Should Australia have to meet the costs of rescuing competitors in the Vendee Globe solo round-the-world yacht race?
Echo Issue Outline: copyright © Echo Education Services
First published in The Echo news digest and newspaper sources index.
Issue outline by J M McInerney
On January 9, 1997, the Royal Australian Air Force and the Royal Australian Navy rescued two yachtsmen, Frenchman, Thierry Dubois, and Englishman, Tony Bullimore, after their yachts capsized in the Southern Ocean.
Rescue conditions were extremely difficult and sea temperatures were estimated at 4 degrees.
Both men were competing in the French-organised Vendee Globe solo round-the-world yacht race.
The week before Australian forces had assisted in the rescue of another competitor in the race, Frenchman, Raphael Dinelli, in the same waters.
The rescues attracted international praise, however, some commentators and politicians have queried whether Australia should regularly have to meet the costs of rescuing competitors in the race who become stranded in Australian territorial waters.
Background
The Vendee Globe solo round-the-world race is a privately organised and sponsored race, organised from France. It is not the responsibility of the French Government nor of the governments of the international yachtsmen who compete in it.
The race requires competitors to sail from France, down the west coast of Africa, past the Cape of Good Hope and then circling the Antarctic to come back past Cape Horn up the east coast of South America to France.
The search and rescue operation involved Australia's Maritime safety Authority but was primarily conducted by the Navy and the Air Force as these are the only groups with the resources to conduct a search and rescue so far south.
The search and rescue operation involved two Orion aircraft with a third jet on standby. The frigate HMAS Adelaide, carrying a Seahawk helicopter, and further helicopters also took part in the rescue.
Final estimates of the cost of the searches and rescues have not been made, but some initial estimates have suggested it may be as much as $10 million. However most of this is standard operating costs; estimates of additional expenses incurred because of the rescues, place the cost at about $1.5 million.
Arguments in favour of Australia meeting the costs of rescuing competitors in the Vendee Globe round-the-world yacht race
The primary argument offered in favour of Australia meeting the costs of rescuing competitors in the Vendee Globe round-the world yacht race is that we have international treaty obligations which require us to do so.
Those who maintain that Australia must meet the cost of offering assistance to seafarers in its territorial waters, point out that Australia is a signatory of the International Convention for Safety of Life at Sea. Under the terms of the Convention Australia is obliged to provide `search and rescue response services for seafarers in distress.'
It has also been pointed out that international maritime law requires all countries to come to the aid of anyone in their waters.
These facts were stressed by rescued French yachtsman, Raphael Dinelli, when he was asked by members of the Australian press whether he would contribute part of the money he would gain through international media contracts to the Australian government to help cover the cost of his rescue.
Mr Dinelli indicated that he would not because Australia had merely acted in accord with strict international agreements and codes of conduct.
It has also been pointed out that these treaty and maritime law obligations are reciprocal. This means that while Australia is obliged to offer help to any seafarer, of whatever nationality, in its territorial waters, the same obligation binds the other nations of the world, who must offer assistance to Australian nationals in difficulties in their territorial waters.
This point was made in The Australian's editorial of January 9, 1997. `Simply letting people die cannot be allowed ... We would expect no less from other nations if Australian lives were similarly threatened.'
Supporters of Australia meeting its international obligations note that in Australia's case our territorial waters cover 11 per cent of the earth's surface and thus it is likely that we will frequently be called upon to give assistance to seafarers in difficulties.
In response to claims that international treaty obligations should not hold when the yachtsmen in difficulty deliberately placed themselves in danger in a hazardous sporting competition, the organiser of the Vendee Globe has claimed that the race is not unduly hazardous and that the competitors should be regarded in the same way as professional fishermen who needed assistance.
It has further been claimed that international treaty obligations aside, Australia has a moral or humanitarian obligation to offer assistance to anyone in danger in its waters.
According to this point of view, respect for life requires that Australia mount maritime rescue operations and meet the expenses involved.
The importance of attempting to save lives was put by a number of military spokespeople, including Flight Lieutenant Ludo Dierickx, who headed the crew which ultimately succeeded in dropping a life raft to stranded French yachtsman, Thierry Dubois.
Flight Lieutenant Dierickx stated, `[Mr Dubois] was worried that we'd give him up ... but as has been proved, we won't give up.
`If there is a 10 per cent chance that someone is alive, we'd still go and put 100 per cent in.'
In regard to the expense involved in mounting such rescue operations, it has been claimed that Australian authorities and the media tend to over-state the expense involved.
It is claimed that authorities over-state the expense involved because they include in the cost of the rescue operations the normal operating costs for the ships, aircraft and armed forces personnel taking part.
According to this line of argument, the armed forces personnel would be being paid whether they were engaged in rescue operations or not and many of the operational expenses, such as fuel, would have to be met if the aircraft and ships were involved in regular training operations.
This point was put by Alexander McRobbie, in a letter published in The Australian on January 11, 1997. Mr McRobbie argued, `The wages and upkeep of RAAF and RAN personnel cannot be included because they have to be paid, fed, housed and clothed anyhow. Overtime is not paid in the forces.
`The fuel used by ships and aircraft would be used in any case during training. Pilots must fly a certain number of hours monthly to maintain their licences. And warships have to spend time at sea.
`The life rafts have used-by dates after which they are dumped. Why not dump one to save a stricken yachtsman?
`The forces might as well practise operating in real-life emergencies as go searching for a planted "target". It "costs" the same.'
The same point was made by Mr Harry Leggett, President of the Victorian Yachting Council, who has claimed, `The RAAF and the Navy conduct exercises throughout the year that simulate such rescues, therefore taxpayers are paying whether the exercises are real or not.'
It has further been claimed that operating in an actual situation rather than in a mock or trial situation has far greater training value.
This point has also been made by Mr Harry Leggett who has stated, ``Taxpayers should view this as another training exercise. It allows the RAAF and the Navy to put their skills and equipment to the ultimate test and to demonstrate their expertise where it really counts.'
The training value of real rescue situations was also claimed by the Defence Minister, Mr Ian McLachlan, who stated, `The experience was something that money could not buy.'
Finally, it has been claimed that Australia is advantaged by the favourable international publicity it receives as a result of such rescues.
Mr John C. Howard, in a letter published in the Australian on January 11, 1997, stated, `Australia has achieved more international goodwill in seven days than it could have in seven years of political endeavour.'
A similar point was made by correspondent Robert Mayne, writing for The Bulletin in an article published on January 21, 1997. Mr Mayne stated, `In a world where image is almost everything, Australia's incredible hat-trick of rescues in freezing southern seas is bound to repay the cost in mere dollar terms many times over.'
According to this line of argument, the value of the international public relations boost Australia received through the rescues is at least that of the cost of the rescues themselves.
Arguments against Australia meeting the costs of rescuing competitors in the Vendee Globe round-the-world yacht race
The principal argument offered against Australia having to meet the costs of yachtsmen stranded in the Vendee Globe round-the-world solo yacht race is that the race itself is intrinsically unsafe.
According to this line of argument the race is so hazardous that it either ought to be altered or the costs of rescuing competitors who, it is argued, will inevitably become stranded, should be met by the competition organisers.
There are a number of claimed causes of the supposed hazardousness of the race.
Firstly it is claimed that the course of the race encourages competitors to sail south beyond the 50th parallel of latitude into the `furious fifties'. It is further claimed that in these latitudes extremely high winds and enormous waves make the likelihood of yachts being overturned extremely high.
A columnist for The Australian, Mr D. D. McNicoll, has described the `furious fifties' as `an area that threatens all human existence. Sixty-knot gales and 15m seas are the norm. Ice forms on yachts' decks and rigging when it rains. Ice chunks and bigger icebergs can be seen quite regularly.'
