[Answers in response to Senator Collins questions to AFP
in Senate Legal & Constitutional Legislation Committee
10 February 2003
- provided to the Senate on 27 March 2003]

QoN 112
SENATE ESTIMATES COMMITTEE
AUSTRALIAN CUSTOMS SERVICE
QUESTIONSS ON NOTICE

Senator Collins asked the following question at the hearing of 10 February 2003:
Do you know if the Abu Quassey matter is on the Prime Minister's agenda
to be discussed with the Indonesians when he is there next week.

I am advised that the answer to the honourable Senator's question is as follows:
Yes, I understand that the matter was raised by the Prime Minister during
his meeting with President Magawati.

QoN 113
SENATE ESTIMATES COMMITTEE
AUSTRALIAN FEDERAL POLICE
QUESTIONS ON NOTICE

Senator Collins asked the following question at the hearing of 10 February 2003:
When were the interviews with witnesses in the Abu Quassey investigation conducted?

I am advised that the answer to the honourable Senator's question is as follows:
At the time of asking this question, Senator Collins referred to the response provided by
the AFP to a question taken on notice at the hearings conducted by the Senate Select
Committee on a Certain Maritime Incident. That response stated:

'The AFP has interviewed five survivors from SIEV X and of those, four
statements have been taken. These are out of a possible approximate 45
survivors, who have since been relocated to various countries since the sinking
in 2001. '

Those witness statements were obtained from survivors in Australia in July 2002.
On receiving advice of the sinking from Australian Embassy staff on the evening of 22
October 2001, the AFP Liaison Officer in Jakarta, in an effort to obtain further
information, contacted the International Organisation for Migration (IOM). IOM put the
AFP member in touch with a survivor by telephone. With the assistance of an IOM
employee, the AFP member obtained the information that was later detailed in the
DFAT cable of 23 October 2001.

Subsequent efforts to speak with that survivor prior to his resettlement have been
unsuccessful, as Indonesian Immigration officials moved him for questioning and he
was not accessible.

Enquiries to locate this survivor with a view to seeking a formal interview with him are
continuing.

QoN 114
SENATE ESTIMATES COMMITTEE
AUSTRALIAN FEDERAL POLICE
QUESTIONS ON NOTICE

Senator Collins asked the following question at the hearing of 10 February 2003:
What was the first time the AFP became aware of a radio possibly being used on the
SIEV X?

I am advised that the answer to the honourable Senator's question is as follows:
The AFP first heard that a radio was possibly used by the crew of SIEV X when
speaking to a survivor by telephone on 22 October 2001 (as outlined in response to QoN
113). The details provided by that survivor were included in the DFAT cable dated 23
October 2001 as follows:

(Paragraph 4)
'Approximately one hour after departure, PIIs apparently became apprehensive
about the ability of the vessel to remain afloat with the numbers onboard. The
vessel stopped approximately 5 kilometres from the point of departure, during
which time the crew was in radio contact with Abu Quassey. The vessel then
resumed its passage and about 0900 again stopped near an island "due to high
seas". A nearby fishing boat came alongside the vessel to remove 24 PIIs (397
pax remaining). '

QoN 115
SENATE ESTIMATES COMMITTEE
AUSTRALIAN FEDERAL POLICE
QUESTIONS ON NOTICE

Senator Collins asked the following question at the hearing of 10 February 2003:
With regard to the Commissioner's earlier advice to the Committee, regarding
communication from the SIEV X. Who prepared the answer? Did they have access to
the cable in the preparation of the answer, and if not, why not?

I am advised that the answer to the honourable Senator's question is as follows:
The question referred to by Senator Collins was taken on notice taken from the Senate
Select Committee on a Certain Maritime Incident on 11 July 2001 and asked:

1. Does the AFP have ex post facto knowledge from talking to survivors?
2. Are there survivor reports that there was communication between SIEV X and the
mainland?

The response to that QoN was prepared by an AFP member acting as Coordinator
Ministerial and Secretariat. That member had access to the DFAT cable dated 23
October 2001 from Jakarta and considered the cable in the development of the response.

QoN 116
SENATE ESTIMATES COMMITTEE
AUSTRALIAN FEDERAL POLICE
QUESTIONS ON NOTICE

Senator Collins asked the following question at the hearing of 10 February 2003:
Do we have any understanding - again with the caveat not to compromise a pursuit of
Abu Quassey - of what happened to the crew? There is potential that there was radio
communication when the vessel was sinking, is there any potential explanation for the
lights that some of the survivors report, and what may have happened to the crew?

I am advised that the answer to the honourable Senator's question is as follows:
It is the AFP's belief that it is most likely the crew of SIEV X drowned, as we have no
evidence to the contrary.

The AFP has no evidence of any radio communication at the time the vessel was
sinking.

The AFP has no explanation for the claims by some survivors of lights being seen.

QoN 117
SENATE ESTIMATES COMMITTEE
AUSTRALIAN FEDERAL POLICE
QUESTIONS ON NOTICE

Senator Collins asked the following question at the hearing of 10 February 2003:
Given the details contained in the DFAT cable of 23 October 2001, is there any further
information that should be added (regarding surveillance equipment) to the information
given at the CMI hearing of 11 July?

I am advised that the answer to the honourable Senator's question is as follows:
No.

QoN 118
SENATE ESTIMATES COMMITTEE
AUSTRALIAN FEDERAL POLICE
QUESTIONS ON NOTICE

Senator Collins asked the following question at the hearing of 10 February 2003:
In the CMI hearings, when we were investigating what surveillance technology there
was and what may be the source of intelligence that could inform us about SIEV X,
Commissioner Keelty indicated that there is no surveillance technology. Please
elaborate on precisely what was meant then (i. e. in the CMI discussion) given the
consequent discussions we have had about whether tracking devices may or may not
have been used and in view of the INP surveillance equipment that was provided to the
Indonesians.

I am advised that the answer to the honourable Senator's question is as follows:
As stated at the Senate Select Committee on a Certain Maritime Incident hearings on 11
July 2002, the AFP "had no way of surveilling SIEV X". As was pointed out at that
hearing and subsequent hearings before this Committee, the AFP had no prior
knowledge of the identity of the vessel, or the time or point of its intended departure.
Because of this, the AFP had no opportunity to monitor either its departure or its
voyage.

The surveillance equipment provided to the Indonesian National Police (as detailed in
response to QoN 119) did not provide any technology capable of tracking SIEV X.

QoN 119
SENATE ESTIMATES COMMITTEE
AUSTRALIAN FEDERAL POLICE
QUESTIONS ON NOTICE

Senator Collins asked the following question at the hearing of 10 February 2003:
In relation to your response on question 62 regarding the SIEV X from the November
2002 Estimates hearing, what would have been meant there by 'basic surveillance
equipment'?

I am advised that the answer to the honourable Senator's question is as follows:
The basic surveillance equipment provided to the Indonesian National Police consisted
of binoculars, small tape recorders, cameras and night vision equipment.

QoN 120
SENATE ESTIMATES COMMITTEE
AUSTRALIAN FEDERAL POLICE
QUESTIONS ON NOTICE

Senator Collins asked the following question at the hearing of 10 February 2003:
Is there intelligence in the cable regarding the SIEV X that relates to information other
than that of survivors once they had returned, so it may include surveillance detected by
INP but reported after the departure or after the return?

I am advised that the answer to the honourable Senator's question is as follows:
There is no "intelligence" contained within the cable.
The information contained in the cable consists of a summary of details provided to the
AFP by telephone by a survivor on 22 October 2001 (see response to QoN 113).

Paragraphs 1 - 5 consist solely of information provided by that survivor.
Paragraph 6 consists of information provided by the same survivor, with additional
information relating to the possible approximate location of the sinking being calculated
by Defence personnel at Post, based on that survivor's information.

Paragraph 7 consists of information provided by the survivor.
Paragraph 8 consists of information provided by the survivor. The "vessel overdue"
reference was included by Defence personnel at Post.

Paragraphs 9 - 11 are a summary of the pertinent points contained in the cable and some
commentary, including reference to information provided by the International
Organisation for Migration.

QoN 121
SENATE ESTIMATES COMMITTEE
AUSTRALIAN FEDERAL POLICE
QUESTIONS ON NOTICE

Senator Collins asked the following question at the hearing of 10 February 2003:
After the sinking of the SIEV X, the AFP became aware of three lists which detail
passengers purported to have boarded the vessel, those that disembarked the vessel
shortly after it commenced its journey, and those that survived the tragedy. Please
provide a copy of these lists.

