The coronial inquest into the deaths of five Afghan asylum seekers killed in a boat explosion last April begins today in the Northern Territory. It will be interesting to see if the inquiry brings any more details to light, as the level of information available to date has been quite sketchy at best.
One positive aspect is that the inquest will hear from some of the refugees who were on the boat. A negative aspect is the news that the “Australian Navy has been allowed to keep some evidence confidential”, most critically in the area of “how the Navy uses force”.
Both of those aspects bring to my mind another controversial refugee boat — the so-called “children overboard” boat that played such a pivotal role in the 2001 election campaign — and the major Senate Committee inquiry into the incident that was held the following year.
I was a member of that Senate Committee — which officially went by the quaint title of the “Select Committee for an inquiry into a certain maritime incident.” It was chaired by the late Peter Cook, with John Faulkner playing the key role for Labor. The Queensland pair of George Brandis and Brett Mason played the lead roles for the Liberals.
Despite the committee’s title, it inquired into a lot more than just that one incident. It also examined the details of how the so-called “Pacific Solution” operated. The committee’s terms of reference included a requirement to examine “operational procedures observed by the Royal Australian Navy and by relevant Commonwealth agencies to ensure the safety of asylum seekers on vessels entering or attempting to enter Australian waters”.
This was the first opportunity to properly and publicly examine the detail of Operation Relex — which was the system hurriedly put in place by the Howard government just before the 2001 election to intercept asylum seekers vessels and attempt to deny them entry to Australia, including by boarding the vessels and forcing them back to Indonesia if possible.
This included an examination of the tragedy of the boat known as the SIEV X, where 353 people, including 146 children, lost their lives. This ended up becoming quite lengthy as inconsistencies in some of the initial evidence appeared and the government’s determination increased to prevent the release of information or the appearance of ministerial staff before the inquiry.
The evidence provided by Navy and other Australian Defence Force (ADF) personnel to the Senate inquiry was extensive and, in almost all areas, comprehensive. The inquiry held 15 days of public hearings, all of them in Canberra and most of them featuring ADF people at one time or another, sometimes for very long periods. The ADF’s willingness to co-operate stood in stark contrast to the then-government.
It is true that there are valid operational reasons why things such as surveillance techniques or intelligence and other co-operation with Indonesia authorities would need to be kept secret. But it is harder to see why there should be a gag put on evidence about how the Navy uses force.
The way ADF personnel treated asylum seekers during the interception of their boats was an important part of the Senate’s Certain Maritime Incident inquiry, especially as it often involved how military people would deal with desperate, scared and traumatised refugees, including attempting to get them to agree to do something they didn’t want to do — such as turn their boats around or have their boat boarded, in some cases even using SAS forces to take control of a vessel.
It shouldn’t be forgotten that these ADF personnel are simply doing their job — in this case one with some potentially very unpleasant or confronting requirements — as directed by the government of the day. But allegations of excessive or inappropriate use of force are still serious and should be examined, not covered up.
While there has been limited detail available about what might have happened regarding the refugee boat (labelled SIEV 36), which exploded in April last year, an allegation was published in The Australian in September last year that Navy personnel used force to fend off refugees from trying to board their rescue vessel. This allegation was reported by Hassan Ghulam, a Brisbane-based Afghan advocate who had spoken with some of the refugees who survived the blast.
Such an allegation from the refugees might sound implausible given the context, although in the panic and confusion of such a situation — especially given the likelihood that most of the refugees wouldn’t be able to swim — it could be quite possible that some may have perceived this to be happening.
But the article doesn’t just rely on second-hand comments from some of the refugees. It also cites “sources who have seen the Navy video footage of the tragedy” who say Afghans were repelled from the rescue boats in scenes described as “distressing” and “inhumane”.
