CPA - The Guardian

Witnesses at a recent inquiry into the explosion and sinking of the asylum seeker vessel known as SIEVX 36 have indicated that Australian government policies, and perceptions of those policies, may have contributed to the deaths of five asylum seekers.

Vessel (SIEV) 36 at sea North of Ashmore Island 11 minutes prior to incident. HMAS Childers' boarding party embarked.

The boat was intercepted by the Australian Navy off Ashmore Island last April 15. The inquiry was told that navy personnel boarded the boat, and proceeded to tow it in a north-westerly direction. Government policy had been changed the day beforehand, so that all intercepted boats were supposed to be escorted to Christmas Island. However, the asylum seekers were not told where they were going, and instead were shown a photocopied notice which suggested that they should consider returning to Indonesia.

Many of the boat’s occupants then became extremely distressed and began to cry “No Indonesia, no Indonesia!”. One occupant is said to have made a gesture of cutting his throat. (In the commercial mass media this has been widely interpreted as a direct threat to the Navy personnel. No one seems to have considered that the person making the gesture might have been saying he would commit suicide rather than accept being dumped back in Indonesia.)

At this point a strong smell of petrol became evident, and some of the Navy crew had to forcibly prevent an occupant from lighting a cigarette in the bow, where the smell of petrol was strongest.

However, shortly afterwards the boat’s engine exploded. A number of occupants, including some Navy personnel, were thrown into the water. Many were injured, and in the ensuing struggle five asylum seekers drowned. At least one of the boat’s occupants was literally kicked off a rescue craft, in order to give preference to a naval officer who was in the water.

It is almost certain that all the navy personnel could swim, but it is unlikely that the asylum seekers, most of whom came from Afghanistan, could do so. The rescue was competed in 12 minutes, but this was too long for some. One leading seaman said he tried to help the struggling asylum seekers, but was prevented from diving into the water because of the Navy’s policy of helping its own personnel before anyone else.

Steven Walsh QC, counsel assisting the Northern Territory coroner Greg Cavanagh, noted that the boarding officers did not search the boat for flammable materials, nor did they distribute life jackets to the passengers or show them how to use them. He also stated that a “less rigid policy of recovery” might have averted the loss of life on this occasion.

The Rudd government delayed altering the policy regarding boat interception for 19 months. Although the policy of forcing boats to return to international waters had been dropped one day before the SIEVX incident, it is possible that the crew of the intercepting vessels were unaware of this change, or that they were undecided as to what approach to take.

However, it is also possible that the notification which suggested the boat should return to Indonesia was shown to the boat’s occupants quite deliberately. Despite the change in official policy, that action may well have reflected the government’s view that they were still not welcome in Australia.

It is certainly possible that one of the boat’s passengers, or one of its crew members, set fire to the boat rather than being forced to return to Indonesia, Mr Walsh commented:

“It is … anticipated that the evidence will disclose that a motive for disabling SIEVX36 clearly existed. The passengers clearly wanted to remain in Australia. The crew may have been directed to scuttle the vessel rather than allow it and the passengers to be returned … accordingly, if the passengers and crew mistakenly believed that they were to be forced back to Indonesia, unidentified persons on the vessel may have decided to sabotage the engine and set fire to the vessel to prevent their return.”

Nevertheless, it has not been established with reasonable certainty that the explosion was deliberate. The Northern Territory Police Assistant Commissioner, Mark McArdie, believed it was likely that this was the case, but conceded that the fire could have been ignited accidentally by someone lighting a cigarette.

However, what is clear beyond a doubt is that the occupants of the SIEVX36 were all desperate to reach a safe haven. The boat explosion is one more dark passage in the traumatic saga of those who are commonly referred to as “the boat people”, who are seeking our assistance, often after terrible persecution and ordeals in their countries of origin.

Our national government’s response to their experiences is indicated in part by the acronym SIEV, which stands for “suspected illegal entry vessel”. In fact, it is not illegal to enter Australian territory by boat or other means unless you are actually intent on carrying out a serious crime. That was certainly not the case with the occupants of the SIEVX36, who were simply seeking refuge.

As a nation we should adopt a more enlightened acronym. How about PROA, standing for “people requiring our assistance”, and short for “proactive”? That would certainly indicate a more humane national approach to those who appeal for our help.

Next article – Comrade Joan Williams remembered

Back to index page