Marine Order 19 (Tonnage measurement) 2025

The central concept in this Order is the International Tonnage Certificate (1969), abbreviated as ITC(1969). This is the documentary evidence that a vessel’s gross and net tonnage have been measured in accordance with Annex I of the Tonnage Convention. Gross tonnage is a function of the moulded volume of all enclosed spaces; net tonnage is a function of the moulded volume of cargo spaces, adjusted for passenger capacity and depth. Tonnage is not a measure of weight but of volume, and it determines the application of many other regulatory regimes: SOLAS (safety), MARPOL (pollution), STCW (crew standards), port dues, canal fees, and insurance requirements. Thus, an ITC(1969) is a prerequisite for trading internationally for vessels above certain thresholds.

A regulated Australian vessel is defined in the Navigation Act as a vessel that is on the Australian General Shipping Register or the Australian International Shipping Register. The Order requires every such vessel to which the Tonnage Convention applies to hold an ITC(1969) (s 8(1)). The Tonnage Convention applies to vessels of 24 metres in length and above engaged on international voyages; but the Order makes no exception for domestic voyages. So, in practice, any regulated Australian vessel of that size must hold the certificate regardless of its trading pattern.

A foreign vessel to which the Tonnage Convention applies must also have an ITC(1969) when in Australian waters and must comply with all applicable Tonnage Convention requirements (s 14). This aligns Australian law with the Convention’s mutual recognition provisions: one certificate issued by a Convention country is accepted by all others.

The keel laid concept is critical because it determines eligibility to use the repealed regulations for SOLAS and MARPOL purposes. The Order provides a bright-line test: the keel is taken as laid when the lesser of 50 tonnes or 1% of the estimated total mass of all structural material is assembled (s 5(3)). This replaces any ambiguity in the Convention’s own definition. The date of keel laying also determines which version of SOLAS or MARPOL applies, which in turn affects the stringency of equipment, construction and operational requirements.

The repealed regulations (the Navigation (Tonnage Measurement) Regulations in force on 5 September 1994) provide an alternative gross tonnage measurement method. Section 15 permits their use for specific purposes only: for vessels with keel laid before 1 January 1986 when determining SOLAS applicability; for vessels laid before 18 July 1994 when determining pre-1 February 1992 SOLAS Chapter IV requirements (radio communications); and for vessels laid before 18 July 1994 when determining MARPOL applicability. This grandfathering is economically significant because it allows older vessels to avoid expensive re-measurement under the 1969 system, preserving capital invested in tonnage-dependent regulatory approvals.

The unified interpretations issued by IMO are not directly binding, but s 5(4) requires that they be “taken into account”. This creates a compliance obligation to consult and consider those circulars, even if the vessel could be measured differently under the literal text of the Convention. Failure to take them into account could be a factor in a dispute over whether the tonnage was correctly determined. The relevant IMO circulars noted are TM.5/Circ.6 and MSC.1/Circ.1546, but the Order does not reproduce them, so operators must source them from AMSA’s website or AustLII.

The concept of Administration (s 5(1)) distinguishes between AMSA (for regulated Australian vessels) and the flag state authority (for foreign vessels). This is relevant for enforcement and for any decisions about acceptance of alternate tonnage under Annex I regulation 1(3) - a provision for vessels that by their form cannot be measured sensibly by the standard rules. Owners of such vessels may apply to AMSA for a special determination (s 7), which effectively allows for case-by-case tailoring of the measurement method.

The Order directly affects three categories of vessel operators. First, owners and operators of regulated Australian vessels - that is, vessels on the Australian General Shipping Register or Australian International Shipping Register - must ensure that the vessel holds a current International Tonnage Certificate (1969) if it is subject to the Tonnage Convention. This imposes a mandatory compliance cost: the application fee (likely set under Marine Order 1), the cost of engaging a surveyor or recognised organisation to measure tonnage in accordance with Annex I, and the ongoing obligation to monitor for any alterations that increase gross or net tonnage. The compliance burden falls disproportionately on owners who modify their vessels, because the condition in s 11 requires the owner to apply for re-determination of tonnage whenever the arrangement, construction, capacity, use of spaces, number of passengers, load line or permitted draught is altered and that alteration increases tonnage. This is a continuing duty that can catch maintenance upgrades, reconfiguration of cargo spaces, or changes in passenger capacity. The owner must bear the cost of re-measurement and re-certification each time such an alteration occurs; failure to do so can lead to revocation of the certificate (s 13(a)) and potential enforcement action under the Navigation Act.

