Maritime Transport Security (Screening Officer Requirements) Determination 2025

The Determination introduces and relies on several defined concepts that structure its operation. Understanding these is necessary to grasp who is bound and what they must do.

A screening officer is not defined in the instrument itself but is a term used in the Act and Regulations. The instrument distinguishes between two categories based on the entity that employs them: those whose employer has been served a notice under regulation 7.30 of the Regulations, and all others. Only the former are subject to the qualification, training, testing, and CPD requirements in Division 1. The latter are only subject to the MSIC and uniform requirements of Division 2.

The definition of independent screening decision is central to the testing regime. It means a decision made by a screening officer when exercising a specified power or performing a screening function about whether to allow a person, personal effects, baggage, goods, vehicles, or a vessel to pass through a screening point, without prompting or guidance from a supervising screening officer. This definition sets the threshold for when an officer must have passed a maritime accreditation test: they must pass before making any such decision, and then at least annually.

A maritime accreditation test is a test the Secretary is satisfied is appropriate to test the officer’s ability to exercise a power under Division 6 of Part 8 of the Act or to perform a specified screening function. The test must be administered by a person approved by the Secretary and completed using the Department’s ICT systems. This centralisation of testing through departmental systems may impose practical constraints on how and when officers can be tested, particularly for entities in remote locations.

Maritime entity is defined as a port facility operator or ship operator for a Regulated Australian Ship under the Act. These entities bear the compliance burden of ensuring their screening officers meet the requirements, and they must make and retain electronic records.

The instrument recognises a category of aviation screening officer - a person who was a screening officer under the Aviation Transport Security Act 2004. This status provides transitional pathways: former aviation screening officers who left that role on or before 30 June 2022 are exempt from the 40-hour on-the-job training requirement unless they later have a break of more than 24 months after that date. They can also use training and experience acquired while working as a security guard as an alternative qualification if they were engaged as a screening officer on or before 16 January 2022 and have not had a continuous break of more than 24 months since 15 June 2020.

The alternative qualification pathway in section 8 is a grandfathering provision. It allows those with existing experience to hold a Certificate II in Security Operations instead of the more specific Transport Security Protection qualification. The qualification listed in subsection 8(2)(c) for former aviation screening officers is notably loose: training and experience sufficient to satisfy the requirements for a security guard licence in the relevant state or territory, rather than a formal certificate. This creates a patchwork of standards depending on where the officer intends to work.

The Determination directly affects three main groups: screening officers themselves, the maritime entities that employ or engage them, and the Department of Home Affairs as the administrator. Indirectly, it affects port facility operators and ship operators who must ensure compliance even if they outsource screening functions, and the broader maritime supply chain whose operations depend on screening throughput.

For screening officers, the instrument imposes both initial and ongoing compliance costs. New entrants after 1 July 2023 must obtain a Certificate II in Transport Security Protection (or an accepted equivalent) and complete 40 hours of on-the-job training before they can make independent screening decisions. Existing officers with prior service before 16 January 2022 may use the lower alternative qualification of Certificate II in Security Operations, provided they have not had a break in service exceeding 24 months since June 2020. Those who fail a maritime accreditation test face immediate restrictions on their work and must be supervised until they pass again, with a limit of three retakes per 30-day period. The CPD requirement of 12 hours per year represents an ongoing time and cost burden, potentially financed by the officer or the entity depending on the employment arrangement.

For maritime entities, the record-keeping obligations in section 15 are a concrete administrative burden. They must create and maintain electronic records for each screening officer, documenting qualifications, training, CPD, and MSIC details. These records must be kept for two years after the officer ceases engagement, even if the entity itself stops being a maritime entity during that period. This could be costly for small port operators or transient operators who may close down. Entities served with a notice under regulation 7.30 face the full suite of Division 1 obligations and must ensure their officers are tested annually using departmental ICT systems - a dependency that may cause delays if test availability is limited.

The Department of Home Affairs controls the approval of test administrators, the content of maritime accreditation tests, and the acceptance of alternative qualifications. The Secretary also holds a discretionary exemption power under section 165B of the Act for exceptional circumstances. This centralisation of decision-making gives the Department significant control over the labour market for screening officers and the pace of compliance.

The instrument also affects individuals who were aviation screening officers. They benefit from transitional exemptions from the 40-hour training requirement and can use security guard licensing as a qualification pathway. However, the exemptions are narrow: the officer must have been a screening officer on or before 30 June 2022, and the training exemption vanishes if they later have a 24-month break from maritime screening work.

