Summary

Overall result

Proposed changes

The feedback received was largely in favour of the proposed changes. As a result, AMSA will move forward to finalise the remake of the marine order. The final version of the marine order will be updated to reflect some of the feedback received during the consultation.  

Hours of rest

The feedback received was mixed. There was strong support from seafarers in certain sectors such as towage, oil and gas and offshore construction. There was strong opposition from other sectors including some members of the fishing industry.

AMSA will use this feedback to inform future policy decisions. However, we won’t make changes to hours of rest as part of the current MO504 review process.

Consultation period

28 May 2024 to 28 July 2024.

Feedback

AMSA received a total of 109 submissions, including:

• 97 submissions received via the online submission form  
• 12 submissions received via email.  

Submissions were from:  

• DCV owners, operators, masters and crew (75%)
• national and state industry associations (13%)
• other maritime professionals (9%)
• state and Australian Government agencies (3%).  

Approximately half of the submissions focused on the hours of rest proposal. 

Full report

Consultation outcome

The Australian Maritime Safety Authority (AMSA) has analysed and considered the feedback received through the consultation on proposed changes to MO504 relating to SMSs.  

The feedback received was largely in favour of the proposed changes and as a result, AMSA will move forward to finalise the remake of the marine order. The final version of the marine order will be updated to reflect some of the feedback received during the consultation. This feedback is described in more detail in the below report.  

In addition to the proposed changes to the marine order, AMSA also sought views on expanding the requirement for at least 10 hours rest in each 24-hour period to all domestic commercial vessel (DCV) masters and crew. Currently, this rest requirement only applies to vessels operating with prescribed minimum crewing numbers.  

AMSA received significant interest in this proposal, with many submissions focusing solely on this matter. The feedback received was mixed, with strong support from seafarers in certain sectors such as towage, oil and gas and offshore construction and strong opposition from other sectors including some members of the fishing industry.

AMSA will now consider the feedback received on the hours of rest proposal to inform future policy decisions, however, no changes to the hours of rest requirement will be made as part of this review process.  

The new MO504 instrument will be made available to industry in the second half of 2024 before it comes into effect on 1 June 2025.  

AMSA will deliver an information and education campaign commencing in the second half of 2024 to raise awareness of the changes and provide guidance to support industry in implementing the applicable changes.  

Background  

MO504 is a legislative instrument made under the Marine Safety (Domestic Commercial Vessel) National Law Act 2012 and sets out the requirements for ensuring the safe operations of DCVs.  

MO504 prescribes matters relating to the following:

• the application and issue of a certificate of operation  
• the criteria for the renewal, variation, suspension and revocation of a certificate of operation  
• conditions on a certificate of operation  
• application requirements for temporary crewing permits and crewing determinations for vessels ≥80m or ≥3000GT or ≥3000kW
• operation and SMS requirements  
• additional operation and SMS requirements for Class 4 vessels
• key definitions. 

AMSA commenced a two-phased review of MO504 in 2021. The first phase focused on ensuring consistency with Marine Order 505 (Certificates of competency – national law) 2022 and clarifying the lifejacket wear requirements in the SMS. These amendments came into effect on 1 August 2023. The second (and current) phase is focused on improving the SMS provisions.  

To support the review of MO504, an industry reference group was formed, made up of representatives from different sectors of the DCV industry. Regular meetings were held with this group to co-design the proposed amendments to ensure that they were fit for purpose, practical and proportionate.  

The consultation process

The consultation commenced on 28 May 2024 and closed on 28 July 2024, a period of eight and a half weeks.  

AMSA developed a consultation hub on the AMSA website which included the draft MO504 instrument, a summary of the proposed changes, the regulatory costings analysis and a timeline of the key dates. The consultation hub was viewed over 20,000 times throughout the course of the consultation.  

Stakeholders were encouraged to provide a submission through the online submission form, email or by contacting AMSA Connect.  

The consultation was promoted through the following channels:  

• a news item on the AMSA website
• an article in the ‘AMSA Update’ newsletter which has over 20,000 subscribers
• over 50,000 direct emails sent to stakeholders within the DCV industry
• organic and paid social media posts on Facebook and LinkedIn which were viewed over 1 million times.  

AMSA also raised awareness of the consultation process through its regular stakeholder engagement activities including the National Safety Committee and the Regional Safety Committee forums.  

