Seeing off the ship in question, HMAS Adelaide, in Perth today, the Navy chief vice-admiral has totally contradicted the claims of Howard, Ruddock and Reith.
Navy chief Vice-Admiral David Shackleton said the navy NEVER ADVISED that people threw children overboard.
“Our advice was that there were people being threatened to be thrown in the water and I don’t know what happened to the message after that.”
He said the information reporting chain was from the ship to maritime command in Sydney to the chief of the ADF who would have told the minister. He also said the navy had never changed its advice to Mr Reith.
He declined to comment on the information Mr Reith had provided to the public. “I don’t want to comment on that,” Vice Admiral Shackleton said. “All I can say is that the video tape shows that this child was held over the side, with all that we can discern from that (sic) is the absolute intent to drop that child in the water.” He said the child was not dropped into the sea because the HMAS Adelaide came alongside the vessel.
The red light question was – what the hell were those photos REALLY recording and what was Reith told they were recording??? It now seems they recorded a rescue after adults and children jumped from the boat AS IT WAS SINKING a day after the government’s alleged throwing overboard.
The flashing red light question is – were two senior ministers and the Prime minister lying, or did they get confused? If the latter, how????? Was there a conspiracy to lie to the Australian people?
My last entry recorded the key quotes and key transcripts of this affair. Let’s remind ourselves of the statements that now require urgent explanation, then the transcripts of Howard’s latest story at the press club, Reith’s latest attempt to get out of the mess at a doorstop in Perth before the Navy’s statement, and Ruddock’s latest remarks, also made before the navy’s bombshell. Remember – these claims were used early in the camapign to utterly demonise boat people. The photos – now shown to be fraudulent – were splashed all over page one of the papers and led TV news reports. They were repeated throughout the campaign. This government has betrayed the defence force and the Australian people to win the election.
KEY STATEMENTS BEFORE TODAY
Ruddock on Sunday, October 7: “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.”
Who gave him that information, and in what form?
October10, when Reith released the photos.
“Well, it did happen. The fact is the children were thrown into the water. We got that report within hours of that happening.
From whom did he get that report?
“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.”
1. Who gave Reith the photos? Who told him they recorded events after the child was thrown in the water? Which RAN people reported that the children were thrown in the water, and in what form?? Who told Reith that someone had looked at the video and said it showed `as “an absolute fact” that children were thrown in the water?
“I’ve had various written reports in various aspects of it. None have particularly specified a blow by blow description.”
Reith now appears to deny getting written reports from the navy. He must now produce these report.
HOWARD ANSWERS AT THE PRESS CLUB TODAY – BEFORE THE NAVY STATEMENT
Fran Kelly, 7.30 Report: Defence sources are saying today that the photos released by the Defence Minister’s office some weeks ago of the people in the water from that sinking boat were captioned when they were handed to the Government and that those captions clearly showed that the people were in the water because the boat was sinking, not because people had been thrown overboard, children had been thrown overboard. Will you now ask the Minister of Defence to release those photos with captions as originally provided by the Navy?
Howard: Well, Fran, I don’t know what defence sources you’re referring to but let me just take you through the sequence on this very quickly. The claims that were made by Mr Ruddock and Mr Reith on the Sunday, I think it would have been Sunday the 7th of October, it was just after the election was called, they were based on advice from defence sources. My own comments were based on my discussions with Mr Ruddock and Mr Reith. On the 9th of October I received an ONA report that read in part as follows: Asylum seekers wearing life-jackets jumped into the sea and children were thrown in with them. Such tactics have previously been used elsewhere, for example, by people smugglers and Iraqi asylum seekers on boats intercepted by the Italian Navy.
Now, I make the offer to Mr Beazley and, I’m sure he will respect the sensitivity of it, that if he wants to have a look at the ONA report in its entirety he’s very welcome to do so and I’m very happy for him to do so. Now, look, the whole basis of our claim was the advice we received. Now, if you get that kind of written advice and you get the sort of advice that both Mr Reith and Mr Ruddock received at the time, that’s the basis of the allegations that are made. Now, I mean, you can ask endless questions about releasing this or that but the basis of the claims were the advice not the video. The video didn’t come intothe discussion of it didn’t come into the public domain until, I think, the 10th on evening television and then in the newspapers on the 11th. But can I say with respect, Fran, that although this is important – I don’t want to trivialise it because it was a traumatic, emotional turn to the issue – it’s not really, you know, directly on the issue of whether you agree or disagree with the policy that we are pursuing. I mean, the Australian people are concerned about the policy that we’re pursuing. Those who support it, support it and those who don’t, oppose it. But that’s the central issue in the debate but I have to say to all of you who’ve sort of raised queries about this, if you get.if the Defence Minister and Immigration Minister get verbal advice from defence sources and the Prime Minister gets that kind of written advice I don’t think it’s sort of exaggerating or gilding the lily to go out and say what I said.
