| Revision as of 06:33, 4 September 2007 editBrendan (talk | contribs)1,523 edits Expand details, improve chronology← Previous edit | Revision as of 06:37, 4 September 2007 edit undoPrester John (talk | contribs)6,966 edits replace quotes and senate findingNext edit → | ||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
| 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 ]. | 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 ]. | ||
| Immigration Minister ] first made the claim 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 made by other ] including Defence Minister ] and ] ]. |
Immigration Minister ] first made the claim on 7 October 2001{{Fact|date=August 2007}}, 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|date=August 2007}} | ||
| The government's handling of this |
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. | ||
| A ] select committee |
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 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.{{Fact|date=August 2007}} | ||
| ==Background== | |||
| While it remains uncertain whether sabotage caused SIEV 4 to sink<ref>, SMH, David Marr, 28 Feb 2006</ref>, in an interview for a book, ''The Howard Factor'', John Howard maintained "they irresponsibly sank the damn boat, which put their children in the water" and "they did sink the boat".<ref>, George Megalogenis, The Australian, 27 February 2006</ref> | |||
| 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''. | |||
| ⚫ | ==Senate inquiry findings== | ||
| The ] was a catalyst for the government's adoption of stricter ] measures to prevent ]s from reaching Australia by boat. Polls indicated the government's measures had public support. | |||
| The Senate inquiry found that no children were thrown overboard from SIEV 4; that the evidence did not support the Children Overboard claim; and that the purported to show children thrown into the sea were taken after SIEV 4 sank. In response, Howard said that he acted on the intelligence he was given at the time. | |||
| ⚫ | ==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>. | |||
| 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>, Select Committee on a certain maritime incident</ref> | 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>, Select Committee on a certain maritime incident</ref> | ||
| ==Scrafton |
==Scrafton and the reopened inquiry== | ||
| In August 2004, ], a former senior advisor to Peter Reith, |
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. | |||
| The Senate inquiry was reopened to hear Scrafton's testimony<ref>, 9 December 2004</ref> and subsequently found his claims to be credible. Government committee members questioned the reliability of Scrafton's testimony, including that he had spoken with Howard three times on the telephone when records showed that they spoke twice, and wrote a minority dissenting report challenging the finding.<ref>, The World Today, ABC Local Radio, 9 December 2004</ref> | |||
| Scrafton's |
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. | ||
| ==References== | ==References== | ||
Revision as of 06:37, 4 September 2007
 | 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
- Election Dates (1901 to Present) - House of Representatives, Australian Electoral Commission
- Truth overboard : the story that won't go away, SMH, David Marr, 28 Feb 2006
- Government Members Report - Appendix I - The Pattern of Conduct, Select Committee on a certain maritime incident
External links
- Australian Senate - Select Committee for an inquiry into a certain maritime incident
- Main report of the Australian Senate select committee into a certain maritime incident
- About 45 leaked Australian NAVY photographs of the kids overboard, being rescued by the sailors
- 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.