Second, foreign vessels that enter or operate in Australian waters and are subject to the Tonnage Convention must hold an ITC(1969). This is a condition of port entry and compliance with the Navigation Act. Foreign vessel operators must be able to produce the certificate on demand by AMSA inspectors or port state control officers. The Order does not create any additional burden beyond what the Convention already requires, but it makes clear that Australian law adopts the same recognition rules. There is no exemption for short stays; every foreign vessel that is subject to the Convention and is in Australian waters must comply. For a vessel that has lost its certificate or whose certificate has expired, the operator may face detention until a valid certificate is produced or a provisional one issued under Convention procedures.

Third, owners of prescribed vessels - domestic commercial vessels and recreational vessels with Australian nationality - are not required to hold an ITC(1969) but may apply for one. This is permissive. A domestic commercial vessel operator who trades only within Australia may have no use for an ITC; however, if that operator later wishes to engage in an international voyage, the certificate becomes necessary. Similarly, a recreational vessel owner may want an ITC for foreign travel to simplify port entry. The application process is the same as for regulated Australian vessels (s 9). The optional nature is a benefit: it allows owners to incur the cost of tonnage measurement only if the certificate provides tangible benefit. However, once issued, the certificate is subject to the same conditions (s 11), including the obligation to apply for re-determination on alterations. So the option comes with ongoing compliance duties if the certificate is held.

AMSA itself is affected as the issuing body (s 9), the decision-maker on applications (s 7), and the authority responsible for revocation (s 13). AMSA must also take into account IMO unified interpretations (s 5(4)) when making determinations. The Order does not delegate these functions to classification societies, but AMSA may do so under its general powers (note 4 refers to AMSA’s website for delegations). Affected parties also include surveyors, tonnage measurers, and recognised organisations that assist owners in preparing applications and performing measurements.

The Order imposes several distinct duties on owners of regulated Australian vessels. The most fundamental is the duty to ensure the vessel holds an International Tonnage Certificate (1969) at all times (s 8(1)). This duty is satisfied by applying to AMSA for a certificate (s 9), but the burden is on the owner to initiate the process. The duty does not cease merely because the vessel is not trading; the Order applies to any regulated Australian vessel to which the Tonnage Convention applies, regardless of operational status. A vessel that is laid up or under repair still requires a valid certificate to avoid being in breach when it resumes operations.

A second duty arises from the condition of the certificate itself. Under s 11, the certificate is issued subject to the condition that if the gross or net tonnage is increased because of an alteration to the vessel’s arrangement, construction, capacity, use of spaces, total number of passengers permitted, assigned load line, or permitted draught, the owner must apply for re-determination of tonnage. This is not merely a best-efforts obligation; it is a positive requirement to take action. The duty extends to any alteration, not only those that would be obvious. For example, converting a storage room to passenger accommodation or modifying the load line assignment could trigger the duty. The owner must be aware of what constitutes a “use of spaces” change - which is defined in the Convention but subject to IMO interpretation. Failure to apply for re-determination means the certificate remains in force only until such time as the alteration occurs; upon the alteration, the certificate ceases to be in force in accordance with s 12(b). So the vessel would be operating without a valid certificate, exposing the owner to penalties under the Navigation Act.

A third duty is the obligation to ensure that for foreign vessels (Division 3), the vessel has an ITC(1969) and complies with applicable Tonnage Convention requirements. This duty falls on the master and owner of the foreign vessel, and the means of enforcement is through AMSA’s port state control powers.

On the rights side, owners have several entitlements. An owner may apply to AMSA for a determination under regulation 1(3) of Annex I for a vessel of unusual form (s 7). There is no guarantee that AMSA will grant the determination, but the right to apply is granted. The owner of a regulated Australian vessel may request in writing that the certificate be revoked (s 13(b)). This could be useful if the vessel has been sold, if the owner no longer trades under the Australian register, or if the certificate is no longer needed. Revocation is discretionary, but the Order makes an owner’s written request a criterion for revocation, so AMSA would likely accede to such a request absent any outstanding compliance issues.

Owners of prescribed vessels (domestic commercial and recreational) have the right to apply for an ITC(1969) even though it is not required. This is an optional right that gives access to international recognition. The application is processed under the same rules as other applications (s 9 and the note to s 16).

