****************Please circulate***********************
Over the last three nights (23-25/9/02), Opposition Leader in the
Senate, John Faulkner, has made a series of three, powerful,
hard-hitting short speeches to the Senate regarding the People Smuggling
Disruption Program in Indonesia.
In the third section, delivered last night, Faulkner asked if there is a
link between the People Smuggling Disruption Program in Indonesia and
the sinking of SIEVX in October last year and went on to raise the
spine-chilling possibility that the disruption program in Indonesia may
have been used as a 'licence to kill'.
IF YOU READ NOTHING ELSE, PLEASE BE SURE TO READ AT LEAST THE FINAL FOUR
PARAGRAPHS.
Below is the complete text taken from the internet Hansard:
----------------------
Senator FAULKNER
(New South Wales- Leader of the Opposition in the Senate)
(9.50 p.m.[23/9/02])-
This is the first part of a three-part speech I will be making this
week. At both the Senate estimates committee hearings and the hearings
of the Senate Select Committee on a Certain Maritime Incident I have
asked officials and ministers literally hundreds of questions about
Australia's involvement in disrupting and dismantling people-smuggling
syndicates in Indonesia.
The views I am expressing tonight and in the other two speeches I have
flagged are mine and do not anticipate the report of the Senate select
committee.
I am not satisfied by the answers I have received in Senate committees.
In fact, I remain deeply concerned about the people-smuggling disruption
program in Indonesia.
I want to outline what we know about people-smuggling disruption
activities and detail the further information that must be provided to
the parliament about the disruption program.
The government claims that its policy of disruption has had a
significant influence on the decline in the numbers of people trying to
get to Australia illegally.
Disruption within a legal framework and properly administered is a
legitimate tool of government.
In March this year, Minister Ruddock cited the government's policy of
physically disrupting the work of people smugglers as one of the main
reasons for the decline in asylum seeker boats coming to Australia. But
what I want to know is: how far does this policy of disruption go? What
are the limits to the implementation of this policy, if there are any?
Precisely what disruption activities are undertaken at the behest of, or
with the knowledge of, or even broadly authorised by, the Australian
government? What role have ministers played in issuing ministerial
directions or authorisations covering these activities, and what
knowledge do ministers have about the methods employed or the outcomes
of those activities? What sorts of mechanisms are in place to ensure
that we are not breaching any laws here in Australia or in other
countries? How is the policy of disruption funded? How much does it cost
to fund, and who actually receives this money? Who tasks the Indonesian
officials or others to disrupt people smugglers or their clients?
Are Australians involved in disruption activities in Indonesia? What
accountability mechanisms are in place in relation to these activities,
and what mechanisms ought to be put in place? The policy of disruption
in Indonesia is the untold story of people-smuggling. It is a policy
undertaken by the Australian government and funded by the Australian
taxpayer, and yet the Howard government and Commonwealth agencies have
so far avoided parliamentary scrutiny of this policy.
So what is disruption and how does it work? Disruption has been a key
element of the government's strategy to prevent asylum seekers from
coming to Australia. Disruption can occur by way of an information
campaign, informing people in Indonesia of the dangers or the risks
associated with people-smuggling-for example, telling asylum seekers of
the dangers of sailing in vessels to Australia or distributing T-shirts
to the local Indonesian fishermen that explain why they should not crew
people smuggler boats.
Geoff Raby from the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade told
estimates that disruption was: ... collecting information, collecting
intelligence, meeting with local police in different areas and local
governors, raising the profile of the issue and expressing concerns.
At the CMI committee, representatives from the Department of Immigration
and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs said that the only disruption
activity they were involved in was information campaigns- for example,
pointing out some of the dangers in travel to potential passengers. And
it is unlikely that any reasonable person would have a problem with an
information campaign to combat people-smuggling. I certainly do not.
We know that disruption is not only about information campaigns in
Indonesia; disruption is also about physically disrupting the
people-smuggling syndicates and the asylum seekers who seek their
assistance.
The AFP have detailed this more active element of disruption. AFP
National General Manager, Federal Agent Brendon McDevitt told the CMI
committee that, in broad terms, the primary objective of disruption is
to: '...prevent the departure of the vessel in the first instance, to
deter or dissuade passengers from actually boarding a vessel.'
