Marine Order 33 (Cargo and cargo handling — grain) 2016

The Order chiefly operationalises three categories of international standards through domestic regulation: SOLAS Chapter VI (carriage of cargo in ships), the International Grain Code (safe carriage of grain in bulk), and the BLU Code (safe loading and unloading of bulk carriers) (s 2). It imports instruments and materials as authoritative benchmarks for required behaviour rather than restating the technical rules in full.

Core definitional concepts:

• approved grain stability data: information in booklet form mentioned in A 6.1 of the International Grain Code and approved by the Administration of the vessel’s flag state (s 4);
• document of authorisation: the authorising document issued under A 3 of the International Grain Code by the issuing body for regulated Australian vessels or by a flag Administration or recognised organisation for other vessels (s 4);
• BLU Code and BLU Manual: the BLU Code is adopted by IMO Resolution A.862(20) and the BLU Manual is the annex to IMO Circular MSC/Circ.1160. The Order notes how these instruments are included in the IMSBC Code supplement and that the International Grain Code prevails over the BLU Code in the event of conflict (s 4 note; s 9 note);
• terminal representative: the person appointed by a terminal or other facility in Australia who is responsible for operations conducted by the terminal for the vessel (s 4);
• sheltered water exemption: a statutory category of exemption relating to limited voyages within or between defined port groups (Spencer Gulf ports, Gulf St Vincent ports, Port Phillip) under which certain stability requirements in the International Grain Code need not be met for the sheltered part of the voyage (s 4); and
• port limits: as defined by a Gazette notice under s 15 of the Customs Act 1901 (s 4).

The Order uses four regulatory tools to achieve compliance:

• positive obligations on masters and terminal representatives to obtain, hold and make available documents and to implement agreed plans (ss 9-12);
• mandatory notification and timing requirements for intended loading, partial discharge, and fumigation (ss 13-21);
• administrative discretion for AMSA to consider, approve or deny exemptions and approvals to use equivalents, with stated decision tests and procedural references to Marine Order 1 (ss 7-8); and
• criminal and civil enforcement tools with many offences framed as strict liability and with fixed penalty levels, and civil penalty liability mirroring the criminal penalty in many cases (e.g. ss 9(4)-(5); 12(8)-(9)).

Two procedural cross-references are central to implementation: Marine Order 1 (Administration) 2013 for application processes and approved forms (repeatedly referenced in ss 7, 8, 9(2), 10(2), 11(3), 13(1), 15(1), 19(1), 20), and APVMA for approval of fumigants used for in-transit fumigation (s 21(2) and notes).

The Order also sets out a formal mechanism for AMSA to require evidence that a vessel can comply with the stability requirements in A 6 to A 9 of the International Grain Code at all times on any voyage (s 10(1)). This is a preventive, pre-loading power that complements later inspection and notice requirements.

Finally, the Order balances binding obligations that apply uniformly (for example s 9(1) importing SOLAS and the Codes) with discretionary relief routes (exemptions and equivalents under ss 7-8) and transitional continuity for previously granted equivalents (s 22).

The Order creates obligations and procedural interactions for distinct groups of stakeholders. The text of the Order identifies those persons and their roles explicitly. Who pays and who decides follows from those roles.

Primary regulated parties

• Masters of vessels: The Order imposes most operational duties on the master, including ensuring documents are carried and produced on request (s 9(2)), lodging notices of intended loading and partial discharge with AMSA (ss 13(1), 15(1)), not permitting loading where required notices or inspections have not occurred or approval not given (s 14(1)), not taking a vessel to sea following partial discharge where notices or inspections are outstanding (s 16(1)), ensuring loading or unloading occurs only under an agreed BLU-compliant plan (s 11(1)-(2)), ensuring stability calculations are completed in approved form and available (s 10(2)), and ensuring fumigation is carried out in accordance with IMO recommendations and APVMA approvals where required (ss 18-21). The master is also responsible for suspending operations if plan limits are or will be exceeded and for ensuring corrective action before resuming (s 12(3)-(5)). The Order repeatedly makes the master subject to criminal and civil penalties for breaches (see provisions cited above).

