Safety Bulletin for Vessels
Operating in Australian Waters
Notice on the Protection of Seafarers’ Shore Leave Rights
and PSC Attention Points in Australia
Purpose
This article summarizes and analyses, based on the “2024/07 MARINE NOTICE: Access
to shore leave for seafarers”issued by the Australian Maritime Safety Authority (AMSA),
in combination with actual cases, and provides technical reminders.
I. Background and Recent Trends
Recently, in Australian ports, vessels have triggered seafarer complaints because the
ship side set time windows or other restrictions on seafarers going ashore / shore
leave. Following investigation by AMSA PSC, there have been MLC-related deficiency
cases mainly concerning “systematic restriction / disguised denial of seafarers’ shore
leave”: for example, a vessel was identified as having implemented a unified fleet-wide
shore leave policy, allowing going ashore only within a certain time period, resulting
in a significant proportion of crew members being unable to obtain reasonable shore
leave, which was recorded by PSC as a deficiency and required rectification.
At the same time, it is understood that AMSA PSC inspectors will also directly ask
seafarers during onboard interviews whether they are allowed to go ashore, whether
there are restrictions, the reasons for the restrictions, and whether they can use shore
based seafarer welfare facilities.
II. Regulatory Basis and AMSA Position
In July 2024, AMSA issued the Marine Notice “Access to shore leave for seafarers”,
reiterating the following key requirements and enforcement expectations:
1. Explicit Requirement of MLC 2006
Seafarers should be granted shore leave to benefit their health and well-being,
consistent with the operational requirements of their positions.
2. Implementation in Australian Domestic Law
The above requirements have been implemented in the Australian domestic legal
framework, including the Navigation Act 2012 and Marine Order 11 – Living and
working conditions on vessels.
3. Company Responsibility and Risk Orientation
AMSA emphasizes that companies are responsible for the health, safety and well-being
of seafarers; shore leave and access to shore-based welfare facilities are of great
significance to physical and mental health and fatigue risk control.
4. Economic Factors Shall Not Be the Basis for Refusing Shore Leave
AMSA reminds that the decision whether to approve going ashore should not be based
on economic / cost considerations.
5. PSC May Take Action
When there are clear grounds to believe that a vessel has not complied with MLC
requirements regarding going ashore, AMSA PSC officers may take action.
6. If Shore-side Organizations Inform That “Going Ashore Is Not Allowed”, It
Should Be Reported to AMSA
If a company is informed by an Australian shore-side organization that “going ashore
is not feasible”, such information should be provided to AMSA so that it can investigate
and verify the matter as the competent authority.
7. Risks Such as Infectious Diseases Are Not a Reason to Refuse Seafarers’ Shore
Leave Applications
AMSA recognizes that infectious disease risks cannot be completely eliminated, but
emphasizes that “appropriate and acceptable control measures” can be taken to allow
seafarers to go ashore in a safe manner.
III. PSC Deficiency Case
In one deficiency case, the PSCO used the following situation as the core logic of the
deficiency description:
• The company implemented a unified fleet-wide shore leave policy;
• Shore leave was restricted within a fixed time period;
• The restriction resulted in a significant proportion of crew members being
systematically refused / unable to obtain shore leave;
• Action taken: Refer to Flag (MLC competent authority), and require the company to
submit and implement corrective actions before departure to the satisfaction of
AMSA.
IV. Compliance Recommendations for Companies / Shipowners / Ships
In order to reduce the risk of triggering MLC deficiencies during port calls in
Australia, it is recommended that companies and vessels optimize from three aspects:
1. Institutional Level
• It is not recommended to establish rigid provisions at the company level such as
“only allowing shore leave within a certain fixed time period” or “shore leave not
allowed unless specially approved”.
• If operational / security / immigration / terminal requirements need to be
considered, a risk assessment + batch arrangement method may be adopted (for
example, arranging crew to go ashore in batches according to watchkeeping /
operational risk, setting assembly points and return times, and ensuring coverage of
key positions), rather than “systematic denial”;
• Do not use “entertainment facilities / internet provided onboard” as a long-term or
general substitute reason for refusing shore leave.
2. Risk Assessment
Based on AMSA statements, it is recommended that companies establish:
• Gangway and embarkation / disembarkation safety: lighting, lifebuoys / lifejackets,
compliant pilot ladder / gangway arrangement, watchkeeping arrangement;
• Security and personnel management: embarkation / disembarkation records under
ISPS requirements, visitor passes, alcohol and prohibited item management,
assembly point and return confirmation;
• Infectious disease control: personal hygiene reminders, provision of masks /
disinfectants where necessary, arrangements and reporting chain for personnel with
symptoms going ashore;
• Transport arrangements: confirm transport arrangements, timetables and assembly
requirements with agents / seafarers centres.
3. Records and Evidence
It is recommended to establish and retain:
• Shore leave application / approval / refusal records (including reasons: operations,
watchkeeping, terminal restrictions, immigration reasons, etc.);
• If shore-side / port restrictions result in inability to go ashore: retain written
notices from port / terminal / agents;
• Information that can be verified during seafarer interviews: onboard notices,
welfare facility information, seafarers centre contact information, transport
timetables, organizational arrangements, etc. (refer to Annex 1 of this article, “Port
Hedland Seafarers Centre Brochure”, as an example).
V. Conclusion
AMSA has made it clear that shore leave is an important component of MLC
requirements, and PSC will focus on this during interviews and record checks.
Companies and vessels are advised to establish implementable and relatively flexible
shore leave arrangement mechanisms to avoid complaints and deficiencies caused by
systematic restrictions.
References
1. AMSA Marine Notice (2024/07): Access to shore leave for seafarers
2. Annex 1: Port Hedland Seafarers Centre: Seafarers shore leave Brochure
(2024.11 v2)
From:CCS Australian Office
本站所有图片和文字归 海之星 Sea Star™ 所有，未经同意，任何人不得随意复制、抄袭。
鲁ICP备2024055307号