2015-16 REGULATOR PERFORMANCE FRAMEWORK ......B AMSA 2015-16 Regulator Performance Framework self-assessment report Document Owner: Lloyd Dobson, Manager Governance Contact details:

A

AMSA 2015-16 Regulator Performance Framework self-assessment report

SELF-ASSESSMENT REPORT

2015-16 REGULATOR PERFORMANCE FRAMEWORK

A

B


DocumentOwner: Lloyd Dobson, Manager Governance Contact details: Telephone - (02) 6279 5615 Email - [email protected]/Unit: Corporate ServicesDocument status: Final

Revision History

Revision date Version No. Author Description of changes

25 August 2016 1 Lloyd Dobson Initial draft

20 September 2016 2 Lloyd Dobson Final

Approvals

Title Name Signature Date

Chief Operating Officer Cherie Enders 20 September 2016

Chief Executive Officer Mick Kinley 20 September 2016

i


CONTENTS

1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1

1.1 Self-assessment 1

1.2 Self-assessment validation 1

2 BACKGROUND 2

2.1 Purpose 2

2.2 Requirement 2

3 METHOD 3

3.1 Evidence 3

3.2 Process 3

3.2.1 AMSA self-assessment 4

3.2.2 Validation 4

4 RESULTS 6

4.1 AMSA RPF self-assessment 6

4.1.1 Analysis 6

4.2 AMSA Advisory Committee Validation 7

4.2.1 Analysis 8

5 ATTACHMENTS 9

5.1 Additional evidence of good regulatory behaviour 9

5.2 AMSA 2015-16 RPF self-assessment detailed responses 16

ii


1


1.1 Self-assessmentThe Australian Maritime Safety Authority (AMSA) undertook an annual self-assessment of its performance against the Regulator Performance Framework (RPF) in August 2016.

The self-assessment was informed by:• the AMSA 2015-16 Annual Report;• the 2015-16 AMSA Annual Performance Statement;• additional evidence of good regulatory behaviour;• the results of a trial RPF customer survey; and • the professional knowledge and experience of AMSA’s Executive team.

The self-assessment found: • a reasonably strong correlation between the AMSA self-assessment result and trial RPF customer survey

results;• no wildly differing perspectives on AMSA’s performance as a regulator; and• a positive overall view of AMSA’s performance, while at the same time signalling that the authority

recognises that there are gaps/opportunities for improvement.

The self-assessment results broadly indicate that AMSA:• effectively manages the balance between delivering benefits to industry and positive safety outcomes;• is very aware that there is room for improvement across the range of RPF key performance indicator

areas - and has an appetite to do so; and • knows that assuming responsibility as the National Regulator for commercial domestic vessels represents

a step-change which will require an agile and contemporary regulatory response.

Specific areas for improvement highlighted by the self-assessment include:• raising stakeholder awareness and visibility of AMSA’s decision making processes through better

engagement, education and communication; and• better harmonisation and coordination of AMSA resources across all ship types and sectors.

1.2 Self-assessment validationThe AMSA self-assessment was validated by the AMSA Advisory Committee – a representative body.

Overall there is a reasonably high degree of consensus/agreement between the validation and self-assessment results, with all six consolidated validation scores in the ‘somewhat agree’ to ‘agree’ range, albeit closer to ‘agree’.

While the variances were not significant/of concern, management believes that the transition currently underway which sees AMSA assume full responsibility for service delivery of the National System for domestic commercial safety by July 2017 may have influenced some validation responses.

In regards to opportunities for improvement, the validation:• reinforced the self-assessment conclusion that AMSA needs to increase efforts to raise stakeholder

awareness and visibility of decision making processes; and• highlighted the importance of communication, and the challenges inherent in communicating with such a

wide range of stakeholders.

AMSA’s ongoing efforts to improve maritime regulations to create a safer and more efficient industry were identified as a strength.

1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

2


2 BACKGROUND2.1 PurposeThe purpose of the Regulator Performance Framework (RPF) is to encourage regulators to undertake their functions with the minimum impact necessary to achieve regulatory objectives, and to effect positive ongoing and lasting cultural change. The RPF commenced on 1 July 2015.

The RPF consists of six outcomes-based key performance indicators (KPIs) which set the Government’s overarching expectations of regulator performance:

1. regulators do not unnecessarily impede the efficient operation of regulated entities

2. communication with regulated entities is clear, targeted and effective

3. actions undertaken by regulators are proportionate to the risk being managed

4. compliance and monitoring approaches are streamlined and coordinated

5. regulators are open and transparent in their dealings with regulated entities

6. regulators actively contribute to the continuous improvement of regulatory frameworks.

More information on the RPF is available at: www.cuttingredtape.gov.au/resources/rpf.

2.2 RequirementRegulators must self-assess their performance against the RPF annually. The results of the self-assessment must be: • validated by an approved external stakeholder body - the Australian Maritime Safety Authority (AMSA)

Advisory Committee (AAC)1;• certified by AMSA’s accountable authority2 - the AMSA Board; and• provided to AMSA’s portfolio Minister and published no later than 31 December each year.

1On 28 May 2015 the AAC agreed to be AMSA’s external validation body for the Regulator Performance Framework (RPF), and agreed the proposed measures. On 1 December 2015 AMSA’s portfolio Minister approved these arrangements2Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013 (PGPA ACT)

3


3.1 EvidenceWhere possible AMSA leveraged existing processes for data collection and analysis. The primary sources of evidence used for the self-assessment and validation were:• the AMSA 2015-16 Annual Report – available at www.amsa.gov.au;• the 2015-16 AMSA Annual Performance Statement – an appendix to the Annual Report (above), and a

new Commonwealth reporting requirement from 2015-16 onwards;• additional evidence of good regulatory behaviour – provided at Attachment 5.1 to this report; and • the results of a trial RPF survey conducted with AMSA’s customers conducted over quarter four of

2015-16 via AMSA’s website - see www.surveymonkey.com/r/WMLFSN6.

Note:• the 2015-16 AMSA Annual Performance Statement reported performance against a range of

measures previously identified and agreed as relevant/aligned to the RPF; and• the small number of participants3 in the trial RPF customer survey meant that the results were not

statistically meaningful, however, they did provide an interesting comparator – see section 4 Results.

3.2 ProcessDiagram One below details the overall self-assessment process.

3 METHOD

3N=28, with 18 active participants. 60%/12 active participants identified with the domestic commercial vessel industry.

AMSA SELF ASSESSMENT

Who: AMSA Executive How: online survey When: Mon 1 - Fri 5 August 2016 Inputs: • Annual Report • Annual Performance

Statement • Regulator activity list • RPF customer survey

results • Professional experience

and knowledgeOutputs: Self-assessment report (to

AMSA Advisory Committee)

CERTIFICATION

Who: AMSA BoardHow: Board paper (221) When: 20 September 2016 Inputs: • AMSA RPF self-assessment

report • Annual Report • Annual Performance Statement • Regulator activity list • RPF customer survey results • Professional experience and

knowledgeOutputs: By 31 December 2016: • AMSA self-assessment report

certified provided to Minister • Report published

SELF-ASSESSMENT VALIDATION

Who: AMSA Advisory Committee How: online survey When: Tue 9 - Tue 23 August 2016 Inputs: • AMSA RPF self-

assessment report • Annual Report • Annual Performance

Statement • Regulator activity list • RPF customer survey

results • Professional experience

and knowledgeOutputs: AMSA self-assessment

report (including validation) to AMSA Board

Diagram One: AMSA RPF self-assessment process

4


3.2.1 AMSA self-assessment

Over the period 1-5 August 2016 the AMSA Executive undertook a self-assessment of AMSA’s performance against the RPF through an online survey.

The self-assessment survey consisted of six key statements/questions aligned to the RPF key performance indicators:

• Q1: AMSA helps vessel owners and seafarers safely operate or work on a vessel without getting in the way

• Q2: Our communications with those we regulate are clear and useful

• Q3: Given the risks involved in the industries AMSA regulates, the level of regulation is about right

• Q4: AMSA’s compliance and monitoring arrangements are well organised and efficient

• Q5: AMSA explains its regulatory decisions well, and

• Q6: AMSA is always trying to improve maritime regulations to create a safer and more efficient industry.

The response options were:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7strongly disagree

disagree somewhat disagree

somewhat agree

agree strongly agree

n/a

Participants were also given the opportunity to provide general comments at the end of the survey.

3.2.2 Validation

Over the period 9-23 August 2016 the AMSA Advisory Committee validated AMSA’s RPF self-assessment through an online survey.

The purpose of the validation is to be a sounding board for the self-assessment results prior to them being considered by the AMSA Board, and subsequently by AMSA’s portfolio Minister.

