Demande directe (CEACR) - adoptée 2005, publiée 95ème session CIT (2006)

Article 1, paragraph 2, of the Convention. (a) In its report, the Government indicates that effect is given to this provision of the Convention by the Merchant Shipping Act of 1975 that was consolidated in 1996, as well as by the Seamen (Unemployment Indemnity) Act of 1951. The Government also indicates that section 1 of the Act of 1951 defines the term "vessel" as including any ship or boat of any kind registered in Papua New Guinea, but not including a vessel of war.

While taking note of this information, the Committee notes that, since it ratified Convention No. 8, the Government has at no time referred to the Seamen (Unemployment Indemnity) Act of 1951, referring, at all times, rather to the Merchant Shipping Act of 1975 which follows that of 1951 and which contains provisions applicable to the payment of unemployment indemnity upon shipwreck. In this regard, although it takes due note of the provisions of the Act of 1951 referred to by the Government, the Committee notes that the Act of 1975 also contains a Part V which governs the payment of unemployment benefits upon shipwreck. It notes in this regard that the scope of application of Part V of the Act of 1975 differs from that of the Act of 1951 to the extent that Part V of the Act of 1975 does not apply to pleasure craft (section 100(2)(b)). The Committee would be grateful if the Government would provide more information in this regard, in particular with regard to the application of these two texts in practice and taking account of the fact that they contain provisions that are in principle conflicting and contradictory with regard to governing the granting of unemployment indemnity upon shipwreck. It recalls that for several years now it has brought the Government’s attention to the fact that the Convention applies to all vessels and boats of any nature whatsoever, engaged in maritime navigation, whether publicly or privately owned with the exception of ships of war, and to the need to amend the national legislation as a consequence. The Committee regrets, moreover, that the amendment in 1996 of the Merchant Shipping Act did not occasion the amendment of the Act of 1975 taking into account its previous comments.

(b) The Government is requested to indicate in future reports whether, pursuant to section 101 of the Merchant Shipping Act, the Minister has exempted particular ships or particular classes of ships from the obligations of Part V of the Merchant Shipping Act.

Article 2. In its previous comments, the Committee expressed the hope that the provision of the Merchant Shipping Act, providing for the non-payment of the indemnity due upon shipwreck in cases where it has been proven that the seafarer has not made reasonable efforts to save the vessel, would be removed consequent to the revision of the text. The Committee notes that, in its last report, the Government refers to section 123(2) of the consolidated version of the Merchant Shipping Act, which continues to provide the above exception. The Government refers moreover, for the first time in this context, to the Seamen (Unemployment Indemnity) Act of 1951 that does not provide this exception for the payment of unemployment indemnity. To the extent that the two texts referred to by the Government still contain provisions that are in principle conflicting and contradictory, the Committee requests the Government to provide the necessary information concerning their application in practice. It considers that, in the interests of legal security and clarity, the provisions of these two texts should be harmonized taking into account the fact that this provision of the Convention does not authorize the subjection of payment of unemployment indemnity upon shipwreck to the condition that the seafarer made efforts to save the vessel.