I am advised that the answer to the honourable Senator's question is as follows:
Copies of two of those lists are attached. [1, 2a, 2b] One list represents those people who
disembarked the vessel approximately five kilometres from the point of departure (as
outlined in DFAT cable of 23 October 2001).

The other list is in two parts, and details those who survived the sinking, with another
page indicating which of those survivors came to Australia, provided by the Department
of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs.

It is believed that these lists were compiled by the International Office for Migration and
the United Nations High Commission for Refugees.

A third list was provided to the AFP from a confidential source after the vessel sank.
Provision of any details of that list would compromise that source. It may also
compromise a current ongoing investigation in Indonesia. The list purports to contain
some details of passengers, but its veracity has not been tested.

QoN 122
SENATE ESTIMATES COMMITTEE
AUSTRALIAN FEDERAL POLICE
QUESTIONS ON NOTICE

Senator Collins asked the following question at the hearing of 10 February 2003:
1. What was the name of the company that owned SIEV X?
2. Who were the major shareholders of the company that owned SIEV X?
3. What was the registered name and number of the SIEV X?
4. When and where was SIEV X registered?

I am advised that the answer to the honourable Senator's question is as follows:
The AFP does not have the information sought in the Senator's questions.

QoN 132
SENATE ESTIMATES COMMITTEE
AUSTRALIAN FEDERAL POLICE
QUESTIONS ON NOTICE

Senator Collins asked the following question at the hearing of 10 February 2003:
If on 23 October we were aware that radio contact occurred between one of the vessels
collecting survivors and the Chinese owner, why couldn't we be aware of their precise
location?

I am advised that the answer to the honourable Senator's question is as follows:
As stated at the Senate Select Committee on a Certain Maritime Incident hearings on 11
July 2002, the AFP "had no way of surveilling SIEV X". As was pointed out at that
hearing and subsequent hearings before this Committee, the AFP had no prior
knowledge of the actual vessel, nor the time or point of departure of SIEV X and had no
way to monitor either its departure or its voyage.

The information provided by a survivor by telephone on 22 October 2001, which was
subsequently detailed in a DFAT cable on 23 October 2001 (refer response to QoN 113),
was the only information the AFP had regarding contact by the rescuing vessel to its
owners. That information did not specify whether the contact was by radio or mobile
telephone. A subsequent statement taken from another survivor in July 2002 indicated
use of a radio by a vessel collecting survivors.

Radio communications cannot be monitored retrospectively and the first the AFP heard
of any suggested radio communication was three days after SIEV X sank and well after
the rescue of the survivors. Therefore, it is not possible for the AFP to determine the
location of those vessels if such communication occurred.

Further, the AFP did not have the capacity to monitor radio signals throughout
Indonesia.

QoN 133
SENATE ESTIMATES COMMITTEE
AUSTRALIAN FEDERAL POLICE
QUESTIONS ON NOTICE

Senator Collins asked the following question at the hearing of 10 February 2003:
What communications occurred around the time of the sinking if there was an
operational radio/ mobile telephone on board the ship? If we were aware that
communication had occurred, why could we not be aware of the precise latitude and
longitude of where it occurred?

I am advised that the answer to the honourable Senator's question is as follows:
As outlined in the response to QoNs 113 and 114, there was only one informal report of
any radio communication from SIEV X and that was allegedly five kilometres from the
point of departure. The AFP is not aware of any communications around the time of the
sinking.

As indicated in the response to QoN 132, radio communications cannot be monitored
retrospectively and the first the AFP heard of any suggested radio communication was
three days after SIEV X sank. Therefore, it is not possible for the AFP to determine the
location of the vessel if such communication occurred.

Further, the AFP did not have the capacity to monitor radio signals throughout
Indonesia.

QoN 134
SENATE ESTIMATES COMMITTEE
AUSTRALIAN FEDERAL POLICE
QUESTIONS ON NOTICE

Senator Collins asked the following questions at the hearing of 10 February 2003:
1. How did we understand that a makeshift deck had been added to the vessel?
2. Did we have intelligence about the ship before the deck was added?
3. If so, why was this not reported in answer to previous questions on notice?

I am advised that the answer to the honourable Senator's question is as follows:
1. The survivor spoken to by telephone on 22 October 2001 provided that information.
2. No.
3. As this was not known, it could not be reported.

Back to sievx.com