| Revision as of 22:29, 24 August 2006 editSuperJumbo (talk | contribs)3,229 edits correct date formats and some POV. Can we have sources for these claims, please?← Previous edit | Revision as of 22:30, 24 August 2006 edit undoSuperJumbo (talk | contribs)3,229 edits →Senate inquiry and findingsNext edit → | ||
| Line 23: | Line 23: | ||
| Instead, the pictures which had been purported to show that children had been thrown into the sea were in fact taken during a rescue after SIEV 4 had sunk. When this was discovered, Howard claimed that he was acting on the intelligence he was given at the time. However, it was later revealed that Howard had been informed on ] that the claim was false, three days before the election, and it appears that he had chosen not to publicly correct or retract the claim. | Instead, the pictures which had been purported to show that children had been thrown into the sea were in fact taken during a rescue after SIEV 4 had sunk. When this was discovered, Howard claimed that he was acting on the intelligence he was given at the time. However, it was later revealed that Howard had been informed on ] that the claim was false, three days before the election, and it appears that he had chosen not to publicly correct or retract the claim. | ||
| The Senate inquiry did however find that passengers aboard a number of other SIEVs had threatened children, sabotaged their vessels, committed ], and in the case of ] on ], a child had actually been thrown overboard, but was subsequently rescued by another asylum seeker. | The Senate inquiry did however find that passengers aboard a number of other SIEVs had threatened children, sabotaged their vessels, committed ], and in the case of ] on ], a child had actually been thrown overboard, but was subsequently 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== | ||
Revision as of 22:30, 24 August 2006
The children overboard affair is an Australian political scandal which arose in 2001 when the government claimed that “a number of children had been thrown overboard” from a “suspected illegal entry vessel” (or SIEV) which had been intercepted by HMAS Adelaide off Christmas Island. The vessel, designated SIEV 4, was carrying a number of asylum seekers, and believed to be operated by people smugglers.
The claim was first announced by the then Minister for Immigration, Philip Ruddock on 7 October 2001, and repeated in subsequent days and weeks by senior Government ministers, including the Minister for Defence, Peter Reith, and Prime Minister John Howard.
The motivation of those allegedly throwing their children overboard, according to those who reported the incident, was to effectively "force" the Royal Australian Navy to rescue the children and their parents. The claim was used to cast doubt on the passengers of SIEV 4 as genuine refugees, instead characterising them as people prepared to use unscrupulous means to gain illegal entry into Australia.
A subsequent inquiry by a Senate select committee found that not only was the claim untrue, but that the government knew the claim to be untrue before the Federal elections, which were held one month later. Part of the title of the main report prepared by the committee has become synonymous with the scandal: a certain maritime incident.
Background
The incident occurred two months after the Tampa incident, where a Norwegian container ship had rescued Afghan asylum seekers and sought to drop them off on Christmas Island. This series of events became the catalyst for the adoption by the Howard government of a stricter border protection regime, the stated purpose of which was to prevent unauthorised arrivals from reaching Australia by boat.
In the lead up to the children overboard affair the government had therefore been seeking public support for this regime, and the incident may have helped garner this support. The children overboard affair subsequently spawned many investigative journalist reports and several books.
Political analysts believe that the children overboard affair worked in favour of the incumbent Coalition government. With the election campaign underway, the Coalition was depicted as favouring strong border protection measures, while the opposition Labor Party was conversely depicted as "weak" on this issue.
Senate inquiry and findings
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 false.
Instead, the pictures which had been purported to show that children had been thrown into the sea were in fact taken during a rescue after SIEV 4 had sunk. When this was discovered, Howard claimed that he was acting on the intelligence he was given at the time. However, it was later revealed that Howard had been informed on 7 November that the claim was false, three days before the election, and it appears that he had chosen not to publicly correct or retract the claim.
The Senate inquiry did however find that passengers aboard a number of other SIEVs had threatened children, sabotaged their vessels, committed self-harm, and in the case of SIEV-7 on 22 October, a child had actually been thrown overboard, but was subsequently rescued by another asylum seeker.
Scrafton and the reopened inquiry
In August 2004, Michael Scrafton, 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.
Although the Senate enquiry was reopened, Scrafton's claims were criticised. In particular, Scrafton's claimed that he and Howard had spoken three times on the telephone, but telephone records allowed Howard to maintain that they only 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.
The Howard reelection campaign focused heavily on "trust" and many thought this would be a debilitating blow. The government maintained that the Australian public was uninterested in the entire affair and indeed they were reelected with an increased lower house majority, and a newfound majority in the Senate, an outcome that raises doubts as to whether the inquiry will proceed.
See also
External links
- Main report of the Australian Senate select committee into a certain maritime incident
- Media releases by John Howard on the Scrafton claims
- Truth Overboard — political website maintained by the Australian Labor Party.
- Senate Select Committee on the Scrafton Evidence
- "Scrafton and Howard locked in dispute over children overboard" (transcript), by Matt Brown: The World Today (ABC Local Radio), 1 September 2004.
- "Indifference can be dangerous", by Shaun Carney: Sydney Morning Herald, 8 April 2002.