|
INSIDE THIS ISSUE
• Time Running Out to Book for National ICHCA
Conference in Darwin
•
Melbourne to Host 2012 ICHCA International Conference
• Sponsor Profile
- Department of Transport Victoria
• POAGS Rebranding and Change of Company Name
• ICHCA Information Paper No. 47
• Victorian Roads and Ports Minister Addresses
Melbourne ICHCA Lunch
• Long Beach Named North America’s ‘Best Seaport’
• ALC Welcomes Release of Infrastructure Australia’s
Updated National Priority List
• Hancock Railway Project Makes Tracks
• Security Strengthened for Ports, Oil and Gas Rigs
and Ships
• Conferences and Events
Time Running Out to Book for National ICHCA Conference
in Darwin
Time is running out to book for the ICHCA Australia Conference in
Darwin in August, with the early bird rate deal closing on 15 July.
The Australia Asia Cargo Logistics Conference will be held over two
days on the 4th & 5th and a half day industry tour on the
morning of Friday 6 August. The tour will include Fort Hill Wharf,
the Alice-Darwin Rail intermodal facility, East Arm Port and Darwin
International Airport.
The conference is focused on Australia-Asia cargo connections -
with emphasis on the oil, gas and mining sectors and movement of
bulk, break bulk and heavy lift cargo by land, sea or air.
A range of authoritative speakers will address key issues
including:
• Update on Economic Development and Major Projects in the Northern
Territory
• Trade Prospects and the Resources Sector
• Trade Flows 2010-2015
• Energy and Mining Cargo Logistics
• Port Development Planning
• Rail and Intermodal Solutions
• Airports and Airfreight Challenges including Airport Heavy Lift
Capabilities
• Key Government Policy Initiatives and Regulatory Impacts on
Supply Chains, Safety, Security, Border Protection and Bio-security
• Shipping and Hub Ports
• Port Hub Development, Shipping and Shipping Industry Challenges
• Ports and Cargo Handling Challenges and Risk Assessment
• Supply Chain Strategies and Integrated Logistics Solutions
• Stevedoring Project Cargo, Shipping Big Lift and Over-Size Cargo
• Global Risk Assessment
• Innovative Solutions including Transhipment from Shallow Draught
Ports.
Further details on the program are on the ICHCA International
website [www.ichca.com] along with a Registration Form.
We are making the conference highly affordable by extending our
Early Bird special if you book by 15 July:
For the Two Day Conference and Conference Dinner [4-5 August]
§ ICHCA
Member $ 440 + GST = $484
§ Non
ICHCA Member $ 550 + GST = $605
The conference not only provides useful, up-to-date information and
opportunities for discussion but is an excellent venue for
networking with invited customers and for enhancing staff
development.
For further information please contact:
Ian Lovell
Company Secretary
ICHCA Australia Ltd
Tel: 0400 708 182
e-mail: ian.lovell@bigpond.com
9 Durham Street
Henley Beach 5022
Melbourne to Host 2012 ICHCA International
Conference
As reported last issue, the Board of ICHCA International has
selected Melbourne as the venue for its 2012 International
Conference. This was announced at the highly successful ICHCA
International 2010 Biennial Conference in Casablanca recently.
The conference will focus on global cargo handling and logistics.
It is expected to attract a range of high quality speakers drawn
from around the globe.
Planning for the conference has already started and it will run
from 18-20 April. An additional two days will be set aside for
ICHCA’s International Panels to meet and engage in dialogue with
conference delegates.
Melbourne would not have been selected if it was not for the strong
support provided by the conference’s two foundation platinum
sponsors - the Victorian Department of Transport and Port of
Melbourne Corporation.
PROFILE: ICHCA 2012 International Conference
Foundation Platinum Sponsor – Department of
Transport Victoria
The Victorian Department of Transport (DOT) was established in
April 2008 to provide a greater focus on improved transport
outcomes for Victorians.
The Department supports two ministers and their respective
portfolios:
• Martin Pakula MP, Minister for Public Transport
• Tim Pallas MP, Minister for Roads and Ports.
The Victorian Department of Transport works in conjunction with
transport agencies to deliver transport services across Victoria.
The department and its agencies comprise the transport portfolio.