The AMSA Advisory Committee is a peak maritime representative body comprised of senior representatives from the following organisations:• Ports Australia• Department of Defence• Royal Australian Navy• Farstad Shipping (Indian Pacific) Pty Ltd• Caltex Australia Petroleum Pty Ltd• Yachting Australia• Maritime Industry Australia Ltd• Australian Antarctic Division• Australian Maritime College• Maritime Union Australia• Shipping Australia Limited• Australian Marine Conservation Society• Braemar ACM Ship broking• WA Fishing Industry Council Inc• Australian Petroleum Production & Exploration Association

The results of the AMSA self-assessment survey were consolidated in a report and provided to the AMSA Advisory Committee, along with the other inputs (evidence) detailed in diagram one, by email on Friday 8 August 2016 as a precursor to receiving an invitation to take part in the validation survey.

5


AMSA Advisory Committee members were encouraged to put time aside to review the evidence prior to undertaking the survey.

The validation survey was a variation on the six self-assessment key statements/questions. Each question asked the participant to determine:

“whether the AMSA self-assessment result against the relevant KPI is a fair and accurate representation of AMSA’s performance, based on the evidence presented to them and their own experience”.

Each question also detailed the corresponding survey question/statement posed to the AMSA Executive, and the summary self-assessment result.

Diagram Two is an example of the validation survey question format.

Diagram Two: example of validation survey question format

6


4 RESULTS4.1 AMSA RPF self-assessment The summary results7 of the AMSA self-assessment against each question are shown in graph one (blue bars). For comparative purposes the results of the trial survey conducted with a small number of AMSA’s customers/stakeholders using a similar question set are portrayed by the orange bars.

Q1: helps safe operation or work on vessels without getting in the way

Q2: communications are clear and useful

Q3: level of regulation is about right

Q4: compliance & monitoring arrangements are well organised & efficient

Q5: explains regulatory decisions well

Q6: trying to improve maritime regulations

1strongly disagree

2disagree

3somewhat disagree

4somewhat

agree

5agree

6strongly agree

Graph one: Regulatory Performance Framework - AMSA self-assessment v trial RPF customer survey

Self assessment

Trial

The detailed results and comments for each self-assessment question are at Attachment 5.2.

4.1.1 Analysis

There is a reasonably strong correlation between the AMSA self-assessment and the results of the trial RPF customer survey. Although the number of participants in the trial survey were not statistically meaningful and the bulk of participants were from the domestic vessel industry (60%), there appears to be a positive relationship between the respective results with no wildly differing perspectives on AMSA’s performance as a regulator.

There was a high degree of consistency for the responses across questions one-four between the self-assessment and trial survey. Of particular note was the favourable result from the trial (4.29) for question one – AMSA helps vessel owners and seafarers safely operate or work on a vessel without getting in the way – compared to AMSA’s self-assessment of 4.14.

The most significant variance in perspectives (1.05) was for question five – AMSA explains its regulatory decisions well.

Aside from question one, there was a general trend for the AMSA self-assessment to score slightly higher (average +.58) than the trial result. Both the statistical results and the qualitative comments suggest that this could be due to the AMSA Executive taking a far more holistic view of regulatory performance across all areas (e.g. the regulation of merchant vessels subject to the SOLAS8 convention), whereas the trial results were heavily influenced by domestic vessel participants.

7Weighted average8Safety of Life at Sea

7


The average weighted response score for the AMSA self-assessment questions was 4.39 – between ‘somewhat agree’ and ‘agree’. While this is a positive overall result (noting that there was no neutral scoring option provided in the survey), at the same time it signals that AMSA recognises that there are gaps/opportunities for improvement9.

The AMSA self-assessment results, supported by the trial results, broadly indicate that AMSA:• actively tries to manage the balance between delivering benefits to industry and positive safety outcomes• is very aware that there is room for improvement across the range of RPF key performance indicator

areas - and has an appetite to do so • knows that assuming responsibility as the national regulator for commercial domestic vessels represents

a step-change which will require an agile and contemporary regulatory response.

Specific areas for improvement highlighted by the self-assessment include:• raising stakeholder awareness and visibility of AMSA’s decision making processes• better harmonisation and coordination of AMSA resources across all ship types and sectors.

4.2 AMSA Advisory Committee Validation The summary results10 of the AMSA Advisory Committee’s validation of the self-assessment results are shown in graph two (orange bars).

Readers should note that the validation results: • Indicate how strongly the AMSA Advisory Committee agrees or disagrees with the AMSA self-

assessment (blue bars). • Are not the AMSA Advisory Committee’s direct assessment of AMSA against the RPF key

performance indicators and survey questions.

9Trial average was 3.81 – closer to ‘somewhat agree’ than ‘somewhat disagree’.10Weighted average.

Q1: helps safe operation or work on vessels without getting in the way

Q2: communications are clear and useful

Q3: level of regulation is about right

Q4: compliance & monitoring arrangements are well organised & efficient

Q5: explains regulatory decisions well

Q6: trying to improve maritime regulations

1strongly disagree

2disagree

3somewhat disagree

4somewhat

agree

5agree

6strongly agree

Graph two: Regulatory Performance Framework - AMSA self-assessment v AAC validation

Self assessment

Validation

The detailed results and comments for each validation question are at Attachment 5.3.

8


4.2.1 Analysis

Overall there is a reasonably high degree of consensus/agreement between the validation and self-assessment results, with all six consolidated validation scores in the ‘somewhat agree’ to ‘agree’ range, albeit far closer to ‘agree’.

The Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet advises that variances between self-assessment and validation results do not have to be resolved prior to reporting to the Minister, but should be explained.

While the variances are not significant/of concern, further investigation showed that one validation respondent (from 11) consistently scored ‘disagree’, and in once instance (Q4), ‘strongly disagree’. If this respondent’s scores were discounted, all validation consolidated scores would move into the ‘agree’ to ‘strongly agree’ range.

Supported by some of the qualitative validation comments, management believes that the transition currently underway which sees AMSA assuming full responsibility for service delivery of the National System for domestic commercial safety by July 2017 may have influenced some validation responses. Of particular note, the public consultation process for cost recovery under the National System started while the self-assessment validation was underway.

In regards to opportunities for improvement, the validation:• reinforced the self-assessment conclusion that AMSA needs to increase efforts to raise stakeholder

awareness and visibility of decision making processes• highlighted the importance of communication, and the challenges inherent in communicating with such a

wide range of stakeholders.

The highest validation score (5.00) was against Q6: AMSA is always trying to improve maritime regulations to create a safer and more efficient industry. The qualitative comments (extracts below) indicate that this area is perceived as a strength for AMSA: • “I agree that AMSA always tries to improve and enhance safety through revised regulation” • “World leading in many respects”• “my view is that this aspect is a strong point”• “I am of the view that AMSA is doing well in a difficult and complex environment to improve regulatory

frameworks”.

9

AM

SA

2015

-16

Reg

ulat

or P

erfo

rman

ce F

ram

ewor

k se

lf-as

sess

men

t rep

ort

5.1

Add

ition

al e

vide

nce

of g

ood

regu

lato

ry b

ehav

iour

DES

CR

IPTI

ON

: thi

s ta

ble

desc

ribes

act

iviti

es th

at A

MS

A un

derta

kes

that

con

stitu

te e

vide

nce

of g

ood

regu

lato

ry b

ehav

iour

aga

inst

eac

h of

the

six

Reg

ulat

or

Per

form

ance

Fra

mew

ork

(RP

F) k

ey p

erfo

rman

ce in

dica

tor (

KP

I) ar

eas.

Thi

s in

form

atio

n co

mpl

imen

ts th

e qu

antit

ativ

e pe

rform

ance

info

rmat

ion

deta

iled

in o

ur A

nnua

l R

epor

t and

Ann

ual P

erfo

rman

ce S

tate

men

t.

HO

W T

O R

EAD

TH

IS T

AB

LE: t

he g

rey

colu

mns

on

the

left

of th

e ta

ble

deta

il th

e m

easu

res

and

exam

ples

pro

vide

d by

the

Dep

artm

ent o

f Prim

e M

inis

ter a

nd

Cab

inet

. The

blu

e co

lum

ns o

n th

e rig

ht d

etai

l AM

SA’

s cu

rren

t act

ivity

, and

pla

nned

impr

ovem

ents

.

Dep

artm

ent o

f Prim

e M

inis

ter a

nd C

abin

et g

uida

nce

AM

SA E

vide

nce

KPI

Rat

iona

leM

easu

res

of g

ood

regu

lato

ry

perf

orm

ance

Exam

ples

of o

utpu

t & a

ctiv

ity

base

d ev

iden

ceC

urre

nt A

MSA

act

ivity

Plan

ned

impr

ovem

ents

1R

egul

ator

s do

not

un

nece

ssar

ily

impe

de e

ffici

ent

oper

atio

ns fo

r re

gula

ted

entit

ies

Reg

ulat

ors

dem

onst

rate

an

unde

rsta

ndin

g of

the

oper

atin

g en

viro

nmen

t of t

he in

dust

ry o

r or

gani

satio

n, o

r the

circ

umst

ance

s of

indi

vidu

als

and

the

curr

ent a

nd

emer

ging

issu

es th

at a

ffect

the

sect

or.