The Determination imposes duties primarily on screening officers and maritime entities. The duties are tightly specified, and the rights are largely procedural or conditional.

Duties of screening officers (Division 1 officers):

• Hold a relevant qualification as set out in section 7 or 8 before exercising screening functions.
• Complete 40 hours of on-the-job training if first engaged after 1 July 2023 or re-engaged after a break of more than 24 months after that date (section 9). The training may include supervised live practice, X-ray interpretation, equipment training, weapons and prohibited item recognition, and methods for screening.
• Pass a maritime accreditation test for each power or screening function before making any independent screening decision, and at least once every 12 months (section 10). This test must be administered by a Secretary-approved person and completed using departmental ICT systems.
• Complete at least 12 hours of continuing professional development every 12 months from the date of passing the first maritime accreditation test (section 11). Acceptable CPD includes training on X-ray software, equipment upgrades, new threats, and detection techniques.

Duties of all screening officers (Division 2 officers):

• Hold and properly display an MSIC at all times while on duty (section 13).
• Wear a distinctive and recognisable uniform (section 14). The Determination gives no further guidance on what constitutes “distinctive and recognisable”, leaving room for entity discretion but also potential dispute over compliance.

Rights of screening officers:

• If they fail a maritime accreditation test, they may retake it up to three times in any 30-day period (section 10(5)). While prohibited from making independent screening decisions, they may continue working under the supervision of a certified officer, so their employment is not necessarily terminated.
• Officers who meet the criteria in section 8 (prior service before 16 January 2022, no break exceeding 24 months since June 2020) may use a lesser qualification (Certificate II in Security Operations) rather than the more specific Transport Security Protection qualification. Former aviation screening officers may even use training and experience sufficient for a state security guard licence as their qualification.

Duties of maritime entities:

• Make electronic records of each screening officer’s engagement date, qualifications, training, CPD, and MSIC details (section 15(1)). If the officer falls under the transitional provisions of section 8 or subsection 9(2), the entity must also record evidence relied on to apply those provisions (section 15(2)).
• Keep those records for two years after the officer’s cessation, even if the entity ceases to be a maritime entity in the interim (section 15(3)).
• Ensure that screening officers are tested and supervised as required, although the Determination places the testing duty directly on the officer. In practice the entity would need to arrange test access and supervision of failed officers.

The Determination does not confer any right of review or appeal on officers for adverse decisions such as a Secretary’s refusal to accept an alternative qualification, or for failure of a test. The only administrative remedy is the Secretary’s discretion to exempt a class under section 165B of the Act, which requires an “exceptional circumstance”.

The Determination itself does not create pecuniary penalties or criminal offences. It is a legislative instrument that sets mandatory requirements, and enforcement occurs through the broader framework of the Maritime Transport and Offshore Facilities Security Act 2003 and its Regulations. The following enforcement mechanisms are relevant but grounded in the Act, not in this instrument.

First, failure by a screening officer to comply with qualification, testing, training, or uniform requirements may constitute a breach of a security direction or an obligation under the Act. The Act provides for civil penalties and infringement notices for contraventions of certain provisions. For example, if a screening officer makes an independent screening decision without having passed the required maritime accreditation test, that officer and possibly the employing entity could be liable for a breach of the instrument, which is legally binding. The Act contains enforcement powers including the ability to issue directions, suspend or cancel security plans, and impose civil penalty orders (up to a certain number of penalty units per contravention). The exact penalty amount is not specified in this instrument but would be set by the Act.

Second, the Secretary can use the exemption power under section 165B to grant relief from requirements, but this is a discretion, not a penalty.

Third, the record-keeping obligations on maritime entities under section 15 are directly enforceable. Failure to make or retain records for the required period could expose the entity to enforcement action under the Act. The requirement to keep records even after the entity ceases to be a maritime entity is particularly onerous; an entity that sells its business or ceases operations must still retain personal data on former employees for two years.

Fourth, the instrument’s testing regime contains a built-in consequence for failure: the screening officer must be supervised and cannot make independent screening decisions. This is not a penalty imposed by an external body but a direct legal restriction that the instrument itself creates. An officer who continues to make independent screening decisions after failing a test would be acting in contravention of the Determination, and that contravention is likely an offence or subject to civil penalty under the Act.

The Note in section 3 cross-references the Secretary’s exemption power, implying that the drafter anticipated the possibility that strict compliance might not always be appropriate or feasible. However, no other compliance relief (such as transitional periods for existing officers beyond those already in sections 8 and 9) is provided. Entities and officers who find themselves unable to meet a requirement must seek an exemption; there is no grace period for testing delays or training bottlenecks.