The right to seek external review of decisions regarding tonnage certificates is preserved under subsection 313(1) of the Navigation Act. The note to s 9 makes clear that internal review under Marine Order 1 (Administration) 2013 does not apply to tonnage certificate decisions, so the sole avenue is direct application to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal or equivalent body. This saves time but also removes the possibility of a low-cost administrative reconsideration.

The Marine Order itself does not create any monetary penalties or criminal offences. Enforcement relies on the parent Act, the Navigation Act 2012. The penalties for non-compliance with the Order are therefore those set out in the Navigation Act for failing to hold required certificates, operating without a valid certificate, or breaching conditions attached to a certificate. For example, a regulated Australian vessel that does not have an ITC(1969) when required could be detained, and the owner may be liable for civil penalty provisions under Part 9 of the Navigation Act. The maximum penalties under that Act for vessel certificate offences are substantial: individuals face fines of up to 500 penalty units (currently $156,500) and bodies corporate up to 5,000 penalty units ($1,565,000), plus the possibility of daily penalties for continuing offences. The Order does not specify these amounts; they are referenced only implicitly through the Navigation Act.

Enforcement actions available to AMSA include detention of the vessel until compliance is achieved, revocation of the certificate (s 13), and issuing of infringement notices for minor non-compliance. The criteria for revocation under s 13 are breach of a condition or written request by the owner. Revocation is discretionary, but once a condition is breached, AMSA has the power to revoke. A revoked certificate cannot be used, and the vessel would need to apply for a new one, which could involve re-measurement and further costs.

For foreign vessels found in Australian waters without a required ITC(1969) or not complying with Tonnage Convention requirements (s 14), AMSA may exercise its port state control powers under the Navigation Act. This can result in the vessel being detained until it produces a valid certificate or demonstrates compliance. In serious cases, the vessel could be refused access to Australian ports or subject to a direction to leave.

Importantly, the Order imposes a condition on the certificate (s 11), and breach of that condition is itself a ground for revocation (s 13(a)). The condition places a proactive duty on the owner to apply for re-determination upon certain alterations. If the owner fails to do so, the certificate ceases to be in force under s 12(b). Thus, the vessel is effectively un-certificated from the moment the alteration occurs, without any need for formal revocation. The owner would then be operating without the required certificate - an offence under the Navigation Act. This creates a trap for owners who are unaware that a change in “use of spaces” has occurred.

Enforcement practice is not detailed in the Order. AMSA is likely to rely on inspections and audits to detect non-compliance. Owners should be aware that the burden of proof for showing that an alteration did not increase tonnage would lie with the owner if challenged. The requirement to “take into account” IMO unified interpretations (s 5(4)) may also be used by AMSA in enforcement to argue that the tonnage determination was not made properly if the unified interpretations were ignored, even if the literal Convention text was satisfied.

This Order is part of a layered regulatory framework. It sits immediately below the Navigation Act 2012, which provides the primary legislative authority for vessel safety, certification and compliance. The Order is a Marine Order made under subsection 342(1) of that Act, and it must be read consistently with the Act. Any inconsistency would be resolved in favour of the Act.

The Order interacts heavily with Marine Order 1 (Administration) 2013, which sets out general administrative processes for applications, fees, and delegations. Section 9(2) of this Order applies Division 3 of Marine Order 1 (other than section 17) to applications for an International Tonnage Certificate. Section 17 of that Order deals with internal review, which is excluded because the Navigation Act provides its own review mechanism. The note to s 9 makes this explicit. Therefore, an owner challenging an AMSA decision on a tonnage certificate must go directly to external review, not through internal reconsideration.

The Tonnage Convention itself is given domestic effect through this Order. The Convention is not directly enforceable in Australian courts without legislative implementation. The Order adopts, applies and incorporates the Convention’s technical provisions, including Annex I. The unified interpretations of the Convention (IMO circulars) must be taken into account, but their legal status is persuasive rather than binding. This differs from the Convention text itself, which is incorporated. There may be tension between the literal text and the unified interpretation; the Order resolves this by requiring the interpretation to be considered, but not necessarily followed.

The Order also interacts with SOLAS (International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea) and MARPOL (International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships). Section 15 permits the use of gross tonnage measured under repealed regulations for specific SOLAS and MARPOL purposes for vessels with keels laid before certain dates. This means that for older vessels, the tonnage used to trigger SOLAS or MARPOL requirements may be different from the tonnage shown on the ITC(1969). Operators must keep both measurements - one for the certificate and one for the applicable convention - and ensure they apply the correct tonnage when determining which regulations apply. Using the wrong tonnage could lead to incorrect application of safety equipment, survey intervals or pollution prevention requirements.

