[10 September 2001]

In aus.religion.christian Joan <> wrote: > "Chris Ho-Stuart" <> wrote in message

> .

>> In aus.religion.christian Joan <> wrote:

[snip]

>> > Illegal immigration/people smuggling was getting out of control.

>> > A stand had to be taken.

>>

>> No, it did not have to be taken; and it most certainly did not

>> have to be taken when a freighter grossly over loaded with people

>> it had rescued at the request of Australian Search and Rescue was

>> within just over an hour of arriving at Christmas Island, where

>> it was headed with the approval of search and rescue.

>

> The Australian Search and Rescue directed the captain to Merak in

Indonesia, > which he did, until he was and I quote "to avoid a nasty situation, I went

> for Christmas Island", because 5of the survivors on the bridge were

talking > in a very aggravated a highly excited manner, and they all went into his

> face and that body language was threatening.

Yes; this is correct.

After the above event, he made contact with AusR to ask about the possibility of proceeding to Christmas Island. AusR advised him to proceed as he saw fit. He then advised them that he would proceed to Christmas Island, and did so with AusR support.

He did not receive any indication that Australia was going to change their stance, or break with maritime conventions for rescue at sea, until he was almost at Christmas Island.

[snip]

>> This was not a carefully considered policy decision. The refusal to

>> enter Australia was made at the very last minute. The refusal was

>> made long after the rescue, and long after the Tampa had turned for

>> Australian shores, and about half an hour before it would have

>> crossed the twelve mile bound around Christmas Island.

>

> The captain had been informed not to enter Australian water from the

> beginning, but due to pressure from the boat people he headed for

Christmas > Island.

The first part of your sentence is false.

He was directed to Indonesia in the first instance, which is not the same as being told not to enter Australian waters. He was not refused permission to enter Australia until long after the change in course, and just before he was due to arrive.

You can see it is not the same thing when you look at subsequent events.

When the problems you describe above occurred, it was the best thing for him to do, in view of his primary responsibility to ship, crew, and rescued persons, to head for Christmas Island. AusR confirmed that he had the authority to make that decision, and gave their full support to the new heading.

Therefore it is simply misleading to state that he had been informed not to enter Australian waters.

The captain the right thing at every point, as did Australian Search and Rescue. When he finally did receive a refusal to enter Australian waters, some time later, he was only 20 miles from land. He obeyed the directives, and remained outside our borders.

He was, at this time, only 20 miles from landfall, grossly over crowded, and also uncertain about his reception in Indonesia. I am not sure how much time elapsed between Australia refusing refuge and Indonesia following suit; but it was not long. The captain would have been clearly in the wrong to turn away from land at that time, and in his particular circumstances.

He did eventually approach land, some two days later, after declaring a mayday. This was embarrassing to Australia; and politicians have charged him with exaggerating the problems. The captain disagrees. But in either case, with 438 extra people on board, and no proper housing, and inadequate facilities for proper medical care or evaluations, the captain with his primary responsibility for the ship does in fact have the full force of maritime law and convention behind him.

One good thing about these events is that it has encouraged debate on the subject, and (I trust) formulation of a rather more clear policy.

But it is rewriting history to pretend that there was a credible policy in place the time. Decisions were made at the last minute, decision which came as a total surprise to AusR and which are very much against the spirit of normal maritime conventions for rescue at sea.

>> If we need to take a stand, it should be a rather more well thought

>> out stand, and it should be one known to search and rescue authorities.

>>

>> By all means let us think through a policy, and make stands based on

>> that. A crucial part of any sensible stand would be to improve our

>> relations with Indonesia and establish clear agreement that they

>> should people rescued from north of Christmas Island. We can't just

>> demand that, but it is a reasonable request and strong diplomatic

>> efforts should be made to that effect.

>>

>> But in the absense of such clear agreements, search and rescue made

>> the obviously right decision to support the Tampa when the captain

>> believed he should head for the nearest landfall.

>

> He was directed to Merak.

So what? He was directed to Merak, and he headed for Merak. Then he later decided to head for Christmas Island, and was advised by AusR that this was within his rights. On deciding to head for Christmas Island he was given directions and advice for that landfall.

What do you think Australian Search and Rescue should have done when the captain advised there were problems on board, and that he felt he should head for Christmas Island?

Bear in mind that at this point, there had been no policy decisions overriding the normal conventions for refuge and rescue at sea.

>> The politicians stepped in some time later -- and it is a pity that

>> they did not delay just an extra half hour, after which it would have

>> been too late; the Tampa would have been inside the twelve mile limit.

>

> This does not line up with what the captain said. He had already been

> ordered not to enter.

That is false. I have no idea where you are getting your information, but it is false.

The captain was proceeding to Christmas Island with every expectation that Australia would uphold normal maritime conventions. The refusal to enter Australian waters was not normal policy, and it is certainly not usual procedures for a rescue ship. The politicians, in what must have been a very hasty bit of work, decided to override the advice given previously by AusR in view of the nature of the rescued people, and captain received word of this refusal just before he was about to enter Christmas Island.

Whether we think the politicians are justified or not, at least let us get the facts right.

Best wishes -- Chris