HMV Tampa
Tonight ABC1 puts to air its documentary Leaky boat plus a special edition of Q&A. Can’t say I’m looking forward to it, but the arrival of MV Tampa which Howard turned into the Tampa affair in the context of the 2001 election not only changed the way we treat refugees but changed Australia.
We’ve done masses on this issue before. Here, I think, was the last. Tonight I thought I’d share some memories and thoughts.
Early in 2001 John Howard was a dead man walking politically. John Moore retired in the blue ribbon seat of Ryan, then my electorate. In the bi-election we returned a Labor candidate. Pollster Gary Morgan advised Howard on what he needed to do to revive himself politically. One piece of advice, it is said, was to take the country to war.
My recall was that during the year Howard made some progress, but in late August the situation was still pretty hopeless. During the week before Tampa arrived I remember Ian Macfarlane, the Member for Groom based on Toowoomba, coming up with about five different stories about what happened to some campaign funds. Generally speaking the Government was struggling and looked hopelessly incompetent.
The ABC TV blog gives the significant events from 26 August, 2001 to the election on 10 November.
September 11 and the Twin Towers fortuitously saw Howard in Washington, a stone’s throw from the attack on The Pentagon. A reporter told how Howard’s mood changed and his spirits lifted with the smell of cordite in the air. An election was called on 5 October, on 8 October we had “Children overboard”, and then in late October we had SIEV X.
Beazley tried to tag Howard with the blame for the 353 people who perished that day. They were mostly women and children, many trying to join their husbands who were already in Australia. There is a very good case that the Howard Government’s policy neglect had brought matters to this state of affairs. But Howard was outraged and in the face of his Alpha male reply, Beazley crumbled. From that time, Beazley just wanted to ignore the whole refugee business and make his case to the people on other policies.
To me he seemed to be succeeding, but needed momentum to carry him through to the line. But on the Tuesday before the election we had the Melbourne Cup and then on the Wednesday front page newspaper revelations that no children had been thrown overboard. This, I think, played strongly in Howard’s favour. When voters turned up to vote they saw large banners screaming:
We will decide who comes to this country and the circumstances in which they come.
My sister’s 60th birthday fell just before the election, so my younger brother and I went out into the country to help her celebrate it. On the Sunday after the election my elder brother, a member of the National Party rang through, talked to my younger bro, but didn’t want to talk to me. He thought I’d be very angry.
Well we did talk and ended up agreeing that Howard had been without peer in political ruthlessness in exploiting the situation.
On 24 August, 2001 Desmond Manderson, then Director of the Julius Stone Institute of Jurisprudence at the University of Sydney, had an article “Care of strangers’ published in the Australian Financial Review based on the philosophy of the work of the great ethical philosopher and Jewish theologian Emmanuel Levinas. Later I did a guest post at Quiggin’s with this conclusion:
Responsibility, the second Levinas’ concept brought to bear, is our ability to respond. In a sense we don’t choose whether to respond, merely how. We are chosen by the proximity of the stranger in need. This responsibility “comes from the ‘face to face’ encounter with another person and cannot be satisfied by the rote application of rules.”
We can choose to accept or reject our responsibility. If we accept then both we and the ‘other’ grow in humanity. If we reject our responsibility we certainly diminish ourselves and may also harm others. In the end it’s a simple argument. We are all connected and we are here to help each other. Out of that we grow and, as a matter of grace, may become happy.
Manderson concludes:
“The fundamental test of justice is one of hospitality to the stranger. Too bad for us, but we do not have a say in the matter. In this, we are already the chosen people.”
That was Manderson’s challenge. Two days later the Tampa showed up. I’ll leave it to you to work out how well we went on the test.
On 7 September, also in the AFR, Ghassan Hage’s lecture The shrinking society: ethics and hope in the era of global capitalism about our underlying racism and attitudes to ‘the Other’ without and within was published.
We didn’t measure up well in his terms either.
Finally, this. When in Opposition John Faulkner relentlessly pursued the Howard government over the truth about SIEV X. But as this entry on the SIEV X site shows when Minister for Defence, he didn’t pursue what happened. I’ve wondered about that.
Anyway, I look forward to what you make of the ABC doco.
Update: I should have also linked to tigtog’s post #GoBackSBS asylum-seeker doco aftermath.
Also I’ve found the link to a post I did for Webdiary in October 2001 Understanding our racism – an attempt which some may find interesting.
Because there was nothing to pursue – aside from government. It was always a crack-pot conspiracy theory.
Labour just found it a convenient cudgel at the time. Basically, a way to motivate their left flank without alienating the nation’s middle by revealing their true intentions.
There was political manipulation on a significant scale – the degree of “responsiveness” by the public service was a dark stain on the integrity of the Australian Public service.
Um, Brian, you’ve linked to Ghassan Hage’s lecture but have you read it?
It is palpably sanctimonious crap. I wish Ghassan well as I would anyone but in terms of any intellectual content you could go out into your garden and pick up a snail and it would do better than he has done.
No doubt in my mind the mad monk changed his vote to stockdale in the full knowledge that this program was a reminder of the devious lying character of reith.
@4
Yes stunning isn’t it that this man who is basically a thug and political operator of Nixonian proportions has recently been portrayed by our media as some sort of gentle giant of the Liberal Party. Waterfront brown shirts, mobile phone bill fraud and willful misrepresentation of a tragedy for political ends, a gangster and nothing more.
I’ve known Vicki Pitt for 30 years. Lovely person but I am not expecting a balanced view point to be put.
Ratty’s “Pacific Solution” was designed to deter refugees from claiming rights conceded by Australia to refugees.
Yet, as the documentary failed to show, the apparent success of the “Pacific Solution” was in fact an artifact of push factors.
So Ratty is revealed to be a lucky cheat. I knew that already. However, it was nice to see some further corroborative evidence of that fact.
Interestingly, the greatest victims of Ratty’s cheating nature were the Liberal Party which found itself led by dint of lying in 2007 by a putrescent political corpse. After all, the vast majority of the folk whom Howard dehumanized and traduced were found to be refugees after all.
Is it really ten years ago. It doesn’t seem that long ago. Howard still resonates. His voice has changed, but the message hasn’t.
It would be really interesting to see what has happened to the ‘Tampa people’. A simple, quietly-told story of their experiences, leading to the Tampa and then afterwards and where they are today. All 400+, where they went, what has happened since, the good, the bad, not just those that speak English but also people who aren’t fluent, those working, in trouble, in jail, having kids, doing well, living in New Zealand or Melbourne, Wagga or wherever. Sort of like a ‘Tampa story’ in the style of an ‘Australian story’. I’d still like to see that. (Didn’t see it tonight though, mores the pity).
Population of Bangladesh: 150,863,000; elevation of the Lower Gangetic Plain is generally less than 10 meters above sea level. Elevations are noted to decrease “in the coastal south, where the terrain is generally at sea level. With such low elevations and numerous rivers, water—and concomitant flooding—is a predominant physical feature. About 10,000 square kilometers of the total area of Bangladesh is covered with water, and larger areas are routinely flooded during the monsoon season.”
We ain’t seen nuthin yet. I’m going real hard for razor wire as of now. In order to stimulate the manufacturing sector I propose not Teh Pacific Solution but Teh ‘Strayan Solution: a secondary defence line of dingo traps right behind the razor wire.
Or we could just broadcast continuous footage of Piers into the reffo camps and slums of the world. That ought to put the buggars off.
Watching the QandA now; David Marr is right on the money talking about how fear of the boats reflects an old, irrational fear for Australians, a terror of being overrun by our populous, insidious neighbours, and that an unwillingless to acknowledge or discuss this emotional fear prevents the issue from being either placed in proper context, or resolved.
Scott Morrison is not as bad as Corey Bernardi, so I guess that makes him scum of the penultimate order.
I think Marr is close but not right on the money. The real anxiety is over the fact that we know now that the last time unbidden boat arrivals arrived here the locals got properly bent over the bonnet. We don’t want that future for a country that still thinks of itself as a bunch of whitefellas.
Watching ‘Leaky boat’ served to remind that, no matter how ineffectual and vapid Gillard seems at times, Howard was a whole lot worse.
The admittedly effective, but nonetheless blatantly dishonest exploitation of that human tragedy by the Howardistas in order to remain in power remains one of our most shameful episodes as a modern democratic society.
In particular the virtually complete contemporary and ongoing silence over the real source of our real illegal immigrants, the white ones coming in on planes and overstaying their visas.
I found Howard’s attempt to portray all this as just his government being ‘forced’ by public opinion to act this way as truly despicable blame shifting.
Missed the doco (working late), but I saw some of the Q’n'A (and wished I hadn’t).
Sarah H-Y was OK, as was the young woman with the scarf (She got drowned out a bit), and David Marr was fantastic. Bowen is a disappointment, both as a politician and a human being. Morrison is just vile. Piers Ackerman, otoh, sounded almost reasonable. They must’ve put something in his feed.
Aye robbo + patrickb, forgot about that mobile phone bill fraud. To me the ‘scary one’ tho, was always the one with the AI batch.
Ratty’s rein left some shitty legacies and their stains will show over time. I was rereading Howard facing his Nixon moment and for good measure house committee report (pdf) re decision to go to war in Irak and intelligence. My stomach still churns, while this other legacy, this present incarnation of monstrous populist proto-fascist git, cries Juliar. I do not know Australian political history very well, is there a previous Prime minister with equivalent moral form, or has Howard set some benchmarks here?
Could not watch tonight. Thanks for the warning DI (nr) re Piers on drugs. Worth watching on iview?
akn @11:
Was the arrival of Vietnamese refugees in the late 1970s / early 1980s quite as dramatic as that?
DI(nr), if you saw the whole thing I fancy you’d have a different opinion about Ackerman and perhaps Chris Bowen.
Craig Mc, I presume you refer to the theory that SIEV X was sabotaged. David Marr and Marian Wilkinson in Dark Victory didn’t find any evidence of sabotage, but sabotage was on the agenda in activities designed to disrupt people smuggler activities.
My take is that there were cock-ups over communication between the agencies for sure and also strenuous attempts on the part of the Government to prevent the Senate Inquiry from finding the full story.
Beyond that what you can and can’t say gets a bit complicated.
There is a transcript of Phillip Adams interview with Marr on the net, which touches upon SIEV X, but is particularly enlightening about the events surrounding the Tampa incident, especially about Downer and Rudd.
Quick straw poll just now of the front bar: “Use the Navy to torpedo the boats”.
I recall the Tampa incident, but not in the context of an election. My secretary at the time was an ALP adherent (member of the party) & is stunned that anybody can think it was an election issue. She’ll go to her grave maintaining “everybody” had made up their mind about the election long beforehand.
Poor Chris Bowen got it from every direction in the panel discussion. He’s on a hiding to nothing. Scott Morrison, hmmm, don’t go into a debate with him unless fully armed with facts, he’s no pushover.
David Marr, pretentious twat, as usual. Sarah Hanson-Young, kept her mouth closed a fair bit, thus didn’t come accorss as air-headed as she usually does. The attractive refugee sheila? A bit out of her depth, but at least her glossy make-up was pleasant to look at.
