Credibility overboard

THURSDAY, 4.25PM: In the first weekend of the campaign Phillip Ruddock made the amazing claim that people in a boat off Ashmore reef had thrown children overboard “with the intention of putting us under duress”. What????

The opposition didn’t do its job and demand the proof but joined the demonisation. The media tried for proof, but got none. Yesterday, after The Australian published allegations from Christmas Island residents that navy personnel on the HMAS Adelaide, the ship involved, had told them the claim was untrue. Beazley didn’t bite until cornered by Laurie Oakes at the press club yesterday, when he politely asked the government to produce the video it had said proved the claim.

Today, the release of the video, which proves nothing. John Howard runs away on AM this morning, then today at the press club, suddenly reads from a report from the Office of National Assessment which briefly mentions the claim and which he says is dated October 9, two days AFTER Ruddock made the claim. He clearly hadn’t seen the report until very recently, as you’ll see from the following quotes. Odd, since he promised early in the campaign to investigate the proof of the claim he’d already made a political meal of.

This grotesquery is as bad, if not worse than, the forged documents which sank Labor in the dying days of the 1996 election campaign. But likely as not, the people will back Howard regardless, the incident doing him no harm and maybe even playing into his hands by putting the boat people on the frontline just before election day. Such is the nation we have become.

So today, the key quotes from Ruddock, Reith and Howard, including an award-winning performance by Melbourne journalist Virginia Trioli, who had the guts to call the bluff of the defence minister on October 10. Note that in this interview, Reith categorically states – falsely – that the video proves the case. This entry ends with Howard’s running away performance on this morning’s AM program, just before the video’s release. Note he does NOT mention the ANO report in this interview.

Note that the navy is under a blanket media ban, even extending to a ban on emails from sailors. At the press club today, Howard refused to answer two questions asking whether he’d investigate the facts in the light of the new doubts over their veracity. He also refused to answer a question from Fran Kelly asking him to release the photos with the captions, which she alleged showed they did not refer to the throwing overboard allegations, as claimed by Reith. Why won’t the government produce a navy witness? This debacle is at the stage where the government is prepared to destroy the credibility of the defence force itself for political gain.

Here’s a theory. The navy sources quoted in the Australian say children went overboard because the boat was sinking, not in a evil attempt to force us to take them. We know that the day AFTER the outrage alleged by the government, the boat WAS sinking. The video released today does NOT show a sinking boat. Is another video being suppressed? On this theory, the pictures released by the government were taken the day the boat WAS sinking. Note Howard’s utter refusal to countenance going back to the navy to sort this mess out, and his utter refusal to answer Fran Kelly’s query on the captions on the photo. Why not????? will Beazley come in hard and demand real answers and to force a navy statement? My guess is no.

Sunday, October 7

Ruddock: Disturbingly a number of children have been thrown overboard, again with the intention of putting us under duress. (It was) clearly planned and premeditated. People wouldn’t have come wearing life jackets unless they intended some action of this sort.

Monday, October 8

Howard: “I express my anger at the behaviour of those people and I repeat it. I can’t comprehend how genuine refugees would throw their children overboard.”

Tuesday, October 9

Howard: A refugee flees persecution or flees a country more than anything else in the name of the future of his or her children and anybody who would endanger the lives of their children in that kind of way, I find it hard to accept. I certainly don’t want people of that type in Australia, I really don’t.

Wednesday, October 10

Howard: I was acting on advice given to me by the Immigration Minister to whom I spoke on Sunday, shortly before I made the statement, the advice I had was that he had been informed they were thrown overboard and there were life jackets. That’s what I was informed. I can’t tell you how many. As to the question of evidence as you put it I’ll make some inquiries and see what evidence can be made available.

***

Asked to release the video, Howard: I’m not going to commit myself to providing anything until I make inquiries as to what the evidence is. I have no reason to doubt what I was told. Mr Ruddock is a very careful person and the information that we were given, that he was given and I relied on, is information that seeing that you’ve asked about I will now naturally ask about it, but I’m not going to commit myself on the run to doing this or that. I will make inquiries.

