Seacare Authority Code of Practice Approval 2018 - Health and Safety in Shipboard Work, including Offshore Support Vessels

The Code is structured around several overriding concepts that reflect modern work health and safety practice as applied to shipboard environments:

1. Duty‑holder cascade. The Code distinguishes between the operator, the person in command, seafarers and other persons on board. Each tier holds specific, non‑delegable obligations, but they are interlocking: the operator sets the framework, the person in command implements it, and seafarers co‑operate.

2. Risk management hierarchy. Part 2 prescribes a strict hierarchy of control measures. The order, from most to least effective, is: Level 1 (elimination of the hazard), Level 2 (substitution, isolation, engineering controls), Level 3 (administrative controls and personal protective equipment (PPE)). The Code explicitly states that PPE, used on its own, is the least effective measure (Clause 2.3). Duty holders must work through the hierarchy when designing safe systems of work.

3. Permit‑to‑work systems. Clause 3.8 requires a formal permit‑to‑work system for any non‑routine, potentially hazardous work. The list includes hot work, entry into confined spaces, electrical work, work over water and working at height. A permit must specify the location, detail the work, record the results of the risk assessment and list the safety measures taken. Its validity must not exceed 24 hours, and the person carrying out the work must not be the same person as the authorising officer.

4. Confined‑space entry as a distinct high‑risk activity. Part 7 imposes rigorous controls. No entry is permitted without a confined space entry permit (Clause 7.2). The atmosphere must be tested before entry and must meet fixed thresholds: 21 % oxygen by volume, not more than 1 % of the lower flammable limit (LFL), and not more than 50 % of the occupational exposure limit (OEL) of any toxic vapours and gases (Clause 7.5). A standby person must be stationed to continuously monitor conditions, and that person’s primary function is watching those inside; all rescue equipment must be immediately available (Clause 7.1). Confined space entry and rescue drills must be conducted at least once every two months in accordance with SOLAS Regulation III/19.3.6 (Clause 4.5).

5. Incident reporting regime. The operator or person in command must submit an incident alert to the Australian Maritime Safety Authority (AMSA) within 4 hours of becoming aware of the incident, and a full incident report within 72 hours (Clause 1.5).

6. Offshore support vessel specificities. Part 21 introduces additional requirements: a mandatory risk management process undertaken in consultation with all relevant duty holders, including the charterer and the Offshore Installation Manager (OIM), before any offshore operations commence (Clause 21.1); a universal colour and connection coding scheme for hose terminations used in bulk product transfer (e.g. yellow for dry cement, blue for potable water, brown for fuel, green for drill water, tiger stripes for methanol) with specified male‑female hammer lug unions or quick‑release self‑sealing couplings (Clause 21.3); and weather‑related restrictions on personnel transfers (Clause 21.4). Transfers should generally not proceed if wind speeds exceed 20 knots (10 m/s) at 10 m above sea level or if significant wave heights exceed 2.5 m.

7. Asbestos prohibition. Clause 13.1 confirms that the installation of asbestos on Australian ships has been prohibited from 31 December 2003, and internationally from 1 January 2011, in accordance with SOLAS Chapter II‑1, Regulation 3‑5.2.

8. Interaction with dangerous goods operations. The introduction to Part 14 requires the person in command to ensure no bunkering is carried out during the handling of dangerous goods of Class 1 (other than Class 1.4S), and that radio transmitters are not operated in an unsafe manner during loading or unloading of explosive articles.

The Code applies to all persons on board prescribed ships and units to which the OHS(MI) Act extends, including offshore support vessels. The primary affected parties are:

• Operators (typically the shipowner or the person having control of the ship or unit). They carry the overarching duty to provide and maintain a safe working environment.
• Persons in command (masters). They are responsible for the day‑to‑day implementation of the operator’s health and safety policy.
• Seafarers, including ratings and officers, who bear individual duties to protect themselves and others and to co‑operate with the operator.
• Contractors and other persons who may be on board for specific tasks.
• Health and safety representatives (HSRs), who must receive copies of improvement and prohibition notices and who are part of the consultative structure.
• Unions that are required to be consulted when the operator develops the health and safety policy (Clause 1.1).
• The person ashore designated by the operator to monitor safety and ensure adequate resources.
• AMSA inspectors, who may rely on the Code as a benchmark when exercising their compliance and enforcement powers.
• Charterers and Offshore Installation Managers (OIMs), who must be included in the pre‑operation risk management process for offshore support vessels.