The studio audience? A mix of unhinged crackpots & dimwits. Very few of them were anything like accross the topic.
Ootz @ 15:
William Morris Hughes (in regards to the Conscription referenda) would come close…
patrickg @ 10, Racist Propaganda prepares a voting population to embrace war. War and Racism are electoral winners!!! (The people marching against Vietnam knew that…………pity we’re all too rich and sophisticated NOW!!)
Geez, did David Marr stand out on that panel. The young girl was pretty good and put that silly woman from the SBS show in her place, Hanson-Young was decent providing a few facts when Bowen was spinning like a top and continually refusing to answer Tony Jones’ questions. Bowen is just typical of the right-wing types that infest the ALP now, whatever it takes indeed.
Morrison was his usual odious self and Piers I thought for the most part reigned his far-right opinions in but did threaten to highjack the show at one point.
What was really disappointing was hearing Bowen try and sell a policy not too dissimilar to Howard’s while occasionally arguing with Morrison over small details. I suppose it’s a bit like QT it’s all theatre and you’ve got to be seen to be disagreeing.
Thanks Jacques de Molay. I’d not depart much from your evaluation of QANDA.
I would observe that Leaky Boat>, the hype notwithstanding about it “taking a point of view”, was very much a straight documentary, by contrast with #goback which we saw recently or something from the Pilger range. Perhaps Ms Winter-Pitt had a POV, but if so, it was placed most subtly in the product.
That avowed “libertarian” Judith Sloane objected to its screening merely serves to underline how far the ABC has moved from being a public broadcaster in the eyes of the IPA and its fringe to become, in their view, a natural vehicle for the advance of their cultural agenda to people largely unsympathetic to it.
was watching Johnny depp and Helena Bonham Carter in Sweeney Todd, the Demon Barber of Fleet Street. But I did catch most of Q&A. Marr and the young refugee girl were great, but otherwise, as usual, political bullshit reigned supreme on the panel, despite the attempts of some actual refugees to inject some sense and/or truth into the debate.
I am no prude, but I found the gratuitous shots from underwater of swimmers (and particularly those younger ones) in a public pool most unedifying. They contributed nothing to our knowledge of the issue.
If they were intended to convey lack of security this could have been illustrated without any sexual overtones.
Why this part should be labelled ‘documentary’ is beyond me.
#16 Terangeree, you need to go back a couple of hundreds of years, not a couple of tens.
Scott Morrison behaved like a typical LNP bully talking over people consistently, unrestrained by Tony Jones.
I think Chris Bowen’s performance showed the difficulty of defending a position that was no real answer.
Speaking of which, I think the program did get across the point that current policies everywhere and the UN treaty is not remotely coming to terms with the problem of 42 million people displaced, which is likely to get worse.
The issue of the scale of displacement is real and pressing – a large number of those though if you go case by case through the regions involved relate to people who are wanting to get back home. 42 million is a big number, but I suspect that that number includes internally displaced people? Can anyone confirm that?
There are several different problems included in that big number and they need unpacking if we are to debate the matter sensibly.
1. Large numbers of internal displacements that require support for the resolution of internal conflicts and support to provide stable and effective government – some of these displacements are driven by conflict over the control of resources from minerals to diamonds in Africa particularly
2. Significant groups of people displaced to the borders of their homelands – again requiring resolution of the conflicts that have driven them there. Again some of these will move to seek asylum but the majority will return home of the right conditions are created.
3. People who are driven to seek asylum – this is a significant group and will grow in numbers if the forces pushing people across borders are not dealt with.
What the debate in Q and A avoided was the question of Australian implication in the creation and maintenance of circumstances that are creating the problems of displacement, or where we are failing to put pressure on to move people toward a resolution of the situation.
A just
I think it’s time for a Q and A on the solutions with no politicians on the panel. I am sick of the opposing views from all sides, let’s get together a panel of people to focus on the answers and try to achieve a consensus.
Steve at the Pub at #18 -
‘Quick straw poll just now of the front bar: “Use the Navy to torpedo the boats”’.
I don’t find that hard to believe, I hear similar often. I wonder, though, how did you respond?
Terangeree: I did of course mean the First Fleet and played fast and loose with history there.
Scott Morrison deserves a belt in the mouth merely for constantly overtalking. Tony Jones is an awful show pony. I watch Q+A with my kids but only in order to help educate them about negative models of discussion.
There is a human deluge approaching as the ecological collapse deepens and quickens. The anxiety that Marr notes is not just about our history. It is also about knowing that we will be forced to confront our deepest inhumanity within the next 50 years. Steve at the Pub’s front bar survey is probably accurate. Santa Maria recommended decades ago that Australia acquire nuke weapons with which to repel boarders. Overkill, to be sure, but we must acknowledge that this is a strong element of heartland Australia: xenophobic, ungenerous, violent. I’ve advised my kids that the real challenge for them will be to ensure that this hatred and violence is not turned on them by their fellow citizens. Negotiating that future will be a most unenviable task for them.
The producers aren’t interested in solutions, it’s all about the conflict and opposing points of view, however strident and ridiculous. In fact the more strident and ridiculous the better, because, hey it’s far more entertaining that way.
I possibly judged Bowen a bit harshly – it must be difficult to defend a policy which violates our obligations under various treaties, is possible illegal, and is certainly morally repugnant.
Nah, fuck him. That’s why he gets paid the big bucks.
If they were intended to convey lack of security this could have been illustrated without any sexual overtones.
Sheesh, Lesley, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. Remind me not to get in the pool with you any time, certainly not in budgie smugglers (to be fair, no one should get in a pool with anyone – even themselves – in budgie smugglers).
One thing I think has been missed in a lot of the recent debate is the focus on push factors, i.e. our invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, and our resolute blindness to the Sinhalese conflict. No one discussed last night – or on Go Back To Where You Came From – that if we hadn’t blown these countries to shit, the vast majority of those people on boats would likely never have left, and that – acknowledging said blowing to shit – we may have a duty of care to these people.
I’m too young to remember, but wasn’t that basically the line that Fraser took? I.e. We went to war in your country because we believed the leaders were so evil, you’re fleeing the leaders and the fact your country is now basically a munitions and pesticide dump at our instigation , naturally we’ll extend a hand?
I haven’t got the figures but my under standing is that Ruddock boosted the refugee intake after the fuss about the boats died down. Sounded like Bowen is on the same path. Not the sort of thing a government would want to boast about.
It was also claimed that Aus already had the highest per capita settlement rate for refugees. The refugees Australia is taking include quite a few who come with no education and/or no English. I am talking about the sort of people who take yonks to get even basic English and have trouble understanding that 71 and 17 are different numbers.
What I found most disappointing about this episode is not so much that howard and his hangers off tried it – very much on-song for those cads – but that it was (seemingly) so successful.
It made me realise Australia wasn’t the great egalitarian, ‘fair go for all’ nation I was brought up on, but an inward looking, backward, and xenophobic country just like all the rest. I think it did untold damage to our national image all for the sake of some complete arsehole being re-elected.
It really dented my already cynical view of human nature.
Up to the Tampa election Beazly’s big strength was his perceived decency. When he rolled over he lost that and he lost the people who would be out fighting his case if he had stuck to his guns. My take is that didn’t Howard win because of how he behaved during the Tampa crisis. He won because Labor lost it’s moral compass.
John D: exactly right. Beazley’s failure initiated the humanist left’s move away from the ALP. Without the humanist left the ALP has become what it is today – a vehicle for cynical careerists whose only grasp of politics comes from focus groups.
I am glad John Howard lost the election. He did nothing but lie to rake in the votes and win the election. He instilled fear in people until he got the boot. I hope Australia never has another Howard for P.M.
PatrickG@32: it’s not the Sinhalese conflict, it’s the Sinhalese-Tamil conflict. Both sides have committed war crimes, it’s just that the Sinhalese have been overt about their desire to commit genocide. I’m disturbed at how solid the Sinhalese I’ve heard from are about the evil nature of Tamils and how they often broach the subject with me by explaining that The Greens (and their supporters, like me) are evil rascists who hate all Sinhalese. You see, The Greens want a war crimes tribunal to investigate Sri Lanka. It doesn’t help when I ask whether they think only Sinhalese committed war crimes. Or that pointing at Australia’s history doesn’t excuse theirs.
The sort of rubbish that’s being pointed out in this thread does not help the discussion of these issues.
I also note that Australia is making/has made the transition from mainly creating refugees by invasion to making them via climate change.
Thinking back to the Tampa Election, I can recall the general view, pre-Tampa that the ALP would win fairly comfortably. I had no intention of supporting Kim “bomber” Beazley of course — they had been at best, unworthy of support. Their introduction of mandatory detention, their smashing of the BLF under Hawke/Keating, the Accord …
Yet I had friends who were keen to get rid of Howard and had a certain frisson that having been done over in 1998, they would finally reverse the result. After Tampa, they were, almost without exception, in very poor spirits because they knew that the wedge Beazley accepted would ensure another three years. Some thought it would help “save the furniture for 2004″ and scoffed when I said that Beazley would lose ground unless he did abandon bipartisanship.
To the best of my knowledge most of them did vote ALP in 2001, but OTOH, they kept it to themselves, and would change the subject every time the election got an airing.
akn @ 27:
From my reading of Australian history (maybe Paul B. could help out here), the First Fleet got on quite well with the locals.
As happened later in Brisbane, it was only with the introduction of non-convict settlers to the mix that the “dispersals” and frontier wars began…
I’ve now had a chance to watch it.
It is good and unsuprisingly presents what I would expect from Vicki. She orates it so well. She has used a number of her friends as extras so I shall compliment them on their screen debuts next time I catch up with them.
Suprise – used Peter Tinley and stated his SASR role but failed to state that he is a failed Federal ALP Candidate (my family was active in his campaign) and is now a State ALP Member in Carpenters old seat.
Vicki also noted that the boats have returned – no mention of the change of government and policy that pinpoints the turn around in arrivals.
Had I been in the audience of Q & A last night it’s quite possible I would have physically attacked Scott Morrison, not by throwing shoes but by punching him out. But I wasn’t there fortunately and all I could do was weep. Now at some distance I feel revolted that I allowed myself to sink to the same level as Scott Morrison. Do all bullies evince as much pleasure from their bullying as his triumphal smiling face seemed to reflect?
Leaky Boats was really showing much that was already known but Q. & A. brought home the reality of our own voyeuristic roles in what is an ongoing collective crime.
Any mention of the Tampa affair still makes my blood boil. But we really should let it go. Continuing the public outrage only entrenches support for the Libs amongst those for whom boat people is the decisive electoral issue. And ensures that the ALP will continue its desperate attempts to be more xenophobic and unprincipled than the Libs.
The “Leaky Boat” documentary was as notable for what it left out, more than what it included.
Such omissions make it easy to attract (justifiable) charges of bias & deliberate misinformation.
The oddball inclusion of swiming pool and beach scenes is difficult to understand.
I think the swimming scenes were a sort of compare and contrast type tool but I my be wrong.
