“For want of a nail the shoe was lost.”
#20

Back to RRAT for DCVs; a Popinjay confession; and Harmonising the National transport safety regulatory system??

While trolling the internet for research on behalf of Aunty Pru, I came across a government response to the RRAT Committee report into the performance of AMSA (parts in bold highlight the parallels to the aviation RRP, CASA etc.. Rolleyes ):

Quote:May 2021

PDF Version
PDF: 346 KB

Preamble

On 17 June 2020, the report of the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee’s (the Committee) Inquiry into the ‘Performance of the Australian Maritime Safety Authority’ (AMSA) was tabled in Parliament.

The Committee’s Inquiry was established to review the performance and operations of the Australian Maritime Safety Authority (AMSA), with a particular focus on the tragic death of Mr Damien Mills in October 2014, who attended a function aboard the charter vessel Ten-Sixty-Six, operated by the Dolphin Dive Centre Fremantle.

The report considered a range of maritime safety measures such as headcounts, examined the investigation and scope for prosecution in relation to the death of Mr Mills, and ultimately considered a range of areas for future review and reform.

In addition to making recommendations for changes in relation to enforcement powers under the Marine Safety (Domestic Commercial Vessel) National Law Act 2012 (National Law), and for an independent review of the legislative framework established under that Act, the report also highlighted potential areas for reform, such as:
  • considering changes to grandfathered arrangements for certain older vessels, such as for survey and crewing;
  • further action on safety concerns identified in past coronial inquiries, such as vessel stability, electrical safety, or the alignment of regulatory frameworks for marine safety and work health and safety;
  • ongoing improvement in the collection, analysis and dissemination of data relating to maritime safety by AMSA;
  • ensuring AMSA’s activities and resourcing are efficient, and that regulatory burden for industry is reduced where appropriate;
  • several other potential improvements to the National Law, such as adding or clarifying definitions, and resolving unproclaimed provisions.

Australian Government Response

The Australian Government welcomes the Committee’s report, and commends the work of all Senators in pursuing timely improvements to maritime safety outcomes. The Government extends its thanks to all those individuals and organisations that made constructive contributions to the Committee’s Inquiry.

The Government acknowledges that the death of Mr Damien Mills in 2014 was a tragedy. The Government sincerely extends its sympathies to Mr Mills’ family and friends. The Committee’s efforts continue to help the Government and AMSA to reduce the risk of a similar tragedy occurring again in Australia.

The Government joins the Committee in commending AMSA’s actions to improve passenger safety on Australian commercial vessels, which were implemented through changes to Marine Order 504 (Certificates of operation and operation requirements — national law) 2018. The Government acknowledges that it took time to get these changes right so that they are effective and practical. The passenger safety changes implemented by AMSA in early 2020 take a holistic approach to passenger safety and follow extensive industry and public consultation to deal with the complex and diverse needs of our commercial vessel sector.

The Government further acknowledges and supports AMSA’s efforts to establish a truly National System for Domestic Commercial Vessel Safety (national system) since service delivery responsibility transferred from the states and territories to AMSA in 2018. In that time, AMSA has brought together seven disparate regulatory regimes, and has introduced measures to improve safety culture and safety outcomes nationally.

The Government recognises the importance of ensuring that vessels are safe. People working or travelling as passengers on domestic commercial vessels should have confidence that these vessels meet safety standards that will ensure they return home safely from their voyages. The Government is committed to ensuring the national system delivers safety outcomes for the diverse range of maritime businesses across Australia, including commercial transport, tourism, fishing and charter boating operations. These are important industries, particularly for our regional and coastal communities.

The Government supports continuous improvement of the national system to support the safe design, construction, equipping, operation and crewing of these vessels. The Government also recognises the challenges in achieving appropriate safety regulation settings across the diverse sectors that make up Australia’s 22,000 domestic commercial vessels. These sectors comprise vastly different operations, ranging from an individual fisher working in a tinnie to a corporation running a fleet of passenger ferries; they may operate on a calm inland lake or in the open ocean. As a result, safety requirements for these diverse operations are broad, spanning vessel design, construction, equipping, operation and crewing, and can change over time, such as to respond to new technology or shifts in the fleet’s composition. This means that safety regulation needs to balance national consistency with the need for flexibility, including across different industry sectors and operation types, if it is to remain practical and reflect industry diversity. 

