Whatever Happened to Freedom of Speech in Australia?

By now, there won't be too many Australians who aren't aware of the outrageous events in Canberra, on our national day.  The image is undoubtedly still fresh in the minds of most people, of the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition being bundled away from a very Australian event, using means reminiscent of American Secret Service tactics, in response to a very un-Australian event.

I don't actually care who said what to whom.  For me the fundamental point is that the statement attributed to Opposition Leader, Tony Abbott, was nothing more than the exercise of the freedom of speech which is, incidentally, GUARANTEED by Australia's Constitution.  As such, it is the right of anyone to express their views on any subject - let me repeat that.... any subject.

Provided that those views are not based on aspects that are specifically prohibited by law, there are no limitations.  In this particular case, no law was being broken and he had a guaranteed right to express his views regarding the so-called "Tent Embassy".  There are always going to be people who may not agree with any particular statement, but there is a right way to express disagreement that does not involve the sort of behaviour we all saw on Australia Day.

Using the very same right to freedom of speech, those with a dissenting view are entitled to express it.  Indeed, if a dissenter feels that the law has been broken, there are legal remedies available that can be used to seek redress.  Those actions will also make the news, but do so in a manner that complies with the law of the land.

For those who don't like the way the law is structured, or the way freedoms are expressed in the Constitution, there is a way in which to attempt changes - legally!

Those who don't like any of the established legal means can leave the country.  Those who can't be bothered with due process and seek to take the law into their own hands should feel the full force of attendant penalties under the law.  Until this happens, I fear we will see more and more of the downright ugly and outrageous behaviour that we saw on Australia Day.  We will then go the same way as the United States of America, with "secret service" type protection details for all elected leaders.

But then, what about the rest of us - those who elect the leaders?  What protection can we possibly have against violent reactions to our own expressions of free speech?

Sadly, Australia no longer seems to be "the lucky country", where everyone is too buy having a bloody good time to be upset by anything.  As a result, the only thing we can now depend on is that constitutional guarantee of the freedom of speech.  Everyone has that right, whether born here, naturalised or otherwise accepted into the Australian society and, whether or not we all agree with each other, the law demands that we respect each other's views and, indeed, fight for the right to express those views.

There might even be people who disagree with my views, in this blog.  Fine, I can accept that, regardless of whether or not I can find ground for agreement with those dissenters. To further make my point, I have the right to say things like :-

Happy Australia Day

Happy Easter

Merry Christmas, and even

Ho, ho ho.

Costa Concordia

Hands up, all those who think that the tragedy involving this huge ship was merely an accident?  Well, I guess it depends on your definition of "accident".  In aviation parlance, the expression "accident" is used to denote a circumstance wherein :-

(1) a person is fatally or seriously injured as a result of:-

    (i) being in the aircraft; or

    (ii) direct contact with any part of the aircraft, including any part that has become detached from the aircraft; or
    (iii) direct exposure to jet blast—except when the injuries are self-inflicted or inflicted by other persons, or when the injuries are to stowaways hiding outside the areas normally available to passengers and crew; or
(2) the aircraft sustains damage or structural failure that—
    (i) adversely affects the structural strength, performance, or flight characteristics of the aircraft; and
    (ii) would normally require major repair or replacement of the affected component—except engine failure or damage that is limited to the engine, its cowlings, or accessories, or damage limited to propellers, wing tips, rotors, antennas, tyres, brakes, fairings, small dents, or puncture holes in the aircraft skin; or
(3) the aircraft is missing or is completely inaccessible.

Applying this to a ship, item (1) (i) applies, as do items (2) (i) and (ii).  While I will continue to use the expression "accident", I shall do so advisedly because the information that is emerging into the public domain suggests "reckless endangerment" and "conduct unbecoming" in regard to the Captain.  This is sometimes also the case in aviation parlance, in the case of "controlled flight into terrain" - which happens whenever an aircraft collides with terrain in normally powered flight.