In practical terms, any entity or individual involved in the operation, crewing, maintenance or supply of a regulated vessel in Australian waters, or an Australian‑flagged vessel overseas to the extent the OHS(MI) Act applies, will find the Code’s expectations directly relevant to their legal obligations.

Operator’s duties (Clause 1.1)

The operator is primarily responsible for the health, safety and welfare of everyone on board. The Code specifies that the operator must:

• provide and maintain a safe work environment and safe means of access;
• provide information, training and supervision;
• monitor the health and conditions of seafarers;
• develop a health and safety policy in consultation with any involved unions;
• comply with Marine Order 28 regarding written instructions to the person in command for the familiarisation of newly employed seafarers, ensure minimum hours of rest are observed, and check medical and competency certificates; and
• designate a person ashore who is responsible for monitoring safety and ensuring adequate resources are available.

Person in command’s duties (Clause 1.2)

The person in command implements the operator’s health and safety policy and program. The Code requires the person in command to:

• ensure a seafarer is assigned only to tasks for which they are fit and qualified;
• supervise hazardous activities;
• carry out statutory drills in accordance with the Navigation Act 2012 and Marine Order 21;
• post relevant health and safety information or otherwise bring it to seafarers’ attention; and
• upon receiving an improvement or prohibition notice from an inspector, immediately give a copy to the health and safety representative (if any) and display a copy in a prominent place on board.

Under Part 14, the person in command also has the specific duty to ensure no bunkering occurs during handling of Class 1 dangerous goods (except Class 1.4S) and that radio transmitters are not operated in a hazardous manner during loading or unloading of explosive articles.

Seafarers’ duties (Clause 1.3)

Seafarers must take all reasonable steps to protect their own health and safety and that of others. They must:

• co‑operate with the operator in the fulfilment of its duties;
• immediately report any potential hazard they cannot deal with to their supervisor; and
• not interfere with safety devices or equipment, except in an emergency.

Incident reporting duties (Clause 1.5)

The operator or person in command must notify AMSA via an incident alert within four hours of becoming aware of an incident and submit a full incident report within 72 hours. This duty is absolute in terms, with no provision for longer reporting windows.

Risk management and permit‑to‑work obligations (Parts 2 and 3)

Duty holders must apply the hierarchy of control. A permit‑to‑work system is mandatory for non‑routine hazardous work. The permit must be signed by an authorising officer who is not the person performing the work, and its validity cannot exceed 24 hours.

Confined space obligations (Part 7)

Before allowing entry into a confined space, the operator must:

• issue a confined space entry permit and ensure safety procedures are followed;
• test the atmosphere and confirm the readings meet the prescribed thresholds;
• station at least one standby person whose primary role is continuous monitoring, with rescue equipment immediately available; and
• conduct confined space entry and rescue drills at least once every two months.

Offshore support vessel duties (Part 21)

The operator of an offshore support vessel must:

• carry out a risk management process in consultation with the charterer and OIM before offshore operations;
• adopt the colour coding and connection scheme for hose terminations when undertaking bulk product transfers; and
• observe the personnel transfer weather limits (wind not exceeding 20 knots, significant wave height not exceeding 2.5 m), and ensure any basket or carrier used has enough buoyancy to support the unit and its occupants in the water.

Rights

The Code does not create statutory rights in isolation, but it articulates the existing rights under the OHS(MI) framework:

• seafarers have a right to information, training and supervision;
• health and safety representatives have a right to receive copies of enforcement notices; and
• unions have a right to be consulted on the health and safety policy.

Duty holders also have the express option to comply with the Act and Regulations by following a different technical or industry standard, as long as that standard provides an equivalent or higher level of health and safety than the Code.

The Code itself does not contain penalty provisions. Its enforcement effect arises indirectly through the OHS(MI) Act and the associated Regulations.

The Foreword states that a court may use a failure to comply with the Code as evidence of an offence under the Act or Regulations. In a prosecution, the prosecution may point to a departure from the Code as an indication that the duty holder did not take reasonably practicable steps to ensure health and safety, placing an evidential burden on the defendant to justify the alternative approach adopted.

Inspectors appointed under the Act may refer to the Code when forming the view that a situation is unsafe and when determining whether to issue an improvement notice or a prohibition notice. A notice that relies on the Code effectively compels the recipient to bring their conduct into line with the Code’s recommendations, or to adopt an equivalent or higher standard.

Because the OHS(MI) Act creates offences for breaches of duties (with corresponding maximum penalties), a failure to observe the Code’s guidance can ultimately contribute to a finding of guilt and the imposition of a sanction under the Act. The Code thereby functions as a powerful quasi‑regulatory instrument even though it does not of its own force create an offence.

The Code sits at the centre of a web of domestic and international maritime obligations:

• OHS(MI) Act and Regulations. The legal basis for the approval is section 109 of the OHS(MI) Act. The Code is explicitly presented as a practical guide to meeting the standards in the parent Act, the Occupational Health and Safety (Maritime Industry) Regulations 1995 and the Occupational Health and Safety (Maritime Industry) (National Standards) Regulations 2003. A compliance strategy that follows the Code will ordinarily be taken as discharging statutory duties, while a departure may need to be defended.

• Navigation Act 2012 and Marine Orders. Clause 1.1 incorporates the requirements of Marine Order 28 (familiarisation, rest hours, medical and competency certificates). Clause 1.2 ties the obligation to carry out statutory drills to the Navigation Act 2012 and Marine Order 21. These links mean a breach of the marine orders may simultaneously be a failure to follow the Code, and vice‑versa.

• SOLAS. The Code directly imports SOLAS standards: confined space drills every two months must be conducted in accordance with SOLAS Regulation III/19.3.6 (Clause 4.5), and the asbestos prohibition is grounded in SOLAS Chapter II‑1, Regulation 3‑5.2 (Clause 13.1). This ensures that Australian domestic practice aligns with international ship‑safety requirements and that a ship’s safety management system can be audited against both frameworks simultaneously.

• Offshore safety legislation. While the Code does not mention the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Act or similar regimes, Clause 21.1 imposes a duty on the operator of an offshore support vessel to consult with the charterer and the Offshore Installation Manager (OIM) before starting offshore operations. This bridges the gap between the maritime OHS framework and the safety case arrangements governing offshore facilities. In practice, the risk management processes required by the Code will need to be integrated with the facility’s own safety case and simultaneous operations (SIMOPS) planning.

• Evidence and enforcement laws. The Code’s status as an approved code of practice affects the operation of the rules of evidence in prosecutions under the OHS(MI) Act. Courts are explicitly directed (by the Foreword) that failure to comply with the Code may be used as evidence of an offence.

• Equivalent or higher standards. The Code does not operate as a monopoly standard. A duty holder may adopt a different technical or industry standard if it provides an equivalent or higher level of health and safety. This preserves the flexibility inherent in performance‑based legislation and allows the integration of, for example, classification society rules, flag‑state requirements or industry guidelines.

The Seacare Authority Code of Practice Approval 2018 commenced on 1 January 2019 and, by section 4, repealed the Seacare Authority Code of Practice Approval 2017 (Federal Register F2017L00326). The instrument does not state the reasons for the revision. However, it is common for such codes to be regularly reviewed and updated to reflect evolving industry practice, amendments to the underpinning legislation, and changes to international instruments such as SOLAS. For compliance professionals, the key point is that the 2017 approval is no longer in force and all references should now be to the 2018 Code.

The source text names no court decisions and contains no references to litigation or controversy. As a code of practice, its principal battleground is likely to be in prosecutions where a defendant disputes whether a failure to follow the Code amounts to a failure to discharge the general statutory duty. In such a proceeding, the court would weigh the Code’s guidance against the expert evidence and the specific circumstances of the case. Because the instrument itself does not record any decided cases, practitioners should treat it as a settled but not judicially tested standard of practice under the OHS(MI) Act.

Several provisions can trip up even experienced operators and lawyers:

• Permit‑to‑work validity and separation of roles. A permit must not exceed 24 hours, and the authorising officer must be a different person from the worker carrying out the task. In small‑crew environments, this separation can be difficult to achieve, yet failure to observe it risks an allegation that the permit‑to‑work system is not effective.

• Confined‑space atmosphere thresholds. The numbers are precise: 21 % oxygen, ≤1 % LFL, ≤50 % OEL for toxic gases and vapours. A reading that is fractionally outside any one of these limits, even if the others are satisfactory, means entry cannot proceed. Some practitioners mistakenly focus only on flammable gas and oxygen, overlooking the toxic exposure limit.

• Confined‑space drill frequency. Drills must be conducted at least once every two months. The Code ties this to SOLAS III/19.3.6, so it is not merely a recommendation; it is a mandatory requirement for the ship’s safety management system. Missing a drill by even a few days could be cited as non‑compliance.

• Incident reporting deadlines. The 4‑hour alert and 72‑hour full report are strict. The obligation falls on the operator or the person in command. There is no allowance for weekends, public holidays or vessel communication difficulties, so robust satellite reporting systems are essential.