Reg

ular

, ong

oing

con

sulta

tions

or

eng

agem

ent w

ith s

take

hold

ers

on p

olic

ies

and

proc

edur

es,

incl

udin

g in

depe

nden

t exp

erts

an

d in

dust

ry a

ssoc

iatio

ns.

(1) A

MS

A B

oard

(2) A

MS

A A

dvis

ory

Com

mitt

ee (3

) Reg

ulat

ory

deve

lopm

ent c

onsu

ltatio

n pr

oces

s (4

) Con

sulta

tive

bodi

es (s

ee A

nnua

l R

epor

t p.7

1 &

con

sulta

tive

bodi

es li

st) (

5) B

i-ann

ual c

onfe

renc

e (6

) N

atio

nal s

yste

m li

aiso

n ro

les

(Ann

ual R

epor

t p.4

1), (

7) m

any

AM

SA

staf

f com

e di

rect

ly fr

om in

dust

ry a

nd m

aint

ain

links

with

indu

stry

, ro

bust

con

sulta

tion

proc

ess

whe

n fo

rmul

atin

g po

licy

incl

udin

g cl

ose

cons

ulta

tion

with

indu

stry

(8) N

atio

nal P

lan

Tech

nica

l Wor

king

Gro

ups

and

Stra

tegi

c In

dust

ry A

dvis

ory

Foru

m (9

) Eng

agem

ent w

ith S

tate

/NT

on p

oten

tial i

ncon

sist

enci

es w

ith In

tern

atio

nal S

hipp

ing

Reg

ulat

ions

(M

AF

& T

ISO

C)

Reg

ulat

ors

take

act

ions

to m

inim

ise

the

pote

ntia

l for

uni

nten

ded

nega

tive

impa

cts

of re

gula

tory

act

iviti

es o

n re

gula

ted

entit

ies

or a

ffect

ed s

uppl

ier

indu

strie

s an

d su

pply

cha

ins.

Doc

umen

ted

resp

onsi

vene

ss to

fe

edba

ck fr

om re

gula

ted

entit

ies,

in

clud

ing

feed

back

from

exi

stin

g co

mpl

aint

mec

hani

sms

and

surv

eys

of re

gula

ted

entit

ies.

(1) M

anag

emen

t Sys

tem

com

plai

nts

regi

ster

(2) A

MS

A co

nnec

t tra

nsac

tion

surv

ey (3

) Eve

nt a

nd w

orks

hop

eval

uatio

n fo

rms

(4) A

MS

A co

nnec

t gen

eral

inqu

iries

(5) A

MS

A C

onne

ct te

leph

ony

surv

ey (6

) B

i-ann

ual s

take

hold

er s

urve

y, (7

) Bi-a

nnua

l sta

keho

lder

sur

vey,

(8)

Bie

nnia

l Ato

N q

uest

ionn

aire

circ

ulat

ed b

y A

MS

A on

beh

alf o

f IA

LA, t

o st

ate

and

port

auth

oriti

es, (

9) A

d-ho

c su

rvey

s of

mar

iner

s on

spe

cific

na

viga

tiona

l saf

ety

issu

es, (

10) C

ombi

ned

Pilo

tage

Gro

up, (

11) t

arge

ted

pilo

tage

con

sulta

tive

surv

eys

(12)

Nat

iona

l Pla

n Tr

aini

ng le

arne

r ev

alua

tions

(13)

Pos

t inc

iden

t/exe

rcis

e re

view

s

(1) C

entra

lised

co

mpl

aint

s an

d fe

edba

ck p

roce

ss (2

) R

egul

ator

Per

form

ance

Fr

amew

ork

cust

omer

ex

perie

nce

surv

ey (t

rial

impl

emen

ted)

Reg

ulat

ors

impl

emen

t con

tinuo

us

impr

ovem

ent s

trate

gies

to re

duce

th

e co

sts

of c

ompl

ianc

e fo

r who

they

re

gula

te.

Env

ironm

ent s

cann

ing

is

unde

rtake

n re

gula

rly a

nd a

t a

min

imum

, on

an a

nnua

l bas

is.

(1) A

MS

A In

tegr

ated

Pla

nnin

g P

roce

ss (2

) Ris

k M

anag

emen

t W

orks

hops

(3) N

atio

nal s

yste

m s

tream

linin

g (p

.39

Ann

ual R

epor

t) (4

) N

atio

nal s

yste

m c

onsu

ltatio

n pr

ogra

m (i

bid)

Dem

onst

rate

d en

gage

men

t w

ith re

leva

nt in

tern

atio

nal

orga

nisa

tions

to le

arn

from

pee

r ex

perie

nces

and

sha

re b

ette

r pr

actic

es.

(1) E

ngag

emen

t with

IMO

, IA

LA, I

CA

O (

2) M

OU

s (3

) Con

sulta

tive

bodi

es (4

) Int

erna

tiona

l & re

gion

al e

ngag

emen

t pro

gram

(5) T

echn

ical

co

oper

atio

n pr

ogra

m (6

) Bila

tera

l eng

agem

ent p

rogr

am (A

nnua

l R

epor

t, p.

74)

5 AT

TAC

HM

ENTS

10

AM

SA

2015

-16

Reg

ulat

or P

erfo

rman

ce F

ram

ewor

k se

lf-as

sess

men

t rep

ort

Dep

artm

ent o

f Prim

e M

inis

ter a

nd C

abin

et g

uida

nce

AM

SA E

vide

nce

KPI

Rat

iona

leM

easu

res

of g

ood

regu

lato

ry

perf

orm

ance

Exam

ples

of o

utpu

t & a

ctiv

ity

base

d ev

iden

ceC

urre

nt A

MSA

act

ivity

Plan

ned

impr

ovem

ents

2C

omm

unic

atio

n w

ith re

gula

ted

entit

ies

is c

lear

, ta

rget

ed a

nd

effe

ctiv

e

Reg

ulat

ors

prov

ide

guid

ance

and

in

form

atio

n th

at is

up

to d

ate,

cle

ar,

acce

ssib

le a

nd c

onci

se th

roug

h m

edia

ap

prop

riate

to th

e ta

rget

aud

ienc

e

Per

cent

age

of g

uida

nce

mat

eria

ls

that

com

plie

s w

ith g

over

nmen

t ac

cess

ibili

ty g

uide

lines

.

(1) E

nfor

cem

ent o

f acc

essi

bilit

y st

anda

rds

(2) S

C3

PRO

JEC

T - C

ertifi

cate

an

d Pi

lota

ge S

yste

m: m

ake

the

way

we

issu

es c

ertifi

cate

s m

ore

effe

ctiv

e an

d ef

ficie

nt, u

ltim

atel

y im

prov

ing

serv

ice

deliv

ery

to s

eafa

rers

. (3)

N

atio

nal S

afet

y M

anag

emen

t Sys

tem

Tra

inin

g R

esou

rce

Kit (

Annu

al

Rep

ort,

p. 4

1) A

MSA

Abo

ard,

Wor

king

boa

ts, O

n Sc

ene,

Mar

itim

e Sa

fety

Aw

aren

ess

Bulle

tin, 2

4/7

med

ia h

otlin

e, F

aceb

ook

(20,

500

follo

wer

s),

Twitt

er (2

3,50

0) (p

.73

Annu

al R

epor

t), (4

) VTS

and

Coa

stal

Pilo

tage

w

ebpa

ge (e

xter

nal s

ite),

Mar

ine

Not

ices

and

Pilo

t Adv

isor

y N

otes

(5)

Nat

iona

l Pla

n Su

ppor

ting

Doc

umen

ts (6

) web

site

form

s, fa

ct s

heet

s an

d pu

blic

atio

ns (

7) N

ATSA

R C

ounc

il w

ebsi

te, B

eaco

ns w

ebsi

te

Reg

ulat

ors

cons

ider

the

impa

ct o

n re

gula

ted

entit

ies

and

enga

ge w

ith

indu

stry

gro

ups

and

repr

esen

tativ

es o

f th

e af

fect

ed s

take

hold

ers

befo

re c

hang

ing

polic

ies,

pra

ctic

es o

r ser

vice

sta

ndar

ds

Max

imum

, min

imum

and

ave

rage

tim

e fo

r dec

isio

n(1

) Ato

N S

trate

gy &

Ope

ratio

ns W

orki

ng G

roup

(SO

WG

), (2

) AIS

W

orki

ng G

roup

, (3)

