Turning back the boats was once a great strategy for dealing
with suspected irregular entry vessels (SIEVs) but is the way ahead should the
Coalition form government later this year?
Assuming the Coalition is elected in the kind of landslide
the opinion polls are now indicating, Abbott will have a very explicit mandate
to proceed with its long-stated plans – offshore processing of asylum seekers,
re-introducing temporary protection visas and turning back asylum seeker boats
where it’s safe to do so. This should surprise no-one as the Coalition has
talked of turning back the boats for years, routinely slamming Labor for its
failure on border protection and promising the boats will stop under Tony, just
as they did under John Howard.
The opposition says the floodgates opened in August 2008
when Labor ditched John Howard’s proven border protection policies. Well they would say that wouldn’t they.
This all comes down to an argument on push and pull factors
which animates both sides of politics, with neither conceding any merit to the other. In simple terms, push factors drive people out of their
homeland. Persecution of Afghan minority Hazaras is a good example and there
are many others. Pull factors attract people to Australia and include
perception of a permissive immigration regime and a generous welfare system,
along with the prospect of well-paying jobs for all.
That’s all well and good but it’s the personnel aboard the navy’s frigates and patrol boats and
the Customs vessels who will end up with the job of bailing up marginally seaworthy Indonesian fishing boats and directing
them to head back north again.
The Coalition says this worked before and can work again, a
view given some backing by the report of the expert panel headed by former
defence chief Angus Houston.
“Turning back irregular maritime vessels carrying asylum seekers to Australia can be operationally achieved and can constitute
an effective disincentive to such ventures,” it said. The opposition enthusiastically seized on that endorsement.
However the report contains significant qualifications,
declaring it could only work where a whole range of operational, safety of life
at sea, diplomatic and legal conditions are met. For starters Indonesia, where
most vessels originate, would need to agree to have these boats back. So far
it’s shown little inclination to do so. Legally, the flag state of the vessel, Indonesia again, would also need to agree. The report says
that agreement could be provided through acquiescence, so less of a problem
there. Then there’s the biggie –humanitarian obligations under the Safety of
Life at Sea (SOLAS) convention.
The opposition’s repeated claim that turning back worked
before and could again stems from the experiences in September-December 2001 and November 2003 when the navy and
Customs sought to implement Howard government policy of deterring asylum seeker
boats, referred to as suspected irregular entry vessels (SIEVs), from
proceeding. Out of 15 attempts, turnbacks apparently worked four times, in the
face of sabotage, threats of self-harm and aggression from those aboard and
only when the navy provided food, water, life jackets and navigation equipment.
In one unsuccessful attempt, sailors worked for nine days to repair sabotaged engines on one SIEV. The vessel sailed just 11 nautical
miles, before problems with pumps prompted the navy to give up and take all 222
asylum seekers back to Christmas Island.
Reading the summaries of these incidents, the big surprises are that any vessels were
actually returned and that no Australian personnel were injured or killed.
Unsurprisingly, the sailors don’t like doing this one bit.
In evidence to a Senate estimates in October 2011, Chief of
Navy Vice Admiral Ray Griggs, who as a younger sailor participated in two of
the successful turnbacks in 2001, said there were big risks.
“There have been fires lit, there have been attempts to storm
the engine compartment of these boats. There have been people jumping in the
water, that sort of thing,” he said. “Yes, there obviously are risks involved
in this process.”
The Houston panel said circumstances had changed since those
few successful turnbacks over a decade ago. Bilateral cooperation with regional
nations could be imperilled. People smugglers and their passengers well
understand they can very quickly disable their vessels to activate SOLAS
obligations.
“In addition, the potential dangers for asylum seekers and
Australian personnel in effecting turnbacks have not diminished,” it said.
The panel concluded that the conditions for effective,
lawful and safe turnbacks to Indonesia did not now exist, although that could
change. However, the opposition has shown not the slightest inclination to back
away from this policy, most likely because it sees this as effective politics
where it most needs to make an impact, in the outer suburbs of Sydney rather
than in the inner-city salons of Balmain. It could just be that the Coalition
is figuring it may not have to turn around that many boats, or even try too
hard.
On one view, the influx of asylum seeker vessels in early
2013 stems from a marketing decision by people smugglers to get in ahead of the
election of a Coalition government. On that basis, some bellicose talk by a new Coalition government might actually
have a noticeable deterrent effect, although the real test will be if this
effect endures.
In one very clear sense, Australia has greatly benefited
from a turn back policy, that was conducted by the Sri Lankan navy. Without
their efforts, many more Sri Lankans would have reached Christmas Island or
perhaps the mainland.
On this, the Sri Lankan navy website is quite educational.
It itemises each successful intercept of an Australia-bound vessel, often
adding useful details of the gender and ethnic breakdown of all aboard, their
towns and villages of origin, all illustrated with colour images.