Louise Dodson, The Age: Mr Howard, I wonder given that there is some uncertainty about this video about the children being pushed overboard, do you regret saying that those people shouldn’t be allowed – they’re not the sort of people we’d like to have in Australia?
Howard: I don’t regret saying, I should go back and have a look at exactly what was said, but I don’t regret ever saying that people who throw children overboard aren’t welcome in Australia.
Louise: But given there’s some uncertainty about whether they did.
Howard: Well in my mind there is no uncertainty because I don’t disbelieve the advice I was given by defence. And can I just say again Louise when you get defence giving advice, and the statements I made were based on advice, I wasn’t there, neither of the ministers were there. They get advice, it is then confirmed in writing in terms that I have described. I think in those circumstances it’s perfectly reasonable and legitimate of me to say what I said and I don’t disbelieve the defence advice.
Paul Cleary, Australia Financial Review: Mr Howard, I’d just like to point out that Mr Reith did say on ABC Radio on October 10 that there was a video which confirmed that the people were thrown overboard. Will you discipline Mr Reith in light of those remarks? But also my substantive question is about what you’ve said in the past about refugees, that the Coalition’s acceptance of more refugees per capita from Indo-China in the Fraser Government was one of your proudest achievements. You’ve said that a number of times. The Vietnamese in particular have gone on to become entrepreneurs, they run great restaurants, they represent 1% of the population yet 5% of their kids are at university. Aren’t the Afghanis like the Vietnamese in that they’re risk takers, they’re risking everything for a better life, and aren’t they the sort of people you want in this country?
Howard: Can I just say Paul that I was proud of what the Fraser Government did in relation to the Vietnamese people, very proud. We had a particular and special responsibility in relation to them because we had largely, in relation to most of them, fought on their side in the Vietnam War we had a particular responsibility in relation to them. But I thought that was great policy. And I’m not making any general aspersions or unfairly comparing the Afghani or the Iraqi people with the Vietnamese. What I’m saying is that we believe you’ve got to run an orderly refugee program and we are facing a situation.I mean it’s very easy for people to criticise what the Government is doing. I ask my critics to contemplate the alternative. I ask my critics to say to me and to tell the Australian people, you dismantle what is called the Pacific Solution, what is the alternative. The alternative is that you will be sending a signal, I mean if after everything that has happened if we reverse policy that will be seen as a magnet, in current economic circumstances, to great and increasing numbers of people to endeavour to come to this country. And that will present an enormous difficulty for Australia.
And can I say to you that I’m not the only person who has concerns about this. I think I’ve said before that when Tony Blair rang me to say he couldn’t come to CHOGM he talked about the aftermath of the 11th of September and he drew a link between that aftermath and the problem of asylum seekers. I mean can I just read something to you? ‘Here in this country’, this is the quote, ‘and in other nations around the world laws will be changed, not to deny basic liberty but to prevent their abuse and to protect the most basic liberty of all – freedom from terror. New extradition laws will be introduced, new rules to ensure asylum is not a front to terrorist activity, terrorist entry. This country is proud of its tradition in giving asylum to those fleeing tyranny. We will always do so but we have a duty to protect the system from abuse.’ Now they were the words of the British Labour Prime Minister to the party’s annual conference in Blackpool or Brighton, I forget which, on the 2nd of October of this year.
Now I haven’t said, I haven’t made the allegation that there are terrorists on any particular boat loads of people, what I am saying is that we have a heightened obligation to make absolutely certain who is coming to this country, which further underlines and validates the attitude this government has taken and I’m not alone in saying that because the sort of argument that I used is almost identical to the argument that the British Labour Prime Minister used to his own party conference a little over a month ago.
Paul: Mr Reith’s comments on October 10?