The AFP agreed that there was a whole series of methods that could be
used to prevent the departure of the vessel and that it was at the
'discretion of the liaison officer in Jakarta as to the best method to
apply'. There may be disruption of the transport of passengers to the
embarkation point, for instance, or the movement of the boat to that
embarkation point. AFP Commissioner Keelty confirmed the more active
nature of the disruption activities when he said that their purpose is
to: '...prevent the departure of a vessel... either by the arrest or
detention of individuals or by ensuring that the individuals do not
reach the point of embarkation, if that was known.'
It is not clear whether disruption extends to physical interference with
vessels.
It is not clear what, if any, consideration is given in the planning and
implementation of disruption to questions of maritime safety, to the
safety of lives at sea.
Channel 9's Sunday program has recently raised serious questions about
the nature of disruption operations in Indonesia.
The most concerning of these allegations is that AFP informant Kevin
Enniss admitted-indeed boasted-to reporter Ross Coulthart and two
colleagues that he had paid Indonesian locals on four or five occasions
to scuttle people-smuggling boats with passengers aboard. Enniss claimed
that the boats were sunk close to land so that everyone got off safely.
But how can we be certain this is true?
As a result of the Sunday revelations in February, the AFP have
confirmed that Kevin Enniss was paid at least $25,000 by them as an
informant.
The AFP also admitted that they were aware that Mr Enniss purported to
be a people smuggler and on at least one occasion took money from asylum
seekers who thought they were buying a passage to Australia.
Commissioner Keelty told Senate estimates: '... we knew he was involved
in people-smuggling because he was telling us what was going on.'
These admissions are not consistent with what the AFP's Director of
International Operations, Mr Dick Moses, said earlier this year. When
asked by the Sunday program, 'Has the Federal Police ever authorised any
informant to involve themselves in people smuggling?' he answered, 'No.
That's categorically no. The Australian Federal Police has not done so.'
This is dancing on the head of a pin. What is the difference between
authorising an informant to involve himself in people-smuggling and
paying him for intelligence which is known to be gained from his
involvement?
The Sunday program also put evidence on the record from a number of
asylum seekers that Mr Enniss claimed to be an Australian policeman and
that he had information about Royal Australian Navy ships which would
ensure that their boats would slip the net and reach Australia. Despite
the serious allegations made by the Sunday program, the AFP is yet to
respond. Minister Ellison issued a press release supporting the AFP but
not denying the allegations of potentially illegal behaviour by the AFP
or its informants in Indonesia.
Senator Ellison also rejected Labor's call for a full, independent
judicial inquiry into these serious matters, but he did not indicate
whether he proposed to have the issues investigated at all.
This is not good enough.
-------
Senator FAULKNER
(New South Wales- Leader of the Opposition in the Senate)
(7.17 p.m. [24/9/02]):
This is the second of three speeches I will be making about the
government's people-smuggling disruption program in Indonesia. The AFP
is not the only agency to be involved in disruption activities.
I have been trying to establish what role DFAT, ASIS, Defence and the
immigration department play in the more active element of disruption.
So far, most of the evidence about the more active element of disruption
has come from the AFP. However, some evidence the AFP gave to the Senate
committee and the Senate estimates hearings was contradictory and
misleading.
Commissioner Keelty told the CMI committee that the AFP have no police
powers beyond Australia's borders. Furthermore, the AFP could not direct
Indonesian police or other Indonesian authorities to disrupt people
smugglers and asylum seekers. They could only seek their assistance and
cooperation. But in the case of Kevin Enniss this is clearly not what is
occurring in Indonesia. The AFP have admitted that Kevin Enniss, in
conjunction with the Indonesian police agency POLDA, was engaged in
strategies designed to interdict asylum seekers where possible before
they could depart for Australia. This appears to be exactly what the
policy of disruption sets out to do.
We know that the AFP works closely with the Indonesian National Police,
Indonesian Immigration, and the Indonesian navy, army and marines when
it comes to pursuing organised people- smuggling activities. But it is
still unclear who else is involved in disruption and whether any other
Australians are also involved.
The AFP has said that no payment is made to the Indonesian authorities
for carrying out disruption activities. As Commissioner Keelty told the
CMI committee: 'We do not ask them to carry out a task and then pay for
them to do the task. There is a level of cooperation that we have with
them under the protocol ...'
He also said: '... the AFP paid no moneys to any government agency in
Indonesia to have them disrupt the activities of people- smuggling
organisers.'
However, Commissioner Keelty did confirm that the AFP provides
equipment, training and costs in travel to those Indonesian authorities
involved in disruption activities. For instance, the AFP's Law
Enforcement Cooperation Program provides training and equipment to the
Indonesian National Police. Five teams of the Indonesian National Police
have been established through this program and are directly involved in
disruption activities.
Commissioner Keelty also told the CMI committee that AFP informants were
only paid to provide information about the location of passengers and
the activities of organisers. He said 'no money has been paid to anybody
specifically empowered to intervene' in people-smuggling. But as a
result of an investigation into the activities of Enniss, the AFP
confirmed that they were aware Enniss purported to be a people smuggler
in Indonesia. They also admitted to knowing that Enniss had taken money
from asylum seekers on at least one occasion.
According to the Sunday program, Kevin Enniss has also confessed to
paying Indonesians to sabotage vessels. I ask the question: are these
activities-sinking boats, taking asylum seekers' money and purporting to
be a people smuggler-illegal?
Commissioner Keelty has told the CMI committee that it has not come to
the AFP's attention that they were doing anything unlawful or inhumane.
But we know that both the AFP'S investigation into Kevin Enniss-which we
have only seen a summary of-and the Sunday program's investigation have
clearly indicated that at least one Australian was involved in
disruption activities of a highly dubious and probably criminal nature.
Now that these admissions have been made by the AFP, there is only
silence. Since the Sunday program revealed that Kevin Enniss may have
deliberately sunk asylum seekers' vessels, there has been no response
from the AFP, any other government agency or the government itself.
Legal advice given to the Sunday program indicated that the behaviour
alleged of Mr Enniss is probably criminal, and that the AFP has probably
also acted outside the law. Highly respected legal expert Professor Mark
Findlay said of Mr Enniss on Channel Nine's Sunday program: Well, under
Australian law if he's a people smuggler it's a crime. If he's not a
people-smuggler but purporting to be one, that's a misrepresentation.
And to obtain a financial advantage as a consequence, that's a crime-you
can't have it both ways.
Professor Findlay also rejected the AFP's claim to the Senate committee
that the AFP and Enniss are protected by controlled operations
legislation, which means that there are grounds to suspect that the AFP
itself may have been involved in, or may have authorised or condoned,
activities outside of the law or even in breach of Australian law.
In this regard it should be noted that amendments extending the
controlled operations provisions of the Crimes Act 1914 to cover
people-smuggling offences only entered into effect on 1 October 2001.
Beyond the activities of Kevin Enniss, I believe there are serious
questions about the disruption program and the behaviour of certain
Australian agencies in Indonesia.
Commissioner Keelty claimed that he was fully accountable for the
disruption program, but it appears that no procedures have been put in
place to ensure nothing untoward or illegal is occurring or has
occurred. There seem to be no accountability mechanisms in place at all,
with most of this activity taking place outside of Australian legal
jurisdiction.
I asked Commissioner Keelty at the CMI committee hearing: What
accountability, controls and constraints are on those Indonesian
agencies that are conducting this activity? How are you satisfied that
those activities are conducted in an appropriate way? Commissioner
Keelty answered: That is not for me to say. I do not have any power over
the Indonesian authorities.
Commissioner Keelty said: The AFP, in tasking the INP to do anything
that would disrupt the movement of people smugglers, has never asked-nor
would it ask-them to do anything illegal. If we became aware that they
were doing something illegal or something that was inhumane, it would be
brought to our notice and we would ask that they not do it that way. The
difficulty is that, once we ask them to do it, we have to largely leave
it in their hands as to how they best do it.
Commissioner Keelty also said that he has not sought legal advice about
the disruption activities in Indonesia. It is therefore difficult to
understand how he can claim to know definitively that none of the
activities are illegal or improper. It is now time for ministers to
front up and explain to the parliament their knowledge of, involvement
in and authorisation of the disruption activities in Indonesia, and the
detail of those activities.
We do know that Minister Ruddock has been involved.
Nelly Siegmund from the immigration department indicated to the CMI
committee that she had briefed Minister Ruddock about AFP reports
relating to `Indonesian involvement in being able to stop certain
vessels from departing'.
In general, immigration officials at the CMI committee were vague about
their knowledge of disruption, mainly referring to information
campaigns. This contrasts with Minister Ruddock's release of a
background paper outlining the policy of disruption. It notes that
'disruption during transit' includes 'interception at the actual point
of attempting to continue their journey, either by sea or air'.
Minister Ruddock should detail his involvement to the Australian people,
as should the other ministers involved-the Attorney-General, the
Minister for Justice, the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Prime
Minister.