Either that or a nice advertisement for the lovely lifestyle in Perth with Cottesloe Beach and Freo Swimming pool.
patrickg @ 32, I was alive in the 1970s but didn’t follow the refugee issue closely. From what I’ve read, Fraser certainly accepted our responsibilities and our duty of care. The overriding factor though was that the Americans were involved. Without them an solution approaching adequacy would have been close to impossible.
This article gives some numbers. I thought they were even larger.
The swimming pool/beach scenes were “relaxed and comfortable”, I thought.
“The “Leaky Boat” documentary was as notable for what it left out, more than what it included.”
For example…?
@48 – how about some discussion of the fact that the Tampa was basically a hijack situation. The Captain of the Tampa intended to sail to Indonesia after the rescue but was forced by the refugees to sail to Christmas Island.
Razor, that’s a new one to me.
Any supporting evidence for @ 49 claim?
I was unaware the occupants of the boat were armed. Or did they just talk real tough?
OBR, read “dark victory”. It gives a detailed and thorough description about what happened with Arne Rinnan and the Tampa.
He said later in an interview that he’d assumed the person he’d spoken with from the Australian government was tired and emotional, or otherwise impaired, and he’d be given some sensible advice once the regular staff clocked on the next day.
They threatened to jump overboard.
Razor – do you reckon an in-depth interview with the Tampa’s captain would have left you feeling better or worse about the documentary? About Howard’s handling of the situation? His comments about feeling threatened and coerced by the people he’d rescued were a preface for an absolutely blistering attack on Australia’s blatant disregard for maritime conventions and willingness to hang him and his crew out to dry.
Perhaps they should have interviewed him, then just cut it down to comments on how nasty the reffos were? For.. y’know… balance?
Swimming pool scenes = pensioners overboard.
Brian: The big difference with the Vietnamese was that Frazer and Whitlam had sympathy for the Vietnamese and agreed to be bipartisan on the subject. We have moved a long way to the nasty right since then leaving Frazer closer to the Greens on immigration, foreign aid etc. than any of the majors.
I used to think about Frazer as right wing but it worth remembering that it was Frazer and Viner who delivered land rights in Arnhem land.
John D, I think you’d have to exclude Whitlam when you are talking about sympathy. I think the phrasing was along the lines “I will not have those f*cking yellow Balts with their religious and political prejudices against us.”
But the Americans changed his mind.
That’s how I recall it.
Terangeree: you’re right. It’s just me playin’ fast and loose. I know the history but can’t be bothered unpacking it carefully anymore. But you get it. Cheers. It’s all about ‘whose side are you on’ now.
@ OBR 48
That’s not what Capt Rinnan said:
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tampa_affair
Captain Arne Rinnan received the highest civil honour in Norway as a result of his handling of this difficult incident. Rinnan has been a sailor since 1958, and a captain for 23 years. He said of the incident: “I have seen most of what there is to see in this profession, but what I experienced on this trip is the worst. When we asked for food and medicine for the refugees, the Australians sent commando troops on board. This created a very high tension among the refugees. After an hour of checking the refugees, the troops agreed to give medical assistance to some of them… The soldiers obviously didn’t like their mission.”
Capt Rinnan would be entitled to resent the blatant way you verballed him.
No Brian. The Australians changed their government. And, for better or worse, Malcolm Fraser became Prime Minister and was surprisingly anti- racist – unless you read his maiden speech in 1955 (for that was what the first speech of a new member of parliament was called in those dim dark days) where he made an unequivocal condemnation of apartheid in South Africa.
@ OBR 49:
From what I recall, the captain of the Tampa, after diverting from his scheduled course at the request of the Australian Government, and as a result now having 438 passengers on board a ship with only enough lifeboats for its crew of 25 sailors, changed course for the nearest land where he could offload the passengers, as his ship was unseaworthy (due to the number of lifeboats) for the number of people on board.
I also seem to recall that the Australian Government at one point in the whole affair threatened to prosecute the captain of the Tampa for “people smuggling”, even though the only reason why his ship was carrying 438 refugees was because the Australian Government asked him to pick them up.
Maybe it is because it is early in the morning, and I have just come off of a night shift, but the logic which you are using to read that as “hijacking” rather eludes me at present.
Tsk tsk tsk, Katz caught out again, misleading us (now there’s a surprise)
OBR @49:
Katz @57:
However, from Katz’ link @57:
GregM @ 58, I’d have to do a fair bit of work to find the reference, but what I think happened is that the Americans made clear to Whitlam that Australia would have to do its share. Whitlam sent a couple of people to select suitable refugees for coming to Australia, but these officials had very negative attitudes to immigration and were still working for the Department 20 years later.
But certainly the whole thing got organised when Fraser became PM where forward processing stations were set up so that very few proportionately ever came by by boat. Other countries involved in taking the refugees were the US, Canada, France and some other European nations.
With the Americans involved in organising this international effort, the Australia had little choice.
GregM, I found it easier than I thought, I summarised what happened in a post last year.
My source was Marion Le’s Alfred Deakin lecture. Clyde Cameron, Immigration Minister, recalled:
Then:
That earlier post was where I got the higher numbers I remembered @ 46. Professor Mary Crock cites 180,000 from Vietnam. Then:
SATP # 60, picking nits, or picking cherries?
From the same source, comes this:
“On 29 August, Captain Arne Rinnan, having lost patience with the Australian authorities, and increasingly concerned for the safety of the asylum seekers and the ship’s crew, declared a state of emergency and proceeded to enter Australian territorial waters without permission. The legality of this action has been the subject of debate, with the Australian government maintaining that it was illegal.”
“Having lost patience with Australian authorities” doesn’t sound a lot like “under threat from hi-jackers”. Or maybe it’s a qustion of linguistics.
@ via Collins. What I am doing is known elsewhere as “being accurate”.
