Transacciones y operaciones atómicas

Sub-section 26(1) of the SR Act states: “A ship shall not be registered until it has been marked in accordance with the regulations with marks directed by the Registrar by notice in writing ... and evidence of a kind specified in the regulations of the ship’s having been so marked has been lodged with the Registrar.” Regulation 20 sets out the requirements with respect to marking and it specifies where on a ship, and the manner in which, a name will be inscribed.

Marking originated from the need to identify commercial ships and its primary purpose continues to be to facilitate the identification of a ship, particularly for circumstances such as collisions. Given the increased activity of private international yacht cruising, there is a

34

need to be able to identify yachts and therefore they need to be clearly marked. However, the prescriptive marking requirements contained in the Regulations do not seem to be warranted for recreational vessels.

The Yachting Association of Western Australia (YAWA) stated: “With a yacht it should be sufficient to have the name clearly marked anywhere on the side. Few yachts would normally have their name on the bow.” In addition, the marking requirements appear to be based on ship construction methods which have changed considerably. YAWA stated: “The requirement for the marking of the Official Number inside has lost much of its

validity in yachts which do not have main beams into which the number can be carved. To have it engraved in a piece of timber which is then screwed on is no more permanent than having it painted inside somewhere, remembering that not all yachts even have a main bulkhead these days.”

Ocean Trek Diving Resort commented that the required marking of its vessel was in effect a tattooing and caused a break in the protective sealing of the hull which negated the beneficial effect of sealing. Dayle Smith made a similar comment that “... it requires very large letters to effectively be cut into the bulkhead of a yacht”.

Having regard to comments in submissions, and the basic purpose of marking, the Review Team considers that the current marking requirements involve an unnecessary degree of administration and cost for recreational vessels and for fishing vessels.

Perkins Shipping of Darwin said that there was scope for streamlining the marking procedure. This would be achieved if registration was “... effective on the issue of the Marking Note so that both the Registration certificate and Marking Note can be issued together”. Perkins stated that owners should be given 30 days in which to complete the marking as it is in a shipowner’s interest to ensure that marking is completed as soon as possible and that the marking corresponds to the registration certificate.

The marking process only occurs for ships that are being registered in Australia for the first time and do not have an official number. The current practice is that a marking note is sent to the owner. Once a ship has been marked, the marking note is signed by the owner or one of the owners to the effect that the markings have been applied, with the signature being witnessed, and then returned to the Registrar. The registration certificate will then be issued.

The process may be somewhat cumbersome and, as Perkins states, it may be more streamlined if the marking note and registration certificate were issued concurrently. However, ships that are to be registered need to be identifiable and they are not identifiable unless they have been marked.

Given that the requirement for an AMSA surveyor to witness the marking of a ship required to be registered has now been discontinued, the Registrar effectively accepts that the ship has been marked in accordance with the marking note. The potential cost is that ships would not be marked in accordance with the marking note and over time the Register would become inaccurate. This cost is likely to be very small. If the registration certificate is issued with the marking note, there is a risk that the marking note will not be returned. This is likely to be negligible for commercial ships but it may be a possibility for recreational vessels.

In a subsequent letter to the review team, Perkins Shipping stated:

“The “accuracy” of current procedure depends on “the signature” of the owner, i.e. the verification of the marking is made by a party that may have a vested interest in expediting the receipt of the registration certificate for Customs clearance and it is conceivable that it may be signed before the marking is actually completed. The assurance of the register to commercial parties is the entire validation process of registration which identifies the existence and ownership of the ship not limited to the marking on the ship ... Therefore to add a ship to the register prior to the receipt of the marking note does not make the register inaccurate. An inaccurate marking would be an inaccurate marking not an inaccurate entry in the register.” (Perkins’ emphasis) The value of a register derives from the certainty that all parties may have that it is accurate and this value will be reduced if changes are introduced which could potentially result in inaccuracies being introduced into it. The key issue is whether sending out the registration certificate with the marking note will lead to any inaccuracies in the register. The Review Team’s conclusion is that it probably would not. However, to issue the registration certificate concurrently with the marking note would require an amendment of ss. 26(1).

The Review Team considers that there is a need to simplify the current marking requirements. It recommends that the issue be discussed with the shipping and yachting industries with a view to putting in place more cost-efficient requirements, including the possibility of the concurrent issue of the marking note and the registration certificate.