VIRGINIA TRIOLI INTERVIEWS PETER REITH ON MELBOURNE ABC RADIO 3LO

Q: You’ve got some photos to show this have you?

REITH: Well, it did happen. The fact is the children were thrown into the water. We got that report within hours of that happening and I think some public comments were made to that effect. People questioned that. The reason that Philip Ruddock may not have been aware of photos is that the RAN does take photos of operations as a matter of normal course. We have not called for photos. I must say I did not question but I was told by the Navy that this had happened but given that there are people who weren’t there of course, you know, claiming all sorts of, making all sorts of exaggerated claims then we have produced the photos on the basis that the identities are not shown publicly as standard practice.

Q: And that’s why you have handed me these two photos today and of course the images can’t be seen by you but I’ll describe them for you. It’s a reasonably tight shot, I’d have to say, of one of them, three people in the water, one woman who looks like she is over 40, maybe over 50, wearing a head dress, and a younger boy, perhaps her son and it looks like a Defence Force person as well. They are all wearing life suits. Mr Reith, there’s nothing in this photo that indicates these people either jumped or were thrown?

REITH: No, well you are now questioning the veracity of what has been said. Those photos are produced as evidence of the fact that there were people in the water. You’re questioning whether it even happened, that’s the first point and I just want to answer that by saying these photos show absolutely without question whatsoever that there were children in the water

Q: Hang on a minute –

REITH: Let me just answer one thing at a time because people are making exaggerated and very unfair claims.

Q: But you are moving the question onto something else –

REITH: No. I am just answering the question. And the best way I am answering is by saying here are photos, you say it’s a tight shot, they are clear as day. A mother and her presumably son, aged seven or eight clearly in the water and clearly being assisted by a female member of the Royal Australian Navy. The second photo shows a male member of the Royal Australian Navy with a child who I would say is female because I think she has got some head dress on of some sort who looks to me four or five, a very young child and behind her a mother, presumably a mother, and a male behind her, presumably her father. Now, the first thing to say is there were children in the water. Now, we have a number of people, obviously RAN people who were there who reported the children were thrown into the water. Now, you may want to question the veracity of reports of the Royal Australian Navy. I don’t and I didn’t either but I have subsequently been told that they have also got film. That film is apparently on HMAS ADELAIDE. I have not seen it myself and apparently the quality of it is not very good, and its infra-red or something but I am told that someone has looked at it and it is an absolute fact, children were thrown into the water. So do you still question it?

Q: I am a journalist, I’ll question anything until I get the proof.

REITH: Well, I have given you the evidence.

Q: No, you have given me images.

REITH: Well, quite frankly, if you don’t accept that, you don’t accept anything I say. I mean, the fact is I have had reports from the Royal Australian Navy as to what has happened and I have advised people of that and when questioned, we have produced not only stills but I am advised, as I have just told you, that we have film on HMAS ADELAIDE. The fact of the matter is, this did happen and it was part of a clear intended response by those on the boat. These people damaged the steering of the boat so that the boat was disabled. They disabled the pumps on the boat so that the boat was unable to pump out water that invariably comes into these sort of boats. Our people saw them going overboard. They threw over the side the compass and navigation equipment. They did everything possible to make life as difficult as possible for the Royal Australian Navy and I am told when our people were on board they were extremely aggressive to boot.

Q: (People) want to know the truth

REITH: Yeah, well that’s fair enough but if you want to make allegations and then continue to make allegations when evidence has been produced…Look, I didn’t come in the last shower, I mean, I produced photos to you and you are still saying oh I’m just asking questions. The fact is this did happen and it is a very difficult situation and I commend the RAN people who were fantastic in dealing with these people who were clearly intent in putting themselves in harms way. I mean, the next day when the ship was submerged and sunk I am told – I cant give you proof that they sunk it. But the advice that I have is that the boat was okay, it was doing three knots, it was all okay and the next thing the boat suddenly took on a whole lot of water and these people, all of them were in the water and so, for example, a female member of the RAN well she was on watch duty 12 metres up from the water surface, she literally leapt into the water to start to save people there and then. Now, we have acted very reasonably and given that we have the evidence that I have produced to you as well as the word of members of the RAN I don’t think its fair for you to question the veracity of that. The fact is that it did happen.

Q: Will you produce the film if the questions continue?

REITH: Well, I have not personally seen the film but I dont expect the questions to continue because the fact is this is what happened, these are the circumstances. It was part of a graduated response which is the usual response in this situation. There was an earlier contact with the boat. At 4:57 Australian eastern standard time we were alongside that boat in a small vessel off HMAS ADELAIDE. They threw written warnings onto that boat and as soon as they were thrown on they were picked up and thrown back overboard by those responsible on the boat. At 7:00am four warning shots were fired well in advance of the boat.

Thursday, October 11

Asked to release the video, Howard: That’s a matter for Mr Reith to respond to. He’ll talk to the Navy about it. But there’s no doubt that this attempt that was made by some people yesterday to suggest that in some way the people went overboard because of the shots that were fired when there was a two hour ten minute gap between the firing of a quite inoffensive warning volley and the people going overboard that was a lot of nonsense and I again say that I resent the slurs that some people endeavour to cast on the behaviour of the men and women of the Royal Australian Navy.”

***

Reith’s office said the video would not be released because it was unnecessary and may have “operational security” problems.

Tuesday, October 16

Asked about speculation that people had thrown children overboard, Ruddock: “Well, there’s no speculation on it…I don’t know why Australian sailors who saw it would want to lie. I don’t know why I would put myself in a situation of reporting on something like that if it were untrue. I mean, it’d be highly risky, I think, for me to use those reports if I thought they were untrue and then have people contradicting me.”

Wednesday, November 7

Asked to release the video, Reith: Look, I haven’t had a look at it. I must say I have just accepted what I was told at the time. The video has not been produced to me. If I can see it shortly I am happy to have a look at it and a decision can be made as to whether or not it’s worth releasing. I am told that its very grainy and very imprecise but all the same I was told that it was there and I dont mind having a look at it.

***

Asked if he had a written report on the matter, Reith: “I’ve had various written reports in various aspects of it. None have particularly specified a blow by blow description.”

This morning, Catherine McGrath interview with John howard, AM

Q: On the asylum seekers issues and the HMAS Adelaide incident, you’ve authorised the release of the video today. What’s it going to show?

HOWARD: Well I have authorised it but I think people can have a look at it and make up their own minds. But can I make the point, Catherine, that the basis of my assertion about children going overboard and the basis of the assertion by Mr Reith and Mr Ruddock to that effect was not the video. The video only surfaced several days after the claims were made.

The reason the two Ministers made that claim was that they got that information from Navy sources and I’ve checked that with both of them as recently as last night. And on top of that, I was provided with written advice from intelligence sources on the 10th October to the effect that people on the vessel had jumped into the water and that children had been thrown into the water. So I want to make it very clear that the basis of our claim about people being, people not only going overboard themselves but children being thrown overboard was not the video. At no stage have I (interrupted) At no stage have I said that the basis of my allegation was the video. Now, as to what the video shows, I think people can make their own minds up.

But whatever the video shows that doesn’t alter the fact that I was advised by defence sources, or my two Ministers were, and I in turn was advised by them. And then two days later, I received a written intelligence report that contained the very direct and explicit statement. And if Mr Beazley for example disbelieves that, well he’s perfectly at liberty to come into my office and have a look at the intelligence report. He’ll know that I can’t make it public.

Q: Well can I ask you this. This incident has become a very key part of the election campaign and a lot of Australians were very upset by the thought that people would be you know throwing children overboard and the fact that so many people on Christmas Island have raised questions over it, you know it obviously, there are a number of people looking for clarification. Now can I ask you this, the initial information you say came from Navy. Was there subsequent advice to the Minister from Navy that in fact children had not been thrown overboard?

HOWARD: My understanding is that there had been absolutely no alteration to the original advice that was given and I checked that as recently as last night.