VTS

Wor

king

Gro

up, (

4) M

arin

e O

rder

Wor

ksho

ps,

(5) C

ombi

ned

Pilo

tage

Gro

up, (

6) In

divi

dual

Coa

stal

Pilo

tage

Pro

vide

r Li

aiso

n (7

) Nat

iona

l Pla

n C

omm

ittee

s an

d W

orki

ng G

roup

s (8

) NAT

SA

R

Cou

ncil

Reg

ulat

ors’

dec

isio

ns a

nd a

dvic

e ar

e pr

ovid

ed in

a ti

mel

y m

anne

r, cl

early

ar

ticul

atin

g ex

pect

atio

ns a

nd th

e un

derly

ing

reas

ons

for d

ecis

ions

Pub

lishe

d tim

efra

mes

for

deci

sion

mak

ing

(1) V

TS C

ompl

ianc

e an

d E

nfor

cem

ent F

ram

ewor

k, (2

) AM

SA’

s R

egul

atio

ns

Reg

ulat

ors’

adv

ice

is c

onsi

sten

t and

su

ppor

ts p

redi

ctab

le o

utco

mes

Per

cent

age

of d

ecis

ions

ac

com

pani

ed b

y st

atem

ent

of re

ason

s an

d ad

vice

abo

ut

rele

vant

revi

ew o

r app

eal

mec

hani

sms,

whe

re a

ppro

pria

te

(1) V

TS C

ompl

ianc

e an

d E

nfor

cem

ent F

ram

ewor

k, (2

) AM

SA’

s R

egul

atio

ns

Num

ber o

f pol

icy/

stan

dard

s ch

ange

s w

hich

are

pre

cede

d by

co

mpr

ehen

sive

eng

agem

ent w

ith

stak

ehol

ders

.

(1) R

egul

ator

y de

velo

pmen

t con

sulta

tion

proc

ess,

(2) V

TS C

ompl

ianc

e an

d E

nfor

cem

ent F

ram

ewor

k, (3

) Ann

ual A

toN

Rev

iew

pro

cess

, (4)

M

arin

e N

otic

e an

d M

arin

e O

rder

Ext

erna

l Con

sulta

tion

(5) M

eetin

gs

and

brie

fings

prio

r to

atte

ndan

ce a

t IM

O

App

rove

d pr

oced

ures

for

com

mun

icat

ions

(inc

ludi

ng

issu

e-sp

ecifi

c sc

ripts

if re

leva

nt)

are

avai

labl

e fo

r sta

ff us

e w

hen

inte

ract

ing

with

regu

late

d en

titie

s.

(1) M

anag

emen

t sys

tem

- co

mm

unic

atio

ns p

roce

dure

s, (2

) VTS

C

ompl

ianc

e an

d E

nfor

cem

ent F

ram

ewor

k, (3

) Sta

ndar

d O

pera

ting

Pro

cedu

res

and

Del

egat

ed A

utho

ritie

s

Adv

ice

prov

ided

to re

gula

ted

entit

ies

is c

onsi

sten

t with

co

mm

unic

atio

n po

licie

s

(1) A

MSA

Abo

ard,

Wor

king

boa

ts, (

2) O

n Sc

ene,

Mar

itim

e Sa

fety

Aw

aren

ess

Bulle

tin, (

3) V

TS C

ompl

ianc

e an

d En

forc

emen

t Fra

mew

ork,

(4

) Mar

ine

Not

ices

, (5)

Pilo

t Adv

isor

y N

otic

es (

6) C

omm

unic

atin

g IM

O

mee

ting

outc

omes

and

am

endm

ents

via

web

site

- M

ARPO

L C

urre

nt T

exts

Dem

onst

rate

d fe

edba

ck is

sou

ght

from

sta

keho

lder

s on

gui

danc

e an

d ad

vice

pro

vide

d by

the

regu

lato

r vi

a a

wid

e ra

nge

of m

echa

nism

s,

incl

udin

g st

akeh

olde

r sur

veys

(1) B

i-ann

ual S

take

hold

er S

urve

y, (2

) VTS

Com

plia

nce

and

Enf

orce

men

t Fra

mew

ork,

(3) T

arge

ted

Pilo

tage

Sur

veys

(4) N

atio

nal

Pla

n C

omm

ittee

s an

d W

orki

ng G

roup

s (5

) Nat

iona

l exe

rcis

e ar

rang

emen

ts (6

) Mee

tings

and

brie

fings

prio

r to

atte

ndan

ce a

t IM

O

(1) R

egul

ator

Pe

rform

ance

Fr

amew

ork

cust

omer

ex

perie

nce

surv

ey (p

ilot

impl

emen

ted)

Dem

onst

rate

d m

echa

nism

s fo

r res

pond

ing

to s

take

hold

er

enga

gem

ent/c

ompl

aint

(1) A

MS

A C

ompl

imen

ts/C

ompl

aint

s R

egis

ter (

2) R

espo

nses

to w

eb/

emai

l enq

uirie

s di

rect

ed to

EP

S(1

) Cen

tralis

ed

com

plai

nts

and

feed

back

pro

cess

11

AM

SA

2015

-16

Reg

ulat

or P

erfo

rman

ce F

ram

ewor

k se

lf-as

sess

men

t rep

ort

Dep

artm

ent o

f Prim

e M

inis

ter a

nd C

abin

et g

uida

nce

AM

SA E

vide

nce

KPI

Rat

iona

leM

easu

res

of g

ood

regu

lato

ry

perf

orm

ance

Exam

ples

of o

utpu

t & a

ctiv

ity

base

d ev

iden

ceC

urre

nt A

MSA

act

ivity

Plan

ned

impr

ovem

ents

3A

ctio

ns

unde

rtake

n by

re

gula

tors

are

pr

opor

tiona

te to

th

e re

gula

tory

risk

be

ing

man

aged

Reg

ulat

ors

appl

y a

risk-

base

d,

prop

ortio

nate

app

roac

h to

com

plia

nce

oblig

atio

ns, e

ngag

emen

t and

regu

lato

ry

enfo

rcem

ent a

ctio

ns

Ris

k m

anag

emen

t pol

icie

s an

d pr

oced

ures

are

ava

ilabl

e to

re

gula

tor s

taff

and

the

publ

ic

(1) R

isk

Man

agem

ent F

ram

ewor

k (2

) Man

agem

ent S

yste

m (3

) C

omco

ver R

isk

Man

agem

ent A

war

ds, (

4) C

ompl

ianc

e an

d E

nfor

cem

ent

Pol

icy

and

Pro

toco

ls

Reg

ulat

ors’

pre

ferre

d ap

proa

ch to

re

gula

tory

risk

is re

gula

rly re

asse

ssed

. St

rate

gies

, act

iviti

es a

nd e

nfor

cem

ent

actio

ns a

re a

men

ded

to re

flect

cha

ngin

g pr

iorit

ies

that

resu

lt fro

m n

ew a

nd

evol

ving

regu

lato

ry th

reat

s, w

ithou

t di

min

ishi

ng re

gula

tory

cer

tain

ty o

r im

pact

Com

plia

nce

and

enfo

rcem

ent

stra

tegi

es, c

onsi

sten

t with

agr

eed

risk

man

agem

ent p

olic

ies

are

publ

ishe

d

(1) A

MS

A ex

tern

al w

ebsi

te (2

) Ann

ual R

epor

t per

form

ance

info

rmat

ion,

(3

) Com

plia

nce

and

Enf

orce

men

t Pol

icy,

(4) V

TS C

ompl

ianc

e an

d E

nfor

cem

ent F

ram

ewor

k

Reg

ulat

ors

reco

gnis

e th

e co

mpl

ianc

e re

cord

of r

egul

ated

ent

ities

, inc

ludi

ng

usin

g ea

rned

aut

onom

y w

here

this

is

appr

opria

te. A

ll av

aila

ble

and

rele

vant

da

ta o

n co

mpl

ianc

e, in

clud

ing

evid

ence

of

rele

vant

ext

erna

l ver

ifica

tion

is c

onsi

dere

d

Doc

umen

ted

appr

oach

es in

pl

ace

to re

view

risk

app

roac

hes

regu

larly

.