The federal Minister for Sport, Mr Smith, is reported to have written to the French Minister for Sport asking him to lend his support to Mr Smith's attempts to have the route of the race altered so that competitors are required to sail further north.
Mr Smith is reported to have written `... these recent races, coupled with the rescue two years ago in similar circumstances of another French sailor, Isabelle Autissier, must call into question the organisation of such events ... Without a review of race routes, Australia could be required to undertake more than its fair share of costly, time-consuming rescue missions, some of which could nevertheless prove unsuccessful.'
According to the argument put by Mr Smith it is not reasonable to expect Australia to keep meeting the cost of rescues when the route followed by competitors in the Vendee Globe is unnecessarily dangerous and makes the likelihood of yachts being overturned far greater than it need be.
Secondly it is claimed that regulations determining the design features of competing yachts are not sufficiently rigorous.
The Vendee Globe has been criticised particularly because competing yachts do not have to comply with the structural standards set and enforced by the United States Bureau of Shipping.
Critics claim that in an attempt to gain speed the race encourages exotic designs which are inadequately tested.
Chay Blyth, the first man to circumnavigate the globe solo from east to west has been reported as saying, `The problem here ... is the design factor ... they limit their boats to encourage very exotic materials and leading-edge design. What you are seeing is the result of it.'
It has been claimed that the combined effect of sailing in hazardous waters in yachts which some critics have claimed are built for speed rather than safety means that the yachtsmen are at greatly increased risk.
Mr Iain Murray, an Australian yacht designer, has stated, `If you design a yacht to deal with all the things that could happen down south, you wouldn't race it because it would be dead slow ... Surfing down a 40-knot wave just to crash into another is too difficult.'
Some commentators and politicians have concluded from this line of argument that a race as fundamentally flawed as they claim the Vendee Globe to be should be the financial responsibility of the race organisers.
The shadow Defence Minister, Mr Arch Bevis has been reported to have claimed, `Organisers of global yacht races have a responsibility to minimise the risk and to contribute financially to the maintenance of search and rescue operations.
`Australian taxpayers should not be underwriting their safety arrangements.
`As a country we will always provide search and rescue to persons in distress at sea, regardless of cost. But the incidents are becoming a regular problem, to the extent that defence will soon need to factor these rescues into the Budget planning.'
According to this line of argument Australia will remain prepared to conduct search and rescue operations, but the cost of such operations should be meet, at least in part, by the race organisers.
It has also been claimed that the competitors in the race should be prepared to share the cost of their rescue. According to this line of argument competitors in the Vendee Globe enter the race willingly, knowing the risks involved and frequently sail in a manner likely to increase those risks.
Under these circumstances, some have claimed, they cannot expect another country to meet the cost of their rescue.
The Age, in its editorial of January 8, 1997, claimed, `It is reasonable to expect that the organisers of races such as the Vendee Globe should require competitors to take out insurance.'
It has also been suggested that rescued yachtsmen should contribute some of the monies they later gain from media contracts and the sale of their stories to help meet the cost of their rescue.
Mr Bob Slicer, in a letter published in the Herald Sun on January 15, suggested, `What a kind and generous gesture it would be if the rescued rewarded the rescuers and Tony Bullimore donated all his media income in Australia to the benevolent funds of our fighting forces.'
Finally, it has been suggested that maritime law may not mean that Australia is obligated to come to the assistance of competitors in races such as the Vendee Globe.
It has been claimed that the race itself is in violation of maritime law.
Mr D D McNicoll, writing in The Australian, has claimed, `the international regulations for prevention of collisions at sea ... require that every vessel at sea "maintain a lookout at all times". This is impossible for a yacht being sailed single-handed.
`The moment the skipper goes below, his or her vessel becomes a marine outlaw.'
One conclusion that could be drawn from this claim is that a yacht sailing in violation of international maritime law may no longer be entitled to the search and rescue protection afforded by maritime law.