• Linking Melbourne Authority (LMA)
• Marine Safety Victoria (MSV)
• Port of Melbourne Corporation (POMC)
• Port of Hastings Corporation (POHC)
• Public Transport Safety Victoria (PTSV)
• Roads Corporation of Victoria (VicRoads)
• Transport Ticketing Authority (TTA)
• V/Line Passenger Corporation (V/Line)
• Victorian Rail Track Corporation (VicTrack)
• Victorian Regional Channels Authority (VRCA).
The Department’s mission is:
Building a safer, fairer and greener transport system for all
Victorians to create a more prosperous and connected community.
Since transport is used for a wide range of purposes, the sorts of
trips we make differ greatly and can be delivered in different
ways, often by different technologies. It is impossible to consider
the different modes in isolation.
• Many modes use the road system, which provides the infrastructure
for all private car travel; all bus travel; the majority of freight
transport and tram services; a significant share of bicycle travel;
and, through footpaths, the majority of walking.
• Our rail system carries suburban passenger rail services,
regional passenger rail services and rail freight services. Rail
intersects with the road system at level crossings and many of our
major roads have tram rails running down the middle of them.
• Our ports rely on the road and rail systems for the
transportation of goods in and out of them.
Wherever and whenever modes share the network, a decision about the
relative priority of the modes has to be made. The greater the degree
of sharing, the more frequent and complex these decisions become.
The most important task for the Department of Transport and the
agencies in the transport portfolio is to make sure that the right
mode is doing the right job. Our role is not about moving ‘metal
boxes’, whether these boxes are trains, cars or trucks. Our
business is about making sure people and goods can get from where
they are to where they need to be. This means recognising that the
right mode for a particular task at a particular time will depend
on a range of social, economic and environmental factors. ‘Road
versus rail’ is old thinking.
To make sure we are working towards the most environmentally,
economically and socially effective forms of transport, we need a
good understanding of the relative benefits and impacts of each
mode and we need to plan and deliver networks and services
cooperatively. All the agencies in the transport portfolio have a
role to play, just as all the modes of transport have a role.
Achieving the best transport outcomes for the community requires
all transport agencies supporting multiple transport tasks to work
together as part of a single integrated transport portfolio.
For more information visit www.transport.vic.gov.au
POAGS
Rebranding and Change of Company Name
POAGS has undertaken a rebranding of the business which represents
an exciting transition and coincides with changes in the ownership
structure of the company. In November 2009, the Kaplan consortium
purchased the remaining 25% shareholding formerly held by DP World.
With the exit of DPW as a shareholder, POAGS is required to undergo
re-branding including the removal of the old P&O 'flag' logo.
Effective from 1 June the old logo has been replaced by a new logo
which applies to both POAGS Port Logistics and POAGS Bulk Logistics
services.
Signage at the various sites will transition over time and over the
coming months you will notice changes as the working assets, site
signage and staff uniforms are transitioned to the new logo.
ICHCA
INFORMATION PAPER NO: 47
Dangerous
Goods Declarations and Material Safety Data Sheets
Often dangerous goods declarations for conveyance of packaged goods
by sea are accompanied by Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS or
SDS*) and those who take such bookings and/or receive the
declaration may ask for an SDS if there is any doubt about the
substance or material. It is the case that there is,
understandably, a tendency to rely on them for specific information
relative to conveyance, stowage and segregation.
Apart from cargoes shipped in bulk carriers, there is believed to
be no legal obligation for SDS to be supplied to organisations in
the transport chain. However, the practice of providing them or
such organisations asking for them is encouraged by ICHCA
International.
Recent discussions have shown that SDSs can vary and that this
could pose a problem for shipping companies, ports and terminals
which receive them. ICHCA International has been told of a well
known manufacturer who issued three separate SDSs in three
successive months each with a different UN number but for the same
product. This was because the persons preparing each SDS clearly
had not had sufficient training on how to correctly choose UN
numbers and to classify correctly in the first place. Furthermore,
this kind of situation is thought to be not uncommon. A survey
carried out earlier in this decade by the Chemical Hazards
Communication Society found, on a strict marking basis, that only
16% of SDSs fully complied with guidance on completion and it is
understood that a Dutch survey since has brought that down to 10%.
The legal situation is that a shipper signs a dangerous goods note
and this implies that the consignment has been classified and
identified correctly and legal liability is attached to this
statement. Furthermore, from January this year, all persons
involved with packaged DG on the shoreside must be trained (and
Information Paper 43 suggested what we can do to encourage
compliance with this new requirement).
However, from a practical point of view what is the booking clerk
or person receiving the declaration to do when faced with an SDS?