Howard: Well I’ll have a look at Mr Reith’s comments, I think Mr Reith has been an extremely good member of the Government and I have a very warm regard for what Mr Reith has done. And can I just say to you again Paul the claims that were made were based, about children being thrown overboard, were based on advice before the video even came into the public domain.
Journalist: Prime Minister, I asked you a question in Melbourne yesterday about the analysis of this campaign by Mr Oakes that a key element of your election strategy was dog whistle politics. You told me at the time you hadn’t seen it. Have you now looked at it and how do you respond?
Howard: Well yes I have now seen it and I have now read the column. I don’t agree with the analysis by Mr Oakes. I don’t believe at all what he says is accurate and I reject it completely. This election, as you know, is being held against the background of a set of circumstances that have come upon us. It’s being held at the time it’s constitutionally required. I find the suggestion in that article is inaccurate. It’s politically offensive. People are entitled to attack me, I am not personally offended by it because I’m used to a fair degree of personal attack and journalists are entitled to state their views plainly and passionately.
Look, I have done what I have done in relation to border protection because I genuinely believe that it is in the national interest to do so. I haven’t done it because I am catching up with somebody else on the subject. I’ve done it because I genuinely believe it. I think if we were to reverse that policy now we would send the wrong signal around the world and I think the challenge we would then face would be enormous. You have got to control you borders. It’s a fundamental exercise of national sovereignty. That is all I have sought to do. I know it is subject to a lot of criticism and a lot of that criticism has a moral overtone to it and like everybody else I examine criticisms of my behaviour that have moral strictures contained in it like other strictures but I am satisfied within myself that what we are doing is in the national interest. Others wait. Others have waited interminably to come to this country and I have found as I have moved around many people who went through that long process of waiting would be offended if the Government abandoned its policy and believe what the Government is doing in relation to this is fundamentally correct.
REITH DOORSTP IN PERTH THIS MORNING
Q: The real issue is why did you take so long to see that video?
REITH: Oh look, I still haven’t seen that video.
Q: But you said [inaudible] that somebody had seen that video and that it definitely showed a child being thrown overboard. Now you are backing away from that now are you?
REITH: No. What I said was that the advice that I had at the time –
Q: A child had been thrown overboard.
REITH: Excuse me. The advice that I had at the time and the statement that I made was that I had received advice which said that the video confirmed the advice that I had. That’s what I said.
Q: [Inaudible]
REITH: Excuse me. What I said was and it’s still the case that I have not myself seen the video and what I said on the public record was that I had advice from Defence from somebody who had seen the video that they said that it confirmed the advice that I got. Now, that is a true statement at the time then and it’s a true statement today. The advice that I had got was that somebody else had seen the video, I had not seen it, still haven’t seen it, and that it was confirmation of what I was being told.
Q: [Inaudible]’that children were thrown into the water’
REITH: That is the statement that I made’
Q: [Inaudible] advice from the Navy?
REITH: Well, there has been various advice, for example, the PM referred to an intelligence report that he had –
Q: [Inaudible] and put the matter to rest.
REITH: Well, Mr –
Q: [Inaudible]
REITH: I am sorry but you have asked your question.
Q: [Inaudible] `knew about it beforehand [inaudible]’
REITH: Look, I am happy to answer questions but I do need to have one question at a time. As the Prime Minister said this morning if somebody wants to have a look at that intelligence advice, for example Mr Beazley, then they can do so. We would not and do not release intelligence advice but that was a written advice that he had. I have also seen other written advice which had that statement in it. Now, you have go to put it in a context though, the context is that –
Q: There’s a lot of questions [inaudible]
REITH: May I finish? I am sorry, but you have asked your question and I am entitled to answer it and intend to do so. You need to put this in context. The context was that with this particular boat we had also advice that the engine had been sabotaged, that the steering had been sabotaged, that the people on the boat were very difficult to deal with, that the advice that they had received about what had happened about entering into Australian waters being illegal, was thrown onto the boat by our people and was thrown off again.
Now, the fact is that these people were very difficult. I am told that the video does show a person holding a child on the top deck. Now, the video apparently is still not easy to see because of some of the actions on the other side of the boat. I appreciate that. But in the context that these people were very difficult to deal with, and that was the advice coming to me from Defence at that time and prior to that particular incident, the fact is that there was no surprise to me that these people were doing absolutely everything possible to require us to pick them up.
And remember also that in the final incident this boat actually went under water, it actually sank. And as I have said on the public record, I can’t prove it but my suspicions are that a boat that seemed to be seaworthy at the time suddenly sank was a very suspicious situation.
Q: [Inaudible]
REITH: The position is this and that is that in terms of these boat arrivals of which we have had quite a number we get verbal advice from Defence as to what has happened and when there is a big demand for information we have tried to provide information to people on the basis of that advice. Now, you might say well should we have auditors on board Navy ships, should we have cameramen, you know, taking film of everything, people with sound equipment to record absolutely everything. Well, we have not done that, I wouldn’t expect to do so.
Q: [Inaudible]
REITH: Well, I have had advice which I relayed publicly which I thought was reasonable. We did, I don’t mind telling you, we did when we first heard that advice we sought confirmation of it. So you know we issued that advice on a bona fide basis.
Q: Mr Reith, [inaudible] confirm that advice by looking at the tape?
REITH: Well, I still haven’t seen the tape –
Q: Why?
REITH: The comments I made, it might be difficult for you to understand, but the comments that I have made I have made based on advice.
Q: [Inaudible]
REITH: With great respect, can I finish my answer.
Q: It’s a very serious matter.
REITH: It is a serious matter and therefore you should listen to my answer if you –
Q: [Inaudible] Mr Beazley and tell us what happened.
REITH: Can I just answer your question? I made it very clear at the time that the comments that I was making were based on verbal advice that we had had. And I made it very clear at the time that I had not seen the video. It has never been my position that I have seen the video therefore this proves anything. It’s never been my position that I was relying on the video. And from what I am now told –
Q: The commander of the ship would have given you that verbal advice [inaudible]’
REITH: I don’t speak to the operational commander. I’ll take one more question and then I have to go.
Q: Why haven’t you seen the video?
REITH: Well, because the comments that I made were made on the basis of verbal advice, not on the basis of the video.
Q: [Inaudible]
REITH: I am sorry but to again put it in context, these matters happen and the video was on the ship and as we said at the time we didn’t have access to the video. People asked us what had happened and we relayed what we were told. It’s as simple as that.
Q: [Inaudible]
REITH: Oh look, I also said, just to answer that question, I have also said on the public record prior to the last few days that my understanding is that it was a pretty confused situation.
Q: [Inaudible]
REITH: With great respect, I do intend to finish the answer. You can imagine that when people were jumping into the water which the video demonstrates the crew of the ship mainly focussed on getting people out of the water, they weren’t focussed on having a post-mortem after they got into the water, they were just rushing madly to get people out of the water.
Q: [Inaudible] after the Navy had already made a call that the boat was breaking up and that it was sinking –
REITH: Just to repeat the –
Q: [Inaudible]
REITH: Well, I am sorry but you are mistaken and I’ll explain it to you. Can I just answer the point. In this particular case there had been a warning shot some hours earlier – some hours earlier – and I am on the public record just so that you can check the actual facts, but I think it was three or four hours earlier. There was later a boarding on the ship, on the boat, and around that time these people were jumping off the boat. So the boat was seaworthy at this time, no question of that whatsoever.
RUDDOCK TODAY
No transcript is available of Ruddock’s remarks today, also made before the navy statement. Here is a summary.
Ruddock said details of the incident first came from a senior defence official who briefed members of the departmental boat people task force.
He said his department head subsequently briefed him on what occurred on October 7 and he had since seen detailed written reports. But he had seen the video for the first time today.
“I am incredulous as to why there is scepticism because people just don’t make these sorts of things up,” Mr Ruddock told reporters today. “To imagine that there would be the navy and ministers in some sort of conspiracy to put something like this in the public arena – why would we do it? It is just not feasible.”
Mr Ruddock said the video recorded some of the events that took place at the time but could not record other aspects. He said he had mentioned at the time that there were some unusual aspects to the case which involved a group of 187 mostly Iraqi asylum seekers. He said the fact everybody in the vessel had lifejackets was unusual.
The boat which sank off Indonesia last month resulting in the drowning of more than 350 asylum seekers carried 70 lifejackets for 400 people.
“That there was a certain determination on the part of the people to make sure they were taken onboard was evidenced by the way they behaved,” he said. “The extent to which people threw themselves into the water and in some cases it would appear threw their children first – I don’t think the children were thrown in later, I think they were thrown in first – it may well have been a parent that followed them in, I don’t know.
“All we know is that children were thrown in and others jumped in.”