We know from the select committee's work that the Prime Minister
established the People Smuggling Task Force in his department to share
high-level information, and we know that this task force discussed
disruption activities on a number of occasions.
What briefings did this task force provide to the Prime Minister about
the nature and extent of disruption activities undertaken by, or
condoned by, Commonwealth agencies?
On 27 September 2000, Senator Ellison, the Minister for Justice and
Customs, issued a ministerial direction to the AFP to give special
emphasis to countering and otherwise investigating organised
people=smuggling. What does Senator Ellison know about how this
directive was put into operation?
Section 6(1)(e) of the Intelligence Services Act, which commenced on 29
October 2001, requires the foreign minister to put into writing any
ministerial direction authorising the Australian Secret Intelligence
Service to engage in so-called 'other activities'-that is, any
activities relating to people or organisations outside Australia other
than intelligence collection.
Disruption activities would be 'other activities' for ASIS under the
provisions of the Intelligence Services Act. The question of provision
for the authorisation of 'other activities' was certainly a government
priority when the Intelligence Services Bill was before the parliament
last year.
It is now time for the Minister for Foreign affairs to confirm to the
Australian parliament whether he authorised the Australian Secret
Intelligence Service, either prior to or following the commencement of
the Intelligence Services Act, to engage in disruption activities, and,
if so, to explain what sort of disruption activities took place.
Of course, direct parliamentary scrutiny of the role of ASIS is not
possible. Nor is it possible for the joint committee to examine these
matters. It is also possible that such an examination falls outside the
powers of the Inspector General of Intelligence and Security. If ASIS is
involved, the critical aspect would be the behaviour of its agents, not
its intelligence officers.
Ultimately, supervision and responsibility in this area lie with the
foreign minister. If ASIS has been involved then in my view the Minister
for Foreign Affairs should brief the Leader of the Opposition on this
subject. (Time expired)
-----
Senator FAULKNER (New South Wales- Leader of the Opposition in the
Senate) (7.04 p.m.[25/9/02])- This is the third and last of the three
speeches on the government's people-smuggling disruption program which I
foreshadowed during the adjournment debate on Monday this week. How much
ministerial knowledge is there of the disruption activities being
directed out of the Australian embassy in Jakarta?
DIMIA has three compliance officers working out of the Jakarta embassy.
Two of these positions were created in the last two years. Their major
priority is to work on people-smuggling matters. Two AFP agents also
work from the embassy in Jakarta. These agents work closely with the
Indonesian National Police, Indonesian Immigration, Indonesian navy,
army and marines. They report directly to the Director of International
Operations, Dick Moses, and the general manager of international
operations, Mr Shane Castles. Both Mr Moses and Mr Castles were regular
attendees of the Prime Minister's People Smuggling Task Force last year.
They would inform the task force of the criminal aspects of
people-smuggling, involvement with the people-smuggling teams and
disruption activities.
At the Australian embassy in Jakarta an inter-agency coordination group
on people-smuggling has also been established. The portfolios
represented at these meetings are DFAT, DIMIA, AFP and Defence. The
purpose is to share information and assessments and to represent the
agencies' view in relation to people-smuggling matters. Geoff Raby from
DFAT has indicated disruption activities are a key focus of this group.
I note that on 13 June 2001 the Minister for Immigration and
Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs, Phillip Ruddock, travelled to
Jakarta. He had meetings with the Australian ambassador, Ric Smith, and
the interagency people-smuggling group. He also met with the Indonesian
Minister of Justice and Human Rights and the Indonesian Minister of
Foreign Affairs. Mr Ruddock should now confirm whether he raised certain
disruption activities during meetings at the embassy either in June last
year or during his visit in September.
By September 2001 we know that something concerned the Indonesian
foreign affairs department enough to request the protocol between the
AFP and the Indonesian police be set aside. AFP Commissioner Keelty told
the CMI committee that on 15 September 2000 'a specific protocol under
the MOU to target people-smuggling syndicates operating out of
Indonesia' was agreed to by the AFP and their counterparts the
Indonesian National Police. We have asked the AFP for a copy of the
protocol and MOU but so far it has not been released. Under this
protocol the AFP provides equipment and training to the Indonesian
National Police. At the CMI committee, Commissioner Keelty revealed that
the protocol under the MOU was set aside by the Indonesian government in
September 2001 due to concerns the Indonesian Department of Foreign
Affairs, DEPLU, had in relation to disruption. Amazingly, Commissioner
Keelty could not or would not tell the committee why the protocol was
cancelled by the Indonesian government.
Despite this setting aside of the protocol - I believe because of
concerns the Indonesians had about disruption activities between the two
police organisations - Commissioner Keelty told us he was not aware of
the full detail of the Indonesian complaints. Repeatedly, I asked
Commissioner Keelty at the CMI committee the reasons behind the
Indonesian authorities cancelling of the protocol. For instance, when I
asked Commissioner Keelty, 'What concerns did the Indonesians express in
relation to the disruption operation?' he replied, 'I do not have a
briefing on that and I do not know that anyone in the AFP does.' I
replied, 'I would be surprised - very surprised - if the AFP was not
informed of what these concerns might have been.' Commissioner Keelty
responded, 'It was a decision by the Indonesian government in their
DEPLU, so I would not necessarily expect them to tell me why.' Later at
the CMI committee, I again asked Commissioner Keelty the following
question: 'Commissioner, did you ask why the protocol was cancelled?' He
replied, 'I do not specifically recall.' I then asked, `You do not know
if you asked why?' Again, he replied, 'I answered you. I do not
specifically recall.'
Despite the concerns the Indonesian foreign affairs department had about
the protocol, the AFP says it continued to cooperate with the Indonesian
National Police until June 2002. However, the breakdown in the protocol
does not appear to have stopped disruption activities from occurring.
Between September 2001 and June 2002 the activities continued on a
case-by-case arrangement between the AFP and the INP.
In October 2001 the high level PM&C People Smuggling Task Force notes
indicate that disruption activities were discussed on a number of
occasions including a direction that disruption be 'beefed up'. On 10
October 2001 the task force notes state, 'Discussion on the
"architecture"-disruption, regional conference proposal, UNHCR
positions.' On 12 October the task force notes state, 'Discussion of
disruption activity, and scope for beefing up.' At the CMI committee I
asked Ms Jane Halton, DIMIA officials and the Australian Federal Police
what exactly could be meant by these references? What was the task force
asking agencies to do when they referred to it being 'beefed up'?
The head of the People Smuggling Task Force, Ms Halton, admitted there
were a 'couple of discussions' regarding disruption at the meetings but
she would not or could not elaborate further. Ms Halton had no memory of
the 'beefing up' discussion except she thought it might refer to
T-shirts. Ms Halton told the committee that the task force had never
tasked any agency to disrupt in Indonesia. But Ed Killestyen from DIMIA,
who attended the task force meetings on 10 October and 12 October, said:
'...the People Smuggling Task Force was concerned about the evidence of
a surge and was, in a sense, giving a direction to the responsible areas
to look for further opportunities for disruption.'
Commissioner Keelty also indicated that the People Smuggling Task Force
was tasking agencies to beef up the disruption activities. Commissioner
Keelty said:
'To me it is just an operational call along the lines of, "The departure
of the vessel is imminent; we'd better be doing everything we can
possibly do."'
Let me repeat Commissioner Keelty's words: '...we'd better be doing
everything we can possibly do.'
This is the deeply concerning aspect of disruption. How far has it gone?
What activities are acceptable; what are not? Who carries them out? Who
pays for them? What accountability and control mechanisms are in place?
Who authorises these activities? What is the effect of these activities?
What, if any, consideration was given to questions of the safety of
lives at sea?
The issue of sabotage of people smugglers' vessels has been canvassed by
the AFP informant Kevin Enniss.
I ask these questions: was Enniss involved in the sabotage of vessels?
Were others involved in the sabotage of vessels? Do Australian
ministers, officials or agencies have knowledge of such activities? And
what about the vessel now known as SIEVX, part of the people-smuggling
operation of the notorious people smuggler Abu Quassey? That vessel set
sail on 18 October 2001 and sank on 19 October 2001, drowning 353
people, including 142 women and 146 children. Were disruption activities
directed against Abu Quassey? Did these involve SIEVX?
I intend to keep asking questions until I find out. And, Mr Acting
Deputy President, I intend to keep pressing for an independent judicial
inquiry into these very serious matters. At no stage do I want to break,
nor will I break, the protocols in relation to operational matters
involving ASIS or the AFP. But, those protocols were not meant as a
direct or an indirect licence to kill.
..
--
--
Leftlink - Australia's Broad Left Mailing List
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Archived at http://www.cat.org.au/lists/leftlink/
Sponsored by Melbourne's New International Bookshop
Sub: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?Body=subscribe%20leftlink
Unsub: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?Body=unsubscribe%20leftlink
