2016-02-11
Senator RICE: I will continue on the line of questioning by Senator Conroy. With the Indian seafarers and their ratings, how do the training requirements for those Indian ratings compare with Australian training for Australian seafarers?
Mr Kinley: Having watched the proceedings from the 3 February hearings of the so-called flag of convenience inquiry, much was made about Australian ratings being the most highly trained in the world. I think that was the expression that was thrown around a lot. Australia has chosen to have a training regime for ratings which is about integrated ratings which, probably as a consequence of that, requires a lot more time to be invested in training the ratings; whereas most other places in the world deal with training ratings to be either deck or engine room.
Senator RICE: So what are the training requirements for those Indian ratings?
Mr Kinley: It would be to meet the same competency requirements that are laid down in the STCW convention.
Senator RICE: How long do they train for and over what period of time?
Mr Kinley: I believe that in India the rating required six to eight weeks of training—this is to form part of a navigational watch—and then two months sea service. But to become an able seafarer—deck it was actually 26 weeks and then 14 months sea service.
Senator RICE: Were the Indian crew able seafarer—deck?
Mr Kinley: As far as I am aware, they were ratings—engine and deck ratings—as is permitted under the Australian—
Senator RICE: So it was not the able seafarer—deck; it was the lesser qualification?
Mr Kinley: Again, if I go and check the certificates, some of them may have been able seafarers.
Senator RICE: What other countries do we recognise?
Mr Kinley: We have a whole list of them on our website.
Senator RICE: Could you take that on notice? If you could supply that to us, that would be good.
Mr Kinley: Yes, we can do that.
Senator RICE: Have other Australian ships applied to have their ratings changed in recent times?
Mr Kinley: Not that I am aware of.
Senator RICE: Could you take that on notice too and see whether there have been other ships that have requested that?
Mr Kinley: I am pretty sure I would have been advised if there was, but I will take that on notice. I will go away and double-check.
Senator RICE: I was just about to ask Ms Zielke a question. You stated earlier on today that the first you knew of the foreign seafarers boarding the MV Portland was after it occurred. Were you aware of the application for the change in ratings?
Ms Zielke: I noted with Senator Conroy earlier that I do not believe so, but I took on notice to double-check to see whether others in my team had been aware.
Senator RICE: Aware of the fact that there had been an application to change the ratings?
Mr Kinley, you were aware of the change in ratings but did not have any knowledge of the timing of when the seafarers—
Mr Kinley: Not specifically what was being planned, no.
Senator RICE: Thank you.
Senator STERLE: Mr Kinley, just help me out. You have got an application form that the employers submit for a change to minimum safe manning; is that right?
Mr Kinley: Yes.
Senator STERLE: Does it require the company to indicate that they have consulted the unions on your form?
Mr Kinley: There is a check box on the form that says, 'Relevant stakeholders consulted'.
Senator STERLE: So that is a yes?
Mr Kinley: Yes.
Senator STERLE: Great. Did AMSA follow that through?
Mr Kinley: No, because there is a check box on the form that was checked.
Senator RICE: Yes, but you said before that it did not include the union. That was not required.
Mr Kinley: It is actually a—
Senator CONROY: You specifically said, 'No,' when I asked that specific question. You said, 'No.'
Mr Kinley: About the unions?
Senator RICE: Yes.
Mr Kinley: Well, I said I am assuming they did not seeing as the unions are saying they were not consulted.
Senator CONROY: I asked you, 'Were the unions a stakeholder that had to be consulted?' and you said, 'No.'
Mr Kinley: Well, they—I am assuming, in this case—were not consulted, judging by the questions we are being asked now.
Senator STERLE: No. So, anyway, we have established that there is a form.
Senator CONROY: I am sorry. We then had a conversation about whether or not—as it was a business that was applying—your expectation was that they were not required to be considered. I am not trying to catch you out; I am just trying to make sure we have a consistent answer, because Senator Rice and I both heard one answer and Senator Sterle thought he heard a different answer. Just to clarify: it is not a requirement under your act for unions to be consulted?
Mr Kinley: There is not a legal requirement.
Senator CONROY: And you do not consider that unions are, for the purposes of your definition of 'stakeholders', a requirement?
Mr Kinley: There is a check box on the form which says 'relevant stakeholders consulted', which is there so that it reminds employers that they should actually go and talk to their employees when they are changing these matters. It is actually not a legally binding requirement or a legal requirement. It is a check box which is on the form to remind people what they should be doing.
Senator RICE: And they have ticked that box?
Mr Kinley: Yes.
Senator RICE: Despite not having talked to the union or in fact the workers that were affected? Unidentified speaker: Yes.
Senator RICE: It is misleading at the very least.
Mr Kinley: They may have consulted with the officers and the engineers on board for all I know.