• John Quiggin

17 August 2004Here, he analyses yesterday’s revelations and looks at what the bloggers had to say. (And if you’re still not quite sure what a blogger is, follow this link to Joanna Mareth’s primer on the subject.)

THE revived children overboard scandal is currently in the ‘he said-she said’ stage. John Howard has offered a slightly equivocal denial of the claim, detailed in yesterday’s Australian, 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 PM 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 he somehow still wasn’t told that the evidence was bogus.

What are the political implications of Scrafton’s letter? Continuing lame denials will, I think, pose a big problem for Howard and those who want to defend him on this issue. The line they really want to push, and are happy enough to offer in private, 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. The renewed debate 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 anti-refugee vote locked up. His big achievement in 2001 was to combine this vote with the ‘law and order’ appeal of keeping out queue-jumpers 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 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 bad for the government.

What the bloggers are saying
The left and centrists Australian bloggers are, 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 Howard’s 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.

Professor John Quiggin is a federation fellow in economics and political science based at the University of Queensland and the Australian National University. His web site is at http://www.uq.edu.au/economics/johnquiggin and his weblog is at http://johnquiggin.com.