Rio Tinto Shipping Pty Ltd v CSL Australia Pty Ltd and Anor; Minister for Infrastructure and Transport v CSL Australia Pty Ltd and Anor

The High Court of Australia heard an appeal concerning the interpretation of the *Navigation Act 1912* (Cth) and its interaction with international conventions, specifically the International Labour Organization's Maritime Labour Convention 2006 (MLC). The primary dispute involved Rio Tinto Shipping Pty Ltd and CSL Australia Pty Ltd, with the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport also a party. The core of the disagreement centred on whether certain vessels operated by CSL Australia were required to comply with the provisions of the *Navigation Act* concerning manning and crewing standards, as opposed to being exempt under provisions relating to "ships engaged in the coasting trade."

The central legal question before the High Court was whether the exemption for ships engaged in the coasting trade, as defined in the *Navigation Act*, extended to vessels that were not Australian-flagged but were nevertheless engaged in the carriage of goods between Australian ports. This involved determining the proper construction of the term "coasting trade" within the context of the *Navigation Act* and considering whether this definition was intended to be overridden or modified by Australia's international obligations under the MLC, particularly concerning the application of national labour standards to foreign-flagged vessels operating domestically.

The High Court, in a joint judgment, held that the exemption for ships engaged in the coasting trade applied only to Australian-flagged vessels. Their Honours reasoned that the *Navigation Act* clearly contemplated a distinction between Australian and foreign-flagged ships, and the provisions relating to the coasting trade were intended to regulate domestic shipping operations by Australian entities. The Court found that the MLC, while important, did not compel a different interpretation of the *Navigation Act* in this regard, as the Act's specific wording and historical context indicated a deliberate legislative choice to limit the coasting trade exemption to Australian vessels.

Consequently, the High Court allowed the appeal, finding that CSL Australia's vessels, being foreign-flagged, were not entitled to the coasting trade exemption and were therefore subject to the manning and crewing requirements of the *Navigation Act*.