Foreign vessels are also affected by the interaction with their flag state’s implementation of the Tonnage Convention. The Order does not require foreign vessels to be measured by AMSA; it merely requires them to hold a valid ITC(1969) issued by their own Administration (s 14). This is consistent with the Convention’s mutual recognition principle. However, if a foreign vessel is found not to comply with the Convention (e.g., because the tonnage recorded on the certificate does not match the vessel’s actual dimensions), AMSA may take action against the vessel, potentially involving the flag state.

Finally, the Order prescribes vessels under s 16 for the purposes of paragraph 151(c) of the Navigation Act. This means that domestic commercial vessels and recreational vessels are exempt from the automatic requirement to hold an ITC(1969) under the Act. However, they are still “prescribed vessels” for the purpose of being able to apply for a certificate. This interaction preserves the Act’s flexibility: the Act would otherwise require certificates for all vessels; the Order carves out an exemption but allows voluntary opt-in.

Marine Order 19 (Tonnage measurement) 2025 repeals and replaces Marine Order 19 (Tonnage measurement) 2014 in its entirety (s 1B). The 2014 instrument was itself a re-make of earlier orders dating back to the original implementation of the Tonnage Convention in Australia. The 2025 version does not appear to introduce any radical departure in policy; it is predominantly a machinery update to reflect current dates, IMO circulars, and administrative practice.

The most notable amendment from a content perspective is the addition of a clear definition of when a vessel is taken to have its keel laid (s 5(3)). The 2014 Order did not contain this definition; it relied on the Convention’s general language. The 2025 Order sets a specific threshold: the lesser of 50 tonnes or 1% of estimated total mass of all structural material. This eliminates ambiguity and reduces the risk of disputes over the precise moment from which grandfathering dates commence. It also aligns with IMO interpretation practice.

Another change is the explicit reference to the unified interpretations of the Tonnage Convention in s 5(4). The 2014 Order did not mention IMO circulars; the 2025 version requires that they be taken into account. This imposes a new interpretive obligation on owners and surveyors, albeit a flexible one. The note to s 5(4) cites two specific circulars: TM.5/Circ.6 and MSC.1/Circ.1546. These are recent (within the last decade) and may reflect updates to measurement methodology for certain ship types. Operators should consult AMSA’s website for the latest versions.

The criteria for issuing an International Tonnage Certificate have been clarified in s 10. The 2025 Order adds a requirement for vessels mentioned in regulation 5(3) of Annex I (which deals with vessels that have undergone modifications affecting tonnage) that more than 12 months must have elapsed since the last certificate was issued. This was not explicit in the 2014 Order. The effect is to prevent a vessel from obtaining a new certificate prematurely after modifications, ensuring that the vessel has been in service long enough to verify that the new tonnage is stable.

The conditions and duration of certificates (ss 11 and 12) are materially unchanged from 2014, but the 2025 version streamlines the language. The condition that the owner must apply for re-determination when tonnage increases due to alterations is now more clearly drafted, and the cross-reference to Article 10 of the Tonnage Convention for duration is explicit.

The transitional provisions for repealed regulations (s 15) are carried over without substantive change, preserving the grandfathering dates. No vessels are added or removed from the categories.

In summary, the 2025 Order is a consolidation that updates the legislative instrument to reflect current IMO guidance, adds legal clarity to the keel-laid definition, and imposes a modest new interpretive burden regarding unified interpretations. The repeal of the 2014 Order means that all references to the previous instrument are no longer effective; any existing certificates remain valid until they expire or are revoked under the new Order.

The source text contains no references to any litigation. There is no mention of past court cases, tribunal decisions, or reported disputes concerning Marine Order 19 or the Tonnage Convention in Australia. This is consistent with the technical nature of tonnage measurement; disputes are rare and typically resolved at the administrative level or through IMO correspondence. The Tonnage Convention itself has been in force internationally since 1982 (as a replacement for earlier systems) and has generated very little case law globally.

In Australia, the Navigation Act provides for review of decisions under subsection 313(1), which covers decisions about tonnage certificates. The note to s 9 of the Order confirms that internal review under Marine Order 1 does not apply, so any challenge would be an application to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (or its successor, the Administrative Review Tribunal). No published decisions specifically dealing with tonnage certificate decisions are readily identified, suggesting that the system operates without significant legal contestation.

