I just heard Howard being quoted on the ABC News with a very lame denial of the claim, detailed in today’s Oz, that he had been advised by Mike Scrafton, at the time senior adviser to then defence minister Peter Reith of the falsity of the “children overboard” allegations, the day before he went to the National Press Club and repeated those allegations. The PMs spokesman admits that the conversation took place, and doesn’t deny Scrafton’s account of why it took place, which I quote
“I rang Reith straight away and said to him that the best spin you could put on the tape was that it was inconclusive,” he told The Australian yesterday.
“It certainly didn’t support anything like children being thrown overboard. Nor, in my view, that threats had been made to throw children overboard. None of these claims were confirmed by the video.
“Reith said: ‘The PM will probably want to hear this.’ He rang me back about 20 minutes later and said: ‘I have given your mobile number to the PM and he will give you a ring back at some point during the evening’.”
but wants us to believe that Howard somehow still wasn’t told that the evidence was bogus. I expect they spent a lot of time discussing the prospects for the Ashes series.
Looking at the political implications, continuing lame denials will, I think pose a big problem for Howard and those who want to defend him on this. The line they really want to push is
Yes, he lied, get over it. Everyone knew he was lying and most people wanted to be lied to
But it will be hard to push this openly while Howard is still saying the opposite.
There is big one positive for Howard in that it reminds anti-refugee voters that Howard is one of them, committed to keeping asylum seekers out by fair means or foul. But I don’t think this is as big a positive as some have suggested. Howard has the hardcore racist vote locked up. His big achievement in 2001 was to combine this vote with the “law and order” appeal of keeping out queuejumpers and so on. Voters who accepted this line clearly had some cognitive dissonance regarding the use of lies, slander and corruption of the public service to promote the goal, but were prepared to swallow it in the general panic atmosphere of the time. I don’t think the current events will help Howard with this group. Finally, the substantial group of people who were appalled at the time (most of whom are unimpressed with Labor) will be confirmed in the determination to get rid of him. I note, for example, Ken Parish who says
it certainly clinches my voting decision, whatever else happens between now and the election. This bastard must go.
I don’t think, however, that the direct electoral impacts will be huge. As commenters have noted, the story has run behind the Olympics on TV news and is unlikely to get a big run in the tabloid press. The indirect effects, working mainly through the “quality” press, the public service and even, to some extent the blogosphere, will probably be more significant.
The indirect implications are all bad for Howard. Unlike last time, when he only had to last a couple of days to the election, this story has weeks to fester, and can easily be kicked along. The 43 retired defence and diplomatic types don’t exhaust the pool, for example. There are plenty of former senior public servants from other departments who are horrified by the government’s corruption of the service, and might come forward to say so.
Then there’s the effect on the credibility of the Public Service itself. We already saw this last week, when Latham (correctly as it turned out) derided the claims, signed off by five government departments, that his proposed FTA amendments couldn’t be drafted. We can expect the same if Finance or Treasury criticise Labor’s economic estimate.
Finally, there’s the sleaze factor. This government has reached new depths in all sorts of corruption, financial as well as ethical. Anything that reminds the public of the doings of people like Reith and (with the PBS debate) Wooldridge, even indirectly, will contribute to the kind of atmosphere that says “time for a clean-out”.
This may not be enough to tip the election, but it’s very bad for the government.
Update The left and centre of Ozplogistan is, naturally, all over this. Rob Corr points to an interview by Howard that appears to contradict his current position. Chris Sheil parses it further, suggesting that Howards statements regarding the famous photos may be a non-denial. If so, it’s hard to see them lasting long Ken Parish slams Howard as a “lying, sleazy, divisive disgrace”. More from Barista and Psephological Catechism
Meanwhile, the Right seems to be missing in action. The only response I’ve found is Uncle at ABC Watch who relies on the fact that, having been gagged from answering the Senate Committee, and instructed to say nothing to the Defence internal inquiry, Scrafton did just that.
John Quiggin 
Tony Kevin, no friend of Howard or enemy of assylum-seekers, describes SIEV-IV as “probably self-scuttled”.
What is the moral difference between chucking your kid over-board and deliberately sinking, or allowing to sink, the ship that you and your kid are sailing on?
The practical effect is the same: all parties are dropped into into the drink and are rescued by the RAN.
The good old “morally true” defence for lying makes an earlier than expected appearance!
My comment did not defend Howards lies about children being thrown overboard, nor have I ever done so. I dare anyone to dredge up any such apologetics.
FTR, I oppose lying in domestic political affairs so I criticise Howard for doing so. I dont imagine that it takes a great deal of moral heroism to take this stance.
My question remains the same: is self-scutlling an entire boat morally equivalent to putting individual passengers overboard? Seeing as how I am surrounded by persons of exquisite moral sensibility, I am just curious about how they might parse the distinction.
PS Pr Q seems to have gone off the deep-end recently. He makes unsubstantiated accusations that the Howard government was complicit in “crimes against humanity” to wit the mass-murder of the passengers in the SIEV-X, calls half the High Court a pack of “miserable bastards” and now freely accuses skeptics of the Left’s obsessive Howard-hatred of spin-dopctoring Howards lies, and accessorising his ethical and financial enormities.
What happened to Pr Q’s culture of blog civility, or is it Rafferty’s Rules from here on in to the election?
Sheehan wrote the definitive response to the hysterics who can’t get over losing the election.
Jack, in relation to the decision on which I endorsed Ken Parish’s description of the High Court majority as “miserable bastards”, you yourself wrote
There is a point at which civility stops, and, on this issue, the Howard government has passed it.
Another tactic is to take 2 highly contentious statments, as Jack does, treat them as being true and then pose moral questions based on that supposition. What is the point?
No doubt the ‘ends justifies the means’ argument won’t be too long in appearing either.
But what shoud be fascinating in all this (for those who find this interesting) is, what I expect to be, a virtuoso performance in lying.
How will it be done and how will the perpetrators justify it to themselves?
One of the moral considerations in lying, first identified by St Augustine, is the idea of the ‘need to express the truth’. One of the commonplace defences of deception, is that there was no actually telling of a lie, but only failing to mention a truth. Another is that a statement was not known to be false.
St Augustine helped define such acts that are not strictly lies, as immoral deception.
No doubt Howard will be looking for some wiggle room along these lines, but clearly there was a ‘need to express’ the information that he recieved, including doubts, so the public could form an opinion on the best available information.
It again shows the desperate need for ethics in public communication.
Channel Nine in Brisbane reported this as its third item, after a 8 min Olympics story and a story on a local fire.
So I’m not sure it’s going to penetrate too deeply into the general public consciousness (and, barring a terrorist event, I reckon the election will be decided on economics anyway, where Howard has an advantage).
Also, Scrafton’s choice to raise this allegation during the Olympics would seem to be counter-productive. It would have had more impact if he had waited until September.
For me the biggest thing that will come out of this unbelievable story is just how much the popular media are going to cover it; because without broadcasting by 9, 7, murdoch and fairfax press then the majority of the public will have forgotten about this in a week or two.
This unfortunately is what I’m betting on.
speaking of which, news.com.au have already pushed this story down the line to the ‘also today’ box, my guess is that tomorrow it won’t even rate a mention.
here’s hoping i’m wrong.
According to Brandis, raising this matter now, (just before an election – he obviously knows more than most apparently), points to a not so hidden agenda by Scrafton.
Jethro notes Scrafton’s pathetic inability to tactically carry out the devious agenda attributed to him by Brandis
Howard hasn’t decided when the election will be and cutely notes his government’s term isn’t even yet up to the 3 year mark.
Don’t much of a toss about when the election is to be held, but would like to have an adjudication on an exact time frame in which people allowed to criticize/ask unpalatable questions without having their motives impugned?
John has given a hint, noting that this is coming from a lot of “people who resent us for having won the last election”. Guess that fines it down to the date of the declaration of the poll.
Too many players with too much time on their hands. Bring it on John!
I’ve said before, and do so again now, that the lying over children overboard is – while reprehensible – not as culpable as the SIEV-X incident. Jack in his post denies that the Howard government was complicit in the loss of 353 lives when the SIEV-X sank – that is just not borne out by evidence (including that provided by government officials in the Senate inquiry into a Certain Maritime Incident and subsequently). Some allegations – eg that the government through third parties arranged for the sinking of the SIEV-X – are not supported by this record of evidence. But what is in the evidence and is on the public record is that the government knew in advance that there was a dangerously overloaded boat about to set out to try to reach Australia and did nothing to assist the passengers – in fact, pulled back its surveillance effort in the area concerned. So the government knew there was a potential tragedy in the making and chose not to help – IMHO, a morally culpable choice. But for some commenters it seems sins of ommission don’t count anymore…as long as criminality can’t be proven, a government’s inactions are OK.
Tipper,
Paul Sheehan has a more recent article which gets at the heart of the current issue, that John Howard decided a while ago that the public couldn’t be trusted wit hthe truth
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/05/16/1084646069192.html
Speaking of “cognitive dissonance regarding the use of lies, slander and corruption” do any supporters of the New Left Pee-Cee line have any second thoughts about the rorts, follies and counter-propductive consequences of their pet cultural policies?
Specifically, any foot-shuffling, hemming-and-hawing or cringing about the fact that their favourite progressive doctrines and policies have become the enabler of sundry reactionary rackets:
Laxly-regulated multicultural immigration requires civic officials to wink at miscgynist folk customs, lets employers squeeze the wages and conditions of poorer Australian citizens and allows self-appointed ethnic big-wigs to stir up a poisonous brew of exile politics ;
Feminism is now the ideology of high-flying yuppies seeking to shakedown the financial sector;
Asian engagement is the self-serving doctrine of the dictator-appeasing Jakarta lobby;
Republicanism replaces traditional hereditary snobs with fashionable acquisitive snobs.
New Class Cultural Lefties have profited from these programs whilst barely uttering a squeak of criticism of their well-known deformities.
Meanwhile, when one leader (Howard) actually succeeds in doing a high-risk progressive thing (liberating Timor, Afghanistan) he is traduced as a complete moral pariah.
The cognitive dissonance amongst progressives must be ear-splitting.
The massive problem the attacks on Howard’s credibility create for him are huge cracks in his above politicking and honest image. I don’t think voters will remember these specific stories, but the idea that Howard is “just another politician” will start to sink in. If that does, and it only has to with the swinging voters, then his dignified approach to the office of PM will start to look false. His attacks will be as discounted as any other’s politicians and instead of looking like the dignified statesman like figure next to the radical and irresponsible pretender, he just looks like a short old politician up against a younger politician. He loses the image advantage of being PM.
(cont.)
I don’t know what Howard can do with these attacks other than hope no-one notices. Someone has called him an outright liar. For most politicians this would be water off a ducks back, but not for Howard. It goes to the heart of his biggest asset. I’ll be interested to see what he does about this. You can already see the damage his credibility has taken in how ineffective his defence’s to this attack have been. It may be the start of a slippery slope.
The issue of credibility runs deeper than the issues which decided the last election. We have just had a major issue of credibility on an economic issue ie the misnamed Free Trade Agreement with the USA.
If the Prime Minister will lie to the people over what refugees will or won’t do to their children then he could lie over the benefits of a free trade agreement and the impact of the FTA on Pharmaceuticals and our Australian culture.
So the question becomes what other lies have been told to us in the course of this government and how many other public servants have been muzzled over issues of vital importance to the country?
Jack – no I don’t, as a typical lefty, suffer “cognitive dissonance” over your quoted examples. Besides the fact that the statements themselves are each highly contentious and off topic on this thread, I am happy to accept the fact that policies and directions have both advantages and disadvantages to them. That is why the law is detailed.
To take on just one of the spray of examples you have cited: a group of women in the US sued Morgan Stanley because “lesser performing men” got more money and promotion compared to women. You seem to be suggesting there is something wrong with feminism because these people are making a lot of money for this. Just because the sector that does the ripping off pays grotesque wages, does this mean the ripped off shouldn’t complain? Shut up, you are all rich? Or that one (possible) anomaly condemns an entire philosophy?
It is not, by the way, a particularly large amount of money, except for the principle suer – its around 130 thou US each, and probably doesn’t actually compensate for the lost wages at this kind of salary level.
When people complain that the prosperous are gaining from feminism, I have one question – if your wife goes out to work horrendous hours, under huge strain, and gets passed over for promotion in favour of the office jerk, would you say a) that is alright, feminism is crap anyway, b) it’s alright we are getting high wages so we don’t have any right to complain or c) get really stinking angry and feel ripped off and talk to a lawyer?
ps – these kinds of issues are reasons why many in the left want a Bill of Rights.
Look,this guy scrafton or whatever his name is is just one of the many intimidated bureaucrats who will come out of the woodwork after howard is dethroned.We all know that this government has been a disgrace in intimidating those weak pussies in the public service.
That federal police commissioner was intimidated,you have to feel sorry for the weaklings in the public service who have no clout at all.
Do you want your super or not?
It is quite clear that 99.9% of people in this position have to suckhole to howard’s gang.
Poor Jack, no one answered your question.
*What is the moral difference between chucking your kid over-board and deliberately sinking, or allowing to sink, the ship that you and your kid are sailing on?*
Of course, there is no difference. Both are acts of desperation taken as a last resort.
Now I’ve got a question. Like yours the answer is already obvious.
What is the moral difference if we (as a nation) greet these people with hostility and strip them of all rights and dignity and lock them away in the desert, or if we welcome them humanely, offering any assistance to become contibuting citizens?
Oooops. I forgot, they’re queue-jumpers, illegals and a threat to our national soveriegnty.
Lies. They are human beings! And grateful humans that find refuge make for excellent citizens! And appreciative citizens are not a threat!
Yes our government lies. It has to. Anybody who has to justify acts that don’t accord with basic Christian or humane principles are forced to lie. First to themselves then to others.
Only a non-compassionate heart can lie.
Only a non-compassionate heart needs to lie.
Let’s vote us a new government.
I know, I’m a dreamer, but I’m not the only one.
“Comingfrom” makes a valid, and worthy, point.
I have to supress a shudder of irritation at humanitarian moralists reflexive assumption – that all critics of Cultural Leftism, and skeptics of obsessive Howard-haters, are against humanitarian treatment of genuine refugees.
FTR, I am glad that the Tampans et al have finally been accepted into various civilised communities. And I would prefer to see community-based orders, rather than mandatory detention, as a way of constraining those asylum-seekers who have not yet prevailed in their claim for refugee status, or are unwilling to be repatriated.
“Comingfrom” would do well to remind himself that Howards border protection and mandatory detention has only temporarily inconvenienced, but not inrreparably harmed, the vast majority of assylum-seekers.
The Tampans have been given fair and reasonable assessment according to UN norms, and most have succeeded in their claims. The Pacific Solvents got a nice little earner into the bargain. Even the tempoprary protectees are being cut a little slack. The mandatory detainees have a legitimate beef, but the number of hard cases is vanishingly small.
PS A further question for reflexive moralists: do you acknowledge Howards policies have seen the people-smuggling flow “reduced to a trickle” and, if so, are you happy that we now do not have repeats of the SIEV-X or the kind of tragedy which has been occurring for a decade prior to the SIEV-X, such as this one?
Thanks to Howard there have been no repeats of this in our region, so shouldnt you folks give Howard some credit for this?
PPS Another ticklish one for the Howard-haters: Howards participation in the liberation of Timor, Afghanistan and Iraq demonstrably reduced the amount of political persecution in those countries, thereby reducing the flight from tyranny. Do you folks give him any moral credit for this?
I don’t think it will make a big difference. By disagreeing with the allegations Howard will create enough ambiguity to confuse most people. That’s all that is needed to turn Australia’s equivalent of ‘soccer mums’ and ‘joe sixpack’ back to the olympics. Rusted on liberals will cringe but not change their vote. Howard-haters will hate him more. Suburban swing voters will show up to work late because they watched Thorpe win gold in the 200m free late last night.
Jack Strocchi,
“What is the moral difference between chucking your kid over-board and deliberately sinking, or allowing to sink, the ship that you and your kid are sailing on?”
Can you name the person or persons to whom you seem to refer? If not, from where did your information come? Can you, at least, support your insinuation of moral turpitude by telling us if not the name then how many children of the person who pulled the plug you claim was pulled, were on the boat? How many children did the plug-puller have on the boat?
Let’s suppose you can’t answer that question. Will you apologize for your insinuation if you cannot prove that anyone who pulled any plug had any children at all? Or do you prefer to get your “facts” from John Howard rather than a more reliable source, normally?
I’m with Jack on this one.
So many people on the left like us to look at the ‘root causes’ and related issues when it comes to terrorism, rather than simply fighting the phenomenom.
So why are they so reluctant to look at the root causes of refugees, asylum seekers and the suffering inflicted on these people ?
Perhaps the liberation of Iraq and Afghanistan will actually do something to address the root causes ?
Perhaps the overly harsh policy of mandatory detention and Australia intercepting boats before they reach our waters will (and evidently has) weaken the deadly people-smuggling industry ?
Could these policies actually have SOME advantages ? No, perish the thought !
John Frankis at August 17, 2004 01:16 PM self-righteousy demands that I supply the:
Certainly. Jack Strocchi at August 16, 2004 06:00 PM cheekily posted a comment stating that it was none other than
This is a text-book example of how the reflexive self-righteouness of the Cultural Left leads them to make howling errors of fact on this issue.
John Frankis, you raise some interesting questions.
“Who pulled the plug” you asked? Maybe there wasn’t a plug pulled. Maybe there was a hole drilled or a pump turned off, or whatever.
As Jack stated (no mention of plug, so we hope you are not lying) “deliberately sinking, or allowing to sink”
Now that is a different kettle of fish, don’t you think?
Now who would do such a thing in a people trafficking scenario?
Let’s see if we can MO (modus operandi) the crime. Who uses this MO?
Why of course the crew members
Now that we have worked out who the miscreants are, we need to find out the names of the crew members ( who were no doubt taken into custody) and at the very least see that they are charged with attempted murder.
Has this been done, and if not why not?
Perhaps the liberation of Iraq and Afghanistan will actually do something to address the root causes ?
Lets not get too far OT, Jono, but it ought to be obvious even to you by now that the Iraq invasion has made a bad situation far worse – we are less safe now than we were. Which is exactly what critics predicted.
And may Australia never suffer such a “liberation”.
I’m not sure, but I think I may agree with Tipper.
Jack Strocchi apparently still thinks it’s OK to demonise people he doesn’t know, repeating maliciously made up stories about them, while piling pious cant (“Asian engagement is the self-serving doctrine of the dictator-appeasing Jakarta lobby” etc, above) onto the page, all while simultaneously calling critics of his blooper “self-righteous”. Big deal.
If he doesn’t know whether or not the ship scuttler(s) had any children at all on the ship that sank – will he apologise for the assumption of malice (or whatever else it was he was insinuating), or just continue to brazen it out like someone else we all know?
John Frankis at August 17, 2004 03:09 PM claims that I am:
I am not “repeating maliciously made-up stories”. I am quoting from Tony Kevin, the most militant critic of the Howard government’s asylum-seeker policies. Why don’t you ask him to put up or shut-up regarding the source of his “self-scuttling” claim?
While you are at it, why dont you ask him for his evidence that the Howard government and the RAN instigated, or was complicit in, the manslaughter of the SIEV-X passengers? So far he has provided no smoking gun, and his dot-connections look a little contrived.
Pr Q also seems to believe that Howard is responsible for the sinking of the SIEV-X, although he has provided no evidence for this extraordinary accusation. The evidence indicates that Howards people-smuggling disruption program has stopped the mass manslaughter on the waves.
Obsessive Howard-hating is destroying the electoral chances of the rational Left. Better fix it fast before the plot is irrevocably lost.
OK Jack Strocchi, you’ve called my bluff and won.
I don’t actually blame you for adding your contribution to the asinine false dichotomy, alleged moral equivalence “between chucking your kid over-board and deliberately sinking, or allowing to sink, the ship” gabfest.
I do think though that people, especially those who exhibit a touching pride in their ability to think clearly, could do better than just lazily accept the terms of discourse in which some intellectual nonentity such as the Australian PM has framed them for his own base political advantage.
In this nautical matter I think that if RRWFWits and LTLLuvvies alike would desist from meekly accepting that kind of spin (the false dichotomy, moral non-equivalence thing) – I’m sure liars in politics would all be far more worried than they are.
Have to reply to this Jack,
I don’t need to be reminded for I saw some assylum seekers interviewed on tv after they had their assylum granted.
The thing that impressed me was that their gratitude was mixed as they had no love left for Australia after their incarceration experience. I also noticed many physical scars too.
John Frankis wrote:
“If he doesn’t know whether or not the ship scuttler(s) had any children at all on the ship that sank – will he apologise for the assumption of malice (or whatever else it was he was insinuating), or just continue to brazen it out like someone else we all know?”
Well let’s continue our analysis.
It’s doubtful if any of the Island Hopping Thrill Seekers (IHTS)would be intimate with the workings of that boat, so we can safely assume that a member(s) of the crew did the scuttling.
O.K we have our prime suspect(s) and now need to wonder if they had accomplices. Especially we need to know if the IHTS were privy to what was going to happen and what their response was.
If the dastardly deed was done against their wishes, they would be plainly upset at the prospect of their bambinos being dunked in the brine.
However if the were in on the shennagins they would do something else like don life jackets and wait stoically to be rescued
My reading of the body language is that this is the case.
Maybe they should also be charged with attempted murder along with the crew, or at least endangering their children’s lives and thrown in the slammer for a considerable length of time, along with the crew members.
Given the situation in Afghanistan is very little changed, with the people who made up the Taliban and Al Qaeda still operating reasonably freely and with the populace still at high risk of random death, all I can see is a name change.
East Timor was a damn good thing but I distinctly recall the govt being very reluctant to step in. The fall of Soeharto had far more to do with it I think.
Iraq does seem to be turning out poorly.
They did do the Solomons a power of good. But all PMs have done something similar.
Sorry Jack me old china, but Howard’s record is nothing extraordinary.
In fact if the younger generation had not shown an astonishing proclivity to transfer their future earnings to the older generation who had bought cheap housing, allowing them to go on an extended splurge of holidays, flatscreen TVs and enormous 4WDs….I think he would have been tossed out 3 years ago.
I just got banned from Tim Blair for discussing this. The NERVE OF THEM! Tsk!
Tim Blair is no more a journalist than Andrew G.
Banned for life once again, from Tim Blair am I,
Along with Miranda Divide and Jeremy, oh why why why?
It’s not like I was being rude or causing discord,
I was just curious re their thoughts on “Howard Overboard”.
It’s obviously something they don’t wanna talk about,
Ilibcc, Evilpundit, PW, Quentin George, all silently stout.
I was just having a fleeting dig, like Rob Millsy and Paris,
To no avail as it where – I’ve been banned by Andrea Harris.
It’s a worrying trend they’ve got going there,
Crushing dissent and uncomfortable facts with hardly a care.
The motivation is simple, can’t afford to make Tim look bad,
After all, he’s an aspiring Rush Limbaugh, an avatar for the raving mad.
A few facts on the ground I urge you to see,
Tim Blair is no more a journalist than fucking Andrew G.
He pens his hack-like Bulletin “articles” oh so imperiously,
What a pity that the Journalistic world never takes him seriously.
He’s only got the gig because he’s a divisive figure,
That, and we can all laugh at his lack of intellectual vigour.
He doesn’t mind, he has his mindless arse-licking weblog devotees,
A sickening, creeped-out, felch-fest, “everyone drop to their knees!”
Sortelli, Real Jeffs, Gary Gravett, the conservatively political,
Free reign for neo-con luncacy, Andrea will ban anyone who’s critical.
How about his allegiance, is he still fair dinkum true blue?
He’s such a pro-Bush yankophile – probably has Stars & Stripes poo.
How about his pathetic hounding of that REAL journalist, Margo?
Can’t critique her on issues and facts so he rants on about her argot.
And how about his anti-ABC stance, or didn’t you know?
He couldn’t cut it there, they cancelled his shithouse show!
His humour is racially geared and composed with little skill,
Why, I’ve seen funnier shit on re-runs of Benny Hill.
Anyway, I think Darpie has made his point clear,
I’ll say what the fuck I want, without any fear.
Oh, Timbo, those Fox News pieces of yours really sucked,
So to you, Andrea and the gang – I bid you all, GET FUCKED!
Love Darp.
Prior inconsistent statement
Ken Parish and that goose Fred are arguing the toss about an alleged prior inconsistent statement by Mike Scrafton, and Al Bundy has pitched in to push John Howard’s line. Let’s go straight to the horse’s mouth:It is a matter…
Prior inconsistent statement
Ken Parish and that goose Fred are arguing the toss about an alleged prior inconsistent statement by Mike Scrafton, and Al Bundy has pitched in to push John Howard’s line. Let’s go straight to the horse’s mouth:It is a matter…