It is important that allegations such as this are properly and publicly examined. I expect Navy officials would prefer it was cleared up too. Any attempt to use “operational reasons” to prevent examination of the use of force is concerning. Information about the procedures used when Navy personnel initially took control of the SIEV 36, as well as actions leading up to when the explosion happened, would be very relevant to building a picture of any tensions on board at the time.
This highlights another key difference between the Senate’s children-overboard inquiry and the Coroner’s inquiry into the boat explosion, which is that this time some refugees will be giving evidence themselves. Back in 2002, it struck me as unsatisfactory that none of the refugees on the children overboard boat — who had been publicly vilified by the Prime Minister and other senior ministers — got to tell their story about what happened. Despite the whole children overboard allegation having been well and truly shown to be false, none of them have ever received an apology.
Of course, at that time, all of the refugees only had temporary visas, which made them very vulnerable and gave them good reason to be fearful of the government — hardly a good situation in which to give evidence to a Senate Committee, which some people find a bit daunting at the best of times.
By contrast, (due to one of the Rudd government’s best reforms in this area), the refugees giving evidence to the Coroner’s inquiry will be on permanent visas. They may also be wishing to clear their names, or those of their deceased compatriots, who have on occasion been accused of deliberating creating the explosion on the boat.
It may be difficult to ever fully establish what happened on board the SIEV 36. If a gag is put on any of the relevant evidence, it will be made that much harder.
Once again Mr Bartlett spends his time accusing the people who’s job it is to deal with refugees arriving by boat of inappropriate behaviour while downplaying, even denying outright, any inappropriate behaviour on the part of those seeking refuge. Why does Mr Bartlett spend the majority of the article accusing the Navy and Government of seeking to cover up the excessive use of force alleged to have occurred, while devoting only one sentence to the accusations leveled at some of the refugees that they deliberately blew up their boat to avoid being boarded? And that one sentence dismisses that claim as a mere attempt to besmirch the good names of the refugees…not exactly unbiased, are you Mr Bartlett?
But I agree, it’ll be good to see what comes out of the inquest. Perhaps it is worth remembering that members of the Defence Forces, like their compatriots in law enforcement, are not allowed to speak to the media in their own defence, except as anonymous sources. While refugee advocates can throw the usual accusations around of inhumane treatment and excessive force, the people they accuse must remain silent, and this seems to be taken as an attempted cover up by people like Mr Bartlett. Bit of a conspiracy theorist, by the looks of it….
Andrew,
An answer to your question about how frank and open the Coronial Inquiry may be, was partly answered today in a piece from Darwin, that aired on The Midday Report on ABC1, wherein the reporter covering the Inquest for the ABC stated that the Navy had released information to the inquiry about what they said to the incoming vessel, along the lines that they should turn their vessel around and go back from whence they came. That’s a pretty sensational admission for the Navy to make in my book, and hopefully a harbinger for the amount of openess and transparency that will be on display for the rest of the inquiry.
I have also heard that a refueling incident might have been the cause of the explosion. To draw a longish bow, maybe the Navy were refueling the boat in order to, hopefully, send the boat on its way, at which point someone got emotional and got out a lighter…
I know that sort of speculation is a bit wild, in a case which is sub judice, but as it is already in the public domain I thought it would be OK to repeat it.
@ Nadia David : Andrew Bartlett makes it explicitly clear that ADF personel are only doing their job as directed by the government of the day… Surely it is reasonable to criticise the government for not releasing information (or rather telling the Navy to release information)
I recently read about the horrific accident, where a man put fuel into his boat, ready for a leisurely cruise for a long weekend with the love of his life, and it exploded??? He was lucky to survive as was his partner. If they’d not been at that particular mooring, they’d both have been dead! Maybe this is what happened. Without the disgraceful media outburst of the WA Premier, there may have been no racist nonsense in the press. He couldn’t resist the ‘racist gravy train’ and milked it for his own political means. Not one word of concern for those human beings with horrific and life threatening burns. Don’t we have a ‘innocent until proven guilty’ philosophy in this country? What sort of ‘system’ do we celebrate on Australia Day? Racism, and using situations for base political purposes? Not the Australia I want to live in – thank you!
