The Australian Maritime Safety Authority’s process to issue directions was inefficient and resulted in excessive time to issue directions allowing Portland Bay to enter Port Botany as a place of refuge. While this delay did not further prolong the emergency, such delays increase risk in time‑critical situations.
To be advised
The Australian Maritime Safety Authority (AMSA) advised the ATSB that it did not agree with this safety issue finding and that there were challenges with the issuing of directions in the incident involving Portland Bay. It advised that the following action has been taken since the incident:
The ATSB notes with concern that AMSA does not agree with the investigation’s finding that its process for issuing directions was inefficient. Notwithstanding this, the ATSB welcomes the safety action that it has taken, which could adequately address the safety issue when implemented in conjunction with action to address the 3 other safety issues addressed to AMSA. In this regard, the ATSB notes the National Plan review recommendation for a review of the Protection of the Sea (Powers of Intervention) Act 1981 (POI Act).
However, the ATSB considers that the issue of directions in emergencies involving casualties with potentially severe consequences under the existing framework, which include the POI Act and AMSA’s procedures, can and should be completed in a timely manner to mitigate actual and potential consequences. Therefore, the ATSB has issued the following safety recommendation to AMSA.
The Australian Transport Safety Bureau recommends that the Australian Maritime Safety Authority (AMSA) takes safety action to adequately address this safety issue.
On 13 August 2025, the Australian Maritime Safety Authority (AMSA) advised that it accepted the ATSB’s recommendation in relation to this safety issue. In addition, AMSA noted that its response to the ATSB draft investigation report had identified a source of inefficiency in issuing directions was the limitations of the Protection of the Sea (Powers of Intervention) Act 1981 (POI Act). It stated that the POI Act required that, among other things, AMSA delegates consider and be satisfied of the likelihood of oil/hazardous and noxious substance pollution prior to issuing a direction.
In terms of safety action to address the safety issue, AMSA advised that, as part of the 2023-24 review of the National Plan for Maritime Environmental Emergences (National Plan), the Infrastructure and Transport Senior Officials Committee had agreed that there was a need to consider domestic regulatory frameworks, and whether they enable effective response to maritime emergencies. However, AMSA acknowledged the importance of the efficient issue of directions under current legislative frameworks while any legislative reform to support the review of the National Plan was being considered.
The ATSB welcomes AMSA’s acceptance of the recommendation to address this safety issue. The ATSB notes AMSA’s observations on the limitations of the POI Act and that reform of the legislative framework was being considered. Notwithstanding this, it is encouraging that AMSA considers the efficient issue of directions under current legislation is important, which is consistent with the ATSB investigation report and findings. Further, it is worth noting that the current POI Act provides more effective options than other legislation within the existing domestic regulatory framework.
Therefore, the ATSB will monitor the issue and seek an update from AMSA in January 2026 on legislative reform and any other action taken to address the safety issue.
