Commonwealth Department of
Transport and Regional Services

Reference: X2001/0339

NOTE TO FILE

cc Greg Feeney
Clive Davidson, AMSA
Mike Mrdak

Background

The Secretary of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet [Max Moore-Wilton] asked me on Thursday evening to look into search and rescue arrangements between Australia and Indonesia, including the powers of the Australian Maritime Safety Authority (AMSA) to direct ships. In response to this request I asked Mr Greg Feeney, the First Assistant Secretary of the Cross-Modal and Maritime Transport Division, to conduct a review of AMSA's operational and legal framework. His review focussed on vessels where AMSA has been notified of a distress situation and on vessels not in distress but understood to be involved in people smuggling. A copy of his report is attached.

Review Outcomes

In the case of the MV Tampa, Mr Feeney found that the AMSA acted in accordance with standard procedures in a distress situation, which are set out in the International Convention on Maritime Search and Rescue 1979 (SAR 1979), and with the Arrangement on the Co-ordination of Search and Rescue Services between the governments of Australia and Indonesia. These require, inter alia, that the search and rescue authority receiving information of a distress incident is to take immediate action to notify the rescue co-ordination centre in whose area the incident occurred, and to take appropriate action to assist with the distress situation, which can include issuing an alert to all shipping.

[paragraph blacked out]

[page 2]

That said [one and a half lines blacked out] (covered off in Mr Feeney's review) and about the appropriate action to be followed as events unfolded. There has been in the press, for example, an unsubstantiated claim that AMSA acquiesced in the Captain's decision to turn the Tampa around and head towards Christmas Island, and might have instead directed the Captain to Merak. Similarly there was some concern that AMSA may have been reluctant to take direction as to management of the situation subsequent to that, given search and rescue operating procedures.

The review noted that search and rescue organisations have no power to direct vessels of another flag state to any particular port for the disembarkation of survivors. While they can and do provide advice on ports suitable for disembarkation, it is usual practice for the ship's master and the relevant coastal state to agree on the port of disembarkation. This occurred when BASARNAS advised the Tampa to head towards Merak. Notwithstanding, the Captain later decided in the interests of the safety of his crew, to change direction and to head towards Christmas Island.

[paragraph blacked out]

In short [ half a line blacked out] it is not unusual for AMSA to co-ordinate search and rescue activity in the Indonesian zone adjacent to the Australian/Indonesian search and rescue boundary, but this does not extend to directing foreign ships to ports for disembarkation.

To my knowledge, the events of the MV Tampa have been without precedent in this country, so it is not necessarily surprising that there may have been some uncertainty about search and rescue management and reporting mechanisms in this case. It is, therefore, important that future operating arrangements are clarified quickly, and Mr Feeney's review report provides some guidance in this regard. In particular, AMSA's formal operating procedures need to [be] amended to include provision to escalate the reporting of these sorts of incidents outside the portfolio and for higher level decision-making on action to be taken.

People Smuggling

AMSA has no powers where a vessel is not in distress and is understood to be involved in people smuggling. Any actions to turn around these vessels or to board them are outside the scope of AMSA's remit. Similarly, AMSA has no jurisdiction over Defence activities.

[page 3]

IN-CONFIDENCE

The Future

[entire page blacked out]

[page 4]

IN-CONFIDENCE

[two paragraphs blacked out]

Lynelle Briggs
Deputy Secretary

2 September 2001