Rinnan (now 2-i-c of the Tampa) under orders from his hijackers, ignored the request from Indonesian authorities (who were supervising the rescue, being as it was happening in their SAR area) and demanded to be allowed to enter Australia. Australia refused permission.
Simple.
Hi SATP,
I’m not too sure your proposal of accuracy holds water without some evidence.
1. “Under orders from his hijackers” – again, I would ask how an unarmed group of families can hijack a massive tanker. My very limited experience of the sea would suggest this scenario extremely unlikely.
2. “ignored the request from Indonesian authorities” – what request? From whom? When was it made?
Why stop there? Why not “nuke the site from orbit. It’s the only way to be sure” ?
And the ‘hijacking’ meme is getting up there into Truther territory…fanciful fact-free syllogisms to scratch an ideological itch.
SATP, there is a detailed account of what happened on the Tampa which you should read, as Helen said @ 51, before you attempt to purvey any more misinformation.
Tampa was on route to Singapore. After Australian bullying the Indonesians agreed that he could let the refugees off at Meerak on the way.
They became very agitated over this as some had come from there and it wasn’t why they got on a boat. A delegation of five talked to Rinnan on the bridge. They were agitated and there were unspecified “threats”. Rinnan never felt in any personal danger. The main threats seem to be that some would jump overboard and there may be mayhem on the deck. The refugees were mostly men and outnumbered his sailors 16 to one.
By convention, which no law can overrule, the captain on the spot decides where he takes people he rescues at sea, and Australia’s obligation was to co-operate.
Rinnan gave three reasons for heading for Christmas Island, quite apart from the possible behaviour of the refugees.
First and foremost it was 6-7 hours quicker than Meerak.
Secondly, there was safety. They didn’t have enough safety gear for 438, and a tropical storm could have been disastrous.
Thirdly, Rinnan thought there was a chance the Indonesians might change their minds.
Canberra believed for about an hour and a half that there was a hijack situation. There never was. Rinnen was always in control, and Canberra knew it.
Later Downer made a complete ass of himself trying to bully the Norwegian authorities to command Rinnan to go to Indonesia, whereas they knew and Downer should have known that they had no legal jurisdiction over a captain at sea in this circumstance.
That’s a brief summary, though a bit of a simplification.
All very well Brian and one might add that given the disinclination of those rescued to disembark at Meerak or within Indonesian jurisdiction, Rinnan must surely have reckoned with the possibility that the Indonesians might attempt forcible removal, which would necessarily have put him, his crew and the ship in serious danger. He was entitled to think that a peaceable disembarkation of the rescued asylum seekers was much more likely in Australia.
One doesn’t need to invent hijack scenarios to explain Rinnan’s decision. Rinnan always seemed to me to have acted with very considerable courage, integrity, humanity and professionalism in this matter.
Had Rinnan acted with courage he’d not have allowed himself to weaken in the face of intimidation. Commanders are not worthy of the title unless they are made of steel.
Command cannot be seen to be compromised. He gave away his rights to be a sea captain the very second he caved in to intimidation. From there he still had one way to save face (call for help) but didn’t take it. There’s no viking blood in his veins.
Any “disinclination” on the part of the castaways is immaterial. As shipwreck survivors they go where their rescuers take them.
Rinnan is out of order with his stated reason for disregarding Indonesian authorities. He says that having instructed him to disembark the survivors in Merak, he would be unwise to do so, as they may change their minds? He was brave enough to steam into Australian waters, why was he not prepared to do the same to Indonesian waters (if it became necessary)?
What should have been a rescue mission became a country shopping exercise.
I know what Command is. It isn’t easy, isn’t for everyone, it cannot be soft. Rinnan, when tested, wasn’t a commander. In a spot of hot water he failed to show spine. As a commander he’s nothing to be proud of, plenty to be ashamed of. He’s a boat driver, nothing more.
Brian ,substitution of “Hijack” for “intimidation” aside, I haven’t made any misrepresentations.
SATP, perhaps in your world there is no difference between complying with a request and acting under threat.
But then again you have admitted to socialising with and respecting opinions of folks who thought that a torpedo was an adequate solution to this problem.
These are clearly (ahem) inadequate folks.
If they are capable of writing, perhaps you should ask them to get John Howard to clarify why he didn’t use torpedoes.
The only threatening gun-toters in this story were the Australian SAS under orders from the Australian government.
Capt Rinnan opined that these SAS folks were unhappy about the orders that Ratty gave them. This would appear to be a widespread opinion of Howard among the ADF. They didn’t like the torpedo “solution” either.
Hehe, Mercurious, I’ll ask one of these days why they don’t consider that option. I’ll hazard a guess that neither nuking nor orbit enter their consciousness mainly because none of them, nor their offspring, have/are serving in nuclear/orbiting units.
They don’t give much consideration to current affairs (horse racing is their interest).
I used to think it was common variety xenophobia/racism that drove the “torpedo ‘em” refrain. However, in a rare twist of depth, it is actually a (hyperbolicly harsh) considered response.
They believe the bulk of unauthorised boat arrivals will be on welfare (of some sort) for years, perhaps forever, and their greatest contempt is for those on the dole. I’ve never seen physical violence used on dole recipients (not in my place), but certainly if the topic comes up (dole) the contempt in the air is palpable.
They also consider the bulk of unauthorised boat arrivals to be people of bad character, whom this nation would be better off without.
@ James McDonahough 28:
I don’t respond. People’s opinions are their own, I don’t respond at all, (unless they want to get violent). It is just idle chatter between horse races, nothing more.
True command understands the chain of command.
Rinnan was under no obligation to accede to any instructions from Indonesian authorities. He was never in Indonesian waters.