Consequently, the Government supports AMSA in continuing to carefully consider and work with industry to ensure safety requirements are balanced with the costs of compliance across its spectrum of regulated businesses. The Government recognises that maritime safety regulation requires flexibility, and should be practical for all industry sectors to implement.

The Government supports all of the Committee’s recommendations, and intends to pursue a suite of improvements to the national system and National Law, informed by an independent review as recommended by the Committee. As set out in this response, specific aspects of each recommendation require further consideration based on the best available data and evidence, and consultation, to ensure implementation arrangements improve safety and can be actioned by industry. Consultation with Australia’s maritime industries and with state and territory governments will be important in this process. 

The Government notes that any changes to safety requirements need to work as part of the whole system of domestic commercial vessel safety. In responding to other matters explored in the Committee’s report, as well as in related reports and inquiries such as the Productivity Commission’s Inquiry into National Transport Regulatory Reform, the Government intends to pursue a range of operational, legislative, and strategic actions to improve maritime safety.
 
This statement...

".. In responding to other matters explored in the Committee’s report, as well as in related reports and inquiries such as the Productivity Commission’s Inquiry into National Transport Regulatory Reform.."

...led me to that report: https://www.pc.gov.au/inquiries/complete...ort/report

Quote:National Transport Regulatory Reform
Inquiry report
This report was sent to Government on 7 April 2020 and publicly released on 1 October 2020.

The Australian Government asked the Productivity Commission to assess the economic impact of reforms to transport regulation agreed to by the Council of Australian Governments (COAG) in 2008-09. Those reforms relate to heavy vehicle safety and productivity, rail safety and maritime safety.

The Government also asked the Commission to recommend further reforms towards a more integrated national market for transport services.

Some related DCV recommendations:

Quote:FINDING 5.3 – AMSA IS RESPONSIBLE FOR A BROAD RANGE OF VESSELS The Australian Maritime Safety Authority (AMSA) has a complex regulatory task. AMSA is responsible for regulating a diverse set of vessels, from kayaks to fishing boats and passenger ferries. Operators of domestic commercial vessels are also diverse. Some large operators are able to implement sophisticated risk management systems, while many smaller operators have difficulty in using AMSA’s centralised, online systems. The diversity of the fleet and operators has complicated the process of transition to consistent national regulation of domestic commercial vessels.

RECOMMENDATION 4.2 – TRANSFER REGULATORY POWERS TO THE NATIONAL REGULATORS The Transport and Infrastructure Council should agree to transfer all regulatory functions still held by participating jurisdictions to the National Heavy Vehicle Regulator by 2022. To ensure consistent application of the national laws, the National Heavy Vehicle Regulator and Australian Maritime Safety Authority should phase out service-level agreements with State and Territory agencies. However, where there is a business case for the national regulators to retain service-level agreements with third parties, those parties should act under the direction of the national regulators to ensure consistent decisions across jurisdictions.



RECOMMENDATION 9.2 – NATIONAL REGULATORS SHOULD TAKE A RISK-BASED APPROACH The Australian Government should work with the Transport and Infrastructure Council to develop a statement of expectations for the National Heavy Vehicle Regulator (NHVR) and the Australian Maritime Safety Authority (AMSA). The statement should direct the national transport safety regulators to take a risk-based approach to regulation, enforcement and other functions.



FINDING 4.3 – ONGOING GRANDFATHERING OF DOMESTIC COMMERCIAL VESSELS HAS COSTS It is unclear whether grandfathering was intended to be a temporary or permanent measure under the Marine Safety National Law. Open-ended grandfathering perpetuates the inconsistencies of previous State and Territory regimes, delays the adoption of new safety practices and complicates enforcement.

RECOMMENDATION 6.6 – END GRANDFATHERING OF VESSEL SURVEY REQUIREMENTS The Council of Australian Governments and the Australian Maritime Safety Authority should wind up the grandfathering of safety regulations under the Marine Safety National Law. Priority should be given to ending grandfathering arrangements that relate to vessel survey requirements and fire detection and smoke detection systems. The Australian Maritime Safety Authority should use the information from vessel survey and other sources to review the safety risks arising from other grandfathering arrangements and the costs to vessel operators of removing the arrangements. Where the safety benefits exceed the costs, grandfathering arrangements should be removed.



FINDING 5.2 – STATE AND TERRITORY AGENCIES SHOULD REGULATE HIRE AND DRIVE VESSELS Class 4 ‘Hire and Drive’ recreational vessels have more in common with recreational vessels (which continue to be regulated by State and Territory government agencies) than with other types of commercial vessels. The decision to transfer safety regulation of these vessels from State and Territory agencies to the national regulator was not justified on the basis of safety, or efficient or effective regulation. State and Territory government agencies are better placed to regulate these vessels than the Australian Maritime Safety Authority, particularly in relation to enforcement.

RECOMMENDATION 5.3 – RETURN HIRE AND DRIVE VESSEL REGULATION TO THE STATES The Australian Government should negotiate with State and Territory governments to return responsibility for regulating Class 4 Domestic Commercial Vessels (Hire and Drive) to State and Territory agencies.



RECOMMENDATION 6.5 – IMPROVE MARITIME INCIDENT REPORTING AND DISCLOSURE The Australian Government should direct the Australian Maritime Safety Authority to take steps to improve:  incident reporting by owners of domestic commercial vessels  its public disclosure of safety incidents. AMSA should report fatalities and injuries in greater detail, including a state-by-state and vessel-type breakdown of fatalities and injuries.

Last but by no means least we had this (Popinjay to the rescue -  Dodgy ) recommendation:

Quote:RECOMMENDATION 9.4 – IMPROVING SAFETY THROUGH NO-BLAME INVESTIGATION AND RESEARCH The Australian Government should:  provide a sufficient annual appropriation to enable the Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) to carry out its functions, both existing and as proposed in this inquiry  formalise the role of the ATSB in conducting investigations and research involving Domestic Commercial Vessels and rail  amend the Transport Safety Investigation Act 2003 to enable the ATSB to conduct research and investigate incidents involving heavy vehicles, and autonomous vehicle technologies  direct the ATSB to undertake a clearly defined, phased transition into the heavy vehicle role, including an initial period of data collection and research to identify any systemic issues and incident types with the potential to inform policy. The costs of the ATSB should not be subject to cost recovery from industry, but the States and Territories should support the Australian Government by providing a consistent contribution to its total costs, rather than on a case-by-case basis.

Which got me going back to this, recently updated, ATSB webpage: https://www.atsb.gov.au/about_atsb/inquiry-submissions

Quote:Inquiry submissions

Consistent with the Minister’s Statement of Expectations, the ATSB provides input into government inquiries reviewing the ATSB’s jurisdiction across different modes of transport. Below are recent submissions the ATSB has made to relevant government inquiries.

To which it can be discovered that the ATSB made submissions to the NTRR:

National Transport Regulatory Reform Inquiry draft report

National Transport Regulatory Reform Inquiry issues paper

Plus the Review of DCV safety legislation: 

 Independent Review of Domestic Commercial Vessel Safety Legislation and Costs and Charging Arrangements

Quote:Organisation conducting the inquiry

Independent reviewers, reporting to the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government 
Purpose of the inquiry
The Australian Government has commissioned an independent review to consider whether Australia’s legal framework regulating the safety of domestic commercial vessels is fit for purpose. The review is also to consider whether this regulatory framework is being delivered efficiently and effectively, and to consider options for future cost recovery arrangements.
Date of the ATSB's submission
5 April 2022
Summary of the ATSB's submission
This submission is a response to the consultation aid, released in February 2022, prepared for phase 1 of the independent review. The ATSB’s submission outlines matters for the reviewers to consider in relation to expanding the ATSB’s role.
Key points in the ATSB's submission
  • The ATSB does not have an agreed role in relation to DCVs.
  • In general terms, ATSB investigations improve safety.
  • The ATSB does not have resources to prepare a considered comment on whether expanding its remit to include DCVs would support substantially improved safety outcomes.
  • Any recommended change to the ATSB’s role should be considered in the context of any other jurisdictional expansion.

Ref: https://www.atsb.gov.au/sites/default/fi...bureau.pdf

Which brings me (finally) to Popinjay's confession... Dodgy 

From page 4 of the ATSB DCV submission:

Quote:3.1.4 The ATSB is not in a position to continue conducting DCV-only investigations or taking on a
new role in DCVs in future unless new resources are made available for this purpose.
The ATSB’s financial position is already under strain in relation to its current jurisdiction.
The majority of the ATSB’s investigations are into aviation occurrences. As an indication,
in 2020-21, 85 per cent of the investigations the ATSB initiated were into aviation accidents
and incidents.

3.1.5 However, even with that level of activity, the ATSB did not investigate enough accidents
and incidents to fully meet the international standards and recommended practices
for aircraft accident and incident investigation outlined in Annex 13 to the Convention
on International Civil Aviation. In the rail sector, the ATSB is critically underfunded
to conduct rail investigations across Australia. The Productivity Commission inquiry into
national transport regulatory reform noted some of the challenges of the current rail funding
arrangements for the ATSB and recommended the Australian Government provide sufficient
annual appropriation to enable to ATSB to carry out its existing functions2.
 
MTF...P2  Tongue

PS: P2 OBS - I note that OTSI made a brief but incisive submission to the NTRR inquiry: https://www.pc.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_...nsport.pdf

However for some unexplained reason, especially considering the prevalence in recent times of completed /active investigations and significant negative publicity on safety issues in the DCV Ferry sector, it would appear that OTSI has not made a submission to the DCV legislation review -  Huh

PPS: With the evidence of OTSI's apparent reluctance to investigate the Emerald Class Ferries steering failure incidents and subsequent limited scope investigation (without including regulatory and/or survey issues), could it be that the current incarnation of OTSI has been captured by the regulator AMSA??

Quote:Scope of the investigation

Based on findings from OTSI’s preliminary enquiries, the Chief Investigator determined that the matter warranted investigation in accordance with Section 46 of the Passenger Transport Act 1990 (NSW). The scope of the investigation includes, but is not limited to:
  • Defect management systems and associated assurance processes for critical steering failures at introduction into service and throughout the service life of the vessels; 
  • The effectiveness of the SMS in managing risks to service operations while critical steering defects are identified and repaired; and 
  • Engineering resource and competence to support defect management and associated assurance processes across the fleet
Reply


Messages In This Thread
“For want of a nail the shoe was lost.” - by Peetwo - 11-26-2022, 05:50 PM
RE: “For want of a nail the shoe was lost.” - by Peetwo - 11-26-2022, 09:47 PM
RE: “For want of a nail the shoe was lost.” - by Kharon - 11-28-2022, 05:23 PM
RE: “For want of a nail the shoe was lost.” - by Peetwo - 11-28-2022, 05:59 PM
RE: “For want of a nail the shoe was lost.” - by Peetwo - 11-30-2022, 07:41 AM
RE: “For want of a nail the shoe was lost.” - by Peetwo - 11-30-2022, 05:29 PM
RE: “For want of a nail the shoe was lost.” - by Kharon - 12-01-2022, 05:35 AM
RE: “For want of a nail the shoe was lost.” - by Wombat - 12-01-2022, 05:54 AM
RE: “For want of a nail the shoe was lost.” - by Kharon - 12-02-2022, 07:54 AM
RE: “For want of a nail the shoe was lost.” - by Peetwo - 12-02-2022, 07:54 PM
RE: “For want of a nail the shoe was lost.” - by Kharon - 12-03-2022, 07:26 AM
RE: “For want of a nail the shoe was lost.” - by Peetwo - 12-05-2022, 09:22 AM
RE: “For want of a nail the shoe was lost.” - by Kharon - 12-06-2022, 06:38 AM
RE: “For want of a nail the shoe was lost.” - by P7_TOM - 12-06-2022, 05:32 PM
RE: “For want of a nail the shoe was lost.” - by Kharon - 12-08-2022, 06:14 AM
RE: “For want of a nail the shoe was lost.” - by Peetwo - 12-10-2022, 10:52 AM
RE: “For want of a nail the shoe was lost.” - by Kharon - 12-12-2022, 07:33 PM
RE: “For want of a nail the shoe was lost.” - by Peetwo - 12-13-2022, 11:08 PM
RE: “For want of a nail the shoe was lost.” - by Kharon - 12-15-2022, 07:42 AM
RE: “For want of a nail the shoe was lost.” - by Peetwo - 12-16-2022, 06:46 PM
RE: “For want of a nail the shoe was lost.” - by Peetwo - 12-19-2022, 08:53 AM
RE: “For want of a nail the shoe was lost.” - by Peetwo - 01-12-2023, 08:50 PM
RE: “For want of a nail the shoe was lost.” - by Peetwo - 01-20-2023, 07:01 PM
RE: “For want of a nail the shoe was lost.” - by Kharon - 01-24-2023, 05:48 PM
RE: “For want of a nail the shoe was lost.” - by Peetwo - 02-03-2023, 08:05 PM
RE: “For want of a nail the shoe was lost.” - by Kharon - 02-04-2023, 06:17 AM
RE: “For want of a nail the shoe was lost.” - by Kharon - 02-08-2023, 07:32 AM
RE: “For want of a nail the shoe was lost.” - by Peetwo - 02-08-2023, 07:39 AM
RE: “For want of a nail the shoe was lost.” - by Peetwo - 02-09-2023, 06:43 PM
RE: “For want of a nail the shoe was lost.” - by Peetwo - 02-10-2023, 05:08 PM
RE: “For want of a nail the shoe was lost.” - by P7_TOM - 02-10-2023, 06:54 PM
RE: “For want of a nail the shoe was lost.” - by Peetwo - 02-11-2023, 07:46 AM
RE: “For want of a nail the shoe was lost.” - by Peetwo - 02-13-2023, 12:28 PM
RE: “For want of a nail the shoe was lost.” - by Peetwo - 02-18-2023, 10:46 AM
RE: “For want of a nail the shoe was lost.” - by Kharon - 02-20-2023, 07:24 AM
RE: “For want of a nail the shoe was lost.” - by Peetwo - 02-21-2023, 09:52 AM
RE: “For want of a nail the shoe was lost.” - by P7_TOM - 02-21-2023, 04:08 PM
RE: “For want of a nail the shoe was lost.” - by Peetwo - 02-22-2023, 07:51 PM
RE: “For want of a nail the shoe was lost.” - by Kharon - 02-23-2023, 06:23 AM
RE: “For want of a nail the shoe was lost.” - by P7_TOM - 02-23-2023, 05:12 PM
RE: “For want of a nail the shoe was lost.” - by Peetwo - 02-25-2023, 09:39 AM
RE: “For want of a nail the shoe was lost.” - by Peetwo - 03-04-2023, 11:27 AM
RE: “For want of a nail the shoe was lost.” - by Peetwo - 03-14-2023, 09:02 AM
RE: “For want of a nail the shoe was lost.” - by Kharon - 03-15-2023, 05:02 PM
RE: “For want of a nail the shoe was lost.” - by Peetwo - 03-19-2023, 10:44 PM
RE: “For want of a nail the shoe was lost.” - by P7_TOM - 03-21-2023, 05:16 PM
RE: “For want of a nail the shoe was lost.” - by P7_TOM - 03-27-2023, 04:49 PM
RE: “For want of a nail the shoe was lost.” - by Peetwo - 03-28-2023, 09:40 AM
RE: “For want of a nail the shoe was lost.” - by Peetwo - 03-31-2023, 07:38 PM
RE: “For want of a nail the shoe was lost.” - by Peetwo - 04-10-2023, 04:51 PM
RE: “For want of a nail the shoe was lost.” - by Peetwo - 04-11-2023, 09:02 AM
RE: “For want of a nail the shoe was lost.” - by Peetwo - 04-12-2023, 09:18 AM
RE: “For want of a nail the shoe was lost.” - by Peetwo - 04-20-2023, 09:00 PM
RE: “For want of a nail the shoe was lost.” - by Peetwo - 06-06-2023, 09:30 AM
RE: “For want of a nail the shoe was lost.” - by Peetwo - 06-12-2023, 09:51 AM
RE: “For want of a nail the shoe was lost.” - by Peetwo - 07-14-2023, 06:38 PM
RE: “For want of a nail the shoe was lost.” - by Peetwo - 06-13-2023, 09:57 AM
RE: “For want of a nail the shoe was lost.” - by Peetwo - 06-21-2023, 09:51 AM
RE: “For want of a nail the shoe was lost.” - by Peetwo - 06-23-2023, 06:57 PM
RE: “For want of a nail the shoe was lost.” - by Peetwo - 08-10-2023, 08:44 PM
RE: “For want of a nail the shoe was lost.” - by Peetwo - 11-04-2023, 06:57 PM
RE: “For want of a nail the shoe was lost.” - by Peetwo - 02-22-2024, 08:20 PM
RE: “For want of a nail the shoe was lost.” - by Peetwo - 03-01-2024, 08:06 AM
RE: “For want of a nail the shoe was lost.” - by Peetwo - 03-01-2024, 06:04 PM
RE: “For want of a nail the shoe was lost.” - by Peetwo - 03-11-2024, 03:29 PM
RE: “For want of a nail the shoe was lost.” - by Peetwo - 03-20-2024, 07:37 PM
RE: “For want of a nail the shoe was lost.” - by Peetwo - 03-23-2024, 04:35 PM
RE: “For want of a nail the shoe was lost.” - by Peetwo - 03-29-2024, 08:54 AM



Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)