(1) R

isk

Man

agem

ent F

ram

ewor

k (2

) Int

egra

ted

plan

ning

pro

cess

(3

) SC

1 P

RO

JEC

T - I

mpl

emen

t a re

plac

emen

t sys

tem

for s

hip

regi

stra

tion,

risk

pro

filin

g an

d re

cord

ing

of in

spec

tion,

saf

ety

com

plia

nce

and

inci

dent

reco

rds,

(4) A

nnua

l int

erna

l Ato

N R

evie

w, (

5) A

toN

W

HS

pol

icie

s an

d pr

oced

ures

, (6)

Coa

stal

Pilo

tage

Pro

vide

r Saf

ety

Man

agem

ent S

yste

ms

(7) I

OP

C F

unds

Aus

tralia

n C

ontri

buto

r Aud

its*

Sta

tem

ents

of e

xpec

tatio

ns a

nd

inte

nt a

re p

ublis

hed

(1) A

MS

A w

ebsi

te, (

2) M

arin

e N

otic

es, (

3) P

ilot A

dvis

ory

Not

es

Agre

ed q

ualit

y as

sura

nce

proc

esse

s ar

e in

pla

ce fo

r sta

ff us

e(1

) Man

agem

ent s

yste

m

Rel

evan

t sta

ff tra

ined

in ri

sk

man

agem

ent p

olic

ies,

pro

cess

es

and

proc

edur

es

(1) M

anag

emen

t sys

tem

(2) R

isk

man

agem

ent f

ram

ewor

k (3

) In

duct

ions

(4) e

-lear

ning

Doc

umen

ted

enfo

rcem

ent

stra

tegy

whi

ch a

llow

s fo

r the

co

mpl

ianc

e re

cord

s of

regu

late

d en

titie

s to

be

cons

ider

ed in

de

term

inin

g re

gula

tory

act

ions

(1) S

hips

ys, (

2) C

ompl

ianc

e an

d E

nfor

cem

ent P

olic

y an

d P

roto

cols

Doc

umen

ted

enfo

rcem

ent

stra

tegy

incl

udes

opt

ions

for

grad

uate

d co

mpl

ianc

e ac

tions

co

nsis

tent

with

regu

lato

rs’ p

ower

s

(1) C

ompl

ianc

e an

d E

nfor

cem

ent P

olic

y an

d P

roto

cols

Dem

onst

rate

d en

gage

men

t with

re

gula

ted

entit

ies

to in

form

them

of

the

regu

lato

rs’ e

xpec

tatio

ns

(1) A

MS

A A

dvis

ory

Com

mitt

ee (2

) Reg

ulat

ory

deve

lopm

ent c

onsu

ltatio

n pr

oces

s (3

) Con

sulta

tive

bodi

es (A

nnua

l Rep

ort,

p.71

, sep

arat

e ta

b)

(4) B

i-ann

ual c

onfe

renc

e, (4

) VTS

and

Pilo

tage

Pro

vide

r SM

S a

udit

outc

omes

, (5)

Pilo

tage

Exa

m F

eedb

ack,

(6) M

arin

e N

otic

es

Dem

onst

rate

d av

enue

s fo

r st

akeh

olde

rs to

pro

vide

feed

back

an

d pr

oces

ses

or p

olic

ies

to

inco

rpor

ate/

cons

ider

this

whe

n ta

ilorin

g ap

proa

ches

to ri

sk

(1) M

anag

emen

t Sys

tem

com

plai

nts

regi

ster

(2) A

MSA

con

nect

tra

nsac

tion

surv

ey (3

) Eve

nt a

nd w

orks

hop

eval

uatio

n fo

rms

(4)

AMSA

con

nect

gen

eral

inqu

iries

(5) A

MSA

Con

nect

tele

phon

y su

rvey

(6

) Bi-a

nnua

l sta

keho

lder

sur

vey,

(7) M

arin

e O

rder

con

sulta

tion,

(8)

Con

sulta

tive

bodi

es (A

nnua

l Rep

ort,

p.71

, sep

arat

e ta

b) (9

) Nat

iona

l Pla

n C

omm

ittee

s an

d W

orki

ng G

roup

s

(1) C

entra

lised

C

ompl

aint

s &

fe

edba

ck p

roce

ss (2

) R

egul

ator

Per

form

ance

Fr

amew

ork

cust

omer

ex

perie

nce

surv

ey

12

AM

SA

2015

-16

Reg

ulat

or P

erfo

rman

ce F

ram

ewor

k se

lf-as

sess

men

t rep

ort

Dep

artm

ent o

f Prim

e M

inis

ter a

nd C

abin

et g

uida

nce

AM

SA E

vide

nce

KPI

Rat

iona

leM

easu

res

of g

ood

regu

lato

ry

perf

orm

ance

Exam

ples

of o

utpu

t & a

ctiv

ity

base

d ev

iden

ceC

urre

nt A

MSA

act

ivity

Plan

ned

impr

ovem

ents

4C

ompl

ianc

e an

d m

onito

ring

appr

oach

es a

re

stre

amlin

ed a

nd

coor

dina

ted

Reg

ulat

ors’

info

rmat

ion

requ

ests

are

ta

ilore

d an

d on

ly m

ade

whe

n ne

cess

ary

to s

ecur

e re

gula

tory

obj

ectiv

es, a

nd

only

then

in a

way

that

min

imis

es

impa

ct

Num

ber o

f rep

eat i

nfor

mat

ion

requ

ests

mad

e to

regu

late

d en

titie

s an

nual

ly

(1) S

ugar

CR

M (2

) Shi

psys

(3) N

avis

(4) N

EMO

Reg

ulat

ors’

freq

uenc

y of

info

rmat

ion

colle

ctio

n is

min

imis

ed a

nd c

oord

inat

ed

with

sim

ilar p

roce

sses

incl

udin

g th

ose

of o

ther

regu

lato

rs s

o th

at, a

s fa

r as

poss

ible

, inf

orm

atio

n is

onl

y re

ques

ted

once

Per

cent

age

of in

spec

tion

visi

ts c

o-or

dina

ted

with

sim

ilar

regu

lato

rs

(1) D

ereg

ulat

ion

Ste

erin

g C

omm

ittee

, (2)

Tar

gete

d E

xter

nal

Sta

keho

lder

Con

sulta

tion

incl

udin

g S

urve

ys

Reg

ulat

ors

utili

se e

xist

ing

info

rmat

ion

to li

mit

the

relia

nce

on re

ques

ts fr

om

regu

late

d en

titie

s an

d sh

are

the

info

rmat

ion

amon

g ot

her r

egul

ator

s,

whe

re p

ossi

ble

Per

cent

age

of in

form

atio

n sh

ared

an

d re

ceiv

ed a

mon

g re

gula

tors

Reg

ulat

ors

base

mon

itorin

g an

d in

spec

tion

appr

oach

es o

n ris

k an

d,

whe

re p

ossi

ble,

take

into

acc

ount

the

circ

umst

ance

and

ope

ratio

nal n

eeds

of

the

regu

late

d en

tity

Pro

porti

on o

f inf

orm

atio

n ob

tain

ed fr

om o

ther

sou

rces

, with

in

put n

ot re

quire

d fro

m re

gula

ted

entit

ies

Evi

denc

e of

col

lect

ed in

form

atio

n be

ing

acte

d up

on, s

tore

d an

d re

-use

d

(1) S

ugar

CR

M (2

) Shi

psys

(3) N

avis

, (4)

Cra

ft Tr

acki

ng S

yste

m, (

5)

Mar

iweb

, (6)

TR

IM (7

) NE

MO

(8) N

atio

nal P

lan

less

ons

man

agem

ent

for e

xerc

ises

Dem

onst

rate

d tra

nspa

renc

y of

insp

ectio

n an

d m

onito

ring

arra

ngem

ents

(1) A

d-ho

c su

rvey

s an

d bi

annu

al IA

LA q

uest

ionn

aire

s ar

e us

ed a

s pr

imar

y m

onito

ring

mec

hani

sms

(1) A

toN

aud

its o

f st

ate

mar

ine

and

port

auth

oriti

es b

ased

on

IMO

Mem

ber s

tate

au

dit r

equi

rem

ents

.

Feed

back

mec

hani

sms

to s

eek

stak

ehol

der v

iew

s on

insp

ectio

n an

d m

onito

ring

regi

me

(1) C

onsu

ltativ

e bo

dies

(Ann

ual R

epor

t, p.