Potential areas of dispute could include disagreements over the correct application of Annex I measurement rules, the interpretation of “use of spaces” in the condition (s 11), or whether a determination under regulation 1(3) of Annex I was properly made. The unified interpretations (s 5(4)) could also be a source of argument: if AMSA takes a position based on a non-binding circular and the owner disagrees, the owner may argue that the circular does not have legal force. However, the Order only requires the circular to be “taken into account”, not followed. A court or tribunal would need to weigh the persuasive value of the circular against the text of the Convention.

Another possible source of litigation is the definition of “keel laid” in s 5(3). The 50-tonne or 1% threshold is new and may be challenged if an owner believes an earlier or later date should apply for grandfathering purposes. The threshold is arbitrary but bright-line, which reduces litigation risk. The risk lies in determining the “estimated total mass of all structural material” - which may be contentious if the estimation method differs.

Owners seeking revocation of a certificate under s 13(b) could theoretically be refused by AMSA, leading to a reviewable decision. However, the Order makes the owner’s written request a criterion, and it is hard to see why AMSA would refuse unless there were outstanding investigations or unpaid fees.

In practice, the lack of litigation history suggests that the Order and its predecessors have been administered uncontroversially. The economic stakes are moderate; tonnage disputes are more common in port dues contexts than in regulatory enforcement. Nonetheless, the 2025 Order’s clearer language should, if anything, reduce the scope for future disputes.

Several provisions in the Order create traps for the unwary. The first is the condition in s 11. Every International Tonnage Certificate (1969) is issued subject to the condition that if the gross or net tonnage increases due to an alteration in any of the listed factors (arrangement, construction, capacity, use of spaces, number of passengers, load line, or permitted draught), the owner must apply for re-determination of tonnage. This is not a permissive condition but a mandatory duty. The catch is that “use of spaces” is a broad concept: converting a store room into a passenger lounge, redefining a tank as a cargo hold, or even changing the permitted number of passengers can trigger the duty. Many owners focus on obvious structural changes and overlook operational changes that affect use of spaces. The consequence of failing to apply is severe: the certificate ceases to be in force under s 12(b) immediately upon the alteration. The vessel is then operating without a valid certificate, which is an offence. There is no grace period.

The second trap is the time limit for the exemption in s 8(2). A vessel transferred from another Tonnage Convention country is exempt from the requirement to hold an Australian ITC(1969) for only three months from the date of transfer, provided it still holds its previous certificate. Owners must apply for an Australian certificate within that window. If the application is not made, the exemption expires and the vessel becomes non-compliant. Delays in administrative processing cannot excuse the owner; the exemption is time-bound.

Third, the Order prescribes vessels under s 16: domestic commercial vessels and recreational vessels. These vessels are not required to hold an ITC(1969). However, if the owner voluntarily applies for one (note to s 16), the certificate will be subject to the same condition in s 11. A recreational vessel owner who obtains an ITC for travel to New Zealand may later modify the vessel (e.g., add a flying bridge that changes use of spaces) and forget that the condition applies. The certificate would then cease to be valid, and the owner could unknowingly be in breach if they rely on it for an international trip.

Fourth, the requirement to take into account IMO unified interpretations (s 5(4)) is an interpretive obligation, but it is not a free pass to ignore the Convention text. If AMSA later determines that an owner failed to consider a relevant circular, it could argue that the tonnage determination was not made in compliance with the Convention. Owners should obtain and review the listed circulars (TM.5/Circ.6 and MSC.1/Circ.1546) and any successor circulars. The note mentions that these are available from AMSA’s website; owners cannot plead ignorance.

Fifth, the keel laid definition (s 5(3)) applies a 50-tonne or 1% threshold. This may affect the grandfathering of older vessels. A vessel whose keel was laid before 1 January 1986 (for SOLAS purposes) must show that the keel was laid before that date. If the assembly reached 50 tonnes or 1% of total mass after that date, the vessel may not qualify, even if construction started earlier. The precise date of that threshold must be documented. Without clear records, an owner could lose the benefit of using the repealed regulations.

Sixth, there is no internal review of decisions on tonnage certificates. The note to s 9 says that section 17 of Marine Order 1 (which provides for internal review) does not apply. This means the only avenue for challenging an AMSA decision is external review under the Navigation Act, which is more formal and costly. An owner who disagrees with a tonnage determination or a refusal to issue a certificate cannot first seek an internal reconsideration; they must go straight to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.

Seventh, the Order applies to all regulated Australian vessels to which the Tonnage Convention applies. There is no exception for vessels that never leave Australian waters. Even a vessel operating solely on the Great Barrier Reef or domestic routes must hold an ITC if it is on the Australian International Shipping Register and meets the Convention’s size threshold. The Convention’s application is tied to the type of vessel (engaged on international voyages) but the Order does not re-state that limitation for regulated Australian vessels. It says “to which the Tonnage Convention applies” - which is defined by the Convention itself. This creates a potential gap: a vessel on the Australian International Shipping Register that does not actually go on international voyages might still be covered because the Register itself is for international trade. But a vessel on the General Register that trades domestically may be below the Convention threshold and thus not required to hold a certificate. The boundary is not explicit in the Order, requiring owners to check both the Register type and the Convention’s scope.

Compliance with Marine Order 19 (Tonnage measurement) 2025 can be broken down into several practical steps. For the owner of a regulated Australian vessel (i.e., a vessel on the Australian General Shipping Register or Australian International Shipping Register), the first step is to ascertain whether the Tonnage Convention applies to the vessel. If the vessel is 24 metres or more in length and engaged on international voyages, the Convention applies; if the vessel is smaller or solely domestic, it may not be required to hold an International Tonnage Certificate (1969) under the Convention. But owners should confirm: the Navigation Act may still require a certificate for other purposes. AMSA’s guidance should be consulted.

If the vessel is required to hold an ITC(1969), the owner must apply to AMSA for the certificate. The application process is governed by Division 3 of Marine Order 1 (Administration) 2013, which sets out how to make an application, the information to be provided, and any fees. The owner must ensure that the tonnage of the vessel has been determined in accordance with Annex I of the Tonnage Convention (s 10(a)). This will involve engaging a qualified tonnage measurer - often a recognised organisation (class society) authorised by AMSA - to calculate the gross and net tonnage following the formulas and rules in Annex I. The unified interpretations (IMO circulars TM.5/Circ.6 and MSC.1/Circ.1546) must be taken into account during the measurement; simply following the literal text of the Convention may not suffice. The owner should request that the measurer document how the unified interpretations were considered.

For vessels of unusual form that cannot be measured by the standard rules of Annex I, the owner may apply to AMSA for a determination under regulation 1(3) of Annex I (s 7). This application must be made in accordance with the process in Marine Order 1. AMSA may then prescribe an alternative method. This is a special case; most vessels will not need it.

Once the certificate is issued, the owner must comply with its condition (s 11). This means the owner must monitor the vessel for any changes to arrangement, construction, capacity, use of spaces, passenger numbers, load line, or permitted draught that could increase tonnage. If such a change occurs, the owner must promptly apply for re-determination of tonnage. A failure to do so causes the certificate to cease to be in force. A practical step is to keep a register of all modifications and to consult with the tonnage measurer before making any alteration that could affect tonnage. A simple rule: any structural or operational change should be assessed for tonnage impact before it is implemented.

The duration of the certificate is governed by Article 10 of the Tonnage Convention. The certificate remains in force subject to any alteration that triggers the re-determination requirement. The owner should keep a calendar reminder of the certificate’s expiry (if any) and plan for renewal well in advance. The Order does not specify a maximum validity period; the Convention typically provides for a period not exceeding five years, but this is not stated in the Order.

For foreign vessels, compliance is simpler: ensure the vessel has a valid ITC(1969) issued by its flag state and complies with all Tonnage Convention requirements applicable to that vessel. This is a matter of checking the vessel’s documentation before entering Australian waters and ensuring that the certificate is not expired and that the vessel’s arrangements match the certificate’s data. If a foreign vessel is found out of compliance, the master should immediately contact AMSA and the flag state to rectify the issue, as detention is likely.

For owners of prescribed vessels (domestic commercial and recreational), compliance is optional. If the owner decides not to obtain an ITC(1969), no further action is needed under this Order. If the owner decides to apply, the same steps as for regulated Australian vessels apply, plus the ongoing condition. Owners should only apply if they have a genuine need for the certificate, as they will then be bound by the re-determination duty.

Finally, all owners should be aware that the Order does not provide for internal review of AMSA decisions on certificates. If a decision is disputed (e.g., refusal to issue, revocation), the owner must seek external review under the Navigation Act. This is a formal process that may involve legal representation. It is prudent to maintain good records of all communications with AMSA, including the tonnage calculation, the consideration of unified interpretations, and the outcome of any determinations.