Seafarers have been declared to be key workers by a formal resolution of the International Labour Organization, which met in Geneva, Switzerland recently (7 to 11 April 2025).
Recalling the disruptions to shipping and seafarers caused by governmental responses to SARS-CoV2 (the virus that causes the COVID respiratory disease), and recalling the many and various declarations by governments and UN bodies around the world calling upon all parties to tackle the crisis imposed on seafarers, and recalling the basic human rights of seafarers, the ILO passed a resolution that could protect seafarers in the future.
The ILO, in its “Resolution on Recognizing Seafarers as Key Workers”:
“Calls upon ILO Members to effect the early implementation of Guideline B2.5.2 – Key workers, and designate and recognize seafarers as key workers and take appropriate measures to facilitate their safe movement when travelling in connection with their employment or work, including, but not limited to, access to shore leave, repatriation, crew changes and medical care ashore.
“Reaffirms the commitment of the tripartite constituents of the ILO to advocate for the wellbeing and rights of seafarers, promoting initiatives that recognize their indispensable contributions to global maritime commerce , including giving full effect in the Maritime Labour Convention, 2006, as amended, to the right of seafarers to safe movement when embarking or disembarking a vessel, including access to shore leave, repatriation, crew changes and when necessary, access to shore-based medical treatment”.
But will it actually have any effect?
Those of us who are cynical and jaded, might reasonably query whether or not the new declaration, as is, will actually have any effect.
Consider, for example, the case of Australia during the COVID years (2020 to 2022). Australia is now, and was back then, a signatory to the Maritime Labour Convention (2006) having signed up to it in 2011. It entered into force in Australia in August 2013 thereby giving it legal effect (in theory). So Australia agreed to be, and in legal fact was, bound by the rules of the Maritime Labour Convention between 2020 to 2022.
Article I of the Maritime Labour Convention states in black and white that:
“Each Member which ratifies this Convention undertakes to give complete effect to its provisions in the manner set out in Article VI”.
Article VI states:
“The Regulations and the provisions of Part A of the Code are mandatory”.
Ok, so let’s summarise. Countries that sign-up to and ratify the Maritime Labour Convention agree to be bound by its rules. Australia signed-up to, and agreed to be bound by, the Maritime Labour Convention so it was bound by its rules.
That should be clear enough.
What does the MLC state about… say… access to medical care?
Regulation 4.1(3) – which it is mandatory for Member States – including Australia – to comply with – states in black and white:
“Each Member shall ensure that seafarers on board ships in its territory who are in need of immediate medical care are given access to the Member’s medical facilities on shore”.
Standard A4.1(4) – which it is mandatory for Member States – including Australia – to comply with states in black and white:
“Each Member shall ensure prompt disembarkation of seafarers in need of immediate medical care from ships in its territory and access to medical facilities ashore for the provision of appropriate treatment”.
And were those rules complied with in every case and instance? Well, no.
Australian official behaviour was, in some cases, shameful
We want to emphasise that there were certain governments and officials in Australia who upheld the letter, spirit, and morality of the Maritime Labour Convention. The Federal Government at the time never banned seafarers from accessing medical care. Maritime Safety Queensland was also notable for facilitating access. They ought to be congratulated.
However, there were other governments and parties in various government offices that did not facilitate access to essential medical care for seafarers. Worse still, they blocked access. Both of these are in contravention to the letter and spirit of the Maritime Labour Convention, and, indeed, are contrary in spirit to the impulses of humanitarianism, empathy for other people, morality, and basic decency.
There were seafarers who suffered broken bones. They were denied access to medical care. There was a seafarer who developed an abscess in his jaw. He was denied access to medical care. He was forced to sail around Australia with that infection in his jaw for many days, probably weeks. There were a range of other cases too. Shipping companies, their executives, and their agents, both here in Australia and overseas, were frantic in their efforts to get their injured and sick crewmembers off ships and into medical care.
Anyone who blocked desperately needed access to medical care ought to be ashamed.
However, today, some of those very same people now lambast shipping companies, their executives, and their agents for not getting crew members off ships to, for example, enjoy their legal right to shore leave.
How very convenient it is to enjoy selective amnesia.
ILO’s new declaration ought to be embedded into Australian law
“Such shameful treatment of seafarers should never happen again. Shipping Australia calls upon all State, Territory and Federal Governments to effectively implement this new declaration from the ILO by enacting it into domestic law,” said Shipping Australia CEO Capt. Melwyn Noronha.
Structure of the Maritime Labour Convention
The MLC is comprised of three parts – the Articles, which are largely addressed to the Member States of the ILO, and which set out the basic rights of seafarers (and also set out a variety of administrative and procedural matters); the Regulations and Standards – which are mandatory, and the Guidelines (Part B) which are not mandatory.
A word is warranted on the structure of the MLC as it can be a little confusing, especially if the reader is familiar with other international conventions or Acts of the Australian Parliament.
The Articles are found at the front of the MLC, immediately after the pre-amble and are standalone as, in effect, a single chapter. However, each Regulation (which is mandatory to comply with) is immediately followed by the relevant Standard (also mandatory) and then the appropriate Guideline (non-mandatory).
For example, Regulation 1.1 of the MLC sets out minimum age standards to work on a ship – no-one under the age of 16 can work on a ship. Standard A1.1, which immediately follows, sets out a range of mandatory elaborations, for example, adding that e.g. persons under the age of 18 cannot do night-work on a ship. The non-mandatory Guideline B1.1, which immediately follows Standard A1.1, urges Members (i.e. Member States of the ILO) to give “special attention to the needs” workers under the age of 18.
