Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback Maritime Studies

Hawksley, Robert --- "Coastal Surveillance: Why Two Organisations?" [2000] MarStudies 32; (2000) 115 Maritime Studies 21

Coastal Surveillance: Why Two Organisations?

Robert Hawksley[*]

Australia has two major, non-military, voluntary, coastal surveillance and radio monitoring organisations: the Royal Volunteer Coastal Patrol and the Australian Volunteer Coast Guard. Since they both do exactly the same job the question is often asked, ‘Why don’t they amalgamate?’ This article suggests that there are cultural difficulties preventing this.

From time immemorial all governments have been uneasy with independent organisations, especially those that have a formalised structure and which carry out essential functions. The Roman emperor Hadrian disbanded the city fire brigade because he felt that, as an organised force, it could form the nucleus for an insurrection. In these only slightly less suspicious times Australia ensures that its two coastal surveillance organisations operate in a way that keeps them comparatively weak and divided even though resources are seriously duplicated. These two organisations, the Royal Volunteer Coastal Patrol (RVCP) and the Australian Volunteer Coast Guard (AVCG), exist side by side and do the same job but appear reluctant to embrace amalgamation.

Australia first introduced a coastal monitoring radio service in 1912. Originally called the Coast Radio Service its name was later changed to that by which it is known today: Sydney Radio. Unlike its lesser brethren, the RVCP and the AVCG, Sydney Radio concerns itself mainly with ocean movements and search-and-rescue activities. It also enjoys government funding, something which the RVCP and the AVCG do not. Thus Sydney Radio is securely under the auspices of government.^[1]

Of the two lesser brethren, the RVCP is Australia’s longest serving, voluntary, non-military marine rescue unit. It was founded on Easter Saturday, 1937, and called the Volunteer Coastal Patrol. During World War II it was operating in three States with over 2,000 members and 500 small ships.^[2] In 1974 the Queen granted the prefix ‘Royal’ (HRH Prince Charles is the current Patron in Chief). It is divided into 52 self-governing divisions (with a headquarters unit for each State), the distribution being as follows: NSW 28, Victoria 3, South Australia 6 and Tasmania 15. Of these divisions, 16 maintain a 24-hour watch and, between them, operate a total of 50 vessels.^{[3], [4]}

The RVCP had a child on 14 September 1961. Called the Australian Volunteer Coast Guard, this child is now 40 years old and has 89 rescue boats, 147 radio bases under the control of 63 flotillas, 30 communication and display vans, 4 fixed-wing aircraft and many qualified divers. AVCG flotilla and radio bases are located from the Skardon River in the Gulf of Carpentaria, down the eastern seaboard to Ceduna in South Australia, including the Torres Strait Islands, Tasmania, and the major inland lakes and weirs.^[5]

Both the RVCP and the AVCG promote the safety in operation of small craft and guard the coast by way of monitoring the marine radio frequencies, by education, example, examination and by search and rescue. Neither organisation has any powers of law enforcement but both enjoy a reputation for being helpful and courteous to all boat owners. Under the government umbrella of the Voluntary Marine Rescue Council,^[6] both work closely with the State Water Police and other statutory and volunteer rescue organisations. So one may be forgiven for asking why Australia persists in having two organisations which both do the same job.

One answer is that Australian governments like it that way. In exchange for an enormous duplication of plant, personnel and equipment, government anxieties are assuaged in the knowledge that the two organisations remain underfunded, understaffed and hence too weak to represent a threat. Why, on earth, any government would feel threatened by a coastal surveillance organisation is hard to fathom but governments are not required to advance logic for their actions. Perhaps the emperor Hadrian would have understood.

Another answer is that since both the RVCP and the AVCG are staffed entirely by volunteers they experience the same problems of all volunteer organisations, namely those that, in a disciplined and paid service, are not allowed to occur.^[7] The original concept of the RVCP was that, by using the services of voluntary and experienced merchantmen and yachtsmen, a guardian for coastal traffic could be established. Initially the RVCP organisation was firmly based upon the Naval practice of the day and so the culture of Naval discipline was retained. Today, however, the present mood of creeping democracy obliges the RVCP members to elect representatives to a National Council and it is this body that determines overall policy. To be fair this brings less emphasis upon its former Naval connections and more upon search, rescue and marine radio communications but, overall, the RVCP regards its prime responsibility as the radio monitoring of the coastal traffic and responding to the various situations that arise.