As for Downer’s hysterical demands of Norwegian authorities, they merely expose him as the sniping little tuckshop bully that he was.
Katz you say – “Capt Rinnan opined that these SAS folks were unhappy about the orders that Ratty gave them. This would appear to be a widespread opinion of Howard among the ADF.”
1. That is an opinion of Rinnan.
2. Is completely at 180 degrees to my experience in the ADF.
Rinnan even stated in the Documentary that he was threatened – “take us to Christmas Island or we will go crazy”.
No, there weren’t guns but over 200 males ready to make the crew do what they wanted.
A threat exists if there is capability and intent – in this case both clearly existed – Rinnan changed his decision on where to land based on the threat – that is a hijack.
Intent can exist in law only if there is some overt expression of that intent.
If you demand that a bus driver diverts from his route “or else”, there is no threat until you act in some way on that “or else”.
OBF, your unsubstantiated anecdotage carries zero weight. On the contrary, in regard to the ADF, “Leaky Boats” interviewed a sailor who was unhappy about her role in one of the SIEV episodes. Many of the senior brass have protested in different ways about the politicisation of branches of the ADF during this sorry exercise in dog whistling.
Rule #1 of application of the law:
200+ angry able bodied males on the scene will always trump a “law”.
For some contrasting opinion, “Leaky Facts” should have interviewed any of the sailors from the H.M.A.S. Manoora. The events aboard the Manoora during the journey from Christmas Island to Nauru were one of the (many) omissions of the… er… documentary.
What the five representatives told Rinnan was that it they proceeded to Christmas Island they were confident the refugees would all “act as one” and there would be no trouble. They couldn’t guarantee that if he proceeded somewhere else.
Rinnan had to make a decision in the interests of all and weigh up the risk of mayhem, with unpredictable outcomes.
SATP, the program was only 50 mins long. It couldn’t cover everything. It didn’t cover the puerile and embarrassing ranting of Downer to the Norwegians, for instance.
Frightened and desperate people behave immoderately. Tell me something new.
Leaky Boats investigated the actions of people with power and resources delegated to them by the Australian people. The doco was about what these people delegated that power and those resources did with them.
It isn’t a pretty picture.
“They also consider the bulk of unauthorised boat arrivals to be people of bad character, whom this nation would be better off without.”
I wonder why “they” believe this, and whether their minds are open on the issue.
I think the belief comes from plain bigotry, and that they are impervious to evidence against it.
Indeed, when I think about “people of bad character” in this country, it is those folks in your front bar who spring most readily to mind Steve. Let them know for me would you?
If you use the words “or else” then you are implying that you will take some unlawful action. That is sufficient for you to have committed a crime.
I know that you are ignorant about the law but even you should know something as basic as that.
A good thread, recapitulating on events past, now pretty well understood. Knowing what they know now, would people like Beazley have avoided the weak abdication of opposition responsibility in refusing to scrutinise government policy, as occurred with this incident.
Poor Rinnan.
Coming from a civilised part of the world, he probably thought there would be procedures in place to account for people picked up at sea in leaky boats.
Like many others, including this writer, he has had to watch the gradual unpacking of the truth concerning the detention system in its uglier forms, as media spin and political humbuggery are gradually decoded, as with the furphy of “weapons of mass destruction” in Iraq.
SATP, I don’t think running a pub gives you an excuse for pontificating on the Burden of Command(TM). So, unless you have relevant experience … ?
In any case, the captain of Tampa had to consider four obligations: to his crew; to the 400-odd reffos he’d just picked up; to the owners of his ship; and to the owners of his cargo. I don’t see how he could have acted other than he did.
Steve ATP thinks that if Rinnan wasn’t as paranoiac about refugees coming to Australia as he is then he acted inappropriately. Rinnan’s job was to drop off some people he’d rescued at sea and then get on with carrying cargo. Why wouldn’t he accede to their request to go to Christmas Island if that was the easiest way out of the situation?
In making his decision he rang an outfit called Aus Ship P & I, “an Australian offshoot of an international network of lawyers, insurers and trouble shooters who look after the problems of international shipping lines.” The lawyer on duty actually rang DIMA, who told him there had been “a bit of a stink” and there might be a few problems. Nevertheless the legal situation was so clear that the discretion lay with Rinnan that the lawyer encouraged Rinnan to proceed to Christmas Island.
Rinnan and the lawyer had every expectation that Australia would honour it’s international rescue obligations. Why wouldn’t they?
David Irving, there are many things you wouln’t see. By the way how many pubs have you run?
FDB @80, tell ‘em yourself, be sure to first phone your physician. They have jobs, put their back into these jobs, and won’t take well to some hothouse flower telling them they are anything but the backbone of this nation. They are not only that, they are the grade of people who built this nation by hand and made the ANZACs a force to reckon with.
Whilst plain bigotry would seem to ooze from your every word about them, their opinion (such as it is) is based not upon ignorance, but upon what they see.
You know, things like reffos sinking their boats out from under themselves on the ocean, petulantly demanding to be brought to Australia. Burning down camps we build for them, smashing government property, complaining about the country that has been forced to give succour.
Seeing stuff like that may cause some to consider the odd reffo to be people to be of bad character.
Point to a single conviction based on the defendant uttering the words “or else” and nothing but those words.
Otherwise, curb your overweening priggishness, if you can, and surprise hundreds of readers of LP.
P.S., how is your research into the importation of Toyotas into South Korea (that paragon of free trade) during the 50s, 60s and 70s proceeding?
Brian @84: Please cease calling me “paranoic”. It is not only unresearched & emotive & lazy, it is wrong.
