This is PART 2 of an article detailing the flaws and problems in how government public services officials handled supply chain issues during the COVID pandemic (2020-2023). These were identified in the COVID-19 Response Inquiry Report, which landed on the public earlier this week (i.e. late October 2024).
Set up in September 2023, the Report provides a high level overview of a vast range of Australian life that was affected by the COVID-19 pandemic and its handling by government. This article will focus on the supply chain and on seafarers.
PART 1 of this article can be found by clicking here.
States and Territories went their own way
Perhaps even worse, when the beginnings of good policy was developed, it wasn’t followed because of State / Territory / Federal differences of opinion. The classic example of this was the 09 April 2020 decision by the National Cabinet – which was composed of the Prime Minister and all the State & Territory Premiers and Chief Ministers – to implement a consistent and immediate exemption enabling non-cruise maritime crew to transit to and from their places of work, within and across jurisdictions, with agreed documentation. National Cabinet noted that states and territories could adopt additional protocols in consultation with industry to protect crews on board vessels, and would establish appropriate penalties for companies and individuals found to be in breach of the requirements of the exemption. In July 2020, National Cabinet agreed to the national Freight Movement Protocol and Code; in August 2021 this was updated in response to the Delta outbreak. There was supposed to be a framework to allow freight to cross State / Territory borders and to promote greater consistency between states and territories so that it was easier for freight workers to understand their obligations when crossing borders.
In the Report it was noted that Australia’s federal system means that a national approach cannot be implemented without the agreement of each State and Territory. “It also means that States and Territories are able to take decisions that differ from a previously agreed national approach. This was clearly demonstrated in relation to the Freight Movement Protocol and Code. After initially achieving a degree of consistency, this was eroded when States and Territories started implementing differing approaches,” the Report says.
It is Shipping Australia’s recollection that the 09 April 2020 decision and the Freight Movement Protocol were largely more honoured in the breach than in the observance; after several months and after repeatedly raising the matter at the cross-nation and cross-sector Maritime COVID-19 Resource Group meetings, it was evident that most of the various State and Territory jurisdictions were simply not going to honour the decision they made in National Cabinet and would instead ignore the 09 April 2020 decision.
It was also noted in the Report that after decisions were made in the National Coordination Mechanism, the States and Territories would hold their own consultations with different participants and then decide on a different course of action.
Health restrictions caused problems
It was found that there were many government activities / decisions / requirements that had a major impact on supply chains. Chief among these were health restrictions, especially relating to travel, isolation, and testing. Indirect risks were also caused by heightened uncertainty, confusion, and the difficulty of operationalising health restrictions.
“Health restrictions, such as the requirement for staff to isolate as close contacts and other ‘test, trace, isolate and quarantine’ measures, resulted in temporary product shortages and contributed to high rates of absenteeism in some sectors. Activity restrictions prevented normal logistics operations across the supply chains,” the Report says.
Workers found it difficult to comply with health restrictions, with workers travelling interstate, or working at ports, facing long delays caused by long queues for testing at borders, it was found. Maritime workers reported gaps in protocols for international seafarers which affected access to vaccinations and to non-COVID related medical care.
“Requests to go ashore for medical care were often denied based on transmission fears,” the Report says. Shipping Australia recalls one case in which a seafarer who developed an abscess in his jaw was denied access to a shore based dental practice. He was forced to sail – in agony – to Singapore for treatment.
Government communications were a serious problem
Several times throughout the report – and there’s a whole chapter on it too – there are comments that Government communications caused problems. This was true for the supply chain industries.
“There was limited industry consultation during the development of health measures to ensure they were practical. In addition to this, governments provided industry with little to no warning regarding upcoming changes in health requirements so that supply chains could be adjusted. Finally, industry found that public health orders did not clearly set out requirements in plain English, making it difficult for workers to be certain they were complying with them,” the Report notes.
Elsewhere in Chapter 22, the Report adds that from an industry perspective, “a lack of consultation and communication before health measures were announced and implemented caused increased risks for supply chains”.
Successes were found too
However, the Report also focuses on the success and emphasised that there was a lot of positive feedback.
While it was found that governments generally did not have a good understanding of supply chains, there was cooperation between State and Territory and Australian Government officials to solve problems that was “impressive”. Departments also relied on individual relationships between government officials and industry members to solve problems. “Industry stakeholders told us that informal networks had contributed to good outcomes and that pre-planning would help to build these into the system,” the Report reads.
The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission issued numerous authorisations to business to work together in ways that would otherwise have broken competition law. While not all authorisations were supply chain related, the ACCC processed 33 authorisation requests related to the pandemic. This was about as many authorisation applications as the ACCC receives in a typical year, and most of them arrived in a six-week period from mid-March 2020, the Report notes.
It was also noted that there were various Committees and taskforces that engaged with industry and government to help coordinate responses, to develop policy, set common positions and to provide assistance from time to time. The Food and Grocery Taskforce worked with industry to gather intelligence on food and grocery supply chains at the height of panic-buying and food supply chain restrictions. The Transport and Freight Taskforce was noted as helping critical goods manufacturers and suppliers to access freight and logistics support, including by collaborating with Austrade and the Department of Infrastructure to create the International Freight Assistance Mechanism. This mechanism enabled the movement of more than 50,750 tonnes of high-value perishable Australian products and facilitated the importation of nationally important goods, such as medical supplies, over 28,000 flights.
It was noted that the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Communications, as it was then named, engaged with industry to establish the COVID Land Transport Working Group, and also the Maritime COVID-19 Resource Group Teleconference which brought together elements of the Australian Government with maritime industry representatives (shipping, associations, ports, unions) to address critical risks and bottlenecks.
Seafarers suffered during the COVID crisis
Perhaps unsurprisingly, not a lot of attention was paid to seafarers by the Report.
Of the few times that they were mentioned, it was noted that stranded seafarers and shipowners were inadequately supported, including in relation to their health care, during international border closures, and that this affected international supply chains. Cruise line industry representatives told the Inquiry that seafarers were stuck on ships for many months and that this could have been avoided with more open dialogue and collaboration between the Australian Government, health authorities and the cruise industry.
The Inquiry reported that it was told that specific attention should be given to incorporating health and welfare provisions for international supply chain workers like seafarers. It was found as a fact that health measures created a range of practical hurdles for workers on the ground, including rail workers, truck drivers and seafarers. Maritime workers reported gaps in protocols for international seafarers which affected access to vaccinations and to non-COVID-related medical care. Requests to go ashore for medical care were often denied based on transmission fears.
Shipping Australia notes that the International Labour Organization has recently amended the Maritime Labour Convention (commonly described as the “Seafarers’ Bill of Rights”) so that ILO Member States will have to ensure that seafarers are not prevented from disembarking for public health reasons. This amendment takes effect from late December.
Capt Melwyn Noronha, CEO of Shipping Australia commented: “the treatment of sick and injured seafarers during the COVID pandemic by Australian authorities was most disappointing. The authorities did not allow vulnerable people, seafarers, to access urgently needed medical care. This was very poor behaviour by the Australian authorities and we can only hope that it never re-occurs. And now, with the amendments to the Maritime Labour Convention we can look forward to the day that such behaviour is outlawed in Australia”.
If you would like to know more about these amendments, see our article: “Australian authorities to lose the ability to stop seafarers getting medical care ashore“.