Q: Well can I ask if there was a report to the Minister after initial confusion that may have…

HOWARD: Look, Catherine, if you want to ask the Minister that but can I just go through the sequence of events. I was informed by both Mr Ruddock and Mr Reith that this had occurred. I subsequently was informed in writing from intelligence sources that it had happened. Now in those circumstances I was perfectly justified in making the claim. I don’t retreat from it.

It in a sense has got nothing to do with the video. The video came along a couple of days after the 10th October. I think the video was first mentioned on television news on the 11th October and I think it was in the newspapers the following day.

When I first made my claims, the claims were based on what Mr Ruddock and Mr Reith had told me and they in turn had based their claims on Navy advice. Now in those circumstances we just move on. And you make a claim like that, you believe it. I had no reason to disbelieve the Navy and I repeat, if Mr Beazley wants to come and have a look at the intelligence report I have, I will be perfectly happy to make it available to him.

Q: Well I’m wondering this because a lot of Australians would like to know the answer just two days out from the election, given that there’s been so much debate about it. And what I’m –

HOWARD: Well I think what the debate has been –

Q: – asking is on their past

HOWARD: – Catherine, is the policy of turning away illegals.

Q: Well people wondering too if the Government information has been right –

HOWARD: No, no, I think they’re wondering –

Q: – and I guess that’s what I’m asking you – whether you stand by it and is it right?

HOWARD: No, no I think they’re wondering who really does intend if they get elected on Saturday to maintain a firm policy on illegal arrivals. I think that is what the Australian public are worried about. But look Catherine, the position, let me repeat it again, is that we were informed from Navy sources that this had happened. The two Ministers told me that. That was the basis of my originally referring to it. At no stage did I claim that my claim was based on the existence of a video.

I was subsequently informed in writing that the incident had occurred without any qualifications. I had every reason to believe that. I still have every reason to, irrespective of what is on the video.

Q: If it shows nothing, if it’s inconclusive though, what

HOWARD: That won’t make any difference.

Q: Well that’s what, what I’m wondering is, if Australians are wondering whether, given that so many people on Christmas Island have questioned this –

HOWARD: I think Australians are –

Q: – if they want to know –

HOWARD: I’m sorry, Catherine, you’re asking me the questions. We’re not having a debate. I think the Australian people are worried about which party is going to maintain a strong policy on asylum seekers. The question of whether a video shows something is interesting but it doesn’t go to the issue of whether children were put in the water and it doesn’t go directly in any way to the issue of whether our policy on asylum seekers is correct or not. And I think that is the issue that is being debated by the Australian public.

Q: I accept what you say. Can I just ask you this one question on this before I move on? If the Australian public though are also questioning whether or not the information they’ve been getting from the Government, from the Minister for Defence, from the Minister of Immigration, is correct. It’s a question of honesty. Now what I’m asking is: if the video doesn’t show anything, what are people meant to think about the fact that there are two different stories coming out? How do they reconcile this?

HOWARD: Well if the video is inconclusive, it doesn’t in any way disprove what Mr Reith and Mr Ruddock have said because what Mr Reith and Mr Ruddock have said, very clearly, is that they were informed by defence sources. I was informed in writing by intelligence agencies that this had happened.

 

Now unless you and others are prepared to assert that the Navy in giving the information to Mr Ruddock and Mr Reith were lying

Q: No, I’m wondering if –

HOWARD: Now hang on, you’ve asked me

Q: I’m wondering if they’ve reviewed it? If you’ve been given the review.

HOWARD: No, I’m sorry. I’m sorry.

Q: That’s what I’m asking.

HOWARD: You have asked me a question. Let me please finish the answer or you are asserting that the intelligence advice I’ve got was dishonest. I mean what are you getting at? I mean I –

Q: I’m just wondering.

HOWARD: I as a Minister will act on advice. That advice remains. As to what is on the video, that is interesting but, can I just remind you again, the basis of my claim was not the video. I did not, I did not know the video existed when I made the claim. Therefore in no way was the claim based on the video.

Q: I’m just wondering yes or no, can you rule out whether Navy have reviewed their initial advice…

HOWARD: I have had no information or suggestion that they have reviewed their advice. No, I haven’t.

Leave a Reply