The purpose of the radio monitoring service is to advise and assist mariners as they make their way along our coast. The service supplies relevant intelligence such as weather, storm warnings or occasional maritime hazards, e.g. half-submerged containers, the drill for this service being exactly the same for either the RVCP or the AVCG. When, for example, a skipper decides upon a journey he contacts, say, the AVCG, and the vessel’s particulars are noted: registration number, type of craft, number of people on board, contact telephone numbers, destination and estimated time of arrival. The vessel is then ‘logged on’ and from that moment on its passage is monitored. From one jurisdiction to another its particulars are handed on (usually by fax) and it is ‘logged off’ only when it is known that it has berthed safely.

Readers will readily appreciate that there are a host of eventualities that can arise such as the striking a submerged object, fire, collision, whales, loss of engine power and, not least, ignorance on the part of some skippers of their responsibilities.^[8] But in any eventuality few mariners make any distinction between the RVCP, the AVCG, Sydney Radio or, for that matter, any of the other smaller organisations that exist for their benefit. As far as they are concerned they are all one and the same and for this they cannot be blamed. There is nothing more suddenly lonely at sea than to have an engine failure with night falling and a rising wind. And there is nothing more heartwarming than to hear a voice out of the air bringing comfort and assistance. The auspices of that voice are irrelevant.

On land, however, the upper echelons of the RVCP and the AVCG behave as unhappy rivals. History has been merciful in drawing the curtain of charity over the manner by which the AVCG came into being but in so doing so it blessed itself with the most fortunate of names – Coast Guard. It is a name known the world over and is the first human contact one has with the land. With this particular nugget of common sense in its knapsack, over the last 40 years the AVCG has pursued a very successful agenda.

For its part the RVCP with its many divisions is more akin to a loose coalition of fiercely independent fiefdoms rather than a disciplined unified force. Indifferently led, in parts wretchedly funded but possessed of much equipment, RVCP executives shrink at the thought of amalgamating with the AVCG.^[9] For its part, the better organised AVCG cannot be described as enthusiastic at the thought of amalgamating with the RVCP. But if amalgamation did take place the huge resources of both could be utilised in a vastly more efficient manner than at present.

It costs Australian governments nothing to have two coastal monitoring organisations competing with each other. There are no votes in such matters and the inevitable duplication of effort ensures that the two organisations are kept preoccupied with each other. Hence no lobby groups prowl the corridors of power and no arguments against having two organisations are advanced.

But can governments be that bad? While some blame can be laid at their door, it is a sad fact that all voluntary organisations spawn their prima donnas complete with giant egos. For those in the RVCP and AVCG, the very thought of amalgamation spells death to their source of glorification. Can people really be that silly? Alas, yes, but fortunately (and as always happens) the rank and file of both organisations consistently and persistently co-operate with one another. Like the church, they know that the work that they do is for the benefit of non-members.

ENDNOTES

[*] Robert Hawksley is a volunteer radio operator.

^[1] For a history of Sydney Radio see The Seawatchers, The Story of Australia’s Coast Radio by Lawrence Durrant, Angus and Robertson, 1986. The book makes no mention of either the RVCP or the AVCG.

^[2] RVCP web page. History of the RVCP: http://www. shoal.net.au/~patrol/history.html.

^[3] In November 1999, the Australian Federal Police announced that it had negotiated the sale of its vessel Colin Woods to the RVCP at Jervis Bay. The RVCP is accredited by the NSW State Rescue Board to service Jervis Bay and environs. Its area of operation covers the area previously serviced by the AFP.

^[4] RVCP web page, http://shoal.net.au/~patrol/divis.html.

^[5] AVCG web page, page 1, http://www.coastguard.com.au/who_are_we1.htm.

^[6] RVCP Yearbook, 1999. For example: the Volunteer Marine Rescue Council of NSW is the advisory body to the State Rescue Board on all maritime matters. It comprises representatives of the NSW Water Police, RVCP, AVCG and the NSW Volunteer Rescue Association Inc.

^[7] Volunteers have grave difficulty in realising when they’ve reached their use-by date.

^[8] A skipper is not obliged to ‘log on’. Nevertheless it is in everybody’s interest and especially that of the RVCP and the AVCG to know the whereabouts of every vessel. If a vessel gets into trouble it is invaluable to know what other vessels are in its vicinity.

^[9] Not long ago the NSW RVCP attempted to introduce a ruling that a person who was an RVCP member could not be a member of the AVCG. In the event this ruling was more honoured in the breach than the observance.