More specifically, what should they be trained to do? The
implications of the above are that we should be more circumspect
when using SDSs.
The following possibilities and reactions are posed:
The shipper submits an SDS which shows that a substance or material
that is in the IMDG Code is really not dangerous for transport by
sea, eg carbon black of mineral origin. This should be checked with
the shipper and/or an in-house or outside expert who can advise on
what should be the response. If the shipper insists that his SDS is
correct, it is suggested that a categorical written statement be
obtained before accepting it.
Specialist shipping line staff could usefully be trained in how to
read and interpret SDSs, particularly in how to link the data
presented in the physical chemical properties, the human health
hazard and ecological toxicity sections of SDSs. The training
should enable them to consider whether the data presented in these
sections support the transport class, subsidiary class, packing
group, proper shipping name and packing group and aquatic pollutant
classification presented in the transport section including whether
confirmation as being not dangerous for transport is supported.
The shipper submits an SDS which shows that a substance that is not
specifically in the IMDG Code but should be, eg a flammable liquid
with a flashpoint at or below 60 degrees Celsius.
Generally this would be accepted, unless there is any reason to
doubt it.
The shipper submits an SDS which shows that the substance or
material is not dangerous but the stowage information includes
advice regarding stowage away from heat and/or away from other
substances such as organic peroxides.
It is thought that there are a number of substances that this
situation can apply to and, at the very least, the relevant stowage
information must be noted and implemented during the stowage and
segregation provisions on shore and on ship.
The purpose of this Information Paper is to alert those who deal
with SDSs to the present situation and to treat any that they have
to deal with carefully. There should always be someone in-house or
outside who can assist in cases of doubt and those details should
be readily to hand.
*The terms MSDS and SDS are used. However, the trend is to refer to
these documents as SDS to follow the lead being given by the United
Nations in the Globally Harmonised System of Classification and
Labelling of Chemicals (the GHS or Purple Book). There is an IS0
Standard (IS0 11014) on SDSs and also a long standing EU Directive
and the GHS, IS0 Standard and EU Directive provide guidance on the
format and content of SDSs.
Victorian Roads and Ports Minister Addresses
Melbourne ICHCA Lunch
(This is an abridged version of the address
Victorian Minister for Roads and Ports, Tim Pallas, provided to an
ICHCA lunch in Melbourne in May. )
I want to share with you the Government’s thinking on a range of
topics that relate to the challenge of increasing freight volumes, and
in particular, increasing container volumes. This Government has
released several strategies in the last 18 months that deal
specifically with those challenges. Just last month I released a
discussion paper that looks at the increase in intermodal freight
and proposes new ways of moving containers around metropolitan
Melbourne.
This government has spent a good deal of time in the last 18 months
or so mapping out how we are going to address the freight challenge
of the coming two decades. And I want to begin with Port Futures, a
document that I released last year that charts the course of
Victoria’s four commercial ports.
The first thing it does is reaffirm each trading port’s role. That
might sound like we’re stating the obvious, but what we’re saying
here is that we need to accept that as Government policy, we
recognise each commercial port’s distinctive role, a role that has
built up through decades of development and evolution.
In essence, we’re saying that the four commercial trading ports
should focus on developing their existing core trade roles. In the
case of the ports of Portland, Geelong and Hastings, we’re talking
about dry bulk, liquid bulk and break bulk cargoes like wood chips,
grain, steel and aluminium.
In the case of the Port of Melbourne, we are talking about its
container-handling capabilities while also acknowledging that it
will continue to play a role in handling bulk and break bulk
commodities such as cars.
And Hastings also has a role as Victoria’s second container port,
acting as an overflow for the container trade once Melbourne
reaches capacity. For the Port of Melbourne, that means expanding
capacity and for the Port of Hastings, it means developing a
container-handling capability.
Container volumes at the Port of Melbourne are expected to grow to
about 8 million annually by 2035, up from 2.4 million currently.
Port Futures plans to accommodate this projected growth by
encouraging new stevedoring capacity and progressing the
development of the Port of Hastings. Both Melbourne and Hastings
are key sites for the container and coastal trade primarily
servicing the Melbourne market, so joint development is a more
efficient and productive approach.
To this end, responsibility for the management of the Port of
Hastings will pass to the Port of Melbourne as of 1 July, subject
to the Bill’s passage which is currently before Parliament.
This will eliminate the potential for duplication of resources and
mean that the knowledge and capabilities held by the Port of
Hastings Corporation are supplemented by the resources and
expertise of the Port of Melbourne Corporation.
Sitting underneath Port Futures are land-use strategies. These are
road maps for the development of the ports of Melbourne, Hastings,
Geelong and Portland and what these documents do is detail how we
expect to see these ports develop, particularly in relation to
land-use.
The Port of Melbourne’s Port Development Strategy was released in
August last year.
It sets out a vision for the port to the year 2035 when – as I
mentioned – container volumes are expected to be about four times
what they are today. That means wholesale changes to land-use in
the port area, doing a bit of reshuffling of the roles of some of
the real estate and developing new areas that have been previously
unused.
The imminent relocation of the wholesale markets on Footscray Road
means redeveloping the land to the immediate north of Swanson Dock
where we can expand container-handling activity. It’s on this site
we plan to develop what we are calling a Metropolitan International
Freight Terminal. But we can also expand the land available to the
Port by relocating the South Dynon rail terminal. Moving the rail
freight terminal from South Dynon to another location in the west
of Melbourne near Wyndham will free up even more land for container
handling.
More containers means more trucks, so we’ll aim to regulate truck
access to the Port by implementing a Freight Infrastructure Charge.
I know this initiative is contentious.
The state has embarked on a plan to build some $18 billion worth of
road projects that will directly benefit the road freight industry.
I expect the industry to help pay for that infrastructure.
Secondly, if we’re looking at the port handling eight million
containers by 2035, I want to discourage smaller one-container
pick-ups from the port. We might be able to quadruple the number of
containers handled at the port, but we don’t want to be quadrupling
the number of truck movements.
Currently, truck utilisation for port containers is 1.24 TEU per
truck, which sees about 1.6 million truck movements annually to and
from the port. If we failed to improve on that, we would be looking
at 6.45 million truck movements by 2035. The port’s aim is to
improve truck utilisation to 2.0 TEU per truck by 2035. If this
were achieved, annual truck movements would be at a more manageable
four million annually.
The Freight Infrastructure Charge will be imposed on all vehicles
picking up and delivering international containers from the Port of
Melbourne. The charge will be shaped in such a way that it favours
larger combinations over smaller ones. 30-metre B-doubles capable
of carrying two 40-foot containers will pay the same charge as a single
rigid vehicle with a 20-footer on board.
Rail will not pay the charge and the charge will be structured so
that it favours off-peak operations.
These are the road projects that the Freight Infrastructure Charge
will help construct:
• $759 million Peninsula Link, where work recently began
• $6 billion dollar North-East Link, which will link the Eastern
Freeway at Bulleen with the Metropolitan Ring Road at Greensborough
and is not expected to be started before about 2017
• $5 million investigation into grade separating selected
intersections in Hoddle Street
• alternative to the West Gate crossing that includes a $2.8
billion tunnel between the Port and Geelong Road but will
eventually extend as far as the Western Ring Road
• Outer Metro Transport Corridor for which reserves are being
identified and which is being called a transport corridor and not a
road because it includes a rail reserve
• E6, which will complete the ring.
The Outer Metro and the E6 are both very long-term projects.
The Geelong Port Land Use Strategy reinforces the role played by
Geelong Port as the main port manager and the driving force behind
investment in port infrastructure. There are several actions the
strategy proposes in relation to the northern end of the precinct
and I should stress all of these are subject to a business case.
These include:
• development of a dual gauge rail track at Lascelles Wharf
• expanding the facilities at Lascelles Wharf including installing
crane rails on the existing Berth No 1 and extending the existing
wharf at the southern end by about 150 metres
• constructing a new berth, Lascelles Berth No 4, on the northern
end
• exploring development opportunities for available land at
OneSteel and Incitec Pivot.
The strategy also recommends a staged, long-term channel
improvement program for the Port of Geelong. While Hastings and
Portland are generally regarded as natural deep water ports, the
Port of Geelong is becoming increasingly constrained by the
approach channels in Corio Bay. As liquid bulk tankers and dry bulk
carriers become larger, it will be necessary to implement
improvements.
The Port Land Use and Transport Strategy for Hastings sets out a
vision for land-use planning and transport access to the Port of
Hastings for the next 30 years. Hastings will play a key role as
Melbourne’s second container port. What the document does is divide
the port into geographical precincts and allocates each precinct a
distinct function.
Long Island has been identified as the logical location for major
port expansion. It’s currently used by BlueScope Steel and Esso-BHP
Billiton and is close to Western Port Bay’s deep-water channel. The
entire Long Island area zoned Special Use is more than 2000
hectares in total, yet only around 500 hectares are currently occupied.
So you can see how foresight has bequeathed an enormous asset to
the people of Victoria, and it’s important that we use that
advantage wisely.
The Old Tyabb Reclamation Area will be the focus for Stage 1
development. It’s within 50 metres of the channel and, on the
landside, close to existing road and rail, so it has plenty of
natural advantages. With a little bit of extra reclamation of the
area between the shoreline and the channel, we can create up to
three berths, each about 300 metres long, capable of taking bulk,
cars, general cargo and break bulk trades, as well as new premises
for a port operations facility.
The Tyabb Reclamation Area - as opposed to the Old Tyabb
Reclamation Area - is 400 hectares in size and the ideal space to
establish international container handling and berthing facilities.
On the landside, we’ll use the area zoned for port use set aside to
accommodate container stacking and handling. What hasn’t been
decided is the preferred berthing configuration, whether that’s a
land-backed container terminal or an offshore island.
Post-2035, we expect that Stages 1 and 2 would be expanded and
integrated. This might entail a linear, continuous wharf face
parallel to the shoreline and main channel, or it might be a
partial dock-berthing area with three distinct berth faces joining
Stages 1 and 2.
To the south of Long Island, the Crib Point Jetty liquid berth
facilities and the former BP refinery site are strategically
important assets for the State. Much of the state’s unleaded petrol
is imported via Crib Point and there are no plans to change that.
Another key component of the Port of Hastings Land Use and
Transport Strategy is the transport corridors planning. We’re
proposing a 50% mode split between road and rail for the cartage of
import and export freight out of the Port, so it’s critical we get
both modes right.
There’s been a lot of work carried out on exploring these options.
The preferred primary road access, which is the Western Port road
corridor, would see access to Hastings from Dandenong on a
freeway-standard Western Port Highway. It’s a very direct route and
VicRoads has already done much of the planning needed to get the
Western Port Highway to such a standard.
The Port Phillip Road Corridor is a medium-term solution that takes
in EastLink, the recently commenced Peninsula Link and either
Frankston-Flinders Road or a potential bypass of Somerville and
Tyabb through Coolart and Graydens Roads.
Finally, there are two long-term corridors we are calling Gippsland
road corridors which use Clyde-Five Ways Road or Koo Wee Rup Road.
I should add that any use of Koo Wee Rup Road would involve the
construction of a bypass around the Koo Wee Rup township.
When it comes to planned rail corridors, there are now only two
options under consideration.
A third option which had been preferred when the draft Port Land
Use and Transport Strategy was on public exhibition is no longer
under consideration. Initially, trade volumes will be able to be
handled by the existing Frankston-Stony Point Line.
In the long-term, we will build the Port Phillip Rail Corridor,
which uses the rail reserves put in place on EastLink and Peninsula
Link to join with the existing Frankston-Stony Point Line at
Baxter. This would require upgrade work to the Stony Point line by
providing crossing loops or complete track duplication.
The second rail corridor, which also links Hastings to the rail
freight network via Dandenong, would entail the construction of an
entirely new track parallel to the Western Port Highway.
The final land-use strategy I want to share is the Port of Portland
Port Land Use Strategy. The Port of Portland is the international
gateway for the entire region and handles an estimated $1.5 billion
in annual trade.
Over the next five to 10 years, freight volumes are expected to
double. The majority of the growth will come from forestry products
in the Green Triangle Region, including the first-time harvesting
of blue gum plantations. A new export commodity - mineral sands -
is adding to the Port’s trade volumes.
One of the parts of the Port likely to come under space constraints
as the timber harvest expands is the bulk commodities and smelter
precinct. One of the options the Land Use Strategy explores is
moving non-port related functions away from the precinct to free up
land to expand some of the handling facilities, particularly
softwood-handling facilities.
We also recognise that road and rail access to the Port will
struggle to cope with increasing woodchip exports, so a separate
document known as the Green Triangle Freight Action Plan looks at
options to expand these two delivery modes.
Long Beach Named North America’s ‘Best Seaport’
The
Port of Long Beach was once again named the best seaport in North
America by Cargonews Asia at the 2010 Asian Freight and Supply
Chain Awards in Hong Kong.
It
is the sixth consecutive year and the 14th time in the past 15
years that the Port of Long Beach has been recognized as the best
on the continent, despite increased competition for Asian cargo.
“We
are honoured to have our work recognized by the maritime industry,”
said Port of Long Beach Executive Director, Richard D. Steinke. “We
strive to be at the forefront of technology and customer service
and we will continue to aim high as trade recovers from the recession.”
An
Asian Freight and Supply Chain Award is a highly regarded
distinction given by thousands of importers, exporters, logistics
and supply chain professionals who use fright transportation
services. The program, in its 24th year, is known informally as the
“Shipper’s Choice” awards and is based on a readers poll. The
awards also recognise the best shipping lines, container terminals,
air cargo terminals, airports and rail haulers.
ALC Welcomes Release of Infrastructure Australia's
Updated National Priority List
The
Australian Logistics Council (ALC) has welcomed the release of
Infrastructure Australia’s updated National Priority List - Getting
the fundamentals right for Australia’s infrastructure priorities.
“ALC
is very pleased that ‘Competitive International Gateways’ and ‘A
National Freight Network’ have been identified as two of the seven
themes to meet the infrastructure challenge”, said ALC Chief
Executive, Michael Kilgariff.
“ALC
has been highly engaged with Infrastructure Australia on a National
Port Strategy and the National Freight Network Plan. It believes
that the function of the National Freight Network Plan Framework is
to ensure the regulatory environment, infrastructure and investment
are in place to meet Australia’s freight needs.
“We
therefore endorse the view that the goal should be a national
freight network capable of efficiently moving freight by rail and
road.”
Mr
Kilgariff said the ALC was pleased that Infrastructure Australia
had picked up some of the proposals made by ALC, including:
• the requirement that port plans should have a 20 year horizon
• the importance of ensuring planning instruments preserve freight
corridors and that buffer strategies are in place
• further investigation of ‘port information community systems’
(information interchanges) among freight chain participants
• the need to identify transport corridors that should be treated
as if they were part of the relevant port – an identification of
the need to recognise that some intermodal facilities located away
from destination points act as an ‘inland port’.
For further information www.austlogistics.com.au
Hancock Railway Project Making Tracks
The
Queensland Coordinator-General has approved the proposed Hancock
rail corridor - an essential milestone towards an Alpha Coal Mine
which could create up to 1600 direct jobs. The corridor has been
approved as an Infrastructure Facility of Significance (IFS) under
the State Development and Public Works Organisation Act 1971.
The
proposed 495km standard gauge railway would run from Hancock's
proposed Alpha Coal Mine in the Galilee Basin to the Port of Abbot
Point.
Queensland
Premier, Anna Bligh, said it was an important milestone towards a
project that could help open up the Galilee Basin for the first
time. "This rail project alone has the potential to create
hundreds of jobs and inject billions into the Queensland
economy."
Hancock
Coal Pty Ltd is the proponent of the proposed $2 billion new rail
project which could move bulk coal from Hancock's proposed Alpha
Coal mine to the Port of Abbot Point.
The
declaration of the IFS means Hancock now has a defined corridor
within which they can continue to study the feasibility of their
plans.
This
decision gives greater certainty in support of ongoing planning and
potential investment for the proposed $5.5B Alpha project and the
estimated $6.5B proposed Hancock Kevin's Corner project in the
Galilee Basin.
The
declaration as an infrastructure facility of significance means that
Hancock now has a defined corridor within which they can continue
to examine the feasibility of their plans.
Security
Strengthened for Ports, Oil and Gas Rigs and Ships
Amendments
to the Maritime Transport and Offshore Facilities Security
Regulations 2003 designed to improve security at Australia's ports
and offshore oil and gas facilities has been introduced. The
changes strengthen the Maritime Security Identification Card (MSIC)
scheme to better protect Australia's maritime infrastructure from
the threat of terrorism and other serious criminal acts.
From
1 July, new strengthened eligibility criteria will apply to all new
applicants for an MSIC. The new rules apply to all individuals that
require unescorted access to ports, offshore oil and gas facilities
and Australian security regulated ships. These changes are required
to respond to the current maritime security environment.
From
1 December 2010, the amended regulations will:
• require all MSIC holders to undergo compulsory criminal history
background checks and an ASIO security assessment every two years
• create a new offence to prosecute MSIC holders who fail to advise
their card-issuing body or Auscheck of changes to their criminal
record
• create a new offence to prosecute MSIC issuing bodies that fail
to suspend or cancel an MSIC when directed to do so by Auscheck or
the Department.
|