71, s

epar

ate

tab)

Mon

itorin

g an

d en

forc

emen

t st

rate

gies

that

allo

w fo

r a ra

nge

of re

gula

tory

resp

onse

s

Reg

ular

revi

ew a

nd a

sses

smen

t of

agr

eed

mon

itorin

g an

d co

mpl

ianc

e st

rate

gies

, inc

ludi

ng

use

of e

arne

d au

tono

my

appr

oach

es

13

AM

SA

2015

-16

Reg

ulat

or P

erfo

rman

ce F

ram

ewor

k se

lf-as

sess

men

t rep

ort

Dep

artm

ent o

f Prim

e M

inis

ter a

nd C

abin

et g

uida

nce

AM

SA E

vide

nce

KPI

Rat

iona

leM

easu

res

of g

ood

regu

lato

ry

perf

orm

ance

Exam

ples

of o

utpu

t & a

ctiv

ity

base

d ev

iden

ceC

urre

nt A

MSA

act

ivity

Plan

ned

impr

ovem

ents

5R

egul

ator

s ar

e op

en a

nd

tran

spar

ent i

n th

eir d

ealin

gs

with

regu

late

d en

titie

s

Reg

ulat

ors’

risk

-bas

ed fr

amew

orks

are

pu

blic

ly a

vaila

ble

in a

form

at w

hich

is

clea

r, un

ders

tand

able

and

acc

essi

ble

Enf

orce

men

t stra

tegy

and

risk

ap

proa

ch a

re p

ublis

hed

(1) C

orpo

rate

Pla

n (2

) Ann

ual R

epor

t, (3

) Com

plia

nce

and

Enf

orce

men

t P

olic

y an

d P

roto

cols

, (4

) Nat

iona

l Pla

n R

isk

Ass

essm

ent R

epor

ts(1

) Ext

erna

l web

site

to

incl

ude

risk

fram

ewor

k

Reg

ulat

ors

are

open

and

resp

onsi

ve

to re

ques

ts fr

om re

gula

ted

entit

ies

rega

rdin

g th

e op

erat

ion

of th

e re

gula

tory

fram

ewor

k, a

nd a

ppro

ache

s im

plem

ente

d by

regu

lato

rs

Per

form

ance

mea

sure

men

t re

sults

are

pub

lishe

d(1

) Ann

ual R

epor

t (2)

Med

ia re

leas

es (3

) SC

5 P

RO

GR

AM

- A

MS

A C

onta

ct C

entre

Impr

ovem

ent P

rogr

am: e

stab

lish

a co

nsol

idat

ed A

MS

A co

ntac

t cen

tre to

impr

ove

the

over

all c

usto

mer

/sta

keho

lder

exp

erie

nce

and

to d

eliv

er e

ffici

enci

es (4

) Nat

iona

l Pla

n Ye

ar-in

-Rev

iew

(1) Q

uarte

rly

perfo

rman

ce e

vide

nce

mad

e av

aila

ble

Reg

ulat

ors’

per

form

ance

mea

sure

men

t re

sults

are

pub

lishe

d in

a ti

mel

y m

anne

r to

ens

ure

acco

unta

bilit

y to

the

publ

ic.

Per

cent

age

of re

gula

ted

entit

ies

that

rece

ive

requ

ests

for

info

rmat

ion

with

the

reas

ons

for

thes

e re

ques

ts c

omm

unic

ated

cl

early

and

con

sist

ently

Per

cent

age

of p

erfo

rman

ce

info

rmat

ion

publ

icly

ava

ilabl

e(1

) Ann

ual R

epor

t, (2

) Ext

erna

l Web

site

, (3)

Dis

tribu

tion

of P

ilota

ge

Sta

tistic

s (4

) Mar

ine

Env

ironm

ent C

urre

nt Is

sues

brie

fing

(ext

erna

l ve

rsio

n) a

vaila

ble

to P

ort S

tate

Mar

ine

Pol

lutio

n C

omm

ittee

s (5

) N

atio

nal P

lan

Year

-in-R

evie

w

Num

ber o

f res

pons

es to

requ

ests

fro

m re

gula

ted

entit

ies

prov

ided

w

ithin

spe

cifie

d tim

efra

mes

(1) C

entra

lised

co

mpl

aint

s an

d fe

edba

ck p

roce

ss

Adv

ice

and

guid

ance

is w

idel

y av

aila

ble

to s

take

hold

ers,

with

fe

edba

ck m

echa

nism

s in

pla

ce

to s

uppo

rt an

d in

form

con

tinuo

us

impr

ovem

ent

(1) A

MS

A ex

tern

al w

ebsi

te, (

2) C

onsu

ltativ

e bo

dies

(see

Ann

ual R

epor

t)(1

) Cen

tralis

ed

com

plai

nts

and

feed

back

pro

cess

14

AM

SA

2015

-16

Reg

ulat

or P

erfo

rman

ce F

ram

ewor

k se

lf-as

sess

men

t rep

ort

Dep

artm

ent o

f Prim

e M

inis

ter a

nd C

abin

et g

uida

nce

AM

SA E

vide

nce

KPI

Rat

iona

leM

easu

res

of g

ood

regu

lato

ry

perf

orm

ance

Exam

ples

of o

utpu

t & a

ctiv

ity

base

d ev

iden

ceC

urre

nt A

MSA

act

ivity

Plan

ned

impr

ovem

ents

6R

egul

ator

s ac

tivel

y co

ntrib

ute

to

the

cont

inuo

us

impr

ovem

ent

of re

gula

tory

fr

amew

orks

Reg

ulat

ors

esta

blis

h co

oper

ativ

e an

d co

llabo

rativ

e re

latio

nshi

ps w

ith

stak

ehol

ders

to p

rom

ote

trust

and

im

prov

e th

e ef

ficie

ncy

and

effe

ctiv

enes

s of

the

regu

lato

ry fr

amew

ork

Doc

umen

ted

proc

edur

es a

re in

pl

ace

to a

llow

act

ive

and

regu

lar

enga

gem

ent w

ith s

take

hold

ers

(1) A

MS

A A

dvis

ory

Com

mitt

ee (2

) Reg

ulat

ory

deve

lopm

ent c

onsu

ltatio

n pr

oces

s (3

) Con

sulta

tive

bodi

es (s

ee A

nnua

l Rep

ort)

(4) B

i-ann

ual

conf

eren

ce, (

5) M

anag

emen

t Sys

tem

(1) I

nteg

rate

d pl

anni

ng

proc

ess

- eng

agem

ent

of k

ey s

take

hold

er

grou

ps

Reg

ulat

ors

enga

ge s

take

hold

ers

in

the

deve

lopm

ent o

f opt

ions

to re

duce

co

mpl

ianc

e co

sts.

Thi

s co

uld

incl

ude

indu

stry

sel

f-reg

ulat

ion,

cha

nges

to

the

over

arch

ing

regu

lato

ry fr

amew

ork,

or

oth

er s

trate

gies

to s

tream

line

mon

itorin

g an

d co

mpl

ianc

e ap

proa

ches

Feed

back

mec

hani

sms

are

avai

labl

e an

d m

ade

know

n to

all

stak

ehol

ders

(1) S

C5

PR

OG

RA

M -

AM

SA

Con

tact

Cen

tre Im

prov

emen

t Pro

gram

: es

tabl

ish

a co

nsol

idat

ed A

MS

A co

ntac

t cen

tre to

impr

ove

the

over

all

cust

omer

/sta

keho

lder

exp

erie

nce

and

to d

eliv

er e

ffici

enci

es, (

2)

Con

sulta

tive

bodi

es (s

ee A

nnua

l Rep

ort),

(3) A

MS

A ex

tern

al w

ebsi

te

(1) C

entra

lised

co

mpl

aint

s an

d fe

edba

ck p

roce

ss

(1) A

MS

A A

dvis

ory

Com

mitt

ee (2

) Reg

ulat

ory

deve

lopm

ent c

onsu

ltatio

n pr

oces

s (3

) Con

sulta

tive

bodi

es (s

ee A

nnua

l Rep

ort p

.71)

(4) B

i-ann

ual

conf

eren

ce

Reg

ulat

ors

regu

larly

sha

re fe

edba

ck

from

sta

keho

lder

s an

d pe

rform

ance

in

form

atio

n (in

clud

ing

from

insp

ectio

ns)

with

pol

icy

depa

rtmen

ts to

impr

ove

the

oper

atio

n of

the

regu

lato

ry fr

amew

ork

and

adm

inis

trativ

e pr

oces

ses

Num

ber o

f sta

keho

lder

eve

nts

held

to fa

cilit

ate

parti

cipa

tion

in th

e de

velo

pmen

t and

/or

am

endm

ent o

f reg

ulat

ory

fram

ewor

ks

(1) A

MS

A A

dvis

ory

Com

mitt

ee (2

) Reg

ulat

ory

deve

lopm

ent c

onsu

ltatio

n pr

oces

s (3

) Con

sulta

tive

bodi

es (s

ee A

nnua

l Rep

ort p

.71)

(4) B

i-ann

ual

conf

eren

ce

Doc

umen

ted

proc

edur

es a

re

in p

lace

to fa

cilit

ate

the

flow

of

info

rmat

ion

betw

een

the

regu

lato

r an

d po

licy

depa

rtmen

ts

(1) M

anag

emen

t Sys

tem

Per

cent

age

of p

erfo

rman

ce

data

, fee

dbac

k fro

m re

gula

ted

entit

ies,

and

/or a

dvic

e pr

ovid

ed

by th

e re

gula

tor t

o th

e po

licy

depa

rtmen

ts

(1) A

nnua

l Rep

ort

(1) Q

uarte

rly R

epor

ting

15


DESCRIPTION: this table list the consultative bodies that AMSA runs, or external consultative bodies that AMSA participates in. Involvement in consultative bodies contributes to the following Regulator Performance Framework key performance indicators (KPI): KPI 2 Communication with regulated entities is clear, targeted and effective; KPI 5 Regulators are open and transparent in their dealings with regulated entities; KPI 6 Regulators actively contribute to the continuous improvement of regulatory frameworks.

AMSA-run consultative bodiesAids to Navigation Strategy and Operations Working GroupAMSA Advisory CommitteeAMSA Livestock Advisory CommitteeAustralian Automatic Identification System Working GroupAustralian Government National Plan CommitteeAustralian Seafarers’ Welfare CouncilAustralian Search and Rescue Consultative ForumBulk Cargoes Advisory GroupCoastal Pilotage Training Working GroupCombined Pilotage GroupDomestic Vessel Industry Advisory CommitteeFishing Industry Advisory CommitteeHuman Elements, Training and Watchkeeping Stakeholders WorkshopMarine Pollution Preparedness and Response Technical GroupMarine Pollution Prevention Technical GroupMarine Pollution Recovery Technical GroupMaritime Agencies ForumNavigational Services Advisory CommitteeNational Plan Strategic Coordination CommitteeNational Plan Strategic Industry Advisory ForumNational Search and Rescue CouncilNational Standard for Commercial Vessels (NSCV) Part F2 – Leisure craft & NSCV Part G – General Safety requirementsNorth-East Shipping Management GroupNorth-East Water Space Management Working GroupVessel Traffic Services Working Group

External consultative bodiesAustralia New Zealand Safe Boating Education GroupAustralian International Telecommunications Union Working GroupAustralian Recreational Boating Safety CommitteeAustralian Shipbuilders’ Association Technical CommitteeAustralian Strategic Air Traffic Management GroupBass Strait Livestock Shipping CommitteeCivil Aviation Safety Authority Standards Consultative CommitteeLivestock Export Standards Advisory GroupNational Positioning Infrastructure-Advisory BoardNational Volunteer Marine Search and Rescue CommitteeNorth East Water Space Management Working GroupPorts Australia Environmental and Sustainability Working GroupPorts Australia Operations Working GroupPositioning, Navigation and Timing Working GroupREEFVTS Management GroupStandards Australia technical committees (various)State/territory search and rescue committees

16


strongly disagree disagree somewhat

disagreesomewhat

agree agree strongly agree n/a total weighted

average0.00%

00.00%

00.00%

085.71%

6 14.29%

1 0.00%

00.00%

00.00%

70.00%

4.14

Comments:

• “I think our intentions are on target, however, there are some process issues around Equivalent Means of Compliance (EMOC) and exemptions that we have to streamline. From my experience as a stakeholder in the Standards of Training, Certification and Watch keeping (STCW) world I think AMSA does a very good job at regulating and service is in the main very flexible”

• “As a general rule we do try to do this, however there are also times we revert to risk-adverse thinking or worrying about ‘setting a precedence’. We seek a cultural change in industry and perhaps have some internal cultural work to do also”

• “Agree with this for the big ship end of town. For domestic vessels we have attempted to facilitate this with grandfathering and exemptions. Difficult to achieve a balance between risk, regulation and cost and measurement of effectiveness. Effective engagement with industry is important, we have a number of mechanisms to achieve this e.g. Fishing Industry Advisory Committee (FIAC), Domestic Vessel Industry Advisory Committee (DVIAC), Navigation Safety Advisory Group (NSAG), Bulk Cargoes Advisory Group (BCAG) etc”

5.2 AMSA 2015-16 RPF self-assessment detailed responses

Q1: AMSA helps vessel owners and seafarers safely operate or work on a vessel without getting in the way

Answered: 7 Skipped: 0

1strongly disagree

2disagree

3somewhat disagree

4somewhat

agree

5agree

6strongly agree

17


Q2: Our communications with those we regulate are clear and useful



disagreesomewhat


average0.00%

00.00%

00.00%

066.67%

4 33.33%

2 0.00%

00.00%

00.00%

60.00%

4.33

Comments:

• “There is a very wide variety of stakeholders in the domestic vessel (DV) realm and finding a consistent form of messaging that is at the ‘right level’ is problematic. Concepts are often difficult to break down sufficiently for some stakeholders”

• “Particularly for the SOLAS size”

• “I certainly think we are better than most at TRYING to communicate widely and clearly however in trying to do this widely we use various options and various people which at times ends up delivering conflicting messages”

• “We have numerous consultative mechanisms, from formal advisory groups, broadcast external consultation for Marine Orders, ‘pushed’ information such as bulletins, newsletters and Marine Notices. We also have dedicated ‘liaison officers’ in the regions. Whilst the legislation and regulations can be complex our guidance material aims to simplify and assist the end user, sometimes this can be a challenge. There is an opportunity into the future to refine the target audience as well as determine the effectiveness of our communications”

1strongly disagree

2disagree

3somewhat disagree

4somewhat

agree

5agree

6strongly agree

18


Q3: Given the risks involved in the industries AMSA regulates, the level of regulation is about right



disagreesomewhat


average0.00%

00.00%

014.29%

128.57%

2 57.14%

4 0.00%

00.00%

00.00%

70.00%

4.43

Comments:

• “Unfortunately some quarters of the Domestic Commercial Vessel (DCV) industry do not value safety, and the industry is many years behind the type and level of regulation which have long been in place in shore based industries”

• “Particularly for SOLAS size”

• “This is still a work in progress and as we are dealing with somewhat of an unknown issue, I am not sure at all we have it about right”

• “There is opportunity under the Government’s deregulation agenda to look at how we approach the regulation of non-convention vessels. The risk-based approach into the future is the contemporary way to move forward. Level of regulation is commensurate with implementation and compliance”

1strongly disagree

2disagree

3somewhat disagree

4somewhat

agree

5agree

6strongly agree

19


Q4: AMSA’s compliance and monitoring arrangements are well organised and efficient



disagreesomewhat


average0.00%

00.00%

014.29%

128.57%

2 85.71%

6 0.00%

00.00%

00.00%

70.00%

3.86

Comments:

• “We are yet to effectively take responsibility for this function (commercial domestic vessels). It is largely an unknown. Accessing vessels in operations is much more problematic than international shipping”

• “More harmonization of AMSA resources of all ship types required in the future”

• “I think it not too bad in the current state but am not convinced we have the parameters right for post-July 2017 (when AMSA assumes full responsibility a national regulator of the domestic commercial fleet). We have made some efficiency changes which are positive but clearly have some way to go yet”

• “Published compliance and enforcement guidelines/protocols. Risked based approach to compliance monitoring. Challenge with a coordinated approach for domestic vessels into the future”

1strongly disagree

2disagree

3somewhat disagree

4somewhat

agree

5agree

6strongly agree

20


Q5: AMSA explains its regulatory decisions well



disagreesomewhat


average0.00%

00.00%

00.00%

071.43%

5 14.29%

1 14.29%

10.00%

00.00%

70.00%

4.43

Comments:

• “This however, is not always accepted by industry”

• “There will need to be a greater focus in the future on National System vessels and stakeholders to ensure more transparency to as many of the stakeholders as possible”

• “Perhaps at times at a detriment to time management, but we do spend a lot of time explaining. That said, I am concerned that these explanations may be more justifications and so may in fact be too much”

• “AMSA expends considerable effort consulting before decisions are made. This is demonstrated through a number of areas including the Marine Orders consultation process, engagement through our consultative forums, and participation in others”

1strongly disagree

2disagree

3somewhat disagree

4somewhat

agree

5agree

6strongly agree

21


Q6: AMSA is always trying to improve maritime regulations to create a safer and more efficient industry



disagreesomewhat


average0.00%

00.00%

00.00%

014.29%

1 57.14%

4 28.57%

20.00%

00.00%

70.00%

5.14

Comments:

• “In Domestic Vessels we are working with an inherited system which has a lot of safety short comings. The speed of change will be constrained by industry’s reluctance to accept higher levels of safe operation”

• “I do believe we have our mind and heart in the right place and so do believe we are “always trying to improve” the outcomes - it is another question as to whether we are 100% successful”

• “We attempt to be forward thinking rather than reactive, examples of this include the routing measures around our coast, areas to be avoided, shipping plans etc. Embedded in our decision making is the impact on industry”

General Self-Assessment Comments• “I think we want to do everything well and for the benefit of industry and positive safety outcomes, but

it always becomes a balancing act. I think our risk based approach at the moment is in a somewhat immature state as we are in our infancy with the National System due to experience and knowledge held. I do think when this starts there will be some reassessments and repositioning needed - but I think we acknowledge this now so are ready”

• “A work in progress”

• “At the moment we have two very different groups of stakeholders (convention vs non-convention vessels) to some extent categorized as known and an unknown. Assessment of our performance as ‘One AMSA’ therefore is a challenge at the moment”

1strongly disagree

2disagree

3somewhat disagree

4somewhat

agree

5agree

6strongly agree

22


5.3 AMSA 2015-16 RPF self-assessment validation detailed responses

Q1: The evidenced and my own experience suggests that the self-assessment results against this KPI is a fair and accurate representation of AMSA’s performance (Survey question: AMSA helps vessel owners and seafarers safely operate or work on a vessel without getting in the way. Self-assessment result 4.14 ‘somewhat agree to agree’)



disagreesomewhat


average0.00%

010.00%

10.00%

010.00%

1 60.00%

6 20.00%

30.00%

00.00%

110.00%

4.91

Comments:

• “Definitely agree that AMSA’s intentions are on target and that they are quick and willing to assist where they can. I have had experience where AMSA would like to do more but are perhaps legally restricted. I would like to see AMSA have more involvement with the ATSB especially in regard to outcomes from investigations in which changes should be identified and implemented to enhance seafarer and operational safety”

• “As a DCV operator in the harbour towage sector we rarely if ever find AMSA anything other than helpful”

• “Assessment is based on a fairly narrow view of AMSA’s interaction with international shipping in Australian ports, but also on personal contact with AMSA surveyors and taking their approach into account”

• “AMSA should ask operators, I am getting feedback from all quarters that they are being most obstructive”

• “I am of the view that AMSA is very focused on pragmatic steps required to improve safety performance in the Australian Maritime zone. There is an inevitable requirement for compliance but it is very much kept in perspective”.

1strongly disagree

2disagree

3somewhat disagree

4somewhat

agree

5agree

6strongly agree

23


Q2: The evidenced and my own experience suggests that the self-assessment results against this KPI is a fair and accurate representation of AMSA’s performance (Survey question: our communications with those we regulate are clear and useful. Self-assessment result 4.33 ‘somewhat agree to agree’)



disagreesomewhat


average0.00%

010.00%

10.00%

020.00%

2 60.00%

6 10.00%

20.00%

00.00%

110.00%

4.73

Comments:

• No doubt AMSA is trying to reach all stakeholders. Some stakeholders may not have communicated with AMSA previously due different jurisdictional regimes and are now faced with their own challenges but the communications and information they require is there via numerous mechanisms and easily available”

• “Mostly but not always, for example revalidation requirements have caused some confusion”

• “Reasons and comments included in the self-assessment are supported by my experience”

• “The challenge of communicating with such a vast stakeholder group is huge and it is inevitable that the agency can never do enough communicating. The self-assessment highlights this challenge. In the case of national law, the amount of change demands that this remains a key objective for AMSA”.

1strongly disagree

2disagree

3somewhat disagree

4somewhat

agree

5agree

6strongly agree

24


Q3: The evidenced and my own experience suggests that the self-assessment results against this KPI is a fair and accurate representation of AMSA’s performance (Survey question: given the risks involved in the industries AMSA regulates, the level of regulation is about right. Self-assessment result 4.43 ‘somewhat agree to agree’)



disagreesomewhat


average0.00%

010.00%

10.00%

020.00%

2 50.00%

5 20.00%

30.00%

00.00%

110.00%

4.82

Comments:

• “On the industry sectors used to being regulated by AMSA I agree with AMSA’s comments in that they have it right for most sectors. I also agree that some sectors of the DCV industry have to improve in order to meet industry standards. It’s these industry pockets that the level of regulation needs focus”

• “I think internationally AMSA compares very favourably”

• “My response is tentative because of a personal view that a good deal of the regulated shipping community still has a “compliance” mentality and not yet a real appreciation of the risk-based or self-regulated approach”

• “I think that the self-assessment has got this right. At least from my experience”

• “We have some issues with the AMSA management of VGM for containers in terms of random checking as a form of enforcement to manage to risk of mis-declared weights”

1strongly disagree

2disagree

3somewhat disagree

4somewhat

agree

5agree

6strongly agree

25


Q4: The evidenced and my own experience suggests that the self-assessment results against this KPI is a fair and accurate representation of AMSA’s performance (Survey question: AMSA’s compliance and monitoring arrangements are well organised and efficient. Self-assessment result 3.86 ‘somewhat disagree to agree’)



disagreesomewhat


average10.00%

10.00%

00.00%

010.00%

1 60.00%

6 20.00%

30.00%

00.00%

110.00%

4.70

Comments:

• “Most activity for international shipping occurs in port making compliance assessments relatively easy to achieve. AMSA has acknowledged the DCV Industry as an issue, as is the Offshore Industry vessels as their main activities are conducted offshore and extremely difficult to monitor”

• “From my knowledge of AMSA’s arrangements, streamlined and well organised is an appropriate description”

• “Again it is interesting that the trial group felt that more could be done. I agree with the assessment”

• “Again VGM concerns on this”.

1strongly disagree

2disagree

3somewhat disagree

4somewhat

agree

5agree

6strongly agree

26


Q5: The evidenced and my own experience suggests that the self-assessment results against this KPI is a fair and accurate representation of AMSA’s performance (Survey question: AMSA explains its regulatory decisions well. Self-assessment result 4.43 ‘somewhat agree to strongly agree’)



disagreesomewhat


average0.00%

010.00%

110.00%

120.00%

2 30.00%

3 30.00%

40.00%

00.00%

110.00%

4.73

Comments:

• “I agree that the need for greater focus on national system vessels but their current ignorance is perhaps due to a lack of commitment or a reluctance to change under the new regulatory regime. AMSA does spend considerable time consulting prior to decisions, at times to the frustration to an industry seeking change”

• “Fundamental requirement of the regulator”

• “My experience of this aspect is relatively narrow, but if what I have seen can be taken as representative, this self-assessment is appropriate”

• “To my mind the limited trial response is overly harsh in this assessment. In all the agency is commendably transparent and accessible”

1strongly disagree

2disagree

3somewhat disagree

4somewhat

agree

5agree

6strongly agree

27


Q6: The evidenced and my own experience suggests that the self-assessment results against this KPI is a fair and accurate representation of AMSA’s performance (Survey question: AMSA is always trying to improve maritime regulations to create a safer and more efficient industry. Self-assessment result 5.14 ‘somewhat agree to strongly agree’)



disagreesomewhat


average0.00%

010.00%

10.00%

010.00%

1 50.00%

5 30.00%

40.00%

00.00%

110.00%

5.00

Comments:

• “I agree that AMSA always tries to improve and enhance safety through revised regulation. I found the comment that the “speed of change will be constrained due to the reluctance of industry to accept higher levels of safety” needs to be reviewed further. I don’t believe any operator or seafarer disregards the need and importance for safe operations. It’s the connection between safety improvement and regulation that needs to be a focus”

• “World leading in many respects”• “Based on both contemporary activities and the legacy of considerable history in international regulation,

my view is that this aspect is a strong point”• “Again the limited trial response is overly harsh in this assessment. I am of the view that AMSA is doing

well in a difficult and complex environment to improve regulatory frameworks”

General Self-Assessment Validation Comments• “Ports Australia holds AMSA in high regard particularly because, as a regulator, its approach to risk

management and industry engagement is very much ahead of those other agencies we deal with. AMSA also embodies a culture that is very cognisant of the necessity to ensure it does not impose unnecessary regulatory costs on industry which ultimately manifest themselves in costs to our trades”

• “I appreciate the opportunity to contribute as a new member of the AAC”• “The comments in the self-assessment relating to uncertainties around the domestic vessel area appear to

be appropriate”• “Sensible recommendations from AAC should be implemented without prevaricating, posturing and general

timewasting”

• “As a new member of the AAC I am struck by the scope and complexity of the obligations that it has. I am further of the view that the agency is well lead and whilst not perfect offers a model for regulators who must focus on outcomes first and then, as appropriate, bring the law upon those who will not ‘play the game’”

• “Overall performance by AMSA is considerably better than its peers in other countries”• “AMSA operates in an industry subject to high risk and provides regulations and services that are highly

respected across the world. AMSA is known as an exemplar provider in the international industry”.

1strongly disagree

2disagree

3somewhat disagree

4somewhat

agree

5agree

6strongly agree

AMSA 305 (10/16)

Documents

2015-16 REGULATOR PERFORMANCE FRAMEWORK ......B AMSA 2015-16 Regulator Performance Framework self-assessment report Document Owner: Lloyd Dobson, Manager Governance Contact details: