Home   >   Opinion   >   Michelle Grattan   >   Article     

Truth mustn't be a casualty

March 12 2003

The children-overboard book is a timely reminder about the dangerous politics of deception, writes Michelle Grattan.

With war imminent, "children overboard" has come to seem just a disreputable success story on John Howard's long political CV. Until you read Dark Victory, a revealing reconstruction by journalists David Marr and Marian Wilkinson of the Tampa crisis and beyond: an appalling tale of a deceitful Government, compromised public service and impotent media.

It should be compulsory reading for bureaucrats who don't want to irreparably tarnish their reputations - and political journalists covering the Government's handling of the coming war.

In the "children overboard" incident, and the preceding Tampa affair:

1. Howard, helped by those around him, averted his gaze from the truth that children had not been thrown overboard, relying later on literalism to claim he didn't know. If Howard wasn't aware he was perpetuating a lie, it was because he had chosen not to be. He's a very sharp man, and the facts were staring at him around every corner.

2. The PM tapped into emotions of fear.

3. The Government made decisions, including the timing of medical help to the Tampa, that put political before humanitarian considerations.

4. People acting honourably and properly, notably Tampa captain Arne Rinnan, were treated appallingly.

5. Public servants were encouraged, if not required, to put electoral imperatives ahead of proper conduct, and the military - some of whom courageously insisted that their political masters heard the truth - became pawns.

6. Censorship was rampant; the media were lied to and thrown off track (until very late in the piece) by the spin.

At least the Big Lie (to be harsh but accurate) of the Iraq debate is so obvious that it's become just a black joke - that we are not already committed to a war.

"If the Americans lose patience with the UN... do we still go with them?" John Laws asked yesterday. "Well, we have to make a decision when we know the facts," Howard replied.

A less dramatic but interesting example of how we're being told partial truths is the expulsion this week of an Iraqi diplomat, Helal Aaref. That this man is thrown out is not a matter of any great principle. Such things are part of diplomatic life. At issue is whether the Government gives an immediate, full and accurate account.

According to American ABC news last week, the US launched a campaign to disrupt Iraqi intelligence agents, approaching (secretly) more than 60 countries, listing 300 suspected agents. One country was Australia; on the US list was Helal Aaref; ASIO, under intelligence-sharing arrangements, had actually given the Americans the information about him. ASIO had found Aaref targeting local Iraqis who opposed Saddam Hussein. It had not accused him of "spying" in the conventional sense.

When Alexander Downer fronted the cameras on Saturday, he didn't say what the man was doing. Aaref's activities were "incompatible with his status as a diplomat"; "we do have real security concerns about his activities". The impression left was Aaref was engaged in espionage. Only later did Government sources indicate as background the nature of Aaref's activities.

Howard invoked the intelligence mystique: "The reason he has been asked to go is that he has broken the unwritten rules. Based on intelligence and security considerations, I don't - for reasons most people understand - intend to go into details of those security and intelligence considerations."

Why not? ASIO didn't have to be compromised. Anyway, a representative of the Iraqi community was talking his head off on TV. It would have also been better for ASIO if a more complete version had been given initially. ASIO had to brief Simon Crean on the full story anyway. And ASIO, which wants more powers, has its own reputation to preserve in difficult times.

The security mystique is one Government technique; so is the long bow. Howard used this at the weekend in invoking the Bali bombing to help make his case on Iraq.

In 2001, the Government argued that the asylum-seeker boats might carry terrorists (unlikely - terrorists want more efficient transport arrangements). And Howard whipped up feeling by saying he wouldn't want in this country people willing to throw their children overboard.

Howard's statement last weekend was: "We lost 88 Australians in Bali because of a wilful act of international terrorism... And I will, amongst other things, be asking the Australian people to bear those circumstances in mind if we become involved in military contact with Iraq."

To be fair to him, Howard justifies this by saying he was backing up his point about the danger of rogue states giving terrorists weapons of mass destruction. The effect, however, is what is now called a "dog whistle". The comment was appealing to deep-seated fears and carried implications wider than the words. In this case the dog bit back: some relatives of Bali victims came out denouncing the PM.

The chagrin for journalists reading Dark Victory is the extent to which we failed in our job, especially when out on the road with Howard. There is a lesson for now, when the media's job is even harder. If anything, since the election the Government's spin machine has become still more ruthless.

Just one example: since the election Howard hasn't appeared once on Ten's Meet the Press. Why? Apparently a reason is that Channel Ten employed Kim Beazley's former press secretary as a reporter in Canberra. Withholding the prime ministerial presence is a powerful weapon with TV; it's also the tip of a rather grubby iceberg.

Last night, the Government was frantically "spinning", after an Office of National Assessments officer resigned over Iraq. In a nice irony, ONA boss Kim Jones said the officer's main work wasn't on Iraq - but on illegal immigration.

Taken too far, playing fast and loose can be counter-productive for the Government. Robert Hill this week denied a story suggesting the SAS was already in Iraq. "No Australian Defence Force personnel deployed to Operation Bastille have entered Iraq," he said. A journalist colleague, reflecting the cynicism now prompted by Government words, remarked that the apparently categorical denial just made him wonder if there could be any there who weren't deployed to Operation Bastille, but in another capacity.



In this section

Howard's new battleground

Lees pursues a new role at centre stage

Crean's choice may be tears or dignity

Too early to talk of war's success

Labor faces a health reform minefield

The great divide: how it will change politics

Labor offered a Taylor-made vision

The quality of learning is strained

It's time for Labor to choose

ATSIC's day of reckoning approaches

More pundits than Liberal peaceniks


As war wages, a call for alms

Simply, Simon needs some smoothing

Costello needs to have a delicate touch

The AgeMost viewed articles
From midnight AEST

  1. Rose makes sure it counts