Further implications
No one has proposed that Australia cease to meet her international maritime obligations and no longer provide search and rescue services for seafarers stranded in her territorial waters.
It has been suggested that maritime law does not stipulate who should meet the cost of such a search and rescue effort and therefore does not prevent Australia seeking to have some of the costs meet elsewhere.
However, to date, Australia appears to have no plans to do so.
It seems unlikely that the course of the Vendee Globe will be altered to require competitors to sail further north. The race organiser appears to see no merit in the suggestion and without orchestrated opposition to the current form of the race from the international maritime community it seems unlikely that the route will be altered.
It is possible that there may be some change made to the design and structural requirements of yachts taking part in the race. Rescued yachtsmen, Dinelli, Dubois and Bullimore, are planning to make joint recommendations to the race organisers regarding yacht design.
One direct partial consequence of Australia's rescue efforts is that the RAAF rescue service will have its Orion fleet upgraded. The estimated cost is $600 million. This is primarily for maritime surveillance purposes but also allows for search and rescue.
The Minister for Defence, Mr McLachlan, has said, `While the principal function of the Maritime Patrol Group is ocean surveillance and anti-submarine warfare, the search and rescue functional is also part of the operational role of the group.
`As recent events in the Southern Ocean have shown, the complementary nature of these roles means there is no requirement for major adjustment to equipment or techniques to successfully support civil rescue roles.'
Sources
The Age
8/1/97 page 10 editorial, `The cost of a life'
14/1/97 page 3 news item by Duncan Graham and Paul Chamberlain, `Sailor to press for better race rules'
15/1/97 page 4 news item by Rachel Gibson, `Three cheers for the crew who rescued yachtsman'
The Australian
8/1/97 page 2 news item by Bruce Montgomery, `Veteran sailors slam untried yacht designs'
8/1/97 page 2 news item by Andrew McGarry, `Authorities free to recoup rescue costs'
8/1/97 page 9 analysis by D. D. McNicoll, `The risk takers'
9/1/97 page 1 news item by Bruce Montgomery and Andrew McGarry, `Minister asks French to move race'
9/1/97 page 10 editorial, `The only measure of cost is lives'
10/1/97 page 15 analysis by Bruce Montgomery and Kylie Parker, `Folly on the high seas'
11/1/97 page 6 news item by Ean Higgins, `Boys will be boys, seas will rage, rescues will continue'
11/1/97 page 6 news item by Jamie walker, `Training dividend is three lives saved'
11/1/97 page 20 letters to the editor under the heading, `Happy endings all round - but at what cost?'
11/1/97 page 20 editorial, `Rescuers uphold our proud tradition'
14/1/97 page 12 letter to the editor from Ken Hall, `Sacrifice sailors have always made for each other'
14/1/97 page 13 comment by Bruce Williams, `Our moral perspective is all at sea'
The Bulletin
21/1/97 page 19 analysis by Robert Mayne, `Real brave hearts'
The Herald Sun
7/1/97 page 2 news item by Wendy Busfield, `Pair fight to survive'
8/1/97 pages 4 & 5 news item by Wendy Busfield and Charles Miranda, `Stop "Suicide" race, say rescuers'
8/1/97 page 16 editorial, `Accepting the challenge'
9/1/97 page 18 comments from Harry Leggett and Arch Bevis, `Should taxpayers pay to rescue stranded yacht racers?'
15/1/97 page 20 letters to the editor under the heading, `Rescued owe financial gratitude'
19/1/97 page 9 news item by Peter Rees, `$600m lift for RAAF rescue'
What they said ...
`Despite the high cost of such efforts, most Australians proudly accept our responsibility for the lives of those in peril in our territorial waters'
editorial comment, The Australian
`Organisers of global yacht races have a responsibility to minimise the risk and to contribute financially to the maintenance of search and rescue operations. Australian taxpayers should not be underwriting their safety arrangements'
Shadow Defence Minister, Mr Arch Bevis