"SIEV-X Conviction - an interview with Tony Kevin on ABC Radio National "Breakfast", presented by Fran Kelly, 7:47am, Thursday 9 June 2005

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/talks/brkfast/stories/s1388160.htm

(Transcribed from ABC audiotape at above URL by Tony Kevin)

Kelly: Refugee groups are calling for a royal commission into the death of hundreds of asylum seekers during the ill-fated voyage of the SIEV X, which sank four years ago on route from Indonesia losing 353 people who died in that accident. Yesterday a Brisbane court found a 38-year-old Iraqi man guilty of organising the voyage. He will be sentenced a bit later on. The trial of Khaleed Daoed is the last judicial process in this long-running controversy, but for those who lost relatives, many questions remain unanswered.

Tony Kevin is a Visiting Fellow at the Research School of Pacific and Asian Studies at the ANU. His book A Certain Maritime Incident: the Sinking of SIEV X was a winner at the 2005oNSW Premier’s Literary Awards. Tony is in our Parliament House studio. Good morning.

Kevin: Good morning, Fran.

Kelly: Tony, is yesterday’s conviction the end of the matter in the SIEV X affair?

Kevin: On the contrary, it is a further step on the road to truth and justice. The trial actually produced interesting new evidence which surprised me. Even though the charge was people smuggling, which meant that most of the questions which could have been asked about how SIEV X sank could not be asked within the boundaries of the trial, some interesting new evidence emerged which I would be happy to tell you now.

Kelly: Sure, give us a thumbnail sketch of the new evidence.

Kevin: OK. Firstly, there is absolute confirmation that Abu Quassey had sustained high-level help from Indonesian police, involving very large resources. The earlier boat that he sent down, the Yambuk, on 2 August 11 weeks before SIEV X, followed exactly the same procedure: the massive convoy across Indonesia, across the Sunda Strait from a car ferry at Merak, the use of the same hotel in Bandar Lampung, departure from the same beach with assistance from Indonesian police. It was the blueprint that was followed exactly.

Secondly, why did Yambuk, a boat of about the same size as SIEV X, carry only 147 passengers, whereas SIEV X carried 421 at departure? Why had a chipboard upper deck been fitted to the SIEV X, to enable those extra 200 or so people to be crammed on, making it highly unsafe?

Thirdly, why was it that Yambuk, when it was found to have a defective engine - the original boat was immediately replaced in a matter of a few hours by a larger boat with a better engine. Clearly, Yambuk was intended to arrive. SIEV X was not.

Kelly: So what’s the implication of that ?

Kevin: The implication of that is - further corroborating evidence of the suggestion that is analysed in my book, that SIEV X was intended to sink as a deterrent. We don’t

know who intended to sink it. We don’t even know if Abu Quassey, the organiser of the voyage – Khaleed Daoed was simply his assistant – we don’t know if Abu Quassey intended that boat to sink, or whether it was sunk under him. But there are a great many questions that the Senate for three years has been demanding answers to, in a full-powers judicial enquiry, and the transcripts of this trial will only lend weight to those demands.

Kelly: And these questions that you are referring to in the Senate, were referring to whether there was any Australian involvement in any kind of official disruption procedures, is that right ?

Kevin: The Senate wants to know several things. Firstly it wants to know what the Australian authorities knew about SIEV X and when they knew it. And Australian government authorities – the Australian Federal Police, the Australian Defence Force, departments - still refuse to give that public information.

Secondly, the Senate wants to know what was happening in the Australian Government’s people smuggling disruption program, conducted by the DIMIA/AFP People Smuggling Strike Team in Indonesia. Quite a bit has come out about the activities of this program involving the recruitment of selected Indonesian police and the recruitment of selected undercover informants like Kevin Enniss, to disrupt people smuggling, but not nearly enough has come out.

We are talking here about the deaths of 146 kids, 142 women - there may be hundreds of grieving husbands and fathers in Australia, the tragedy happened only three years and nine months ago, and it is really unconscionable that Senator Ellison and Mr Ruddock can think that justice has now been done.

Kelly: Tony Kevin, the Australian Government would say that they have answered plenty of these questions, they have had reports into this, there has been some degree of Senate enquiry into it … it’s unlikely you’re going to get any more out of the government at the moment, unsolicited. Though I was interested, the information you say - the evidence that was tendered in terms of the involvement of the Indonesian Coastguard - do you think on that point at least, the Australian Government should follow up ? The eyewitness accounts of the Head of the Indonesian Coastguard in that area being directly involved in this ?

Kevin: I’d be happy for the Australian authorities to follow up any aspect of this. What

they’ve done so far is that they have very carefully cordoned off the question of SIEV X into a people smuggling investigation, which is really quite grotesque, because we are talking about homicide, we are talking about manslaughter on a massive scale, in waters where Australia had a duty of care.

Kelly: Though it is appropriate, isn’t it, that people involved in organising that, in making money from that people smuggling venture, should be brought to trial?

Kevin: Oh, indeed .. indeed. And of course, I am not going to comment on Mr Daoed’s innocence or guilt, because it is still open to him to appeal , so I am not commenting on the evidence before that court. But I am saying that there are a great many unanswered questions about the sinking of the SIEV X, that for a nation of conscience and for a nation that believes in the rule of law, have to be answered.

Kelly: Well, given as I say that the Senate enquiry has taken place, the questions in the Senate, what more should happen now in your view ?

Kevin: Well, the point about that Senate enquiry, Fran, is that it was blocked. Every effort that Senators Faulkner, Bartlett, Collins and Cook tried to get to the truth, and other Senators including Senator Brown afterwards, have been systematically and methodically blocked. In exactly the same way as immigration scandals are currently being covered up by the Department of Immigration, the truth about SIEV X was persistently and methodically covered up. So in no sense is that enquiry complete – it has simply been blocked by the Howard government.

Kelly: Well, what more do you want to happen now ?

Kevin: Oh, I want a full-powers judicial inquiry under an independent judge, exactly what the Senate has asked for, for the last three years.

Kelly: And I think there is little chance you can get that easily. What pressure can be brought to bear, do you think? How do you hope to maintain any pressure?

Kevin: There will be whistleblowers, Fran. Something like this doesn’t stay secret for ever. People retire, their consciences start to weigh on them, they have a look at the pictures of those drowned children on Marg Hutton’s website www.sievx.com, they think about the possible role they may have played in this. Just as Watergate has finally come out, with one of the key "deep throat" people telling all, at the age of 90-odd – sooner or later, the truth about SIEV X will come out.

Kelly: Alright, Tony Kevin, thank you very much for joining us.

Kevin: It’s a pleasure.

Kelly: Tony Kevin, Visiting Fellow at the Research School of Pacific and Asian Studies at the ANU, and the author of A Certain Maritime Incident: the Sinking of SIEV X. ENDS