• Terminal operators and terminal representatives: Terminals must appoint a terminal representative who has responsibility for operations conducted by the terminal for the vessel (definition s 4). The terminal representative must agree the loading or unloading plan with the master, keep the plan and any amendments for at least six months and make it available to an AMSA inspector on request (s 11(3)-(4)). The terminal representative must ensure operations within their area of responsibility are conducted in accordance with the plan and ensure corrective action when required (s 12(2), (6)). Terminal operators or representatives can be criminally liable and civilly liable for contraventions (s 9(3); penalties set out throughout).

• Vessel owners and operators: While many obligations are expressed to the master, owners and operators remain indirectly affected through the requirement to have approved grain stability data and a document of authorisation (definition ss 4; s 9 notes). Owners deciding equipment, crewing and arrangements are the economic actors who will bear compliance costs.

• Fumigators and agents: The master must provide certain fumigation notifications (s 17). The agent is responsible for notifying AMSA of intended in-transit fumigation if the vessel has an agent (s 19(1)). Fumigators must operate consistent with IMO recommendations and APVMA requirements and are implicated in penalties if prohibited fumigants are used or if Recommendation 3.3.2 requirements are not met where applicable (ss 18-21).

Other affected parties and authorities

• AMSA: Acts as the Administration for regulated Australian vessels under the Order (s 5). AMSA decides exemptions and approvals to use equivalents and operates the inspection, notice review and enforcement powers referenced throughout (ss 7-8, 10(1), 13(3-4), 14(1)(c)-(d), 16(1)(c)-(d), 12(3)(b), 12(7)). AMSA is the recipient of notices in approved form and the locus of record keeping and inspection authority (multiple provisions refer to AMSA offices nearest to the port).

• APVMA: The Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority approves fumigants for in-transit fumigation and thus effectively decides which fumigants are permitted under s 21(2). The Order explicitly requires APVMA-written approval for in-transit fumigants (s 21(2)).

• Foreign flag Administrations and recognised organisations: For foreign vessels, the flag Administration or a recognised organisation acting on its behalf provides the document of authorisation (definition s 4). That external document interacts directly with domestic enforcement because the document of authorisation is part of the grain loading documentation referenced in s 9(2) note.

• Port State inspectors and other competent authorities: Under s 12(7) the person the master must notify on suspension is the inspector at the AMSA office nearest the port where the port State is Australia, or in other cases a person authorised by the competent authority for the port.

Who bears the costs

• Vessel operators and owners carry direct costs: preparing and maintaining approved grain stability data, obtaining documents of authorisation, completing stability calculations in approved form, producing and lodging required forms and notices, employing or contracting fumigators approved by APVMA, and responding to AMSA inspection requirements. Costs also include operational disruptions if loading/unloading is suspended and corrective action is required under s 12(4).

• Terminals bear costs of appointing terminal representatives, keeping plans for six months and co-ordinating operations with masters and AMSA inspections.

• AMSA bears administrative costs and decision burdens for processing exemptions, equivalents and notifications within statutory timeframes, most notably the 14-day target for sheltered water exemptions (s 7(2)) and the general procedural framework under Marine Order 1.

In short, the Order allocates operational duties mainly to masters and terminal representatives, gives AMSA decision and inspection powers, ties in APVMA for fumigant approval, and limits exemptions to specific statutory processes.

This section summarises the principal positive duties, permissive rights and administrative entitlements created by the Order, with textual references.

Mandatory duties on masters

• Ensure compliance with SOLAS, the International Grain Code and the BLU Code when loading, trimming, carrying and unloading grain in bulk (s 9(1)). This is a primary substantive duty, restating the international standards as mandatory requirements.

• Carry and make available to an inspector documents necessary to demonstrate compliance with s 9(1). The examples listed in the Order include the document of authorisation, approved grain stability data, proposed loading plan, grain stability calculations and shear force and bending moment calculations (s 9(2) and accompanying note).

• Provide notices of intention to load at least 72 hours before intended loading for each port where grain is to be loaded, in an approved form (s 13(1)) and to provide revised information as soon as practicable after any significant change (s 13(2)).

• Provide notice of intention to partially discharge grain at least 24 hours before anticipated arrival at the port for each port where a partial discharge will occur (s 15(1)) and to provide revised information for significant changes (s 15(2)).

• Not permit loading if required notices have not been given, requested stability calculation information has not been provided, or an inspection or approval by an inspector has not occurred (s 14(1)).

• Not take the vessel to sea following a partial discharge if the notice requirements or inspection/approval requirements are outstanding (s 16(1)).

• Ensure stability calculations required to demonstrate compliance with the International Grain Code stability requirements are completed before loading or partial discharge, included in the approved form and made available to an inspector on request (s 10(2)).

• Ensure loading/unloading only proceeds after the master and terminal representative have agreed a plan that complies with the BLU Code, lodge the plan with the terminal representative and keep a copy on board for the voyage (s 11(1)-(3)).

• Suspend loading or unloading if a limit in the plan is exceeded or likely to be exceeded, notify the inspector or authorised person, and ensure corrective action before resuming (s 12(3)-(5)).

• Provide prescribed notices and information for fumigation in port and in transit, and ensure fumigation complies with IMO recommendations and APVMA approvals where required (ss 17-21).

Duties on terminal representatives and terminals

• Agree the loading or unloading plan with the master and ensure the plan complies with the BLU Code (s 11(1)-(2)).

• Keep the plan and any amendments for at least six months and make them available to an inspector at the AMSA office nearest the port on request (s 11(4)).

• Ensure, within their area of responsibility, that loading and unloading operations are conducted in accordance with the agreed plan and that corrective action is taken when required (s 12(2), (6)).

AMSA powers and duties

• Receive and process notices and applications under the Order using approved forms and processes set out in Marine Order 1 (sections are repeatedly cross-referenced throughout, for example ss 7(1), 8(1), 9(2), 10(2), 11(3), 13(1), 15(1), 19(1)).

• Consider sheltered water exemption applications within 14 days of receipt (s 7(2)).

• Grant or deny exemptions and approvals to use equivalents, but only if satisfied that specified tests are met. For exemptions, AMSA must be satisfied compliance would be unnecessary or unreasonable for the voyage, that giving the exemption would not contravene SOLAS or the International Grain Code, and for exemptions permitted by the International Grain Code the vessel is a regulated Australian vessel (s 7(3)). For equivalents, AMSA may approve only if use of the equivalent would be at least as effective as compliance and would not contravene SOLAS or the International Grain Code (s 8(2)).

• Require masters to demonstrate compliance with stability requirements before loading (s 10(1)) and request further information on stability calculations where necessary (s 13(4), s 15(4)).

Rights and administrative relief

• Masters and other persons may apply for exemptions or approvals to use equivalents using the Marine Order 1 process (ss 7-8). The Order permits shorter notification periods than 72 or 24 hours if an inspector approves a shorter period on request (ss 13(3), 15(3)).

• Transitional continuity exists for equivalents previously approved under the 2005 Order if they were in use on 30 April 2016; such approvals are taken to be approved under the 2016 Order (s 22).

Liability and penalty structure

• Many offences are framed as strict liability and carry penalties of 50 penalty units for criminal offences and equivalent civil penalty liabilities (for example ss 9(2)-(3) and notes, ss 10(2), 11(1)-(2), 12(1)-(2), 14(1), 16(1), 18(1), 21(1)). The Order makes contraventions subject to enforcement either criminally as strict liability or as civil penalty exposure, and sometimes both (s 9(4)-(5) and similar provisions elsewhere).

Procedural protections and constraints

• The Order constrains AMSA approval of exemptions or equivalents to tests that protect compatibility with SOLAS and the International Grain Code. AMSA must follow the application process in Marine Order 1 and may impose conditions on approvals (notes under s 8). Sheltered water exemptions must be considered within 14 days (s 7(2)).

These duties and rights create a framework where masters and terminal representatives are the operational gatekeepers, AMSA is the administrative gatekeeper, and APVMA is the technical gatekeeper for fumigants.

The Order prescribes criminal and civil penalty exposure and an administrative enforcement environment dominated by AMSA inspectors and the procedural apparatus in Marine Order 1. The instrument takes a preventive and documentation-centred approach to enforcement.

Penalty quantum and nature

• The Order uses a single specified penalty quantum repeatedly: 50 penalty units for contraventions where a penalty is specified. Examples include failure to carry documents to demonstrate compliance (s 9(2)), failure to load or unload in accordance with BLU Code plans (s 11(1)-(2)), failure to conduct loading/unloading in accordance with the plan (s 12(1)-(2)), loading without required notices or approvals (s 14(1)), taking a vessel to sea after partial discharge contrary to s 16(1), fumigation non-compliance (s 18(1)), and using non-approved fumigants for in-transit fumigation (s 21(1)). The Order also creates parallel civil penalty liability for many contraventions with an identical civil penalty of 50 penalty units (see s 9(5) and similar provisions across Division 3 and Division 5).

• The instrument frames many operational offences as strict liability (for example ss 9(4); 11(5); 12(8); 14(2); 16(2); 18(2); 21(4)). A strict liability offence shifts the evidential burden such that a defendant must prove a defence rather than the prosecution proving fault beyond reasonable doubt for fault elements.

Enforcement actors and processes

• AMSA inspectors are the primary enforcement actors under the Order. Inspectors can request information and approved-form submissions on stability calculations and can require inspections before loading or sailing (ss 13(4); 14(1)(c)-(d); 16(1)(c)-(d)). The Order explicitly requires masters to present documents to an inspector on request (s 9(2)).

• The Order links several procedural matters to Marine Order 1 (Administration) 2013 which sets out the application process for exemptions and equivalents, the timeframes for processing, the content and circulation of decisions, and the use of approved forms. This cross-reference implies that enforcement will use the administrative pathways and forms in Marine Order 1 for notices and evidence management (ss 7(1), 8(1), and numerous cross-references).

• For suspension of loading or unloading under s 12(3), the master must notify the inspector at the AMSA office nearest the port if the port State is Australia; in other jurisdictions the contact is the person authorised by the competent authority for the port of loading/unloading (s 12(7)). This provision shows that enforcement and operational halt decisions will involve AMSA inspectors or comparable port authority representatives.

Preventive enforcement powers

• AMSA may require demonstration that a vessel can comply with the stability requirements in A 6 to A 9 of the International Grain Code "before a vessel is loaded with grain in bulk" (s 10(1)). This is a preventive power intended to ensure compliance in advance rather than solely relying on post-facto penalties.

• Inspectors can request further stability calculation information or approve shortened notification periods where requested by the master (ss 13(3)-(4); 15(3)-(4)). These powers give inspectors discretion to adapt timing or demand additional evidence.

Administrative continuity and transition

• Approvals to use equivalents granted under the previous 2005 Order that were in use on 30 April 2016 are taken to be approved under the 2016 Order (s 22). This reduces enforcement disputes about continuity for long-standing equivalents but creates a fixed point for evaluating subsequent compliance.

Implications for compliance risk

• The combination of strict liability offences and a single-sized substantial penalty unit level for many contraventions increases exposure for both individual masters and terminal representatives. Strict liability raises the evidential and legal defence complexity for regulated parties.

• The Order's emphasis on approved forms, lodgement timeframes and AMSA inspection preconditions multiplies opportunities for administrative non-compliance even where underlying technical safety measures have been taken. For example, an otherwise compliant loading could breach s 13(1) if the 72-hour notice is not filed in the approved form, with strict liability and penalty exposure.

• AMSA's discretionary power to approve equivalents and exemptions but only under statutory tests gives regulated parties an administrative avenue to adapt requirements, but only if they meet the thresholds and use Marine Order 1 processes.

Overall, the enforcement model combines prescriptive preventative powers, administrative formality and documentation-based enforcement with criminal and civil penalty exposure concentrated on operational actors such as masters and terminal representatives.

The Order is explicitly carved from and linked to the Navigation Act 2012 and to international instruments, and it references administrative instruments and other Australian statutory regimes. These interaction points shape compliance complexity and the locus of decision-making.

Primary statutory authorisation

• The Order is made under subsection 342(1) of the Navigation Act 2012 (preamble). Section 3 of the Order enumerates the specific Navigation Act provisions that give AMSA authority to make this instrument, including subsections 112(4) and 112(5) regarding carriage and loading of cargo (s 3(1)(a)-(b)), paragraph 340(1)(a) about giving effect to SOLAS (s 3(1)(c)), paragraph 341(1) about imposition of penalties (s 3(1)(d)), and paragraph 342(4)(b) about adopting external instruments (s 3(1)(e)). The Order also relies on s 339(1) for the regulatory power to prescribe matters necessary to give effect to the Navigation Act (s 3(2)).

