The Claim
“Eventually admitted that Navy ships 'inadvertently' crossed into Indonesian waters despite using high tech GPS navigation, then they made the exact same mistake again 5 times. The government chose to not even interview any crew members of one such ship when writing a report on the matter.”
Original Sources Provided
✅ FACTUAL VERIFICATION
The core facts of this claim are accurate. A joint review by the Australian Customs and Border Protection Service (ACBPS) and the Australian Defence Force (ADF), released in February 2014, confirmed that Australian Navy and Customs vessels entered Indonesian territorial waters six times between 1 December 2013 and 20 January 2014 during Operation Sovereign Borders [1][2].
The review found the incursions were "inadvertent" and arose from "incorrect calculation of the boundaries of Indonesian waters rather than as a deliberate action or navigational error" [1]. The errors stemmed from a misunderstanding of Indonesia's archipelagic baselines under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). While territorial seas normally extend 12 nautical miles from land, Indonesia's archipelagic baselines (declared in March 2009) mean territorial seas can extend much further - something Australian vessel commanders failed to properly account for [3].
The review examined over 2,200 documents and found that headquarters staff had "devolved the obligation to remain outside Indonesian waters to vessel Commanders" without providing authoritative information on Indonesian maritime boundaries [1]. The incursions were only discovered on 15 January 2014 when a senior planning staff member noticed inconsistencies in post-patrol reporting [1].
Regarding the claim about crew interviews: The review explicitly states it was "not intended to be a substitute for a detailed external investigation or inquiry" and that "matters relating to professional conduct should be dealt with separately by the ACBPS and the ADF respectively" [1]. While the review itself relied on documentary evidence rather than crew interviews, the Chief of Navy later conducted separate disciplinary proceedings that considered individual conduct - resulting in one officer being removed from command, another administratively sanctioned, and others counselled [4].
Missing Context
The claim omits several important contextual elements:
No deliberate intent: The review found no evidence of deliberate violations - the errors were due to miscalculations, not intentional border crossings [1]. The vessels were attempting to remain outside Indonesian waters but using incorrect boundary calculations.
Systemic failure, not individual negligence: The report identified systemic problems at headquarters level, where "appropriate controls were not put in place by the relevant headquarters" [1]. Border Protection Command failed to provide authoritative information on Indonesian maritime boundaries to vessel commanders.
Training disparities: The review found that while Royal Australian Navy (RAN) Commanding Officers had received professional training on UNCLOS provisions, Australian Customs and Border Protection Service personnel lacked training specifically regarding Indonesian archipelagic baselines [1].
Prompt disclosure: Once discovered, the incursions were "promptly and candidly advised to senior Australian Officials, Government Ministers and in turn the Indonesian Government" [1]. The Australian Government notified Indonesia on 17 January 2014.
Remedial action taken: Following the discovery, Commander Border Protection Command immediately issued supplementary instructions with correct boundary information and increased oversight requirements [1].
Source Credibility Assessment
The Guardian: A mainstream UK-based news outlet with generally reputable journalism. While sometimes viewed as left-leaning, its reporting on this issue was factual and consistent with other sources [5].
Sydney Morning Herald (SMH): One of Australia's major daily newspapers (Fairfax Media). Generally considered mainstream and credible, with centre-left editorial leanings [6].
Independent.ie: Irish newspaper republishing wire service content. The article cited is a straightforward news report of the official apology.
All three sources are mainstream media outlets reporting factual events based on official government statements and reports. None are advocacy organizations or overtly partisan sources.
Labor Comparison
Did Labor do something similar?
Search conducted: "Labor government Howard Coalition boat turnback policy border protection navy"
Finding: Labor governments under Rudd and Gillard (2007-2013) discontinued the Coalition's previous "Pacific Solution" and boat turnback policies. However, Labor subsequently faced significant criticism for its own border protection challenges:
Operation Relex (2001): The Howard Coalition government initiated Operation Relex in response to the Tampa incident and MV Tampa crisis, involving naval interception of asylum seeker vessels [7]. This was the predecessor to Operation Sovereign Borders.
Labor's discontinuation and subsequent issues: After discontinuing boat turnbacks in 2008, Labor faced a surge in arrivals and the tragic loss of approximately 1,200 lives at sea between 2008-2013 [8]. In 2013, the Rudd government reinstated offshore processing on Nauru and Papua New Guinea.
Comparison: While Labor governments did not conduct turnback operations that risked territorial incursions (because they weren't conducting turnbacks), both major parties have struggled with the complex balance between border protection, international law obligations, and humanitarian concerns. The Coalition's territorial incursions occurred while implementing a policy (boat turnbacks) that Labor had previously rejected but which subsequent Labor governments have largely accepted as effective in preventing deaths at sea [9].
No direct equivalent: There does not appear to be a direct Labor equivalent of multiple naval territorial incursions. However, Labor governments faced their own controversies, including:
- The 2009 SIEV 36 explosion that killed five Afghan asylum seekers and injured 44 others
- Various incidents at offshore processing facilities on Christmas Island and Nauru
- Criticism over "tow-backs" under the Gillard government in 2012
Balanced Perspective
What the claim doesn't tell you:
The claim frames the incident as evidence of either incompetence (given GPS technology) or deliberate policy violations, and suggests the government avoided accountability by not interviewing crew. However, several important counterpoints emerge:
Complex maritime boundaries: The errors stemmed from a genuine complexity in international maritime law - Indonesia's archipelagic baselines create territorial waters that extend far beyond the standard 12-nautical-mile expectation. As maritime law expert Sam Bateman noted, "Commanding officers of all our maritime enforcement vessels should have a clear understanding of the law of the sea" - but this knowledge gap was systemic, not individual [3].
Headquarters responsibility: The review identified that Border Protection Command headquarters failed to provide critical operational information to vessel commanders. The commanders were making decisions without the necessary authoritative data on Indonesian boundaries [1].
Disciplinary action was taken: While the review itself relied on documents, the Chief of Navy separately reviewed professional conduct and took disciplinary action against seven commanding officers - removing one from command, sanctioning another, and counselling the rest [4]. The Navy Chief accepted that none deliberately contravened orders.
Policy versus implementation: The incident represents a gap between policy intent (remain outside Indonesian waters) and implementation capability. The policy itself was clear; the execution failed due to inadequate planning and information provision.
Operation Sovereign Borders was a new, high-tempo operation: The incursions occurred in the first months of the newly elected Coalition government's flagship border protection policy. As the Kaldor Centre for International Refugee Law noted, the incursions represented violations of international law, but they occurred in the context of establishing complex naval operations [10].
Comparative context: This type of operational incident is not unique to Australia or to Coalition governments. Naval operations near contested or complex maritime boundaries carry inherent risks of territorial violation. The key question is how governments respond to such incidents - in this case, Australia conducted an internal review, disclosed the violations to Indonesia, and implemented remedial measures including disciplinary action.
PARTIALLY TRUE
6.0
out of 10
The factual claims are essentially accurate: Australian Navy and Customs vessels did enter Indonesian waters six times due to boundary miscalculations, despite having GPS technology. However, the framing of "high tech GPS navigation" is misleading - the issue was not navigational equipment failure but incorrect understanding of maritime boundaries. The claim about not interviewing crew members is technically true regarding the review itself, but omits that separate disciplinary proceedings did consider individual conduct with consequences for officers involved.
The claim presents the incursions as evidence of incompetence or deliberate action, whereas the review found they were inadvertent errors stemming from systemic planning failures at headquarters level, not individual negligence. The government did take remedial action, including disclosing the violations to Indonesia, implementing corrective procedures, and disciplining officers.
Final Score
6.0
OUT OF 10
PARTIALLY TRUE
The factual claims are essentially accurate: Australian Navy and Customs vessels did enter Indonesian waters six times due to boundary miscalculations, despite having GPS technology. However, the framing of "high tech GPS navigation" is misleading - the issue was not navigational equipment failure but incorrect understanding of maritime boundaries. The claim about not interviewing crew members is technically true regarding the review itself, but omits that separate disciplinary proceedings did consider individual conduct with consequences for officers involved.
The claim presents the incursions as evidence of incompetence or deliberate action, whereas the review found they were inadvertent errors stemming from systemic planning failures at headquarters level, not individual negligence. The government did take remedial action, including disclosing the violations to Indonesia, implementing corrective procedures, and disciplining officers.
📚 SOURCES & CITATIONS (10)
-
1PDF
20160310 2014 012648 Document Released
Homeaffairs Gov • PDF Document -
2
abc.net.au
An internal review shows the Australian Navy breached Indonesia's territorial waters six times because crew carrying out Operation Sovereign Borders failed to accurately calculate Indonesia's maritime borders.
Abc Net -
3
lowyinstitute.org
Lowyinstitute -
4
abc.net.au
A senior Navy officer has been stripped of his command, another will be sanctioned and others counselled over their involvement in incursions into Indonesian waters last summer while enforcing the Government's asylum seeker boats policy.
Abc Net -
5
theguardian.com
Guardian Australia exclusive: Nine-kilometre incursion into internal waters by customs vessel the Ocean Protector casts doubt on findings of review that investigated territorial breaches
the Guardian -
6
smh.com.au
The ''inadvertent'' and repeated entry of Australian vessels into Indonesian territory defied comprehension, with the precise co-ordinates of the nation's maritime boundary typically programmed into the navy's electronic navigation systems, a former border protection commander has said.
The Sydney Morning Herald -
7
aph.gov.au
Chapter 2 - Operation Relex ‘The safety of ADF personnel and the wellbeing of the unauthorised boat arrivals and the Indonesian crew members is to be held paramount’. That is an extant direction that overrides everything. We are talking about people coming to Austra
Operation Relex -
8
theconversation.com
Prime Minister Scott Morrison can learn from the pitfalls that contributed to the downfall of the Rudd and Gillard governments.
The Conversation -
9
parlinfo.aph.gov.au
Parlinfo Aph Gov
-
10PDF
kaldor centre submission inquiry into breach of territorial waters final
Kaldorcentre Unsw Edu • PDF Document
Rating Scale Methodology
1-3: FALSE
Factually incorrect or malicious fabrication.
4-6: PARTIAL
Some truth but context is missing or skewed.
7-9: MOSTLY TRUE
Minor technicalities or phrasing issues.
10: ACCURATE
Perfectly verified and contextually fair.
Methodology: Ratings are determined through cross-referencing official government records, independent fact-checking organizations, and primary source documents.