Misplaced Pages

Children Overboard affair: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 08:36, 25 August 2007 editBrendan (talk | contribs)1,523 edits Refine Opening Statement -- Add refs, improve grammar, reduce weasel words← Previous edit Revision as of 09:24, 26 August 2007 edit undoBrendan (talk | contribs)1,523 edits Improved grammar & POV, inserted {{fact} tags, inserted links & refs, reduced weasel words/statements, reduced duplicationNext edit →
Line 1: Line 1:
{{pp-semi}} {{pp-semi}}
{{NPOV}} {{NPOV}}
{{Refimprove|date=August 2007}}


⚫ The '''Children Overboard''' affair was an ]n ]. In October 2001, during the lead-up to a federal election, the Australian government repeatedly claimed that ] on a “]” (SIEV), intercepted by ] off ], had thrown a number of children overboard in a presumed ploy to secure rescue and passage onto Australian soil. The vessel, designated SIEV 4, was believed to be operated by ].
{{Weasel}}
⚫ The '''Children Overboard''' affair was an ]n ]. In October 2001, during the lead-up to a federal election, the Australian government claimed on several occasions that ] on a “]” (SIEV), intercepted by ] off ], had thrown a number of children overboard, in a presumed ploy by the passengers to secure rescue and passage. The vessel, designated SIEV 4, was believed to be operated by ].


The claim was first made by then Immigration Minister ] on 7 October 2001, the day before writs for the federal election were issued<ref name=AEC_Writs_2001>, Australian Electoral Commission</ref>. It was later repeated by ], including Defence Minister ] and ] ]. With the election campaign underway, political analysts believe that the children overboard affair worked in favour of the incumbent Coalition government. The Coalition was depicted as favouring strong border protection measures, while the opposition Labor Party was conversely depicted as "weak" on this issue. Immigration Minister ] first made the claim on 7 October 2001{{fact}}, the day before writs for the federal election were issued.<ref name=AEC_Writs_2001>, Australian Electoral Commission</ref> It was later made by other ] including Defence Minister ] and ] ].{{fact}}


The government's handling of this issue, plus other events involving ]s (], ]), ]. The government was able to portray itself as "strong" on border protection measures and opponents as "weak". In November 2001, the Liberal-National coalition was ] with an increased majority.
⚫ After the Liberal-National Coalition won the federal election, an inquiry by a ] select committee found that not only was the "Children Overboard" claim untrue, but that the government knew it to be untrue prior to the ]. The Government attracted criticism that it had misled the public and fomented mistrust of asylum seekers by portraying them as people using unscrupulous means to gain illegal entry into Australia.

⚫ A subsequent inquiry by a ] select committee found that the "Children Overboard" claim was untrue and that the government knew it was untrue prior to the ]. The Government attracted criticism that it had misled the public and fomented mistrust of asylum seekers by portraying them as people using unscrupulous means to gain illegal entry into Australia.{{fact}}


==Background== ==Background==


In August 2001, the Norwegian container ship ''MV Tampa'' rescued 439 Afghans from a distressed fishing vessel in international waters. The Afghans wanted passage to nearby Christmas Island. The Australia government sought to prevent this by refusing ''Tampa'' entry into Australian waters, making arrangements for their disembarkment in other countries, and deploying the ] to board ''Tampa''.
The incident occurred two months after the ], where a Norwegian container ship had rescued Afghan asylum seekers and sought to drop them off in Indonesia before being forced to turn towards Australia by the illegals. This series of events became the catalyst for the adoption by the Howard government of a more strict ] regime, the stated purpose of which was to prevent ] from reaching Australia by boat.


The ] was a catalyst for the government's adoption of stricter ] measures to prevent ] from reaching Australia by boat. Polls indicated the government's measures had public support.
In the lead up to the children overboard affair the government had public support for this regime, and the incident may have helped boost this support. The children overboard affair subsequently spawned many investigative journalist reports and several books.


==Senate inquiry and findings== ==Senate inquiry and findings==


The Senate inquiry did not find that children were thrown from SIEV 4. The evidence did not support the Children Overboard claim. The photographs, purported to show children being thrown into the sea, were taken during a rescue after SIEV 4 sank. Sabotage was implicated but never proven as the cause<ref>, SMH, David Marr, 28 Feb 2006</ref>.
The Senate inquiry found that no children were thrown from SIEV 4. Evidence obtained by the committee revealed that the claim regarding children being thrown overboard was untrue.


The pictures which had been purported to show that children had been thrown into the sea were taken during a rescue after SIEV 4 had been sunk by the illegals on board. When this was discovered, Howard stated that he was acting on the intelligence he was given at the time. It was later revealed that Howard had been informed on ] that the claim was false. On ] ] Howard said, In response, Howard said that he acted on the intelligence he was given at the time. It was later revealed that Howard was informed on ] that the Children Overboard claim was false. On ] ] Howard said, "They irresponsibly sank the damn boat, which put their children in the water".


⚫ A dissenting report authored by government members of the Senate inquiry found that passengers aboard other SIEVs had threatened children, sabotaged their own vessels, committed ] and, in the case of ] on ], thrown a child overboard who was rescued by another asylum seeker.<ref>http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/committee/maritime_incident_ctte/report/f04.htm</ref>
"They irresponsibly sank the damn boat, which put their children in the water".

⚫ The Senate inquiry found that passengers aboard other SIEVs had threatened children, sabotaged their own vessels, committed ], and, in the case of ] on ], a child had been thrown overboard and rescued by another asylum seeker.<ref>http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/committee/maritime_incident_ctte/report/f04.htm</ref>


==Scrafton and the reopened inquiry== ==Scrafton and the reopened inquiry==


In August 2004, ], who had been a senior advisor to Peter Reith, came forward to say that before John Howard confirmed that children had indeed been thrown overboard, he had been informed that this claim was false. On ] ] ] said "It was not raised with me as to whether or not children had been thrown overboard, and in fact some weeks later, I was still under the impression that there was no question that children were thrown overboard.....no report was given to me." In August 2004, ], a former senior advisor to Peter Reith, said John Howard was told, prior to making the Children Overboard claim, that it was untrue. On ] ] ] said "It was not raised with me as to whether or not children had been thrown overboard, and in fact some weeks later, I was still under the impression that there was no question that children were thrown overboard ... no report was given to me."


Although the Senate enquiry was reopened, Scrafton's claims were criticised. In particular, Scrafton claimed that he and Howard had spoken three times on the telephone, but telephone records showed that they spoke twice. Although the Senate enquiry was reopened, Scrafton's claims were criticised. In particular, Scrafton claimed that he and Howard had spoken three times on the telephone, but telephone records showed that they spoke twice.


Scrafton's revelations and the reopening of the inquiry occurred close to the announcement of the ]. The children overboard affair received widespread coverage and discussion within political and media circles and was made a central part of the Australian Labor Party's election campaign. Scrafton's revelations and the reopening of the inquiry occurred close to the announcement of the ]. The children overboard affair received widespread coverage and discussion within political and media circles and was made a central part of the Australian Labor Party's election campaign.

The Howard re-election campaign focused heavily on "trust" in the election. The election saw Howard returned to power, increasing his lower house majority, and gaining a majority in the Senate.


==References== ==References==
Line 39: Line 37:


==External links== ==External links==

{{wikinews|Australian Prime Minister blames asylum seekers for "Children Overboard scandal"}}
*
* *
* *

Revision as of 09:24, 26 August 2007

The neutrality of this article is disputed. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until conditions to do so are met. (Learn how and when to remove this message)
This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed.
Find sources: "Children Overboard affair" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR (August 2007) (Learn how and when to remove this message)

The Children Overboard affair was an Australian political controversy. In October 2001, during the lead-up to a federal election, the Australian government repeatedly claimed that asylum seekers on a “Suspected Illegal Entry Vessel” (SIEV), intercepted by HMAS Adelaide off Christmas Island, had thrown a number of children overboard in a presumed ploy to secure rescue and passage onto Australian soil. The vessel, designated SIEV 4, was believed to be operated by people smugglers.

Immigration Minister Philip Ruddock first made the claim on 7 October 2001, the day before writs for the federal election were issued. It was later made by other senior government ministers including Defence Minister Peter Reith and Prime Minister John Howard.

The government's handling of this issue, plus other events involving unauthorised arrivals (Tampa, SIEV X), worked in its favour. The government was able to portray itself as "strong" on border protection measures and opponents as "weak". In November 2001, the Liberal-National coalition was re-elected with an increased majority.

A subsequent inquiry by a Senate select committee found that the "Children Overboard" claim was untrue and that the government knew it was untrue prior to the election. The Government attracted criticism that it had misled the public and fomented mistrust of asylum seekers by portraying them as people using unscrupulous means to gain illegal entry into Australia.

Background

In August 2001, the Norwegian container ship MV Tampa rescued 439 Afghans from a distressed fishing vessel in international waters. The Afghans wanted passage to nearby Christmas Island. The Australia government sought to prevent this by refusing Tampa entry into Australian waters, making arrangements for their disembarkment in other countries, and deploying the SASR to board Tampa.

The Tampa incident was a catalyst for the government's adoption of stricter border protection measures to prevent unauthorised arrivals from reaching Australia by boat. Polls indicated the government's measures had public support.

Senate inquiry and findings

The Senate inquiry did not find that children were thrown from SIEV 4. The evidence did not support the Children Overboard claim. The photographs, purported to show children being thrown into the sea, were taken during a rescue after SIEV 4 sank. Sabotage was implicated but never proven as the cause.

In response, Howard said that he acted on the intelligence he was given at the time. It was later revealed that Howard was informed on 7 November that the Children Overboard claim was false. On 26 February 2006 Howard said, "They irresponsibly sank the damn boat, which put their children in the water".

A dissenting report authored by government members of the Senate inquiry found that passengers aboard other SIEVs had threatened children, sabotaged their own vessels, committed self-harm and, in the case of SIEV-7 on 22 October, thrown a child overboard who was rescued by another asylum seeker.

Scrafton and the reopened inquiry

In August 2004, Michael Scrafton, a former senior advisor to Peter Reith, said John Howard was told, prior to making the Children Overboard claim, that it was untrue. On 14 February 2006 Peter Reith said "It was not raised with me as to whether or not children had been thrown overboard, and in fact some weeks later, I was still under the impression that there was no question that children were thrown overboard ... no report was given to me."

Although the Senate enquiry was reopened, Scrafton's claims were criticised. In particular, Scrafton claimed that he and Howard had spoken three times on the telephone, but telephone records showed that they spoke twice.

Scrafton's revelations and the reopening of the inquiry occurred close to the announcement of the 2004 Federal election. The children overboard affair received widespread coverage and discussion within political and media circles and was made a central part of the Australian Labor Party's election campaign.

References

  1. Election Dates (1901 to Present) - House of Representatives, Australian Electoral Commission
  2. Truth overboard : the story that won't go away, SMH, David Marr, 28 Feb 2006
  3. http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/committee/maritime_incident_ctte/report/f04.htm

External links

Categories: