The Australian Builders Plate

Part one: In the beginning.  By Brian Poole

Prior to the turn of the century several coroners found that there was no mandatory pleasure boat building standards in Australia. State Governments are required to take Coroner’s findings seriously, and as this situation corresponded with the establishment of the National Marine Safety Council (NMSC), the NMSC was tasked with drafting a standard. Almost 10 years later in 2006, the Australian Builders Plate (ABP) became law in the various States of Australia. Its introduction was promoted by the NMSC, but accepted by the marine industry with all the enthusiasm of a person getting a jail sentence.  This is the story of the ABP.

The Story starts with the NMSC, which was set up under the umbrella of the Commonwealth National Transport Council. The purpose of this organisation, and of the other organisations under it, such as the Road Transport Council, is to seek to facilitate the introduction of common laws in the Sovereign States of Australia. Road Transport laws were different in each state, such that a truck was legal in Queensland but got booked in Victoria. Similar problems, as many of us know, existed with the maritime industry. Sovereign states are responsible for maritime law and sovereign states do not like to change their laws, irrespective of how much business bleeds because of it. The NMSC consists of the chief executives of the State Marine Authorities, an independent chairman, and a chief executive responsible for the administration and leg work required to achieve broadly stated objectives. The chief executive is always a bureaucrat with a proven record of delivering on Government policy. Knowing how to work the system is all important, knowledge of the marine industry is irrelevant, as expert committees can be set up to make recommendations and report. The state governments had to be consulted with regard to each state processes required to implement the Acts of Parliament that make new laws. It was a long process that had no shortcuts unless perhaps you were the Prime Minister, and even he, or she, has limited authority over statutory process.

But first another process of industry consultation, and meetings, had to take places as part of the rite of passage. And a formal submission prepared in order to proceed with implementation, approval by NMSC, and the National Transport Council.  Extensive industry and public consultation as it is called. Everyone is in favor of motherhood statements, like safer boats, and boats that float when swamped. That is everyone except some Australian boat builders who were at the time selling basic boats with under the seat flotation material as an option. What became apparent to NMSC staff  was that any attempt to produce a comprehensive standard covering all aspects of pleasure craft manufacture similar to the CE Recreational Craft Requirements, the US Coast Guard requirements, and the ABYC standards, was beyond their resources and would be an exercise in reinventing the wheel as the leg work had already been done by the other organisations. The AS1799  was ahead of world standards when first drafted about 1975, but was never embraced by the industry, and the other world standards gradually overtook it in many aspects. In fact that it had so few sales that Standards Australia considered withdrawing it from print.

The solution adopted in the end was to put a plate on a boat that covered the three main safety concerns, safe loading, over powering, and flotation when swamped.  The final  version of National Standard for an Australian Builders Plate on Recreational Craft addressed these matters in isolation, and fulfilled the objectives of introducing a uniform legal requirement in Australia, without causing the industry to change too much from how it had always done things.

Making everyone happy

The ABP is a masterpiece of compromise.
The state marine authorities needed something to get the politicians off their back, and the Australian Marine Industry Federation, and State BIAs wanted something that would have a minimum impact. The final product achieved this.  The question that concerned the marine authorities most was the policing of compliance. There was no money in it unlike mooring fees, boat registration, etc. There was no alternative to industry self regulation of the most basic form. It works like this. The ABP applies to power craft built after 2006 and less than 15 metres. Craft less than 6 metres must float when swamped. The boat builder, including an owner builder, is responsible for putting a plate on a new boat. In order to register the boat with a state marine authority, the owner, or dealer, just ticks a box on the application form to indicate that an ABP is fitted. If a customer has a problem with ABP non conformance, and cannot sort it out with the supplier, he must take the complaint to the state consumer authority. The State Marine Authorities are not responsible. The NMSC can advise but that is all. There is no requirement under the ABP law, and regulations, for the builder to retain and make available for validation the documentary evidence of compliance such as calculations and tests. Boat dealers, agents, and owners,  are prevented by law from making changes to a craft fitted with an ABP such that the changes may invalidated the information on the plate. Only the manufacturer knows, or should know, this information, but handing such information into unqualified hands is a legal minefield. For example will an extra electric trolling motor, a second house battery, another battery for the trolling motor, and a spare anchor, with 4 metres of ground chain, invalidate the buoyancy statement on the plate? Better to sell the items to the buyer as a separate contract, and let him do what he wants. Some dealers, or at least their staff, are unaware of the legal requirements, which in the event of a non conformance, is unlikely to be found out except through a coroner’s finding, because apparently no  one is clearly responsible under the various State legislations for policing the law.

The requirements were introduced into law with a fanfare of PR from the NMSC, and state marine authorities. It was mission accomplished in the George Bush style, the law was in place, and all the players were happy. And you know what? It has all been so effective that, to my knowledge, no one has ever had legal action taken against them for breaking the ABP law. Now that is what I call a happy ending. Well done to all involved.

Pity though that the ABP, in its present format, is possibly the least useful thing that has ever been put on a boat. Who cares anyhow? I am yet to meet anyone who does. It’s business as usual. We are a street smart lot who let sleeping dogs lie. The problem with sleeping dogs is that you never know when they might wake up and bite you, or if the dog is dead or dying, who is responsible for the remains. A notice on the NMSC website is informative in this regard. It appears to state that the NMSC will cease to exist during 2011, that the existing Australian Marine Safety Organisation will be responsible for commercial craft standards and that no organisation will be responsible for recreational  (pleasure) craft standards. The state marine authorities, who have introduced the ABP laws, will have to come up with more responsibilities for the ABP than just making sure that a box is ticked on new boat registration applications, but it will not be before a Coroner makes them do it.

Next month in part two of this series will examine  what a Coroner may find  about the  information on an ABP,  if the craft involved was fit for the purpose it was sold for, and the unnecessary legal exposure of a builder, or retailer in this regard.