International instruments and their domestic effect

• SOLAS Chapter VI Part C, the International Grain Code and the BLU Code are incorporated into duties under the Order (s 2 and s 9(1)). The Order takes the place of domestic restatement of these standards; non-compliance with the standards as made mandatory in the Order exposes parties to domestic enforcement. Where there is a conflict between the BLU Code and the International Grain Code, the International Grain Code prevails (s 9 note). The Order also references IMO circulars and recommendations in the definitions and fumigation provisions (s 4 notes; ss 17-21).

Administrative cross-references

• Marine Order 1 (Administration) 2013 is the procedural backbone for applications, approved forms, delegation of AMSA powers, and timeframes referenced in the Order (see notes to ss 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 15, 19, 20). Compliance therefore requires familiarity with Marine Order 1 and its application processes as an integrated instrument.

Other Australian laws and agencies

• Customs Act 1901: The Order uses the Customs Act definition of port limits via Gazette notices under s 15 of that Act to define geographic scopes for sheltered water exemptions and notification obligations (s 4). This creates an operational intersection between customs-defined port limits and AMSA's regulatory requirements.

• APVMA: For in-transit fumigation, APVMA approval is required for fumigants used on vessels (s 21(2) and notes). The Order explicitly ties the fumigation regime to APVMA chemical approval and to IMO Recommendations for safe use of pesticides on ships, so compliance requires interaction with APVMA permit processes and possibly with port authority permits and other national authorities (s 19 note).

• International State obligations: For foreign vessels the Administration in the International Grain Code is taken to mean the flag Administration and for Australia this Order takes AMSA as the Administration for regulated Australian vessels (s 5). The document of authorisation may therefore be issued by foreign Administrations or recognised organisations and is treated as part of the required grain loading documentation under s 9(2).

Administrative law and review

• The Order points to Marine Order 1 for the review of decisions on exemptions and equivalents (notes under s 8). Administrative review rights, timeframes and procedural fairness protections will therefore be governed by Marine Order 1 and general administrative law principles under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 and the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 where applicable, although the Order itself does not set out review mechanisms beyond cross-references.

Transitional continuity

• Existing approvals to use equivalents under the 2005 Order are continued for equivalents in use on 30 April 2016 (s 22). This avoids immediate regulatory discontinuities but fixes the snapshot date for continued approvals.

Taken together, the Order is not an isolated instrument. Compliance requires coordinated attention to the Navigation Act, Marine Order 1, APVMA approval regimes, Customs Act-defined port limits and the contents of international instruments. Where domestic statutory requirements and the international codes interact, the Order specifies primacy in certain internal conflicts, for example, the International Grain Code over the BLU Code (s 9 note).

The textual material supplied contains limited explicit amendment history. What the Order itself records is:

• Repeal of the preceding instrument: Marine Order 33 (Cargo and cargo handling , grain) 2005 is explicitly repealed by this instrument (s 1B). The effect is that the 2016 Order replaces and updates the 2005 instrument.

• Commencement: The Order commenced on 1 May 2016 (s 1A). That is the operative date at which the 2005 Order ceased and the 2016 requirements began.

• Transitional arrangements: An approval for use of an equivalent given or continued under the 2005 Order is taken to be approved under the 2016 Order if it was for an equivalent in use on 30 April 2016 (s 22). This provides continuity for equivalents that were operational under the old Order.

Other amendment-relevant notes embedded in the Order

• The Order incorporates external materials that are "as in force from time to time" including SOLAS, the International Grain Code and the BLU Code (s 2 and multiple definitions at s 4). This adoption means the Order is indirectly affected by subsequent international amendments to those instruments, subject to the mechanics of importing those instruments under s 3(1)(e) and s 5 where the Administration is defined. The Order explicitly notes the 2013 edition of the IMSBC Code and the amendment MSC.1/Circ.1396 to the IMO recommendations as being the latest at commencement (s 4 notes). Because the Order imports these instruments as they exist from time to time, subsequent international amendments can change the domestic operative content without amendment to the Order itself, unless AMSA chooses a different administrative approach.

• The Order frequently cross-references Marine Order 1 (Administration) 2013 for the approved form processes, application process for exemptions and equivalents, and delegation of AMSA powers. Any amendments to Marine Order 1 therefore indirectly modify procedural and administrative aspects of the 2016 Order.

What the Order does not specify about later amendments

• The instrument does not record any changes after commencement in the supplied text. To see amendments made after the 2016 commencement, the authoritative consolidated instrument and the Federal Register of Legislation should be consulted, as the Order’s Note 1 indicates that all instruments are registered under the Legislation Act 2003.

In practice, the operational content of the Order is dynamic because of its express incorporation of international instruments "as in force from time to time" and its dependence on Marine Order 1 for administrative process. Any compliance program must track three update streams: the consolidated text of Marine Order 33, the international codes as updated by IMO, and Marine Order 1 procedural changes.

The text of the Order does not contain any case law citations and does not record any litigation history. It names no judicial decisions and makes no reference to prior adjudications involving the Order or its predecessor. The instrument is an administrative Marine Order implementing international standards.

Practical implications for legal research and risk assessment

• Because the Order itself is silent on litigation, any determination about how courts or tribunals have interpreted the Order requires independent case law research. The instrument’s note directs readers to the AMSA website for copies of IMO resolutions and to the Federal Register of Legislation for the instrument’s registration, but it does not specify judicial treatment.

• Should disputes arise they are likely to involve (a) strict liability defences to breaches of the Order by masters or terminal representatives; (b) administrative law challenges to AMSA decisions on exemptions and equivalents under the Marine Order 1 process; and (c) enforcement actions taken by AMSA under the Navigation Act enforcement architecture. Analysis of precedent on strict liability in the maritime context or under the Navigation Act generally will be relevant but must be done by consulting reported decisions and tribunal records outside the Order text.

Where to look for judicial and administrative decisions

• Federal Court, state courts and administrative tribunals, including the Administrative Appeals Tribunal for administrative decisions, are the usual forums for disputes about enforcement, interpretation and administrative decision-making under Commonwealth maritime instruments.

• The Order’s own note points users toward the Federal Register of Legislation and the AMSA website. These are the proper starting points for locating the consolidated instrument text and for primary source material on AMSA decisions, but identification of relevant litigation requires searching legal databases and court registers.

Until such searches are performed, no litigation history or interpretative authority can be claimed from the Order itself.

The Order contains procedural formality and strict liability elements that create practical traps where technical compliance may exist but administrative non-compliance carries penalty exposure. The following are concrete "gotchas" drawn from the text.

1. Strict liability offences: Multiple offences are strict liability (for example ss 9(4); 11(5); 12(8); 14(2); 16(2); 18(2); 21(4)). This means that even honest mistakes about paperwork, timing or minor procedural elements can give rise to criminal liability unless a defence is established. Do not assume mens rea is required.

2. Document carriage and production requirements: The master must ensure documents necessary to demonstrate compliance with the SOLAS/International Grain Code/BLU Code triad are carried and made available to an inspector on request (s 9(2)). Examples include the document of authorisation and approved grain stability data (s 9(2) note). Failure to carry forms or to make them available is penalised.

3. Time-limited notices: Notices of intended loading (72 hours) and partial discharge (24 hours) must be given in approved form (ss 13(1), 15(1)). An inspector can approve a shorter period on request (ss 13(3), 15(3)), but masters who fail to file the requisite notice on time remain exposed. The Order requires revisions "as soon as practicable" for significant changes (ss 13(2), 15(2)), which introduces a judgment about what is "significant" and what is "as soon as practicable".

4. Pre-loading inspections and approvals: Section 14 prohibits permitting loading if an inspector has told the master an inspection is required and the inspection has not yet occurred or if an inspector has inspected and not given approval for loading (s 14(1)(c)-(d)). An inspection requirement may delay or prevent loading and the master bears the duty to ensure compliance.

5. Suspension and corrective action obligations: If limits in the plan are exceeded or likely to be exceeded, the master may suspend operations and must inform the inspector, and both master and terminal representative must ensure corrective action before resuming (s 12(3)-(6)). Operational actors must be trained on the suspension process and record-keeping for corrective actions.

6. Interaction with APVMA and in-transit fumigation rules: In-transit fumigation requires APVMA approval of fumigants and adherence to IMO Recommendation 3.3.2 (s 21(2) and notes). APVMA permits are required before fumigation and other authorities such as port authorities may have additional requirements (s 19 note). Failure to obtain APVMA approval or to use only approved fumigants is a contravention (s 21(1)).

7. BLU Code compliance and hierarchical conflicts: Loading/unloading plans must comply with the BLU Code (s 11(1)-(2)), but where BLU and the International Grain Code conflict, the International Grain Code prevails (s 9 note). Parties must be able to demonstrate how they have reconciled any conflict, and which Code informed their plan.

8. AMSA discretion on exemptions and equivalents: AMSA may approve exemptions and equivalents only if specific statutory tests are met (ss 7(3) and 8(2)). For sheltered water exemptions AMSA has a 14-day consideration period (s 7(2)). Applications must follow Marine Order 1 processes, and refusals can be subject to review under Marine Order 1 mechanisms.

9. Approved forms and Marine Order 1 dependence: The Order requires use of approved forms and defers many procedural details to Marine Order 1. Non-compliance with form or process requirements can be fatal even when substantive safety measures are in place (see ss 10(2), 13(1), 15(1), 19(1), 20). Keep the Marine Order 1 form repository and updates under active review.

10. Continuity of equivalents limited to a snapshot date: Approvals to use equivalents continued under s 22 apply only if the equivalent was in use on 30 April 2016. If an operator relies on an equivalent implemented after that date they must obtain fresh AMSA approval under the 2016 Order.

11. Port scope definitions: Sheltered water exemptions are geographically limited to voyages between specified port limits or within Port Phillip as defined by Customs Act Gazette notices (s 4). Misunderstanding the exact port limits could cause misapplication of a sheltered water exemption.

12. Penalty unit value not specified in the Order: The Order repeatedly sets penalties in terms of penalty units (50 penalty units). The monetary value of a penalty unit is set elsewhere in Commonwealth law. Do not assume a gold-plate monetary figure without checking current penalty unit valuation.

Each of these items is a concrete operational risk identified within the Order text. Compliance programs must allocate attention to administrative timing and formality as much as to technical stowage and stability measures.

This section translates the Order’s provisions into a practical compliance checklist and procedural steps for masters, vessel operators, terminal representatives and fumigators. Each step cites the relevant provision(s).

1. Compile and carry required documentation (s 9(2))

   • Ensure the vessel carries the document of authorisation, approved grain stability data, the proposed loading plan, grain stability calculations, and shear force and bending moment calculations where applicable. These are explicitly listed as the documents that "are generally used" to demonstrate compliance (s 9(2) note).
   • Keep these documents on board and make them available to an inspector on request (s 9(2)).

2. Prepare and agree loading/unloading plans compliant with the BLU Code (s 11)

   • Before loading or unloading, the master and the terminal representative must agree a plan that complies with the BLU Code (s 11(1)-(2)).
   • Lodge the plan and any amendments with the terminal representative at the port and keep a copy on board for the voyage (s 11(3)).
   • The terminal representative must retain the plan and any amendments for at least six months and make them available to an AMSA inspector at the AMSA office nearest the port on request (s 11(4)).

3. Complete stability calculations in the approved form and make them available (s 10)

   • If AMSA requires, demonstrate before loading that the vessel can comply with the stability requirements in A 6 to A 9 of the International Grain Code (s 10(1)).
   • Ensure stability calculations are completed before loading or partial discharge, included in the approved form, and available to inspectors on request (s 10(2)). The approved form is available on the AMSA website as noted in s 10(2) note and in Marine Order 1.

4. Observe notice and timing requirements for loading and partial discharge (ss 13-16)

   • Give notice of intention to load in the approved form at least 72 hours before loading at each port where grain is to be loaded (s 13(1)). If circumstances change significantly, give revised information as soon as practicable (s 13(2)).
   • Give notice of intention to partially discharge at least 24 hours before the anticipated arrival at the discharge port (s 15(1)). Amend if significant changes occur (s 15(2)).
   • If a shorter notification period is necessary, request approval from an AMSA inspector; such an inspector may approve a shorter period (ss 13(3), 15(3)).

5. Do not load or sail without required inspection or approval (ss 14-16)

   • Do not permit loading where required notices have not been given, requested stability information has not been provided, an inspection has been requested but not yet occurred, or an inspection has occurred and approval not given (s 14(1)).
   • Do not take the vessel to sea following partial discharge if the analogous conditions apply for s 16(1).

6. Implement suspension and corrective action procedures (s 12)

   • If a limit in the plan is exceeded or likely to be exceeded, the master may suspend operations and must inform the inspector at the AMSA office nearest the port (s 12(3)(a)-(b); s 12(7)).
   • The master and terminal representative must ensure corrective action before loading/unloading resumes and must ensure compliance within their respective areas of responsibility (s 12(4)-(6)).

7. Prepare for AMSA inspection and administrative interaction (s 10(1), ss 13-16)

   • Maintain a point of contact who can provide approved-form stability calculations and revised notices on short notice. Inspectors have powers to request further information and to require inspections prior to loading or sailing (ss 13(4), 15(4), 14(1)(c)-(d), 16(1)(c)-(d)).

8. Obtain AMSA approvals for exemptions or equivalents where necessary (ss 7-8)

   • If operating in sheltered waters or otherwise requiring exemption, apply to AMSA in accordance with Marine Order 1’s application processes (s 7(1), s 7(2) noting the 14-day target for sheltered water exemptions).
   • For equivalents, apply to AMSA and be prepared to demonstrate that the equivalent is at least as effective as the requirement and that it does not contravene SOLAS or the International Grain Code (s 8(1)-(2)).

9. Follow fumigation rules and APVMA approval requirements (ss 17-21)

   • For planned fumigation in port, master must give specified information in writing to AMSA within 72 hours before arriving in the port (s 17).
   • For fumigation required before loading, ensure compliance with the IMO Recommendations on safe use of pesticides in ships applicable to fumigation of cargo holds except provision 3.3.2 for which particular rules apply (s 18(1)).
   • For in-transit fumigation, ensure the agent or the master notifies AMSA in the approved form at least 72 hours before intended fumigation (s 19(1); s 20) and obtain APVMA written approval for any fumigant used in-transit (s 21(1)-(2)). Comply with provision 3.3.2 requirements when in-transit fumigation is conducted (s 21(3)).

10. Record retention and documentation management

    • Keep loading/unloading plans on board and ensure the terminal representative retains the plan and amendments for six months (s 11(3)-(4)).
    • Maintain records of notices, stability calculations, and fumigation approvals in approved forms and in a way that these can be produced to AMSA inspectors promptly (ss 9(2), 10(2), 13(1), 15(1), 19(1)).

11. Train masters and terminal representatives

    • Ensure both masters and terminal representatives understand their distinct legal duties and the suspension/corrective action process under s 12, including who to notify and how to document corrective action. The Order assigns responsibility within each party’s area of responsibility (s 12(1)-(6)).

12. Integrate APVMA and port authority permit processes into planning

    • For in-transit fumigation, secure APVMA permits and check for any additional port authority requirements noted in the s 19 note. Coordinate fumigation plans with the agent, fumigator and port authorities as required.

13. Monitor international codes and Marine Order 1 updates

    • Because the Order imports the International Grain Code, BLU Code and other IMO materials "as in force from time to time" and depends on Marine Order 1 for forms and application processes, maintain monitoring and updating procedures for international code amendments and for Marine Order 1 procedural changes.

14. Consider insurance and contractual allocation of liability

    • Given strict liability exposure and civil penalties for operational staff such as masters and terminal representatives, allocate responsibilities and insurance coverage contractually between owners, managers, charterers and terminals to manage enforcement and financial risk.

These steps map directly to the text of the Order and to the cross-referenced material. Adopting them reduces the likelihood of falling foul of strict liability technical infractions and positions operators to respond to AMSA inspections and requests in the approved procedural manner.