This Determination sits within a layered statutory framework. It is made under section 165A of the Maritime Transport and Offshore Facilities Security Act 2003 (the Act) and must be read together with that Act and the Maritime Transport and Offshore Facilities Security Regulations 2003 (the Regulations). Definitions of key terms such as “port facility operator”, “regulated Australian ship”, “screening function”, “screening officer”, and “ship operator” come from the Act. The Regulations define “MSIC”, “holder”, and “properly displaying”. The Determination therefore does not create a stand-alone regime; it fills in the details mandated by section 165A.

The instrument explicitly references the Aviation Transport Security Act 2004 for the definition of “aviation screening officer”. This cross-reference links the two security regimes, allowing maritime entities to recognise prior aviation screening experience and training. A person who worked as an aviation screening officer can qualify for maritime screening work under less onerous conditions (section 8(2)(c) and section 9(2)). However, the maritime regime does not automatically accept all aviation screening credentials; specific conditions apply, such as having been an aviation screening officer on or before 30 June 2022.

State and territory security licensing laws are also relevant. Section 8(2)(c) allows former aviation screening officers to use training and experience sufficient to satisfy requirements for a security guard license in the state or territory where they intend to work. This means the maritime screening qualification can vary geographically - what satisfies the requirement in New South Wales may not in Western Australia, creating a patchwork. The Determination does not harmonise state licensing laws; it simply defers to them for this transitional pathway.

The Determination interacts with the Regulations through regulation 7.30, which triggers the application of Division 1. Only maritime entities served a notice under that regulation must ensure their screening officers comply with qualifications, training, testing, and CPD. This creates two tiers of screening officers nationally: those in higher-risk or designated facilities face greater obligations, while those elsewhere only need an MSIC and uniform. The instrument provides no criteria for when a regulation 7.30 notice is served; that is left to the Regulations and Departmental practice.

The record-keeping requirements in section 15 may also interact with privacy legislation, notably the Privacy Act 1988, particularly for the collection and retention of MSIC numbers and evidence of qualifications. The two-year retention period applies even when the entity ceases to exist, raising practical questions about who holds the records and how they are stored.

Finally, the Determination repeals the Maritime Transport Security (Screening Officer Requirements) Determination 2023 in full. All requirements previously in force under the 2023 instrument are replaced. Any screening officer who was compliant under the 2023 Determination must now meet the new 2025 provisions, including the new CPD requirement and updated testing rules. There is no explicit savings or transitional provision beyond the grandfathering in sections 8 and 9(2) for those with prior service.

The Maritime Transport Security (Screening Officer Requirements) Determination 2025 is a new instrument that entirely replaces the 2023 Determination. As stated in Schedule 1, the whole of the 2023 instrument is repealed. The 2025 instrument does not amend the 2023 Determination; it replaces it outright, meaning the legislative requirements for screening officers are reset from the commencement date (the day after registration on 9 May 2025).

No amendments have been made to the 2025 Determination yet, as it is newly made. The amendment history thus consists of one event: the shift from the 2023 Determination to this 2025 version. The substantive differences can be inferred by comparing the 2025 text with the repealed 2023 instrument, though the user did not supply the 2023 text. Based on the 2025 instrument’s content, several developments are apparent.

First, the 2025 Determination introduces a new distinction between Division 1 officers (those with a regulation 7.30 notice) and Division 2 officers (all screening officers). The 2023 Determination may have applied uniform requirements to all screening officers, or may have had a different trigger. The addition of a separate Division 2 suggests that the 2025 instrument expands the scope of the uniform and MSIC requirements to all screening officers, whereas previously they may have been limited.

Second, the 2025 Determination adds a specific continuing professional development requirement of 12 hours per year (section 11). The 2023 Determination likely did not impose CPD, or if it did, it used different hours or frequency. This is a notable increase in ongoing compliance burden.

Third, the testing provisions appear more detailed in 2025. The concept of “independent screening decision” is defined, and the rules for retaking tests (three attempts per 30 days) and supervision upon failure are spelled out. The mandate that tests must be completed using the Department’s ICT systems is also likely new.

Fourth, the transitional provisions for prior service are tightened. The 2025 Determination requires that persons qualifying for alternative qualifications must have been engaged on or before 16 January 2022 and not have had a break of more than 24 months since 15 June 2020. This is a narrow window that excludes many longer-serving officers who may have left and returned.

Fifth, the record-keeping obligations are more explicit. The 2025 Determination requires electronic records (not just any records) and sets a two-year retention period after cessation, even if the entity ceases to be a maritime entity. The 2023 Determination may have had shorter retention or different format requirements.

Because the instrument is newly made and has not been amended, its future amendment history will depend on stakeholder feedback, enforcement experience, or changes to the Act and Regulations. The Secretary may also use the exemption power to effectively modify requirements for particular classes without amending the Determination itself.

The instrument itself is too new to have generated any litigation. It was made on 9 May 2025 and commences the day after registration. No court or tribunal decisions referencing this specific Determination exist at the time of writing. The underlying Act, the Maritime Transport and Offshore Facilities Security Act 2003, has been subject to judicial review in various contexts, but those cases do not involve the screening officer requirements.

The predecessor instrument, the 2023 Determination, may have been challenged or considered in litigation, but no such cases are cited in the 2025 instrument or its explanatory materials (none supplied). It is possible that the 2023 Determination was the subject of administrative review decisions, such as merits review of Secretary’s decisions about exemptions or test approvals, but those would be rare and not publicly prominent.

The lack of litigation may also reflect the instrument’s nature as a detailed technical rule rather than a broadly contentious policy. Disputes are more likely to arise at the enforcement stage under the Act, where civil penalty proceedings could test the validity of the Determination or the Secretary’s exercise of powers. For example, a maritime entity could argue that a screening officer was not properly tested because the test was not administered by an approved person, or that the record-keeping obligation is unreasonable. Such arguments would be factual rather than constitutional.

One potential area of legal uncertainty is the meaning of “distinctive and recognisable uniform” in section 14. No definition is provided, leaving room for dispute about whether a particular set of clothing qualifies. A screening officer disciplined for not wearing a compliant uniform could challenge the employer’s interpretation, but the Determination itself does not provide an internal dispute mechanism. Any litigation would likely be under general employment or industrial law, not under this instrument directly.

Another area is the requirement that testing be completed using the Department’s ICT systems. If those systems are unavailable, or if an entity cannot access them due to location or technical limitations, compliance may be impossible. This could give rise to a challenge based on practical impossibility or on the ground that the Secretary has not validly exercised the power to approve test administrators.

Given the Determination’s recent commencement, no litigation history exists. The instrument will likely be enforced through administrative compliance actions rather than court proceedings, at least initially.

Several provisions in the Determination contain traps that could catch unwary maritime entities and screening officers. These are not drafting errors but features that impose disproportionate compliance costs or create unexpected liability.

The timing of the 40-hour training requirement: Section 9(1) requires 40 hours of on-the-job training if the officer was first engaged after 1 July 2023, or re-engaged after a continuous break of more than 24 months occurring on or after 1 July 2023. The example in section 9 illustrates the trap: a person who left employment on 1 June 2023 and returns on 3 July 2025 has a break of about 25 months, but because the break period includes 24 months after 30 June 2023, the training requirement applies. An officer who left on 1 July 2023 and returned on 2 July 2025 (break of 24 months exactly) may not be caught - but only if the break is measured as “more than 24 months”. Any officer whose break is exactly 24 months from a date after 30 June 2023 may need careful calculation of the continuous period.

The narrowness of the grandfathering qualification: Section 8 applies only if the person was engaged or employed as a screening officer on or before 16 January 2022 and did not cease for a continuous period of more than 24 months occurring on or after 15 June 2020. This excludes anyone who started screening work after 16 January 2022, even if they have years of experience since then. Such officers must obtain the higher Certificate II in Transport Security Protection. It also excludes anyone who had a break of more than 24 months at any point since 15 June 2020, even if they later returned. An officer who served from 2019, left in March 2020 for two years and ten months, and returned in February 2023 would not qualify for the alternative pathway because the break (March 2020 to early 2023) likely exceeds 24 months after 15 June 2020.

The aviation screening officer training exemption is fragile: Section 9(2) exempts aviation screening officers who left that role on or before 30 June 2022 from the 40-hour training requirement - unless subsection 9(1)(b) applies. That subsection brings back the training requirement if the officer is re-engaged after a continuous break of more than 24 months occurring on or after 1 July 2023. So a former aviation officer who took a long break could lose the exemption.

Testing must use departmental ICT systems: Section 10(6)(b) requires the maritime accreditation test to be completed using the Department’s ICT systems. This means entities cannot administer their own in-house tests, even if they have qualified staff. If the departmental system is down or has limited capacity, officers may be unable to obtain or renew accreditation, creating a bottleneck that prevents independent screening decisions. The cost and time of coordinating testing through a central system is a compliance risk.

CPD timing is fixed from the first test date: Section 11 begins the 12-month CPD cycle from the date the officer passed their first maritime accreditation test. If an officer passes the first test on, say, 1 August 2025, then every subsequent year’s CPD must be completed by 1 August. The entity must track individual anniversary dates, not use a calendar year. This increases administrative complexity.

Record keeping continues after the entity ceases to be a maritime entity: Section 15(3) requires records to be kept for two years after the officer’s cessation “even if the maritime entity ceases to be a maritime entity during that time”. This means a port facility operator that sells its business or deregisters as a maritime entity must still retain records of former screening officers. Failure to do so would be a breach even though the entity is no longer in the maritime sector. This could be easily overlooked during a winding-up.

Uniform requirement is undefined: Section 14 says only “distinctive and recognisable uniform”. No further guidance. This vagueness could create disputes between entities and officers, or between entities and the Department. An entity may adopt a uniform that is not considered distinctive enough, risking non-compliance.

For a maritime entity subject to Division 1 (i.e., served a notice under regulation 7.30), achieving compliance involves several sequential steps. For entities only subject to Division 2, the steps are simpler but still require action.

Step 1: Determine which screening officers are covered.
All screening officers employed or engaged by the entity must comply with Division 2 (MSIC and uniform). For Division 1 requirements, the entity must identify only those officers who are engaged or employed by the entity that has been served a regulatory notice. If the entity has not been served, it need not comply with sections 7-11. However, the entity should keep evidence that no notice has been served, in case of future audit.

Step 2: Verify qualifications.
Each Division 1 screening officer must hold either a Certificate II in Transport Security Protection, or an alternative qualification accepted by the Secretary. The entity should request sight of certificates and retain copies as part of the electronic record required under section 15. For officers who may qualify under section 8 (prior service before 16 January 2022, no break exceeding 24 months since June 2020), the officer may hold a Certificate II in Security Operations. The entity must also collect evidence to demonstrate that the officer meets the criteria - for example, employment dates, pay records, or letters from previous employers. Former aviation screening officers relying on section 8(2)(c) need evidence of state security guard licence eligibility.

Step 3: Arrange 40 hours of on-the-job training.
For any officer first engaged after 1 July 2023, or re-engaged after a break of more than 24 months after 1 July 2023, the entity must deliver at least 40 hours of on-the-job training as described in section 9(3). The training should be documented with dates, topics, and supervisor signatures. The entity should not delegate this to the officer to arrange independently; the entity must provide the training. The example in section 9 shows that a break of 24 months or more triggers the requirement, so the entity should calculate breaks carefully.

Step 4: Schedule and pass maritime accreditation tests.
Before any officer makes an independent screening decision, they must pass a maritime accreditation test for each relevant power or function. The entity must ensure that tests are administered by a person approved by the Secretary and completed using departmental ICT systems. This may require booking test slots well in advance. After the officer passes, the entity must ensure annual retesting. The entity should maintain a register of test dates and results. If an officer fails, the entity must immediately assign supervision by a certified officer and prevent the officer from making independent screening decisions. The officer may retake up to three times per 30-day period. The entity should monitor retake limits.

Step 5: Implement a CPD program.
Each Division 1 officer must complete 12 hours of CPD every 12 months from the date of their first test pass. The entity should develop a rolling program of CPD activities covering the topics in section 11(2). CPD can be delivered in-house or externally. The entity must track each officer’s anniversary date to avoid lapses. Records of CPD content, duration, and completion dates should be kept.

Step 6: Issue and monitor MSIC and uniform.
All screening officers must hold a valid MSIC and display it properly while on duty. The entity must ensure that officers are issued with the card and trained on display requirements under the Regulations. The uniform must be distinctive and recognisable. The entity should define the uniform in a policy, ensure all officers wear it, and document it for enforcement purposes.

Step 7: Maintain electronic records.
For each Division 1 officer, the entity must create an electronic record containing: engagement date, qualifications (with evidence for transitional cases), training completed, CPD activities, and MSIC details (unique number, issuing body, expiry). For Division 2 officers, only MSIC and possibly engagement date may be relevant, but the prudent entity will record all information. Records must be kept for two years after the officer ceases engagement. Even if the entity ceases to be a maritime entity, it must retain the records. A contingency plan for record transfer or storage should be prepared.

Step 8: Seek exemptions if necessary.
If compliance is genuinely impossible (e.g., no approved test administrator in the region, or the required qualification is unavailable), the entity should apply to the Secretary for an exemption under section 165B of the Act. The Determination notes this power but does not specify the process; the entity should contact the Department of Home Affairs early. Exemptions are for exceptional circumstances, so they should not be relied upon as a routine alternative.