Sarah Stephen
On August 16, we finally got confirmation that PM John Howard deliberately lied when he claimed, days before the 2001 federal election, that there was proof that asylum seekers on the Olong threw their children overboard. The welcome revelations, contained in public servant Michael Scrafton's letter to the Australian, bring a little more justice to those who have suffered as a result of Howard's duplicity.
At the time of the "children overboard" incident, Scrafton was working in defence minister Peter Reith's office. His letter explained that on November 7, three days before the federal election, Scrafton told Howard that the photographs of children in the water, used as evidence against the asylum seekers, were taken on the day the boat sank. Scrafton told Howard that "no-one in defence that I dealt with on the matter still believed any children were thrown overboard".
Howard denies that Scrafton discussed the photographs. Scrafton passed a lie detector test on August 17 — Howard has declined to take one.
On August 18, Jenny McKenry, former head of the defence department's public affairs division, recounted a conversation she had with Scrafton on November 8, 2001, which backed up his account.
Howard is under immense pressure to produce evidence of his version of events on the night he spoke to Scrafton. Present with him at the time were four ministerial staffers: then secretary to the cabinet Paul McClintock, who has since left the public service; the PM's media adviser, Tony O'Leary; his chief of staff, Arthur Sinodinos; and his principal private secretary, Tony Nutt. All would have heard the conversation, as Howard kept repeating what he was hearing over the phone as Scrafton was talking to him.
Scrafton's admission indicates how wide the net of people who knew about the lies was — but this revelation is just the tip of a frightening, and sickening, iceberg.
As Tony Kevin points out below, the real scandal of the "children overboard" affair is "not what the photographs do not show; it is what they do show".
The election was called on October 5, during a rush of refugee boat departures for Australia. On the morning of October 6, the Olong, identified as Suspected Illegal Entry Vessel number 4 (SIEV 4), was spotted 100 nautical miles from Australian territory. It was aggressively intercepted and boarded. It was given some temporary repairs and a bushwalking compass, then ordered to return to Indonesia.
Soon after, it became clear that the boat was unseaworthy. The lives of more than 200 asylum seekers were put perilously at risk when the Navy held off rescuing them until their boat began to sink and asylum seekers were in the water. It is, indeed, a miracle that none of them drowned.
Kevin notes in his book, A Certain Maritime Incident, that HMAS Adelaide commander Norman "Banks had the legal duty to take the passengers on board his ship for their safety, and to tow their crippled boat the short distance to Christmas Island, the nearest port. Instead he was ordered to tow the boat in a circular path, remaining in international waters until the government had decided what to do, with the people kept on board their unsafe boat. That was the point at which the ADF should have said no to the government. It had the entire law on safety of life at sea on its side. Yet for 22 hours the ADF acquiesced without protest in life-threatening and illegal government orders."
There were other scandals during the life of the "border protection" military campaign called Operation Relex:
* The Palapa, carrying 438 people, was eventually rescued by the Tampa. Kevin told the audience at his August 10 Canberra book launch: "The real story is not what Captain Arne Rinnan of Tampa did, though that was praiseworthy. The real story is that a disabled Palapa was seen and detected by Coastwatch aircraft the day before, but then left to its own devices in an overnight storm, from which the 400 people on board might have very well perished."
* SIEV X sank on October 19, resulting in the deaths of 353 people. It sank within the area under constant surveillance by Operation Relex, and deeply troubling questions remain unanswered about Australia government knowledge of and involvement in the sabotage of asylum seeker boats in general, and SIEV X in particular.
* SIEV 7 was turned back to Indonesia on October 28, without the knowledge of those aboard. Asylum seekers, distressed and hysterical when they found out they had been deceived, were allegedly beaten with electric batons and dosed with capsicum spray. As they neared Indonesian waters, SIEV 7 was abandoned. By the time all those aboard struggled ashore at Roti Island, three men were missing. These allegations remains uninvestigated.
Scrafton was heavily influenced by the August 7 release of a letter signed by 43 prominent Australians calling for "truth in government".
In his letter, Scrafton stated: "I hold the conviction that public comments on controversial matters by senior public servants should only be made with reluctance and then only in exceptional circumstances." Explaining why he had waited until now to speak publicly about what he knew, Scrafton told ABC Radio's The World Today on August 16 that while he was a public servant "it would have been both inappropriate and very difficult for me to have said anything".
McKenry said she had no regrets that she did not speak out at the time. She told the August 18 Australian: "I did believe at the time [that] as a public servant it was not my role nor my responsibility to enter that debate."
But at what point does it become inappropriate not to say anything? There are dozens, perhaps hundreds, of public servants and defence force personnel who have been involved in carrying out the Coalition government's harsh and brutal "border protection" policy. So far, almost all have remained silent. They have stood by as people's lives were put at risk. Perhaps now, more will decide this is unconscionable.
The Democrats and the Labor Party have announced plans to reopen the Senate inquiry that investigated the "children overboard" incident when the Senate reconvenes on August 30. This will allow Scrafton to give evidence under the protection of parliamentary privilege. Howard continues to refuse to allow ministerial staff to appear before the inquiry.
But simply reopening the Senate inquiry is, on its own, inadequate. This is especially so in light of the flaws and limitations of that inquiry and the report it produced. Labor never wanted to test the inquiry's powers to force witnesses to appear.
Democrats leader Andrew Bartlett, one of the senators who took part in the inquiry, pointed out in an August 17 media release that he "pushed for the committee to subpoena then minister Peter Reith and senior advisers including Mr Scrafton", believing that parliamentary inquiries should use every avenue available to get to the truth.
Scrafton made it clear that he did not appear before the inquiry, despite three separate requests, because he had been told that cabinet had directed him not to appear. He indicated that if he had been subpoenaed, he would have had no choice but to appear.
John Faulkner told ABC Radio's AM on August 16: "We ... knew we couldn't win a fight in the courts with the government on this — we didn't have the resources to do so." This is questionable. Why would a Senate committee have the power but not the resources to compel witnesses to appear before it?
The real issue for Labor is that it doesn't want to set a precedent that might be used when it is next in government. Defending Labor's decision not to summons Reith in 2002, Faulkner told the ABC's 7.30 Report on October 23, 2002: "I don't want to turn the Senate into a witch hunt." But holding the government accountable is hardly a witch hunt.
A Just Australia has rightly called for a judicial inquiry. An August 16 media release points out that the Senate inquiry conducted in 2002 "while important remains fundamentally incomplete because of the government's refusal to allow key witnesses to testify".
"Only a full and independent judicial inquiry — which can compel witnesses to testify and equally offer appropriate legal protection for witnesses who may feel fearful of retribution — will allow us to get to the bottom of these deeply disturbing issues."
From Â鶹´«Ã½ Weekly, August 25, 2004.
Visit the