SM,

"So certainly condition 3 applied, and considering that the boat Looked in trouble and it had left from West Java (the furthest point in Indonesia from NZ and the closest to Xmas Island) the claims to be heading to NZ were somewhat dubious..."

Jeez, you're a genius!

But let's have a little looky at the route the boat took before (and after) Australian authorities bounced it around.

There is a map of the route in this article, if you'd care to scroll down.
http://www.smh.com.au/world/people-smuggler-cash-stacks-police-say-were-paid-to-send-asylum-seekers-on-a-suicide-mission-20150616-ghpa36.html

Here's the same map posted on twitter.

http://twitter.com/Qldaah/status/611758992432365568

They did embark from West Java - however, it appears they were going in the opposite direction to Christmas Island.

So your comment: "....the claims to be heading to NZ were somewhat dubious and so conditions 1 and 2 would also have been legitimate..." is negated.

Looks to me that that is exactly the direction they were heading - which makes the intervention in international waters outside Australia's jurisdiction.

"As for returning the asylum seekers to their original destination and nearest port of call, to foil the people smugglers, the activists can huff and puff, but don't have a leg to stand on."

Doesn't look like the original destination or even the nearest port of call to me.

They jazzed 'em around over a period of days, then sent sent them packing with enough fuel to see them stranded at sea.

.....

otb,

"....however the international expectation and agreement is that any naval vessel can and SHOULD intervene where the master of a ship may be acting unsafely or illegally...."

"It is NOT unusual for smaller vessels to be monitored and hailed by naval vessels...."

But perhaps it is a tad unusual for naval vessels on behalf of their govt to then shower the captain and crew with US dollars?

After bouncing them around for several days in Australian waters....

Actually A J PHILIPS, there may be a way to use your knowledge to answer several queries my good friend and counsellor, STEELEREDUX put to me around the 16th of this month, @ pp 11-12 ?

In part, he asked several questions with a clear inference that members of the NSW police we engaged in a systemic rorting of 'snouts in the trough' activity, therefore 'ripping off' the taxpayers of NSW ?

Being of a lowly rank, I was unable to answer his questions, because I had no idea of the precise figures of members on extended sich report or otherwise, save for 'squad mutterings' as to whether this activity was in reality, taking place ?

As it would appear, you have all these figures, stats, data, closely at hand, and you believe you have a good handle on police culture, may I defer STEELEREDUX'S questions to you ? In so doing, you may well provide that good gentleman with a far more accurate and concise precise of the 'facts' associated with his inferences - thank you.

Somebody above asserted that the Abbott government was actually aiding people-smugglers by taking people back to Indonesia.

By that logic, if I bought a TV from Harvey Norman, and then took it back and got a refund, I would be buying it twice ? If a copper caught one of his informers nicking stuff out of a jeweller's, and paid him to take it back, he would be aiding and abetting a theft, twice over ?

Surely, in logic, if

attempting to smuggle people = (A),

then

taking them back = - (A) ?

i.e. an action, and a counter-action ? A - A = 0 ?

But the business model is not just back where it stated: from the customers' point of view, they have paid $ x for 0 result. Would they do that again ?

To join up some of these analogies, if Harvey Norman sold you a TV, then took it back, would you buy another one from them, only to have the same result ? So would you pay for yet another one from them, in the fond hope that they would let you keep it this time ?

I know of a Harbor Bridge going cheap.

Joe

P,

Thanks for recognising that the Australians were justified in boarding the boat. However, considering that when it was intercepted it was only a few 100km from Darwin, and according to reports unlikely to survive an open sea journey, the conditions 1&2 are still in play, but as you conceded #3 fully justifies their intervention.

Secondly they were returned as per the requests of the captain of the boat, so again entirely legit.

I notice that even labor is acknowledging the many lives saved by the coalition's policy. Pity the left whingers are so cold hearted.

Poirot, "But perhaps it is a tad unusual for naval vessels on behalf of their govt to then shower the captain and crew with US dollars?"

Your evidence is? Why are you not applying the same standard of proof that you demand when those you support stand accused?

However to answer the hypothetical, no I wouldn't believe there is anything wrong in it.

It is quite usual for naval and maritime marine vessels to assist repair of a disabled vessel and to supply fuel and provisions. In the case of a naval ship trying to ensure that the crew and passengers were safely shipped to land and preferably the port the vessel departed from, there would be no problem giving the master money for himself and to ensure a crew. Just a bit of lateral thinking, no problem. You should be applauding the initiative.

The naval vessel has its own business to attend to and supplying a skeleton crew is a last resort and made unnecessary by that solution. It costs a small fortune for the naval vessel to escort even for a short distance and as said before, it has its own priorities.

However the allegation is all hypothetical, speculative gossip without proof from a credible source. So why are you not criticising the unfairness of the allegations, unsubstantiated gossip as they are?

SM,

I note you've done a huge whizzy and your proposition that: "... it had left from West Java (the furthest point in Indonesia from NZ and the closest to Xmas Island)...the claims to be heading to NZ were somewhat dubious "

Has now conveniently morphed into: "...considering that when it was intercepted it was only a few 100km from Darwin..."

At least we know you're flexible.

Your second criterion - "When the ship is in distress" - is the only one that holds up and adheres to certain conventions to which Australia is a signatory.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-09-26/government-turn-back-boat-policy/4979898

"Australia has jurisdiction over an area 12 nautical miles from the Australian shoreline (including the mainland and territories such as Christmas Island and the Ashmore Reef), which is in effect part of Australia and is known as the 'territorial sea'.

Foreign vessels have the right to 'innocent passage' through the territorial sea. Australia also has rights over a further 12 nautical miles of territory, which makes up the 'contiguous zone', within which Australia can exercise the control necessary to deal with infringement of "customs, fiscal, immigration or sanitary laws" within Australia or its territorial sea."

"Professor Donald Rothwell of the Australian National University College of Law, one of several legal experts consulted, told Fact Check the Government has a legal right to stop boats with suspected unlawful non-citizens if the boats are within Australia's territorial or contiguous zones, in other words, within 24 nautical miles of Australian shores.

He said Australia can only stop boats located outside these zones in rare situations such as illegal fishing in some areas or a breach of UN resolutions (such as the carrying of weapons of mass destruction) in international waters. It can also stop boats if it has the consent of the flag state of the vessel, in this case Indonesia."

And of course, rescuing a boat load of people in distress only to subsequently provide no provisions and little fuel so as to render them stranded at sea, is a little odd, don't you think?