|
WSWS : News
& Analysis : Australia
& South Pacific
Gas inquiry designed to obscure Victoria's disaster
By Will Marshall
11 November 1998
A well-known adage among capitalist politicians is that one
should never establish a royal commission without knowing in advance
the conclusions it would reach.
In setting up a royal commission into the recent Victorian
gas crisis, the Liberal state premier, Jeff Kennett, went one
step further. He said, in so many words, that the main reason
for convening it was to prevent damaging information from emerging.
The gas disaster left two workers killed, eight injured and
millions of people suffering loss of employment, livelihoods,
heating and hot water for two weeks. An explosion at Esso's Longford
natural gas plant cut virtually all gas supplies to the state.
Kennett explained that he was holding a royal commission rather
than a board of inquiry, so that evidence could be heard in private,
without the concern of public requests for documents under the
state's Freedom of Information legislation.
"We felt it was necessary that anyone and everyone should
either be able to, or ask to, give evidence... Some of the evidence
may have to be given in camera for confidentiality reasons,"
he said. A royal commission is exempt from Freedom of Information
requirements. In other words, sensitive evidence can be given
in camera, while any politically or commercially damaging documents
produced in its hearings will be protected against public release.
In the six years that the Kennett Liberal government has been
in office, it has refused all previous calls for royal commissions.
Serious breakdowns of ambulance and fire services, victims of
the government's cost-cutting and privatisation program, have
been left uninvestigated.
In convening this inquiry, the government is leaving nothing
to chance. Apart from the secrecy guaranteed for key witnesses
and documents, the inquiry has the narrowest terms of reference--to
determine the particular cause of the fire and explosion at Longford,
and identify measures to be taken by Esso and its offshore gas-drilling
partner BHP to prevent a recurrence.
This narrow scope is aimed in the first place at preventing
scrutiny of the government and its agencies, such as WorkCover,
which is responsible for industrial safety. More generally, it
is designed to prevent attention being drawn to the broader questions--the
underlying processes of privatisation, downsizing and the sacrificing
of health and safety concerns to corporate profit.
The Kennett government has carried out a massive program of
privatisation of state-owned facilities. In a 1997 speech to the
Australian Gas Association, the state Treasurer, Alan Stockdale,
said: "We have embarked on a program of rapid change in the
gas industry. The government wishes to achieve complete privatisation
of the industry by 1999. The Victorian government is deliberately
establishing an environment where industry and business will want
to invest. Low cost competitive energy and efficient infrastructure
are prime requirements."
What does this entail? Between 1995 and 1997, Australia's water,
gas and electricity industries had the highest proportion of retrenchments
of all industries. Nearly a third of the workforce were retrenched,
including many experienced staff and tradesmen. Safety and maintenance
staff was downsized by 36 per cent. The Kennett government was
at the forefront of this agenda.
Together with privatisation and cost-cutting came relaxed safety
requirements. In 1995 the Kennett government scrapped regular
external checks of dangerous chemicals and of pipes operating
under pressure. Instead, companies regulated their own safety.
In the case of Esso, which faced several fines for breaches of
safety in the past, the last thorough external check occurred
in 1993. Esso carried out its own investigation into an ice blockage
that affected gas supplies only three months prior to the explosion.
The results of the investigation were not even handed to WorkCover,
let alone made public.
Such was the state of affairs that Esso did not have a dangerous
goods licence at the time of the Longford explosion. Since 1996
WorkCover has issued licence renewals with backdated starting
times. Several months prior to the explosion, WorkCover investigators
spent less than three hours on an inspection visit that involved
looking at 102 pieces of equipment, over an area of 40 hectares.
Esso is not an exception to the rule. No doubt in an attempt
to restore credibility, WorkCover recently audited the Shell refinery
in Geelong. The Australian Workers Union claimed that 400 of the
1,170 fire hydrants were not operational. At the same time, the
integrity of fire detectors and pipes were inadequate, while there
was no regular testing of deluge systems. If a major explosion
were to occur at the Shell refinery, it could well have tragic
consequences--100, 000 people live within five kilometres of the
plant.
To the extent that the royal commission makes any findings
critical of Esso, it will not be to establish the truth. Mild
criticisms of Esso would serve the interests of the corporations
that want to end the current natural gas supply monopoly held
by Esso in Victoria.
Even BHP, which is a partner in Esso's offshore Bass Strait
gas and oil production, but not in the gas processing, stands
to gain much if Esso's monopoly is broken. With new interstate
gas pipelines planned, BHP, which has spare reserves in Bass Strait,
could gain market share in the production of gas across Australia.
Other gas companies, including AGL, are already making proposals
to supplement Esso's damaged plant next winter.
This intensification of competition will not in any way improve
safety standards. Rather, the race to downsize and cut costs will
only accelerate.
The government's orientation was displayed during the gas crisis
itself. Kennett attacked householders as "whiners" for
complaining about the loss of employment and basic amenities.
Together with the media, the government mounted a campaign against
what were termed "gas cheats"--individuals and small
businesses allegedly using the limited supplies of gas.
The government's only concern was that it provide conditions
conducive to commercial interests. When the supply of gas was
restored, the government ensured that companies were the first
to be reconnected.
The trade unions have made some criticisms of the royal commission's
narrow parameters, but they have been central to the job slashing
in the gas and other essential industries. Time after time, they
limited and called off industrial action against the government's
plans. More and more they insisted that workers sign workplace
agreements that axed jobs and conditions to meet the requirements
of corporate competition.
The 1997 Barry Beach Marine Terminal agreement, covering an
offshore rig, provides an example. It stated: "The parties
agree that Best Practice is simply the best way of doing things--it
is a process of constantly changing and adapting to meet the changing
business needs". It emphasised the need for a "multi-skilled
and flexible workforce committed to change". More bluntly,
it said: "The parties agree to a staged reduction in Esso
employees through early retirement".
Any genuine inquiry into the gas tragedy and its implications
for society would need to examine all these questions--the role
of the government, the underlying operation of the private profit
system and the part played by the trade unions. Such an inquiry--a
truly independent inquiry--could only be organised by the working
class.
See Also:
Australian gas disaster raises
many questions
[1 October 1998]
Former Esso plant worker
speaks out
"It was only a matter of time before this happened"
[1 October 1998]
Top of page
The WSWS invites your comments.
Copyright 1998-2008
World Socialist Web Site
All rights reserved |