The information that is currently in the public domain in relation to this accident suggests a very similar scenario.  Among the information currently in the public domain is a report that the Captain, Francesco Schettino, was on the bridge in the time leading up to the accident and may have actively contributed to it.  In such a scenario, in aviation parlance, the Captain is responsible for the safety of the flight at all times, whether actually in command at the time or not.  How could it possibly be any different in maritime parlance?

I suggest that the only (very slight) difference is that it appears that the ship's Captain was actually in command and control in the time leading up to the accident.  There is, therefore, no discernable difference.

On the basis of the above, does anyone actually believe that this Captain should have been in control of anything larger than a single-person kayak?

The Costa Concordia is not a small ship, though it wouldn't make the difference if it had been - except, of course, that a much smaller ship might not have struck the rock.  Or... maybe the Captain would've been enticed to steer it even closer so that the same result would have occurred.

Even without the multiple charges of manslaughter that he faces, he will never be a ship's master ever again and I daresay that he will be unable to find any further maritime employment in any capacity above the rank of seaman.

But who else is to blame here?  Could it be possible that the company, Costa Cruises, has any responsibility here?  To answer this question, it is instructive to look at the James Reason model of the chain of events that lead to an aviation accident.  This model looks at a whole range of factors which, if one had not been in play, might well have prevented the accident.  On that basis, investigators will undoubtedly look at the shipping company, to assess the way in which they recruit/train people to take command of their vessels - this would also look at the experience of the Captain in the light of the expectations of the Company.

Cruising is a very big business all around the world and ships of the size and class of the Costa Concordia carry many, many thousands of people who expect and trust the company and the Captain to ensure their safety.  An accident such as this affects every other cruise ship and every other company, with flow-on effects to tourism and employment, which is part of the national economy of the countries in which the companies are registered.

Reverting back to an aviation industry analogy, a serious accident of this nature will impact on bookings by travellers.  If an airline is believed to be unsafe, as the result of an accident of this nature, people will stay away in their millions.  Airline staff will also feel unsafe, which makes for a very unhappy workplace and this could, in turn, lead to further safety issues.  It will not be any different in the shipping industry.

Nobody but the lawyers win from this.

Of course, in the aviation industry situation, there is normally a rigourous investigation of the causes of the accident and the result is, invariably, that the responsible company has to make some changes to the way it operates, in order to satisfy safety demands.  I have no doubt that the same will be true in this situation because, if the result does not match public expectation, the effects on the company will be profound and easily could backfire on the cruise industry as a whole.

I have no doubt that many people and businesses will be watching for the result of the investigation into this accident.  There is no doubt in my mind that the public will demand a scalp and the most logical target for this will, in this case, deservedly be the Captain's.  I, for one, will be greatly disappointed, however, if at least some of the blame isn't sheeted home to the Company because it clearly failed to monitor the Captain for reckless tendencies.

One of the biggest problems to be faced by both the Captain and the Company is that the Captain, after leaving the ship (through means that are currently in dispute) nevertheless refused to reboard it.  Why is it that the Captain should be the very last person to leave a ship?  Part of this is based in history but a more pragmatic reason is available - once the Captain has left the ship, the international law of salvage comes into play and, whoever salvages it, owns it!  This is certainly not in the Company's interests.

Of course, when such a massive vessel is involved, no single person or Company will normally be capable of claiming salvage rights.  It is likely that many people and companies will be involved, if the vessel is, in fact, capable of being salvaged - a circumstance that is currently in very serious doubt.  Notwithstanding this, the fact that there might be many claimants will tie the Company up in legal processes for many years to come.  This is most certainly not in the Company's interest and the ship's Captain is the representative of the Company, so he must not leave the ship until everyone else has left and there is no hope of salvage.

At the time the Captain left the ship - and even at the time he was ordered back aboard - it still wouldn't have been clear as to whether or not there was no hope of salvage.  So, the Captain has a safety imperative that obliges him to ensure that his passengers and crew are taken care of.  He further has an imperative to ensure that the ship remains in the possession of the Company while there is any hope of salvage.

The whole event could yet play out in a way that makes the vessel unsalvageable but, whether salvaged or not, the Company will need to be very well resourced, financially, to survive this accident.

As always, I welcome comments on this blog, whether supporting or offering any sort of alternative view.