• Offshore personnel transfer weather limits. The limits (20 knots wind, 2.5 m significant wave height) are couched as “should”, meaning they are not an absolute prohibition. However, if an incident occurs in conditions exceeding these limits, the Crown will likely point to the Code as the accepted industry benchmark, effectively reversing the practical burden of justification onto the operator.

• Bunkering and dangerous goods. The prohibition on bunkering while handling Class 1 dangerous goods (except Class 1.4S) appears in the introduction to Part 14, not in a numbered clause, and may be missed on a quick scan. The same introductory text restricts radio transmitter use during loading or unloading of explosive articles. These are categorical operational constraints.

• Person ashore designation. The operator must designate a named person ashore. This is not optional; failing to do so, or failing to ensure that person has the resources and authority to act, can be used as evidence of a systemic failure in the operator’s safety management.

• “Should” versus “must”. Misreading a “should” as a suggestion can be costly. While the word indicates a recommendation, a consistent failure to follow multiple “should” provisions can still support a finding that the operator did not take reasonably practicable steps. Conversely, “must” or “requires” signals a direct legal obligation drawn from the Act or Regulations.

• Colour coding for hose terminations. Part 21 prescribes a precise colour and connection scheme for bulk transfer. Using a different colour or coupling, even if functional, may be treated as a breach of the operator’s duty if the non‑standard arrangement creates confusion during simultaneous operations.

Practical compliance requires a systematic approach that aligns the operator’s safety management system with the Code’s structure:

1. Map duty holder responsibilities. Confirm that the vessel’s safety management system clearly allocates the operator’s duties, the person in command’s duties and seafarers’ duties exactly as described in Clauses 1.1-1.3. Ensure a named person ashore is designated and that all relevant seafarer documentation (medical, competency, rest‑hour records) is maintained in accordance with Marine Order 28.

2. Embed the risk management hierarchy. Document risk assessments in a format that demonstrates consideration of elimination, substitution, isolation and engineering controls before administrative controls and PPE. If PPE is the primary control, record why higher‑level controls were not reasonably practicable.

3. Implement a robust permit‑to‑work system. Create a register of activities that automatically trigger the need for a permit (hot work, confined space entry, electrical work, work over water, working at height). The system must enforce the 24‑hour validity limit and guarantee that the signatory is not the same person conducting the work. Audit the system regularly for breaches.

4. Harden confined‑space procedures. Pre‑entry protocols must include multi‑gas testing with calibrated instruments that can demonstrate compliance with the three thresholds in Clause 7.5. Standby persons must have no other duties while monitoring. Rescue equipment must be present, not stowed elsewhere. Set a recurring two‑monthly drill cycle and log every drill in the official records, referencing SOLAS III/19.3.6.

5. Build incident‑reporting capabilities. Establish a communication chain that can reliably deliver an incident alert to AMSA within four hours, even when the vessel is remote. Pre‑format incident report templates to capture all information required for the 72‑hour report, so nothing is overlooked in the immediate aftermath of an event.

6. For offshore support vessels, engage early with charterers and OIMs. Before mobilising, convene a joint risk management meeting that satisfies Clause 21.1. Record the outcomes and circulate them to all parties. Ensure the vessel’s hose terminations conform to the colour and connection table in Clause 21.3. Integrate the weather limits for personnel transfer into the vessel’s operational decision‑making checklist, and confirm that transfer baskets or carriers have certified buoyancy.

7. Remove or manage asbestos risks. Audit the vessel to confirm no asbestos has been installed after the applicable prohibition dates. If legacy asbestos is present, implement a management plan consistent with the Code and SOLAS requirements.

8. Control dangerous‑goods operations. Brief all crew on the prohibition of bunkering during Class 1 (non‑1.4S) handling and on the restrictions on radio transmitter operation near explosives. Embed these restrictions in the vessel’s dangerous goods checklist.

9. Post and disseminate information. Display improvement and prohibition notices as required, and ensure the health and safety representative receives a copy without delay. Distribute safety information in a form that reaches all seafarers, taking account of language and literacy factors.

10. Document compliance and equivalence decisions. If the operator chooses an alternative standard rather than the Code, maintain a documented assessment demonstrating that the chosen standard provides an equivalent or higher level of health and safety. This will be essential evidence if an inspector questions the decision or if a prosecution arises.

11. Keep the Code current. Check periodically whether the Seacare Authority has approved a newer code. Since the 2018 Approval repealed the 2017 version, any reference to an outdated approval in contracts, manuals or policies should be updated to cite the 2018 instrument.