcement-powers.
This section has the same intended effect as subregulation 8.03(2) of the 1997 Regulations. Updates have been made to subsection 83(1) to better align with expectations set out in the Guide to Framing Commonwealth Offences, and equivalent provisions in section 104 of the Regulatory Powers (Standard Provisions) Act 2014 (Cth.), including, but not limited to:
1. requiring the infringement notice to be identified by a unique number;
2. providing name and contact details of the airport environment officer who issued the infringement notice; and
3. stating that payment is not an admission of guilt or liability
4. setting out how a notice may be withdrawn.
The notice must include a statement that if the infringement notice is paid within 28 days of it being issued, the payment does not constitute an admission of guilt but does preclude any further liability or proceedings related to the alleged contravention (unless the notice is subsequently withdrawn).
Subsection 83(2) also states the amount payable under an infringement notice is one-fifth of the penalty that a court could impose in relation to the alleged contravention. It is consistent with the Guide to Framing Commonwealth Offences that the amount payable under an infringement notice is determined in legislation and not a matter of discretion for the enforcement officer.

Section 84 – Extension of time to pay amount

Section 84 sets out the process for applying to seek an extension of time to pay in relation to an infringement notice or seeking agreement to pay the amount of the infringement notice penalty by instalments.
Subsection 84(2) allows the Secretary to grant an extension to the period of time to pay the amount payable under the infringement notice. This provision reflects section 105 of the Regulatory Powers (Standard Provisions) Act 2014 and helps ensure that a person who wishes to pay an infringement notice is not prevented from doing so by financial hardship or other difficulties.
An application to extend the period to pay must be made to the Secretary before the end of the original period of time to pay.
If the Secretary does not extend the period of time to pay, the due date either remains the same as that in the original notice or becomes 7 days after the day the person is given notice of the Secretary’s decision not to extend the date, depending on which is later.
Under subsection 84(5), the Secretary may extend the period of time to pay more than once. This may facilitate part payments being made over an extended period of time.

Section 85 – Withdrawal of an infringement notice

Section 85 provides for the withdrawal of an infringement notice.
Consistent with section 106 of the Regulatory Powers (Standard Provisions) Act 2014, it is possible for a person who has received an infringement notice to make representations to the Secretary to have the notice withdrawn.

Subsection 85(1) states that a person issued an infringement notice may make written representations to the Secretary, asking them to withdraw the notice.
Subsection 85(2) provides that the Secretary may withdraw an infringement notice (whether or not the person has made written representations seeking the withdrawal).
Subsection 85(3) sets out matters that the Secretary must take into account, and may take into account, in deciding whether or not to withdraw an infringement notice.
Subsection 85(4) requires the Secretary to give a person written notice of a decision to withdraw or refuse to withdraw an infringement notice.
Subsection 85(5) sets out matters that must be included in the written notice if the decision is to withdraw the infringement notice.
Subsection 85(6) sets out matters that must be included in the written notice if the decision is not to withdraw the infringement notice.
Subsection 85(7) provides that if the Secretary withdraws the infringement notice after the person has paid the fine, the Commonwealth must refund to the person an amount equal to the amount paid.
Subsection 85(6) stipulates matters that must be included in the statement of reasons if the Secretary decides not to withdraw the infringement notice.
Subsection 85(7) provides that the Commonwealth must refund any fine paid if the infringement notice is withdrawn.
Subsection 85(8) protect a person’s right to protection against self-incrimination by ensuring information given to the Secretary for the purpose of asking to have an infringement notice withdrawn may not be used as evidence in any offence proceedings (except for an offence related to providing false or misleading information).
Section 85 is intended to have largely the same effect as regulation 8.03 of the 1997 Regulations. Updates have been made to better align with equivalent provisions in section 106 of the Regulatory Powers (Standard Provisions) Act 2014 (Cth.).

The latest version of the Regulatory Powers (Standard Provisions) Act 2014 (Cth.) is available on the Federal Register of Legislation (www.legislation.gov.au).

Section 86 – Effect of payment of amount

Subsection 86(1) outlines that in the event that a person pays the amount stated in the infringement notice within specified timeframes that:

any liability of the person for the alleged contravention is discharged;
the person may not be prosecuted in a court for the alleged contravention;
the person is not regarded as having admitted guilt for the alleged contravention; and
the person is not regarded as having been convicted for the alleged offence.

This section replaces regulation 8.08 of the 1997 Regulations. It reflects section 107 of the Regulatory Powers (Standard Provisions) Act 2014 (Cth.).

Section 87 – Effect of this Part

Section 87 is included to make clear that Part 7 (relating to infringement notices) does not:

make it mandatory to issue an infringement notice for an alleged contravention of the Regulations.
affect the liability of a person for an alleged contravention of a relevant provision under Part 6 of the Act if: the person does not comply with an infringement notice; if an infringement notice is not given to the person for the contravention; or if an infringement notice is given to the person for the contravention and is subsequently withdrawn; or
prevent a person from being given 2 or more infringement notices for an alleged contravention of a provision subject to an infringement notice under Part 6 of the Act; or
limit the court’s discretion to determine the amount of a penalty to be imposed on a person who is found to have contravened a relevant provision under Part 6 of the Act.

This section has the same intent as regulation 8.14 of the 1997 Regulations. This section is intended to be consistent with section 108 of the Regulatory Powers (Standard Provisions) Act 2014 (Cth.).
The latest version of the Regulatory Powers (Standard Provisions) Act 2014 (Cth.) is available on the Federal Register of Legislation (www.legislation.gov.au).
Previous Regulations 8.09, 8.10, 8.12 and 8.13 in the 1997 Regulations have been omitted from the Regulations because they are either inconsistent with the infringement notice provisions in Part 5 of the Regulatory Powers (Standard Provisions) Act 2014 (Cth.), or are no longer required, or both, as described below:

Regulation 8.09 was made for the purposes of paragraph 8.03(2)(h) of the 1997 Regulations, which required a statement about facts or matters that ought to be taken into account in relation to the infringement offence. As there is no equivalent to paragraph 8.03(2)(h) in the Regulations, the content of regulation 8.09 has been omitted.
Regulation 8.10 of the 1997 Regulations, which was relevant to matters to be taken into account in relation to prosecutions, is now addressed in paragraph 87(b)(i) and subsection 87(d) of the Regulations.
Regulation 8.12 of the 1997 Regulations provided for evidentiary certificates at a hearing of a prosecution for an alleged offence specified in an infringement notice. Evidentiary certificate provisions are today generally only suitable where they relate to formal or technical matters that are not likely to be in dispute but that would be difficult to prove under the normal evidential rules. For this reason, the content of regulation 8.12 has been omitted from the Regulations.
Regulation 8.13 of the 1997 Regulations, providing for payment of penalties by cheque, has been omitted as this no longer needs to be specified.

Part 8 – Reconsideration and review of certain decisions

This Part provides for review of some decisions made under the Regulations internally, by the Secretary or their delegate, and externally, by the Administrative Review Tribunal. It identifies selected administrative decisions made under the Regulations as reviewable decisions, as defined in subsection 6(1) and listed in the table of reviewable decisions in section 88 of the Regulations. A person whose interests are affected by such a decision may request a reconsideration of the decision by the Secretary or their delegate. This is known as internal review. Any reviewable decision that has already been reviewed internally may also be referred to the Administrative Review Tribunal for reconsideration and this is known as external review.

Division 1 – Definitions

Section 88 – Definition of reviewable decision

Section 88 defines reviewable decisions as those listed in the table at section 88 of the Regulations, as follows:

Subsection 43(1) - To grant, grant conditionally, or refuse to grant, an authorisation;
Subsection 47(2) - to grant, grant conditionally, or refuse to grant, an urgent authorisation;
Subsection 49(1) - to vary or revoke, or refuse to vary or revoke, an authorisation;
Subsection 52(2) - to permit, permit conditionally, or refuse to permit, the transfer of an authorisation;
Subsection 71(2) – to give a notice requiring remediation work;
Subsection 74(1) - to require an operator of an undertaking to comply with subsection 20(1);
Subsection 75(1) - to require an operator of an undertaking to comply with subsection 23(1);
Subsection 76(1) - to require an operator of an undertaking to comply with subsection 25(1); and
Subsection 79(2) - to require the holder of an authorisation to comply with a condition of the authorisation.

This list was determined by reference to the Administrative Review Council’s guide entitled What Decisions Should Be Subject to Merit Review? (the ARC Guide), available at www.ag.gov.au/legal-system/publications/what-decisions-should-be-subject-merit-review-1999.
Reviewable decisions include decisions by an airport environment officer relevant to authorisations, and directions to comply with the general duties in Part 3 of the Regulations.
A decision of an airport environment officer to give an environment remediation notice under subsection 71(2) of the Regulations is also reviewable. Although there is an argument for excluding the issuance of this type of notice from review because it is a law enforcement compliance mechanism, the policy factors weighing in favour of making this type of notice reviewable outweigh the risks that a review could be used to substantially delay the remediation of harmful pollution. To provide further context, section 71(2) notices are designed for use in circumstances in which the regulator knows that an area at an airport is contaminated with a pollutant in exceedance of the investigation level in the relevant Schedule to the Regulations, wishes to order further investigations and assessment to determine whether the contamination is present in levels and in a context that mean it should be considered pollution that requires management and possibly remediation. Typical examples at airports are hydrocarbon or per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) soil contamination. If the pollution or offensive noise were to generate or spread in a manner that posed a risk to human or environmental health while a notice was being reviewed, an airport environment officer could consider issuing an additional notice, such as an environment protection notice. These orders are more appropriate for use where the generation of pollution, offensive noise, or adverse impacts on the environment or heritage are occurring and there is an urgent need to stop them for reasons of human health and safety or environmental health. Because they serve this primary law enforcement compliance purpose, these types of notices are not merits reviewable. They may however be reviewed by a federal court.

Table 2: list of decisions that are not subject to internal or external merits review

Following is a complete list of decisions that are not subject to internal or external merits review and the rationale for their exclusion:

Section number and name

Rationale for Exclusion from merits review

Subsections 32(2) – whether to make a local standard

Subsection 37(1) – whether to vary or revoke a local standard

Certain ministerial-level decisions under these Regulations involving the making of legislative instruments are not subject to merits review. The making, amendment or revocation of legislation is a class of decision that the Administrative Review Council has accepted as not ordinarily subject to merits review. A local standard is made under subsection 34(2) as a legislative instrument, and so is subject to Parliamentary scrutiny and disallowance. See What decisions should be subject to merit review? (ARC, 1999), available at www.ag.gov.au/legal-system/publications/arc-what-decisions-should-be-subject-merit-review.

Section 84 – The Secretary may decide whether or not to extend time for payment of an infringement notice

Subsection 85(1) – Secretary may decide whether to withdraw an infringement notice

The Scrutiny of Bills Committee has previously indicated that a decision to withdraw an infringement notice need not be the subject of a review (see page 61 of the Guide to Framing Commonwealth Offences, Infringement Notices and Enforcement Powers (May 2024) (published by the Attorney-General's Department at: www.ag.gov.au/legal-system/publications/ guide-framing-commonwealth-offences-infringement-notices-and-enforcement-powers)

Further, the Australian Law Reform Commission (ALRC) has stated that provisions enabling a person to make representations seeking withdrawal of an infringement notice are a form of internal review. See page 735 of Principled Regulation: Federal Civil and Administrative Penalties in Australia, 2003 (ALRC Report 95), available at: www.alrc.gov.au/publication/ principled-regulation-federal -civil-and-administrative-penalties-in-australia-alrc-report-95. If a recipient of an infringement notice under the Regulations chooses to dispute the issuance of the notice, then in the first instance they may ask the Secretary to review that decision. This is effectively an avenue of internal review. Alternatively, they may ask to have the matter dealt with by a court and that option provides another avenue of review. This approach is supported by the Guide to Framing Commonwealth Offences, which suggests that ‘a decision to withdraw an infringement notice should also not be reviewable.’

Subsection 15(2)(c) – airport environment officer reasonably believes an odour is objectionable.

Subsection 18(1) - airport environment officer reasonably believes noise is offensive.

Decisions of an airport environment officer to seek further information (for example, in relation to whether offensive noise or air pollution have occurred) are actions preliminary to the making of other decisions under the Regulations, such as a decision of an airport environment officer to determine (i.e. grant or refuse) an application for an authorisation under section 43.

Subsection 54(1) – airport environment officer may require an occupier to give information or documents

Subsection 57(1) – airport environment officer may require an airport-lessee company to provide certain information

Subsection 61(3) – airport environment officer may require an occupier to give an airport-lessee company assistance and access

Section 62(3)(d) – airport environment officer considers a site and its use to be high risk

Subsection 62(4) – airport environment officer is satisfied that a report complies with certain requirements

Subsection 64(1) - airport environment officer issues pollution investigation notice.

Subsection 65(2) – airport environment officer issues pollution assessment notice

Subsection 65(4) – airport environment officer decides not to issue a pollution assessment notice

Subsection 67(4) – airport environment officer may decide to approve or refuse a remediation plan

Subsection 72(1) – airport environment officer decides to enter premises to carryout remediation work

Subsection 79(2) – airport environment officer issues a notice to comply with conditions of an authorisation

Subsection 79(5) - airport environment officer gives notice that an authorisation has ceased to have effect

The ARC Guide specifies that decisions that are preliminary or procedural in nature should not be subject to review. As explained in the ARC Guide, the better policy approach is to allow only final decisions to be reviewed.

The approach taken by the Regulations in relation to this group of decisions by airport environment officers is consistent with the ARC Guide which states: ‘Decisions of a law enforcement nature, including decisions relating to investigations, should not be made subject to merits review. If review of such decisions was available, both the investigation of possible breaches and the subsequent enforcement of the law could be jeopardised.’ (ARC Guide, para 4.3.1).

Often preliminary decisions under the Regulations are also exempted from review because they support law enforcement purposes. The ARC Guide exempts decisions made for law enforcement purposes, such as investigations, from merits review, including because an offender could take advantage of the delay caused by a review to continue offending or to withhold evidence of an ongoing offence. For this reason, Regulations that impose monitoring, investigating and reporting requirements and which were made for the purpose of subsection 133(1) of the Act are generally excluded from review.

Subsection 93(1) – Secretary may appoint a person as an airport environment officer

Subsection 94(6) – the Secretary or an authorised person may inspect and copy the records of an airport environment officer

Subsection 94(7) – the Secretary may appoint an authorised person

Subsection 95(1) – Secretary of authorised person may require information from an airport environment officer

Subsection 97(1) - Secretary may delegate powers or functions under the Regulations

The approach taken in the Regulations regarding whether this category of decisions should be merits reviewable is consistent with the approach taken by the Act. On the basis that this approach has already been the subject of Parliamentary scrutiny, limiting merits review relating to this category of decisions is consistent, logical and defensible. (The Act in subsection 242(2) excludes two types of law enforcement action from merits review. One of these is determinations of the Minister to appoint authorised officers for the purpose of Part 18 monitoring powers (relating to compliance with Parts 5, 6 of the Act).

Division 2 - Reconsideration of certain decisions

Section 89 – Internal review of decisions

Application for review

Under subsections 89(1) and (2), a person whose interests are affected by a reviewable decision may ask the Secretary or their delegate, in writing within 28 days of receiving a decision, to review that decision. This is known as internal review. The request must set out the reasons for the request.

Review of decision

Under subsection 89(3), the Secretary must arrange for an internal reviewer to review a decision as soon as practicable after receiving the request. Subsection 89(4) specifies who may review particular decisions. Most relevantly, paragraph 89(4)(b) states that an SES employee or acting SES employee in the department who was not involved in making the reviewable decision may review the decision of an airport environment officer.
SES employee and acting SES employee are defined in section 2B of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 as specified in a note under paragraph 89(4)(b) of the Regulations. The Acts Interpretation Act 1901 is available on the Federal Register of Legislation (www.legislation.gov.au).
The reviewer may affirm or vary the original decision or set it aside. If the original decision is set aside, the internal reviewer may make another decision as they think appropriate (see subsection 89(5)).
This section has the same intended effect as Part 9 of the 1997 Regulations, while clarifying several factors in the review process. These include:

specifying the required seniority of an internal reviewer (paragraphs 89(4)(a) and (b))
providing the Secretary with discretion to decide whether they require expert environmental advice to review a decision.
Specifying that a reviewer has 120 days to make an internal review decision. This gives people more certainty around when they will know the outcome of the review process.

Section 90 – Notice of internal review

Under subsection 90(1), after an internal review has been completed, the internal reviewer must give the person who requested the review written notice of the reviewer’s decision, and that notice must include written information about the person’s right to seek review of that decision by the Administrative Review Tribunal.
If written notice is not given or does not contain all of the required information, the validity of the decision will not be affected, per subsection 90(2).
This section has the same intended effect as subregulations 9.02(2) and 9.05(1) of the 1997 Regulations.

Division 3—Review by the Administrative Review Tribunal

Section 91 – Review of internal review decisions by the Administrative Review Tribunal

Any reviewable decision may also be referred to the Administrative Review Tribunal for merits review (external review), but only once that decision has been through an internal review and the Secretary or their delegate has made a decision on that internal review, as specified in section 89.
The Administrative Review Tribunal is a federal administrative review body established under the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024. Further information on the Administrative Review Tribunal is currently available its website (see: www.art.gov.au).
The latest version of the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 is available on the Federal Register of Legislation (www.legislation.gov.au).

Part 9 – Miscellaneous

Section 92 – Application of Part

This section specifies the relevant sources of legal authority in the Act for the making of Part 9 of the Regulations. Three subsections and paragraphs are specified, namely:
1. subsection 133(1) of the Act, which specifies that the Regulations may make provision for and in relation to monitoring, cleaning up, remedying or rectifying at airports (as appropriate):
  1. environmental pollution;
  2. contraventions of Part 6 environmental pollution offences;
  3. impacts on biota or habitat;
  4. interference with sites of heritage value;
  5. interference with sites of significance to indigenous people;
  6. the emission of ground-based noise;
  7. or disposal or storage of waste.
2. subsection 138(1) of the Act, which make provision for the issuance of infringement notices as an alternative to prosecution for offences committed pursuant to regulations made for the purpose of section 133. Those infringement notices must impose a penalty equal to one-fifth of the maximum penalty that a court could impose for that offence, in accordance with subsection 138(2) of the Act.
3. Subsection 252(b) of the Act, which allows the Governor-General to make regulations prescribing matters that are necessary or convenient to be prescribed for carrying out or giving effect to the Act.

Section 93 – Airport environment officers

This section provides for the Secretary of the department to appoint a person as an airport environment officer. The Secretary must be satisfied the person has qualifications and experience that are suitable to properly discharge the duties and responsibilities of an environment officer.
To ensure their independence, the Regulations require that an airport environment officer must not hold a stake of more than 5 per cent in the airport-lessee company (as provided by paragraph 93(2)(b)). Further, if the airport environment officer is a body corporate, an airport-lessee company must not hold a stake of more than 5 per cent in the body corporate (as provided by paragraph 93(2)(c)). The term ‘stake’ is defined in clause 11 of the Schedule to the Act.
This section has the same intended effect as regulation 10.01 of the 1997 Regulations.
Paragraph 10.01(1)(d) in the 1997 Regulations, which required an airport environment officer to make a written agreement with the Secretary about the responsible and accountable exercise of powers has been omitted from the Regulations. Instead, the behaviour of airport environment officers, whether Australian Public Service employees or contractors engaged by the department, is governed by the same legislation that applies to all employees of the Australian Government, including but not limited to the Public Service Act 1999, conflict of interest registers, contractual obligations in labour hire contracts where applicable, and the requirement to obtain and maintain a security clearance.
Provisions in the 1997 Regulations relating to notification through newspapers (namely, a notice regarding the appointment of an airport environment officer) (paragraph 10.01(2) (b)) have been amended in favour of more modern communication methods. These may include sending an email to airport-lessee companies and publishing contact information for airport environment officers on the department’s website. As of April 2026, this contact information is available at: www.infrastructure.gov.au/infrastructure-transport-vehicles/aviation/airports/airport-planning-regulation/airport-environmental-management/contacts.

Section 94 – Airport environment officer to keep records etc.

This section requires an airport environment officer to keep written records of actions they have taken under the Regulations and any information or reports supplied to them in relation to the Regulations.
After a person ceases to be an airport environment officer, they must transfer these records to Secretary or another airport environment officer. The Secretary or a person authorised by the Secretary may inspect these records during normal office hours after at least 28 days written notice has been given.
This section has the same intended effect as regulation 10.02 of the 1997 Regulations, however with a modernising amendment. Subsections 94(6) and (7) stipulate that an authorised person for the purposes of section 94 must hold a position of at least an Executive Level 1 or equivalent. Executive Level 1 airport environment officer Hub Managers could be authorised persons for the purposes of section 94, for example.

Section 95– Airport environment officers to provide documents etc.

Under this section, an airport environment officer must give the Secretary, or a person authorised by the Secretary, copies of documents and other information within a specific timeframe if requested in writing. The airport environment officer must not be asked to respond in less than 28 days.
This section has the same intended effect as the regulation 10.03 of the 1997 Regulations with the exception that, as with section 94, an authorised person for the purpose of section 95 must hold a position of Executive Level 1, or higher.
Regulation 10.04 in the 1997 Regulations, which related to giving notices and directions has been omitted from the Regulations as the requirements for service of documents are set out in Part 6 of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 and there is no need to duplicate them in the Regulations. The Electronic Transactions Act 1999 (available on the Federal Register of Legislation at www.legislation.gov.au) deals with giving information in writing by electronic means such as email.

Section 96 – Disclosure of information

Unless required or authorised to do so by law, a written direction of the Secretary, or a Court order, an airport environment officer must not disclose information or documents given to them, or obtained, while performing their role as an airport environment officer.
A note indicates that section 122.4 of the Criminal Code creates a general offence in relation to the unauthorised disclosure of information by current and former Commonwealth officers in circumstances where the person is under a duty not to disclose the information.
Section 96 is intended to have similar effect to regulation 10.06 of the 1997 Regulations, while also clarifying the situations in which an airport environment officer is permitted to disclose information or documents received in the course of their duties.
This requirement is reasonable, proportionate and necessary to balance the confidentiality of information received or obtained by an airport environment officer with the need for that airport environment officer to disclose information in a context where this is required or authorised by law, a written direction of the Secretary or an order of a court.
Regulation 10.05 in the 1997 Regulations specified that an airport environment officer has no liability for actions or inactions for the 1997 Regulations where they acted in good faith, in reliance on advice given by an assessor under Part 6 or otherwise an expert in the matter at hand. This section has been omitted in the Regulations on the basis that it provided an incomplete and inferior version of the assistance offered to Commonwealth workers under the Legal Services Directions 2025, and in particular Part 9 (available on the Federal Register of Legislation at www.legislation.gov.au).

Section 97– Delegation by the Secretary

Subsection 97(1) provides for the Secretary to delegate one or more of their powers or functions under the Regulations to a Senior Executive Service (SES) employee or an acting SES employee in the department. The Acts Interpretation Act 1901 contains additional provisions relating to delegations and their effect.
Note 1 specifies that the terms SES employee and acting SES employee in this instance refers to ‘Senior Executive Service’ employees as defined in section 2B of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901. The responsibilities of the SES in the Australian Public Service are outlined in section 35 of the Public Service Act 1999. The latest version of the Public Service Act 1999 is available at the Federal Register of Legislation (www.legislation.gov.au).
This provision has been included to ensure that the Secretary is delegating to a sufficiently senior government employee, who is well-positioned to make decisions about the rights and obligations of regulated entities because of their seniority and experience. This balances administrative expediency with proportionate controls on decision making.
The new provision requires that delegates must comply with the Secretary’s written directions when carrying out powers or functions under the delegation (as specified by subsection 97(2)).
Note 2 points to further provisions in the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 that affirm the broad discretion of the Secretary to delegate their powers or functions to a position, rather than to a specific person; specify that the power to delegate is not a power that the Secretary may delegate; and that if a power is delegated and the way that power will be exercised depends on the decision-maker’s opinion, belief or state of mind, then it is the delegate’s opinion, belief or state of mind that is relevant in deciding how to exercise that delegated power (not the Secretary’s).
This section updates and clarifies regulation 10.07 of the 1997 Regulations.

Part 10—Application, saving and transitional provisions

Part 10 of the Regulations contains sections 98 to 108. These sections are application, saving and transitional provisions to assist in a smoother phase-in of the new Regulations from the 1997 Regulations.

Section 98 - Definitions

The term old regulations is used in Part 10 to refer to the 1997 Regulations as in force immediately before 1 April 2026.
The section also defines a twelve-month transition period between the operation of the old regulations and the commencement of the new regulations. The transition period is defined to mean the period commencing on 1 April 2026 and ending immediately before 1 April 2027.

Section 99 – Application of this instrument

The Regulations will apply after the end of the transition period, in other words, after 1 April 2027.
The one exception to that general rule is that the transitional and savings provisions set out in Part 10 of the new regulations will apply from 1 April 2026.

Section 100 - Continued application of old regulations during transition period

This section is the mechanism by which environmental management at airports continues to operate according to the 1997 Regulations during the transitional period until 1 April 2027.

Section 101 – Instruments made and other things done under the old regulations

This section is a saving provision with broad effect. It preserves the effect of things done under the old regulations, to the extent that those things can be done under these new regulations. Subsection 35(2) lists examples of such things that are intended to be preserved: directions, notices, applications, authorisations or other instruments being given or made. This list is non-exhaustive.

Section 102 – Remedial work orders

With the making of the new regulations, there has been a change in terminology from environment remediation orders to notices to carry out remediation work (in new section 71).
This is a savings provision. It provides generally that an environment remedial order made by an airport environment officer under section 6.18 of the old regulations has effect after 1 April 2027 as if it were made under the new regulations.

Section 103 – Environment protection orders

As indicated above, with the making of the new regulations there has been a change in terminology from environment protection orders to notices to prevent or minimise pollution (in new section 74).
New terminology of 'notice' is substituted for the former terminology, 'order', in relation to former provisions for environment protection orders in former section 7.01.
Recall that new section 74 provides for airport environment officers to issue a notice to prevent or minimise pollution to an operator of an undertaking at an airport, requiring them to take actions specified in that direction to prevent, or minimise, the generation of pollution by the undertaking at the airport (new section 74).
This savings and transitional provision provides generally that an environment protection order made under the old regulations has effect after 1 April 2027 as if it had been made under the new regulations.
This section intends to ensure that environment protection orders made under the old regulations continue to have effect despite the commencement of the new regulations.
Recall that under section 100, there will be continued application of old regulations during the transition period, ‘commencing on 1 April 2026 and ending immediately before 1 April 2027’ (defined in section 98).

Section 104 – Certain applications under the old regulations

This provision is intended to save various requests and applications made under particular provisions of the old regulations, listed as ‘prescribed application[s]’. For example, it applies to an application for an authorisation made under former regulation 5.07. The intended effect is that the old regulations continue to apply to the prescribed application on and after 1 April 2027 as if the repeal had not been made.
The various types of saved applications include the following:
1. a request for a local standard;
2. an application for an authorisation;
3. an application for an urgent authorisation;
4. a request to vary an authorisation;
5. an assignment of an interest in an authorisation from one person to another;
6. a request by an airport-lessee company to an occupier for access to an occupied area or to a document;
7. a request by an airport-lessee company for the Secretary to make a direction under subregulation 6.05(3);
8. a remediation plan submitted by an occupier to an airport environment officer under subregulation 6.14(1).

Section 105 – Infringement notices

This is a savings provision to preserve the operation of provisions of the old regulations relating to infringement notices issued before 1 April 2027.

Section 106 – Conduct, event, circumstances occurring before 1 April 2026

This is a savings provision to preserve the capacity of authorised persons such as airport environment officers to perform their statutory functions or duties in relation to conduct engaged in before 1 April 2026.

Section 107 – Review of decisions

Section 107 of the new regulations makes provision in relation to the savings of certain applications for review. It indicates that applications for internal and external merits review made after 1 April 2027 will be subject to the review provisions of Part 8 of the new regulations.
It also provides that despite the repeal of the old regulations, an application for merits review made before 1 April 2027 will still be subject to the provisions of the old regulations on or after 1 April 2027 as if the repeal had not taken place.

Section 108 – Annual report

This is a savings provision to preserve the obligations of airport-lessee companies to provide an annual environmental report to the Secretary of the department administering the regulations.
That obligation was contained in former section 6.03 of the old regulations (to be replaced by section 58 of the new regulations).
The obligation applies in relation to annual reporting for time periods that start before 1 April 2027.

SCHEDULES

Schedules 1 to 4 will remain substantially unchanged, with the following exceptions:

changing references from ‘accepted limits’ to ‘investigation levels’ throughout, to align terminology with that of the frameworks under which the Regulations operate, such as the National Environment Protection Measure (Assessment of Site Contamination) Measure 1999, a legislative instrument made under the National Environment Protection Council Act 1994; and
minor and consequential changes in terminology, cross referencing, and formatting, including providing formulae in accessible text.

In the longer term, the intention is to replace the Schedules with a Ministerial Determination so the investigation levels and pollutants may be updated with the approval of the Minister. To support this intent, section 14 in the Regulations, which is the mechanism by which the Minister may – at their discretion – make a ministerial instrument to replicate the appearance and general content of Schedules 1 to 4 of the Regulations, but with updates to reflect changes to the relevant science and standards for environmental management. Consultation with regulated entities would occur before a Ministerial Determination is made and the Minister may seek relevant expert advice to inform their decision.
Regarding reference to external documents, the Schedules each refer to a variety of environmental standards and other documents and testing methods., The content of the Schedules to the Regulations is largely the same as the content of the Schedules to the 1997 Regulations due to the complexity and technical nature of the Schedules and the need to comprehensively consult with relevant experts, Australian Government agencies, state and territory environmental protection agencies and regulated entities. Some of the standards, documents and test methods referred to in the Schedules are the standards at the time of making of the Regulations, subject to various amendments made to the Schedules in 2001, 2007, 2008, and 2015.
It is the government’s intention to consult on and update the Schedules and the standards and testing methods referred to within them, during the transition period and before the Regulations come into effect on 1 April 2027.
Where the Schedules refer to Australian Standards published by Standards Australia, note that Section 11 of the Regulations states that an Australian Standard referred to in this instrument is the standard as in force or existing from time to time.

SCHEDULE 1 - AIR POLLUTION – INVESTIGATION LEVELS

Part 1 - Air pollutants emitted from a stationary source

Clause 1.01 - Definitions

This clause defines a number of technical terms used in Schedule 1.

Clause 1.02 - Table 1 – Investigation levels for contamination of air

Table 1 sets out the investigation levels for air contamination by various pollutants as specified in subsection 15(3). These investigation levels are used to determine whether operators of undertakings at airports have complied with their general duty to avoid polluting, when there are no local standards or authorisations under Part 4 that might have otherwise allowed different limits of air pollutant emission to apply. The use of the term ‘investigation level’ recognises that, in some instances, it will be appropriate to consider not just whether an amount of a pollutant exceeds the specified level, but also the surrounding context. So while a person may be assumed to comply with the general duty not to pollute if pollutant levels are below the investigation level, exceedance of this level may trigger the airport environment officer to require an investigation into whether the exceedance should be considered pollution that breaches the general duty not to pollute in all the circumstances, which may also include circumstances in which a local standard or authorisation is in place.
The investigation levels and standards referenced in Table 1 were based upon the recommendations set out in the Australian Environment Council and National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) document National guidelines for control of emission on air pollutants from near stationary sources (Australian Government Publication Service, 1986) (available from the National Library of Australia and the Department), supplemented by a number of items sourced from standards used by a number of State environment protection bodies. It is intended in future to update the investigation levels and standards based on more recently published standards and measures.
It should be noted that air pollution by motor vehicles and the release of ozone depleting substances into the air will be regulated by State laws.

Part 2 - Ambient air quality objectives

Clause 2.01 - Ambient objectives

Table 2 of the Schedule defines the allowable average concentration levels of polluting substances in the air at an airport. The objectives have been sourced from the Ambient Air Quality Goals (NHMRC, 1996), a copy of which is available from the department upon request. These objectives must be considered by the airport environment officer under subparagraph 43(2)(c)(iv) of the Regulations when deciding to grant an authorisation which is likely to impact on air quality. It is intended in future to update the standards based on more recently published standards and measures, including the National Environment Protection (Ambient Air Quality) Measure, which is a legislative instrument made under the National Environment Protection Council Act 1994 (Cth). All National Environment Protection Measures are available at: www.nepc.gov.au/nepms.

SCHEDULE 2 - WATER POLLUTION - INVESTIGATION LEVELS

The Schedule lists the different ways in which there can be an adverse effect on the chemical condition of water, for the purpose of determining whether water pollution, as defined in section 16 of the Regulations, has occurred, and the investigation levels for pollutants in both fresh and marine water.

Clause 1.01 - Definitions

This clause defines a number of technical terms used in Schedule 2.

Clause 1.02 - Indicators of adverse chemical effect

This clause sets out a number of indicators of adverse chemical effect on water. The indicators listed deal with dissolved oxygen; pH; salinity; turbidity; faecal coliforms; and temperature.
The matters specified in this clause do not limit the definition of water pollution set out in section 16.

Clause 1.03 - Table 1 - Investigation levels of contamination

The investigation levels contained in the table are used to determine whether operators of undertakings at airports have complied with their Part 3 general duty to avoid polluting, in the absence of local standards or authorisations permitting different limits of water pollution.
Table 1 specifies the investigation limits for pollution of fresh water and also marine water.
The standards set out in the table have been substantially sourced from the recommendations contained in the Australian and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council (ANZECC) document entitled National Water Quality Strategy: Australian Water Quality Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Waters (1992). The intent is for users to refer to the most current edition of the document. The 2018 revision of the Water Quality Guidelines is available online at www.waterquality.gov.au/anz-guidelines. It is intended in future to update the standards based on more recently published standards and measures.

SCHEDULE 3 - SOIL POLLUTION - INVESTIGATION LEVELS

The Schedule sets out the investigation levels used to determine if soil pollution has occurred and which may trigger further investigation and assessment of the site under section 64 of the Regulations.

Clause 1.01 - Table 1 - areas of an airport generally

The investigation levels contained in the table are used to determine whether operators of undertakings at airports have complied with their Part 3 general duty to avoid polluting, in the absence of local standards or authorisations permitting different limits of soil pollution.
Table 1 sets out the investigation levels of various pollutant substances which apply generally to all areas of an airport and have been derived from the recommendations set out in the National Health Forum document entitled Health-based Soil Investigation Levels (1996), which is available from the National Library, or from the department, upon request.

Clause 1.02 - Table 2 - areas of environmental significance

The investigation levels contained in the table are used to determine whether operators of undertakings at airports have complied with their Part 3 general duty to avoid polluting, in the absence of local standards or authorisations permitting different limits of soil pollution.
Table 2 applies only to those areas which have been identified in the airport's final environment strategy as being of environmental significance. The investigation levels have been sourced from the recommendations set out in the ANZECC and NHMRC document entitled, Australian Guidelines for the Assessment and Management of Contaminated Sites (1992), which is available from the department on request). It is intended in future to update the standards based on more recently published standards and measures.

SCHEDULE 4 - EXCESSIVE NOISE - GUIDELINES

The Schedule sets out the procedures and standards to be employed by an airport environment officer in determining the level and impact of noise upon an area under section 18 of the Regulations. The Schedule allows for a degree of flexibility in the role of the airport environment officer who will administer the Schedule, complementing subsection 18(2), rather than prescribing a strict procedure for assessment of noise impact. It is also designed to be consistent with the relevant Australian standards, with State/Territory laws and policies, and current best practice environmental management.

Part 1 - Introductory

The Part states the purpose of the Schedule and defines the standards to be used in measuring noise.

Clause 1.01 - Purpose of Schedule

The purpose of the Schedule is to set out indicators of excessive noise, for the purposes of subsection 18(2).
A Note to clause 1.01 specifies that the generation of excessive noise is not, of itself, an offence against the Regulations. This points the reader back to the definition of offensive noise in Part 2 of the Regulations.

Clause 1.02 - Definitions

The clause defines the standards of noise measurement which are used in determining whether noise is excessive. Generally, terms used in Schedule 4 have the same meaning as in Australian Standards.

Part 2 - Sensitive Receptors

The Part defines the level of noise at the site of a sensitive receptor that is considered excessive.

Clause 2.01 - Application

This clause states that the Part applies to sites of sensitive receptors, as defined in section 5.

Clause 2.02 - Noise from construction, etc.

The clause defines the level of noise from construction and related activities that is regarded as excessive under these Regulations. Plant and equipment associated with the construction, maintenance or demolition are included as potential noise sources.

Clause 2.03 - Noise from road traffic

The level of noise originating from road traffic which is regarded as excessive is defined in this clause. The clause limits potential road traffic noise to that which is generated within the boundaries of the airport.

Clause 2.04 - Noise from rail traffic

The level of noise originating from rail traffic which is regarded as excessive is defined in this clause. The clause limits potential rail traffic noise to that which is generated within the boundaries of the airport.

Clause 2.05 - Noise from ground-based aircraft operations

This clause requires that ground-based aircraft running be conducted only in accordance with specific provisions of a final environment strategy (a component of an airport’s final master plan) for that airport. As a (now redundant) transitional provision, and pending approval of a final environment strategy, ground-based aircraft running could continue to be carried out in accordance with the Federal Airports Corporation (FAC) guidelines applying at that airport for a period of one year. This provision (at 2.05 (2)(a)) is outdated and will be repealed when the Schedules are amended by April 2027. All operational airports subject to these Regulations have a final environment strategy in place and procedures for ground-based aircraft operations that are published on airport websites.
Under subclause (3) whether other types of ground-based aircraft operations give rise to excessive noise is a matter that will be determined based on several criteria instead of a given level of noise, and the considerations which determine this are listed in subclause (3).
Subclause (3A) makes special provision for Western Sydney Airport by stipulating that in the period before the first final master plan is in force, ground-based aircraft running will be conducted in accordance with the ‘conditions in an airport plan’ instead of ‘final master plan’.
Subclause (4) defines the various types of ground-based aircraft operations.

Clause 2.06 - Noise from other airport operations

This clause deals with noise generated from a number of other airport operations, for example, the operation of plant or machinery. It defines the level of noise from other airport operations which are regarded as excessive under these Regulations.

Part 3 - Commercial Receptors

This Part relates to the particular considerations to be given in determining the existence of excessive noise at sites of commercial receptors.

Clause 3.01 - Application

This Part applies to commercial receptors, as defined in section 5.

Clause 3.02 - Noise from any source

This clause sets out that in addition to the indicators of excessive noise used for sites of sensitive receptors, consideration should also be given to other factors particular to the nature of business operations when determining the existence of excessive noise at the site of a commercial receptor.

Part 4 - Measuring Noise

The Part sets out the procedures and standards which an airport environment officer applies in measuring noise for the purposes of the Regulations.

Clause 4.01 - Procedures and Standards

Subclause (1) states the purpose of the clause.

Procedures and standards

Subclause 2 states the procedure to be used by the airport environment officer when making a noise measurement. The noise assessment is made at the affected site of the receptor, and the procedure used must be in accordance with the relevant Australian Standard or detailed in the final airport environment strategy for the airport concerned, or if neither of those are sufficient, a procedure published by the International Organization for Standardization. This ensures that an airport environment officer must refer to the current best-practice guidelines when making a noise assessment.

Construction of buildings, etc.

Subclause 3 defines the standard to be applied in determining the level of noise generated from a construction, maintenance or demolition activity at an airport. This guideline noise level is consistent with most environment protection agencies around the country. A maximum noise level was chosen, as opposed to the 'background plus threshold' option to take into account the possibly low background noises at some facilities.

Road traffic

Subclause 4 defines the standard to be applied in determining the level of noise generated from particular road traffic at an airport.
The guideline noise level in the clause is consistent with the equivalent noise guidelines used by State environment protection bodies.

Rail traffic

Subclause 5 defines the standard to be applied in determining the level of noise generated from particular rail traffic at an airport.

Ground-based aircraft operations

Subclause 6 defines the standard to be applied in determining the level of noise generated from particular ground-based aircraft operations at an airport. These operating guidelines are based upon current noise abatement procedures for aircraft ground running.

Other airport operations

Subclause 7 defines the standard to be applied in determining the level of noise generated from an activity mentioned in subclause 2.06(1) of this Schedule, at an airport. These are generic guidelines used nationally to assess intrusive noise. They are also consistent with the environment protection guidelines in each State.

Details of the Airports (Environment Protection) (Repeals and Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2026

Section 1 – Name

This section specifies the name of the Repeals and Consequential Amendments Regulations as the Airports (Environment Protection) (Repeals and Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2026.

Section 2 – Commencement

The section provides that the Repeals and Consequential Amendments Regulations commence on 1 April 2026. This is the same date that the 1997 Regulations are due to sunset, and the Regulations commence.

Section 3 – Authority

This section provides that the Repeals and Consequential Amendments Regulations are made under the Airports Act 1996. The latest versions of these Acts are available on the Federal Register of Legislation (www.legislation.gov.au).

Section 4 – Schedules

This section provides that each instrument that is specified in a schedule to the instrument will be amended or repealed as set out in the applicable items in the schedule concerned, and any other item in a Schedule to the instrument will have effect according to its terms.

SCHEDULE 1 - REPEALS

Item 1 – Repeals

The schedule outlines regulations to be repealed by this instrument.
The 1997 Regulations are repealed by this instrument. The 1997 Regulations have been replaced by the Regulations.
Part 10 of the Regulations preserves the effect of the 1997 Regulations to the extent necessary.

SCHEDULE 2 – CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS

Item 2 – Amendments

The schedule outlines regulations to be amended by this instrument.
Amendments are made to the Airports Regulations 2024 to replace the existing paragraph 15(1)(b) with accurate cross references to the Regulations. The paragraph in the Airports Regulations 2024 relates to the requirement for change of land use assessment reports prepared in accordance with the Regulations to be included in a draft or final master plan of an airport. It has the same intended effect as the existing paragraph 15(1)(b).
Amendments are made to the National Environment Protection Measures (Implementation) Regulations 1998 (Cth.) to replace references to the 1997 Regulations with references to the Regulations.

Attachment B

Statement of Compatibility with Human Rights

Prepared in accordance with Part 3 of the Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act 2011 (Cth.)

Airports Act 1996 (Cth.)

Airports (Environment Protection) Regulations 2026 (Cth.)

This Disallowable Legislative Instrument is compatible with the human rights and freedoms recognised or declared in the international instruments listed in section 3 of the Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act 2011 (Cth.).

Overview of the Disallowable Legislative Instrument

The Airports (Environment Protection) Regulations 2026 (Cth.) (the Regulations) establish an environmental management and regulation regime that aligns with the environmental management framework under Part 6 of the Airports Act 1996 (Cth.) (the Act). The Regulations establish a cooperative system of environmental regulation, where airport-lessee companies are responsible for environmental management, with appointed airport environment officers providing regulatory oversight.

The Regulations prescribe a range of matters to support the operation of the Act, including to:

Set out a regulatory framework that aligns with national environmental standards, guidelines and frameworks for air, water, and soil pollution.
Establish definitions, standards and pollution investigation levels for air, soil and water pollution and offensive noise.
Impose general duties upon operators of undertakings at airports to:

avoid polluting,
preserve a range of heritage and environmental values, including local biota, the ecosystems and habitats of native species and listed threatened species or ecological communities.
report significant environmental or heritage finds in a timely manner.
prevent or minimise offensive noise.

Allow an airport-lessee company to apply to the Minister for a ‘local standard’ for pollution or offensive noise that is different to the investigation levels set out in Schedules 1 to 4 of the Regulations.
Allow a person to apply for an authorisation to pollute or generate offensive noise in excess of the pollution investigation levels or excessive noise levels set out in Schedules 1 to 4 of the Regulations.
Provide a system for monitoring, reporting, investigating and remediating pollution or offensive noise that aligns with national guidelines and standards.
Provide enforcement mechanisms to address pollution, including environment protection notices and environment remediation notices as well as enhanced offence provisions to improve airport environment officers’ powers to monitor and ensuring effective reporting, investigation and remedial management of pollution and offensive noise.
Provide for offence provisions for non-compliance with environmental management controls outlined in the Act and the Regulations.
Establish a system of infringement notices for strict liability offences under the Regulations.
Provide for internal review of certain decisions made by an airport environment officer, as well as review of any internal review decisions by the Administrative Review Tribunal.
Stipulate a process for the appointment of Airport environment officers and procedures to be followed in relation to exercising their powers and responsibilities, as well as procedures for monitoring and oversight of their actions and decisions by the department.
Provide a number of technical provisions to ensure the smooth transition from the Airports (Environment Protection) Regulations 1997 (the 1997 Regulations) to the Regulations.

This instrument replaces the 1997 Regulations, which sunset on 1 April 2026.

The sunsetting date was set by the Legislation (Airport Instruments) Sunset-altering Declaration 2018 (Cth.), and subsequently the Legislation (Deferral of Sunsetting-Airport Instruments) Certificate 2022 (Cth.) and the Legislation (Deferral of Sunsetting-Airport Instruments) Amendment Certificate 2025 (Cth.).

The Federal Register of Legislation provides the legislative history of the sunsetting instrument, including past explanatory statements.

The latest versions of any Australian Government Acts, Regulations and other legislative instruments referenced in this Explanatory Statement and the instrument are available at the Federal Register of Legislation (www.legislation.gov.au).

Consultation

The department initially conducted public consultation on airports environmental regulation policy through a survey on the sunsetting regulations in 2017. There has also been extensive public consultation in the past on regulations under the Act, including public consultation to inform development of the Aviation White Paper – Towards 2050.

In 2022, the department commenced parallel consultations with airport-lessee companies which covered:

proposed reforms to the way in which environmental risks are managed on airports, and
potential updates to the Regulations, including to the ‘accepted limits’ of pollution in the Schedules.

In 2023, the department further briefed all relevant airport-lessee companies and Airport environment officers on proposed changes to the Regulations and also distributed comprehensive consultation papers on these matters. All airport-lessee companies provided written feedback on the consultation papers, and this feedback was used to inform the drafting of the Regulations.

The approach to remaking the Regulations has also been informed by the views of:

Airport environment officers,
Airport Building Controllers and other relevant departmental stakeholders, including from the Western Sydney Airport Regulatory Branch,
the department’s regular engagement with airport environment managers,
the Australian Airports Association ,
Airservices Australia,
the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water,
state and territory environment protection agencies, water authorities and
other relevant stakeholders engaged with in the course of administering the airport environment regulatory framework.

Consultation has revealed that while the Regulations are generally fit for purpose, there are opportunities to align them more closely to national standards, simplify the means by which changing pollution standards may be updated in the Schedules, strengthen monitoring, reporting, investigation and compliance options to respond to emerging pollutants of concern such as polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), modernise language in the Regulations, and make minor and technical updates.

Modernisation

The Regulations have been updated to more closely align with the drafting of the Act, and meet modern drafting standards, while generally maintaining the intent and effect of the 1997 Regulations they replace. For example:

a range of changes to language have been made throughout the instrument – see the notes on sections at Attachment A for details;
definitions have been consolidated into section 5 of the Regulations (where possible);
spent and redundant provisions have been removed in the new instrument;
offence and penalty provisions have been updated to reflect the Guide to Framing Commonwealth Offences, Infringement Notices and Enforcement Powers (May 2024), and penalty units were revised so as to better deter non-compliance;
outdated references to relevant standards, agencies and documents have been corrected, including change of the term ‘accepted limit’ (with reference to pollution limits in the Schedules) to ‘investigation level’, to reflect the wording and intent of national standards for contaminated site management;
the source of legislative authority for each Part of the Regulations is listed at the beginning of each Part; and
some applications under the Regulations must now be published both in a newspaper and on the applicant’s website.

Minor and technical updates

The Regulations have generally been updated to more closely align with the drafting of the Act, and meet modern drafting standards, while generally maintaining the intent and effect of the Regulations they replace. Examples of minor and technical updates include:

minor technical amendments to improve administration, including provisions to extend timeframes, clarify meanings, and fix general errors; and
special provisions for Sydney West Airport (also known as Western Sydney International (Nancy-Bird Walton) Airport) that apply before the airport is operational and in the absence of an in force final master plan;

A summary of other key technical changes follows:

Part 1 - Preliminary

The definition of noise is updated to include vibration.
A definition of occupier has been inserted
A new section has been inserted to provide a mechanism for the Minister to replace Schedules 1 to 4 in the Regulations with a Ministerial Determination that would move the contents of Schedules 1 to 4 into an instrument that the Minister may approve.

Part 2 – Pollution and noise

Vibration is specified as a type of offensive noise that can affect heritage sites.

Part 3 – Duties of operators of undertakings at airports

Clarifies offences punishable by a maximum of 50 penalty units for failing to notify the airport environment officer of new heritage finds, or to report harm to natural habitats and sites of heritage significance; and for breaches of the general duties to avoid pollution, to preserve environmental and heritage values and not to generate offensive noise.

Part 4 – Local standards and individual authorisations

Changes include:

Allowing the Minister to vary or revoke a local standard at the request of the airport-lessee company.
Inserting a provision that operates similarly to the ‘stop clock’ provision in section 93A of the Act to provide interested parties with time needed to satisfy natural justice processes.
Providing that where the Minister fails to decide an application for a local standard within 90 days, the application is deemed to be refused. The rationale is that local standards are licenses to exceed stated limits and should only be issued by exception after careful consideration.
Requiring the Minister to consider, when deciding whether to make a local standard, whether the local standard would permit a higher level of contamination in an area at the airport than would otherwise apply. This more closely aligns the local standard provisions with the authorisation provisions, which applies a similar test.
Stipulating that the local standard will take the form of a legislative instrument, as opposed to a notice of decision (under the 1997 Regulations). Local standards will be published as amendments to the Ministerial Instrument containing the pollution Schedules.

Part 5 – Monitoring, reporting, investigating and remediation

This Part has been updated to more closely align with national standards for contaminated site investigations and remediations, improve the airport environment officer’s monitoring and investigation powers, and meet modern drafting standards, while generally maintaining the intent and effect of the 1997 Regulations they replace. Key updates have been made to:

Shorten time frames for stakeholders to provide documents requested by the airport environment officer.

Allow for the use of existing reports to be used (subject to specific requirements) for the purposes of some provisions.
The abrogation of the privilege against self-incrimination exists in relation to an offence of failure to comply with a notice to provide information or documents about pollution (section 54).
Changes to Part 5 allow the airport environment officer to direct the occupier of an area of an airport (or other relevant person) to investigate whether any type of pollution (not just soil) has occurred.
The updated investigation procedures in Part 5 apply to pollution even where the pollutant is not listed in the Schedules, so they will be able to apply to PFAS and other emerging pollutants.
Part 5 is made for the purposes of subsection 133(1) of the Act. Subsection 133(2) of the Act requires that, ‘if a person contravenes a particular provision of regulations made for the purpose of subsection (1), the person commits an offence punishable on conviction by a fine.’ Accordingly, where improvements were sought to the airport environment officer’s monitoring and investigation powers, this has involved articulation of strict liability offences.
Division 5 of Part 5 addresses the powers of airport environment officers in relation to remediation work. The Regulations better distinguish between the stages of responding to pollution by separating the investigative elements previously contained in the definition of remediation work from the remedial works that actively respond to pollution.
The remade Regulations stipulate that an airport environment officer may only engage a person to enter an airport and undertake remedial work if satisfied they have the appropriate training, skills or experience.

Part 6 – Enforcement

The airport environment officer may issue an environment protection notice if the general duties to preserve or to avoid offensive noise are contravened.
A key addition to the environment protection notice provisions is to strengthen the test for the airport environment officer to satisfy in order to issue an emergency environment protection notice.

Part 7 – Infringement notices

The Regulations explicitly provide for issuing a single infringement notice for continuing offences under Section 81(4); while acknowledging that continuing offences are covered by subsection 4K(2) of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth.).
The Regulations better align with equivalent provisions in the Regulatory Powers (Standard Provisions) Act 2014 (Cth.), and, where possible, expectations set out in the Guide to Framing Commonwealth Offences, Infringement Notices and Enforcement Powers (May 2024) published by the Attorney-General's Department at: www.ag.gov.au/legal-system/publications/guide-framing-commonwealth-offences-infringement-notices-and-enforcement-powers.

Part 8 – Reconsideration and review of certain decisions

This Part has been updated to more closely align with Administrative Review Council guidelines on Merit Review and to meet modern drafting standards, while generally maintaining the intent and effect of the 1997 Regulations they replace.

Part 9 – Miscellaneous

This Part has been updated to more closely align with provisions in the Act, and meet modern drafting standards, while generally maintaining the intent and effect of the 1997 Regulations they replace. This includes:

Updating provisions enabling the Secretary to appoint an airport environment officer, so that the Secretary must be satisfied that the person ‘has qualifications and experience suitable to enable the person to properly discharge the functions, powers, duties and responsibilities of an airport environment officer.’ The reference to properly discharging the functions, powers, duties and responsibilities of an airport environment officer is new and diminishes the Secretary’s discretion as to whom they may appoint as an airport environment officer.
Section 94 – airport environment officer to keep records, etc., has been updated to specify that a person authorised to inspect an airport environment officer records must be Australian Public Service Executive Level 1, or higher.
The outdated immunity clause for airport environment officers acting in good faith is deleted in the remade Regulations. Note Appendix E of the Legal Services Directions 2017 (Cth.) applies in such cases. The provision requiring airport environment officer not to disclose information received in the exercise of their duties has been updated to clarify that information may be released if required by law, a written direction of the Secretary, or a court order.

Part 10 - Application, saving and transitional provisions

Part 10 of the Regulations sets out transitional arrangements in relation to the entry into force of the new instrument.

There will be a 12-month period ending on 1 April 2027, during which the 1997 Regulations remain in force in their entirety.

Schedules 1 to 4

The Schedules will remain substantially unchanged, with the following exceptions:

changing references from ‘accepted limits’ to ‘investigation levels’ throughout, to align terminology with that of relevant frameworks, such as the National Environment Protection Measure (Assessment of Site Contamination); and
minor and consequential changes in terminology, cross referencing, and formatting, including providing formulae in accessible text.

In the longer term, it is intended that the Schedules would be replaced by a Ministerial Determination so that investigation levels and pollutants may be updated with the approval of the Minister, recognising that environmental science and understanding of contaminants evolve over time and that new contaminants may be identified that require regulation.

See the notes on each section at Attachment A for details.

Human rights implications

This Disallowable Legislative Instrument engages the following rights and freedoms declared by the international instruments set out in section 3 of the Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act 2011 (Cth.):

The Regulations negatively engage article 14.3(g) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; and
the Regulations negatively engage article 17 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; and
the Regulations negatively engage article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights;
the Regulations positively engage article 11 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights; and
the Regulations positively engage article 12 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights; and
The Regulations positively engage Article 15 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)

Article 14.3(g) – The right to claim the privilege against self-incrimination.

The Regulations negatively engage this right by requiring an individual to provide information to an airport-lessee company and an Airport Environment Officer of the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications, Sport and the Arts in certain circumstances (see section 54) , even if this information might tend to incriminate the individual or expose them to a penalty. However, balancing the abrogation of the privilege against self-incrimination are the ‘use’ and ‘derivative use’ immunities set out in subsection 54(5). Paragraphs 54(5)(a) and (b) prevent the use of any information or documents given under this section being used as evidence against the person in any later court proceedings. Paragraph 54(5)(c) prevents the information or documents obtained being used to gather other evidence against the person.

Article 17 – The right to privacy.

The Regulations negatively engage this right by requiring the collection of a limited range of personal information about individuals from applicants for authorisations or transfers of authorisations under Part 4, Division 3; and from ‘airport-lessee companies who apply for local standards under Part 4, Division 2. However, only a very limited amount of the information gathered by airport environment officers will be personal information within the meaning of section 6 of the Privacy Act 1988 (Cth.) (meaning ‘information or an opinion about an identified individual, or an individual who is reasonably identifiable’) as very little of it will relate to individuals, and the overwhelming majority of information collected by airport environment officers will instead relate to corporations and other organisations. Accordingly, the collection of personal information is proportionate and compliant with the Privacy Act 1988 (Cth.).

The Regulations contain some minor information keeping requirements including requiring that the airport environment officer keep a record of actions taken and information received (under section 94). These provisions are not intended to capture personal information and do not infringe on the right to privacy.

The Regulations also negatively engage the right to privacy by allowing an airport-lessee company to enter its tenant’s property and access its documents for the purposes of complying with pollution monitoring and reporting requirements under Part 5 of the Regulations. However, this right of entry and document collection is limited to situations where the airport-lessee company has provided a request in writing. It is also subject to the requirements that the assistance must be provided ‘at any reasonable time’ and the airport-lessee company’s access must be ‘reasonably required (see section 61).’

The Regulations also negatively engage the right to privacy by allowing airport environment officers to enter the premises of any airport tenant, if necessary accompanied by a person who has relevant remedial skills and capabilities, to perform necessary pollution remediation work if the tenant has not complied with an notice for remedial work within a reasonable period, or in the interests of public health and safety or other urgency (See section 71). Accordingly, the rights of entry and access to documents are reasonable, proportionate and necessary in order to respect the rights of others (including to ensure other airport users and tenants enjoy the right to health and the right to an adequate standard of living).

Article 19 - The right to freedom of expression

This right is negatively engaged by placing non-disclosure obligations on airport environment officers in relation to information or documents obtained in the exercise of their powers and functions (see section 96).

Article 19(3) of the ICCPR provides that the right to freedom of expression may be restricted where necessary for the protection of the rights and reputations of others or for the protection of national security, public order or public health.

For that reason, imposing penalties on unauthorised use/disclosure of those kinds of protected information is permissible. Accordingly, the non-disclosure requirement is reasonable, proportionate and necessary to the respect of the rights and reputations of others (including protecting the right to privacy through protecting confidentiality and reputation) and the protection of public order.

International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR)

Article 11 - The right to an adequate standard of living

The right to an adequate standard of living is positively engaged, as the Regulations ensure that buildings and amenities on federally leased airports are constructed and maintained to environmental standards suitable for occupation.

Article 12 – The right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health.

The right to health is positively engaged by the Regulations by ensuring the environment on federally leased airports sites is managed and regulated in a manner that protects human and environmental health against unsafe levels of air, soil and water pollution and from offensive noise generated by activities at the airport. The ICESCR states that the right to health extends to the underlying determinants of health, including the promotion of a healthy environment.

Article 15 - The right to enjoy and benefit from culture.

The Regulations positively engage the right to enjoy and benefit from culture by creating and enforcing a general duty to preserve heritage sites and objects at airports.

Conclusion

This Disallowable Legislative Instrument is compatible with human rights because it positively promotes and engages some rights.

To the extent that the engagement is negative and limits human rights, those limitations are reasonable, necessary and proportionate to achieving the objective of establishing a system for the regulation of environmental management at federally leased airports.

The Honourable Catherine King MP

Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government

Airports (Environment Protection) Regulations 2026

Administered by Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications, Sport and the Arts

Details of the Airports (Environment Protection) Regulations 2026

Part 1 – Preliminary

Part 2 – Pollution and noise

Part 3 – Duties of operators of undertakings at airports

Part 4 – Local standards and individual authorisations

Part 5 – Monitoring, reporting, investigation and remediation

Subdivision B—Assessment Regarding of proposed change of use of an area at an airport

Section 65 – Airport environment officer may require assessment if change of use of an area at an airport is proposed

Subdivision C—Inaccurate or incomplete information to be corrected

Section 66 – Inaccurate or incomplete information to be corrected

Part 6 – Enforcement

Part 7 – Infringement notices

Part 8 – Reconsideration and review of certain decisions

Section 89 – Internal review of decisions

Part 9 – Miscellaneous

SCHEDULE 1 - AIR POLLUTION – INVESTIGATION LEVELS

SCHEDULE 2 - WATER POLLUTION - INVESTIGATION LEVELS

SCHEDULE 3 - SOIL POLLUTION - INVESTIGATION LEVELS

SCHEDULE 4 - EXCESSIVE NOISE - GUIDELINES

Details of the Airports (Environment Protection) (Repeals and Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2026

SCHEDULE 1 - REPEALS

SCHEDULE 2 – CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS

Statement of Compatibility with Human Rights

Overview of the Disallowable Legislative Instrument

Interactions

Legislation content

Details of the Airports (Environment Protection) Regulations 2026

Part 1 – Preliminary

Part 2 – Pollution and noise

Part 3 – Duties of operators of undertakings at airports

Part 4 – Local standards and individual authorisations

Part 5 – Monitoring, reporting, investigation and remediation

Subdivision B—Assessment Regarding of proposed change of use of an area at an airport

Section 65 – Airport environment officer may require assessment if change of use of an area at an airport is proposed

Subdivision C—Inaccurate or incomplete information to be corrected

Section 66 – Inaccurate or incomplete information to be corrected

Part 6 – Enforcement

Part 7 – Infringement notices

Part 8 – Reconsideration and review of certain decisions

Section 89 – Internal review of decisions

Part 9 – Miscellaneous

SCHEDULE 1 - AIR POLLUTION – INVESTIGATION LEVELS

SCHEDULE 2 - WATER POLLUTION - INVESTIGATION LEVELS

SCHEDULE 3 - SOIL POLLUTION - INVESTIGATION LEVELS

SCHEDULE 4 - EXCESSIVE NOISE - GUIDELINES

Details of the Airports (Environment Protection) (Repeals and Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2026

SCHEDULE 1 - REPEALS

SCHEDULE 2 – CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS

Statement of Compatibility with Human Rights

Overview of the Disallowable Legislative Instrument

Interactions

Authorises

All Versions