In addition to these communications activities, AMSA held an online information session targeted at external stakeholders to provide guidance on the proposed changes and how to provide feedback. The session was held on 7 June 2024 and was attended by over 100 industry representatives, with some taking the opportunity to ask questions. A recording of the information session was published on the consultation hub and AMSA’s YouTube channel.  

A question and answer (Q&A) page was added to the consultation hub midway through the consultation to share some answers to questions that AMSA received from stakeholders throughout the first half of the consultation period.  

Results of the consultation

AMSA received a total of 109 submissions during the consultation period.  

97 were received via the online submission form.

12 were received via email.  

Most submissions received were from DCV owners, operators, masters and crew (approx. 75%). The remaining submissions were received from National and State Industry Associations (approx. 13%), other maritime professionals (approx. 9%) and State and Federal Government Agencies (approx. 3%).  

Approximately half of the submissions focused on the hours of rest proposal.  

Proposed changes – key themes

Simplifying SMS requirements for smaller, less complex vessels and operations  

• There was strong support for the proposed amendments to simplify SMS requirements for smaller, less complex vessels and operations.  
• Feedback received was largely positive and welcoming of the proposed change, with many submissions agreeing that the simplified SMS approach would be more achievable and suitable for their operations.  
• A number of submissions cited the difficulties and administrative burden involved in developing an SMS that meets the current requirements in MO504 for a lower complexity vessel.  
• Some submissions questioned why the simplified SMS eligibility criteria is limited to vessels less than 7.5m and suggested that it should be expanded.  
• Some submissions considered that the SMS should be further simplified.  
• AMSA plans to proceed with the simplified SMS amendments. Once implemented, we intend to monitor the performance of the simplified SMS approach and examine whether the eligibility criteria is fit for purpose, and balances safety and burden on industry. We will also consider whether some larger vessels should be eligible for simplified SMS arrangements in the future.  

Strengthening fatigue management  

• A number of submissions were in favour of the proposed change to include a fatigue risk management plan in the vessel’s SMS.  
• The feedback indicated that many DCV owners and operators already have in place policies and procedures akin to a fatigue risk management plan.  
• Some submissions highlighted that one of the key benefits of a fatigue risk management plan is that it allows the DCV owner or operator to implement a tailored approach that is suitable for the specific operation.  
• Some submissions stated that this requirement aligns with and will bolster existing WHS requirements.  
• Some feedback suggested that the fatigue risk management plan should be prepared in consultation with the master and crew of the vessel to ensure that those operating the vessel have an opportunity to provide input. As the plan is a component of the vessel’s risk assessment, it will need to be developed in consultation with the master and crew.  
• Some feedback suggested that the requirement to manage the risk of master and crew fatigue with a fatigue risk management plan would be limiting and that other mechanisms may be more appropriate.  
• A number of submissions highlighted the importance for this proposed amendment to be supported by detailed guidance that addresses different operation types from fishing to ferry operations.  
• AMSA plans to proceed with the proposed change to require the owner to identify in the vessel’s risk assessment the risks of master and crew fatigue and how these risks are managed. Based on the feedback received, AMSA has decided to remove the reference to a ‘fatigue risk management plan’ from the marine order. This change will provide vessel owners with the flexibility to choose whether they manage the risk of master and crew fatigue through a fatigue risk management plan or other mechanisms. To support this change, AMSA intends to deliver detailed guidance to assist industry in managing the risk of master and crew fatigue.  

Enhancing the management of risks from drug and alcohol use

• A number of submissions were in favour of the proposed change to include a drug and alcohol policy in the vessel’s SMS.  
• Some submissions noted that their support was based on the understanding that owners and operators would be given the flexibility to tailor this policy to their specific operations and circumstances, including any decision to undertake or not undertake drug and alcohol testing.  
• Some submissions noted that this requirement aligns with and will bolster existing WHS requirements.  
• One submission supported further prescription in the marine order and advocated for a requirement around drug and alcohol testing to create a safer working environment.  
• A number of submissions recommended that AMSA provide guidance to assist industry with developing a drug and alcohol policy.  
• AMSA plans to proceed with the proposed change to require a drug and alcohol policy to be included in the vessel’s SMS. To support this change, AMSA intends to produce guidance to assist industry in developing a drug and alcohol policy.  