I don’t go along with the “the ADF were just doing their job” nonsense. I remind people, that the Nuremberg Trials threw that out most emphatically. We all have a choice – right or wrong? If we allowed the muddying of the waters, why then do we have the right to give yound people a dressing down for lesser demeanours – like kicking over garbage bins or breaking shop front windows? Aren’t we being hypocritical? If it wasn’t accepted re the Germans and the Japanese as an excuse for their horrific and violent behaviours, I don’t accept this on this occasion and in respect of these sort of incidences – traumatised people, including children in too many cases. If we think this is acceptable, then we all need a sharp kick in the pants. I’d sincerely hope, that no threat or intimidation would make me treat other human beings(who’ve committed no crime) in an unjust and inhumane manner – I could never cause a child’s discomfort or tears of fear – never!
I’ve also read in recent times, that the Navy personnel who were ‘forced’ by the Howard govt to behave in that heartless and cruel manner, either resigned later, or suffered mental anguish as a result(SMH article?) I also suggest, that people read David Marr & Marianne Wilkinson’s book, “Dark Victory” and several articles, documentaries of that time, including the book called, “A Certain Maritime Incident”.
David Marr also reported during an interview on ABC 702, that he’d spoken to survivors on SIEV X, who insisted, that there was another boat/aeroplane in the vicinity while they were in the water – that went away, even though they believed they’d been seen?
I’m also disgusted, that even though the names were known to the Howard govt, he refused to even acknowledge the agony of the husbands/fathers by either allowing them to join their surviving wives and or kids, but didn’t release their names. If this was an aeroplane disaster etc, the country would’ve had a day of mourning, and a permanent memorial would’ve been erected shortly after. In fact, those who eventually did erect a permanent memorial in Canberra, were fought every step of the way by the Howard govt? 353 deaths should invade the psyche of those horrible human beings who engaged in such an activity.
We should all keep in mind, that less than 5% of those who seek asylum arrive in this country by boat – the rest come by plane? At least, the response to ‘boat people’ is verging on the hysterical and racist. As a resident of NSW, the recent revelation, that over 50 kilos of amphetamines arrived in this state led me to immediately wonder how those overseas persons responsible came here – a person of Chinese nationality was arrested at Mascot – I bet he didn’t arrive by boat???He’s not the only one, and apparently, the plan was to repeat this on a weekly basis. I think the law makers would be better served to protect this country from this menace, coupled with the importation of guns etc, than spend millions traumatising already traumatised people.
It’s time we stopped this zenophobic response to ‘boat people’; looked at the realities(those who arrive by air 95% at least) and put our resources into being humane responses, and adopting realistic & just policies. This disgraceful behaviour, to appease the racists is despicable and demeaning. The truth is available – only those with racist hearts refuse to educate themselves – this is no excuse! If we really want to stop the people fleeing their traumatised countries, we should start by not participating in the killing spree of Iraq & Afghanistan, or give credence to those countries that we support via our monies or police/military support – West Papua, Sri Lanka etc
As a mother and now grandmother, I’d take any risks to save the lives of my children. As a human being, I can identify with the ‘risk taking’ attitudes of their mothers/fathers. It is not a crime to seek sanction in this country from possible torture and death, especially for their children. We’re either proud residents of a just world, or we support terror, trauma and death. I take pride in what we mouth, that we’re in favour of justice and a ‘fair go’ for all peoples – not just our own! My children are not entitled to justice any more than another child – from, I don’t care where! If we don’t support this well vocalised and proud policy – we should say so!
I congratulate Andrew for his strong support for the truth and justice! There’s no excuse for ignorance and racism – I reject both! I also reject any form of violence, particularly against children!
“why then do we have the right to give yound people a dressing” down for other demeanours” I meant “young people”?