After all, I haven’t commented about your spelling!
Rinnan had the expectation that the shipwreck survivors would cut up rough on him in an unspecified manner unless he did their bidding. Why wouldn’t he?
SATP, my browser has a built-in spell check. I’ve also checked my Oxford Australian Dictionary and the adjectival form is given as “paranoiac”.
You give yourself away when you use the term “petulant” to describe desperate behaviour.
SATP. Stop arguing with the left even when you throw their own words in their face, they will never give up. They don’t get irony but they won’t give up.
Apropos of @71,
Amnesty International has researched the people in Steve’s front bar and concluded they’re ignoramuses, not bigots.
Of course, if they continue hold the same hostile opinions of aslyum-seekers once the facts on which they base their hositle opinions are revealed to be false; then a charge of bigotry becomes more credible…
Hehe, oops that wasn’t the (of many) word in question. Then again, spellcheck isn’t much use with homophones!
@ Mercurius #90:
That would describe them. I can readily confirm that.
I don’t need to ask amnesty international or anybody else to understand my clients!
Then again, it also describes a good half of the commenters on this very site.
SATP @ 69
“I know what Command is. It isn’t easy, isn’t for everyone, it cannot be soft. Rinnan, when tested, wasn’t a commander. In a spot of hot water he failed to show spine. As a commander he’s nothing to be proud of, plenty to be ashamed of. He’s a boat driver, nothing more.”
It’s a sunny afternoon, I thought I might have a look at how the maritime trade feel about Rinnan. Perhaps SATP has a salient point I thought optimistically.
Nope. Best look away Steve, I’m afraid he’s rather well thought of.
* Lloyds of london – Shipmaster of the year
* Officer of the Royal Norwegian Order of Merit
* Safety at Sea International Amver from the US Coastguard
* Formal recognition from the Norwegian Shipowners Association of heroic rescue
* Wilhemsen Foundation Sailor’s Prize
* Friends of Seafarer’s Award from Seafarer’s International House
Now, while you go and discover the university club left wing roots of the above organisations and Swift Boat them for us, I’ll propose that Rinnan will be thrilled to add
* Owner of Pub in North Queensland and distinguised member of Keyboard Kommandos says I have plenty to be ashamed of”
to his list of recognitions. I’m sure he’d be keen to hear directly from you on how to run command of ship.
That’s a bit harsh, VC.
I’m sure that SATP, as a leading light in the Inland Queensland catering trade, is in command of whole fleets of gravy boats.
“SATP, I don’t think running a pub gives you an excuse for pontificating on the Burden of Command(TM)”
You are clearly forgetting about the time Steve’s pub was boarded by pirates. His Viking blood riled, SATP showed them the steel of which a man must be made to call himself….Master and Commander.
Then of course there was that thing at Nakatomi Plaza, where SATP (ably portrayed by Bruce Willis) took on a crack group of international terrorists.
Hehe, You two turkeys can scoff when your achievements match mine. Until then stick to playing soggy biscuit with each other & sniggering at me. Given the (lack of) intellecutal rigour you display on this site, it’d be folorn to hope for any better from you.
I’m familiar with it, I see your type every day. You’d fit right in amongst the bottom end of the intellect of my clientele.
SATP @ 91, I know I have some bad habits I can’t eradicate – confusing “there” and “their”, for example. They just don’t automatically come out right. I’d be disappointed, however, if my bloopers could be described as “many” because I do try.
In the post I should have linked to tigtog’s post on the SBS program, which I didn’t see, so I didn’t completely follow the discussion.
Also I’ve just found a Webdiary post I did in 2001, Understanding our racism – an attempt, partly inspired by Ghassan Hage. I’ve just re-read it and it’s not the worst thing I’ve ever written!
Narcissism … the blindest love of all.
The really funny thing is that although SATP claims he knows what command is, he only tells us what it isn’t (easy, for everyone, etc.)
Ten years ago.
This was also the time when hysteria was rampant over 11/9; it was very hard to get much sense out of people whilst hysteria was running so high. I remember Web Diary at the time carrying vast amounts of E-traffic on these issues and the mild stoushing today here at this thread is almost a mellow, nostalgic evocation of those times.
As to stoushing, it got worse too, with Hanan Ashrawi’s controversial Peace Prize visit the single most vicious thread, or series of them, that I’ve seen at a blogsite, apart from some in earlier times at LP.
Steve,
Katz and via collins, just completely wiped the floor with you. Be gracious in defeat, at least!
And your last comment is an example of the famous last hurrah. Completely empty of anything related to the thread and nothing but a personal attack. I find it hard to believe that it meets the comment guidelines, in fact.
paul walter, the tampa affair was in August 2001.
Tyro, re-read Brian’s intro.
Just my brutal syntax and utter prolixiousness again, one suspects, if I failed in clarity the first time.
Command evidently resides in conducting straw polls on a roomful of bigoted drunks, with grossly inflated senses of national self-importance.
@81
So if you’ve tied up your victim and locked them in a cage and they they “say let me go or else” have they committed a crime? Intent isn’t enough on its own.
Sounds like the “Steve” pub is one to avoid. A dangerous place.
Yep, dangerous it is. SATP might shoot at his foot AND MISS!
I know what the problem with Steve is. There was a nasty incident with some of his clientel and he’s more rattled than he wants to admit. So, like most of us at one time or another, he’s “writing” it out of his system- a wise move.
Actually, one of my mates is a publican and I’ve therefore had an insider’s view of that life.
People think, “a publican, phwooar!” and think of all that hooch lined up like a butcher shop display in front of a hungry dog.
But I’d say it could be a poisoned chalice, from the more negative aspects of it that I’ve seen.