Ensuring that roles and responsibilities for the safe operation of the vessel are clear  

• There was support for the proposed changes to ensure that roles and responsibilities for the safe operation of the vessel are clear. This includes both the proposed inclusion of a designated person responsibility statement in the vessel’s SMS and the proposed clarification of the master’s responsibility and authority statement.  
• AMSA plans to proceed with the proposed changes to ensure that the roles and responsibilities for the safe operation of the vessel are clear. AMSA intends to produce guidance to support industry in developing responsibility and authority statements.  

Updating the assembly station requirements in the vessel’s emergency plan  

• There was support for the proposed changes to update the assembly station requirements in the vessel’s emergency plan.  
• Feedback indicated that requiring an alternative assembly station only if it is practicable based on the vessel’s risk assessment, layout and characteristics was a practical and positive change.  
• AMSA plans to proceed with the proposed change to update the assembly station requirements in the vessel’s emergency plan.  

Aligning procedures for onboard operations and emergency preparedness with risk  

• There was support for the proposed change to require the following procedures to be included in the vessel’s SMS:  
  • vessel start up and shutdown  
  • vessel mooring and berthing  
  • vessel bunkering and refuelling  
  • vessel access
  • passage plan(s)
  • for a vessel with a confined space – confined space entry
  • for a vessel that carries cargo – cargo operations including the carriage of dangerous goods as cargo. 
• Equally, there was support for adding procedures to respond to ‘loss of propulsion’ and an ‘oil or fuel spill’ in the emergency plan.  
• A small number of submissions raised concerns that some of the procedures added will not always be applicable for some vessels and suggested that each procedure should only be required if relevant or applicable to the vessel’s operations.  
• AMSA plans to proceed with the proposed change to add procedures for key vessel operations and emergency preparedness. However, we intend to adjust the wording in the marine order to ensure that each procedure is only required if applicable to the vessel and its operation. AMSA intends to provide guidance to support industry in developing the new procedures.

Addressing operational risks to vessel stability

• Submissions indicated support for the changes addressing operational risks to vessel stability, in particular the requirement for the owner to keep a record of modifications affecting vessel stability with the vessel’s SMS.
• A number of submissions suggested that the support for this amendment was based on the understanding that AMSA would produce guidance for industry, particularly to ensure they are aware of what kinds of modifications should be recorded.  
• One submission questioned the safety benefits of the proposed change for a record of modifications to be kept with the vessel’s SMS and how this would work in practice.  
• Another submission highlighted the importance of communicating the clear difference between this requirement and those in Marine Order 503 (Certificates of survey – national law) 2018 (MO503).  
• AMSA plans to proceed with the proposed changes requiring the owner of the vessel to identify the operational risks to vessel stability in the vessel’s risk assessment and to keep a record of modifications affecting stability with the vessel’s SMS. AMSA notes that this requirement is in addition to any requirements outlined in MO503. AMSA intends to provide some general guidance to assist industry in meeting these requirements.  

Amending the certificate of operation renewal criteria to reduce administrative burden

• The consultation feedback indicated support for amending the certificate of operation renewal criteria to allow certificate of operation renewals for selected low-risk changes.  
• Many submissions welcomed any changes aimed at reducing administrative burden, particularly for smaller, less complex vessels and operations.  
• AMSA plans to proceed with amending the certificate of operation renewal criteria.  

Other proposed changes

• The consultation indicated support for the following other proposed changes:  
  • allowing inspections for the system of regular programmed inspection and maintenance of the vessel, its machinery and its equipment to be undertaken by an authorised representative or suitable person on behalf of the vessel owner
  • adding restrictions on temporary crewing permits for masters on DCVs equal to or greater than 24 metres in length
  • changing the wording in several sections in MO504 to fix structural issues and improve flow of the marine order
  • amending the reasons and criteria for suspension and revocation for certificates of operation and updating the suspension period
  • requiring Class 4 vessels to only carry vessel procedures onboard if it is practical
  • allowing owners of Class 4 vessels to determine the briefing given to hirers and participants based on the vessel’s risk assessment.
• A number of submissions did not support the requirement for a mandatory back-up arrangement for the vessel’s logbook. Feedback indicated that this would be impractical for paper-based logbooks. As a result, AMSA will not proceed with this proposed amendment. However, the existing requirement for a back-up arrangement to be kept for electronic logbooks to avoid the loss of information will remain in the marine order.  

Hours of rest proposal

Background  

• As part of the consultation process, AMSA sought industry views on expanding the requirement for 10 hours rest in each 24-hour period to all masters and crew. The proposal was not included in the draft marine order as a proposed change but was a separate proposal to gather input from industry to better understand current arrangements and the benefits and challenges of providing 10 hours rest in each 24-hour period.  

Outcome

• The feedback on the proposal was mixed, with strong support received from seafarers from certain sectors such as towage, oil and gas and offshore construction and strong opposition from other sectors including some members of the fishing industry.
• AMSA will now further consider the feedback received on the hours of rest proposal to inform future policy decisions, however, no changes to hours of rest will be made as part of this review process.  

Key points in favour of the hours of rest proposal

• A number of submissions in favour of expanding the requirement for 10 hours of rest in each 24-hour period, also advocated for the rest periods to be continuous (10 hours rest provided as one break) opposed to cumulative (the 10 hours rest provided through multiple shorter breaks). Many submissions cited the difficulty in achieving quality sleep when provided with multiple shorter rest periods.  
• A number of the submissions in favour of the hours of rest proposal suggested that 10 hours of rest in each 24-hour period is still not sufficient to address the risk of fatigue and that AMSA should consider 12 hours of rest in a 24-hour period.  
• Submissions received from DCV masters and crew raised concerns about the current rest periods that they are provided and how they must use this time to travel to and from the port or the vessel’s point of departure. For many, this involves driving a vehicle home after working on a DCV for longer than 14 hours.  
• Submissions received from DCV masters and crew provided concerns around the level of contact received from employers during rest hours including work related text messages, phone calls and schedule updates. These forms of out-of-hours contact can disrupt the rest and recovery time and exacerbate fatigue and stress. Many submissions advocated for a ‘right to disconnect’ during rest periods.
• Some submissions received in favour of the hours of rest proposal, suggested that the requirements for DCVs should mirror the rest requirements in the International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers.  

Key points against the hours of rest proposal

• A number of submissions received did not support the hours of rest proposal. These submissions highlighted the difficulties faced by certain sectors of the DCV industry, such as commercial fishing, in applying a one-size-fits-all approach to fatigue management.  
• A number of submissions noted that the nature of their operation is incompatible with a prescriptive 10 hours of rest in a 24-hour period due to the need for operational flexibility and need to respond to external factors when they arise. These submissions advocated for fatigue management to be considered on a case-by-case basis.  
• A number of submissions noted that expanding the 10 hours of rest in a 24-hour period would be impractical for their operations and would adversely impact the viability of their business.  
• Some submissions also put forward additional safety concerns that could result from expanding the hours of rest. This could include increased pollution from not being able to retrieve fishing gear.  
• A number of submissions suggested that AMSA continue to consult on this matter with industry before making any regulatory changes.

Other suggestions  

• A number of submissions recognised that this proposal would impact DCVs differently and suggested that AMSA consider an industry/operation specific approach to hours of rest. This would see different requirements for a Class 2 vessel compared to a Class 3 vessel.  
• A small number of submissions suggested that fatigue management training be required to all masters and crew that work over a certain number of hours per day or operate overnight.  
• A small number of submissions suggested that AMSA consider the hours of rest requirement to be over a longer period of time (opposed to 24 hours) or include the requirement for a recovery period if you work longer than a certain number of hours in a day.  

Other feedback received

• One submission put forward concerns around the lack of audits or verification processes in place to confirm SMS compliance. AMSA has recorded this feedback, however, it is important to highlight that audits are not the only compliance tool available. AMSA has existing risk-based systems in place to check SMS compliance this includes through the certificate of operation application process and DCV inspections.  
• One submission suggested that the provision of more accessible information for those with poor literacy skills should be considered for future consultations.  
• Several submissions commented on the need for further flexibility in the DCV regulations to ensure that they are applicable to the variety of vessels and operations that make up the DCV fleet. In particular, it was noted that the regulations including the proposed changes are not all suited for human powered vessels, particularly those that are not Class 4 (hire and drive). One possible suggestion put forward was to add more vessel classes to cater for the vast differences in operational requirements required for certain types of vessels and operations.