Five days. The government has had five days (barely) to ascertain the facts of the asylum seeker boat explosion that occurred in Australian waters last Thursday. Five days to interview a disparate range of people such as Australian military personnel, the people smugglers, and the asylum seekers themselves. Gathering information would be made much more difficult given the language barrier between investigators and protagonists and the medical status of those protagonists. There are doubtless many different versions of the same story that investigators will be forced to sort, parse and analyse.
Five days to determine the definitive and final version of the sequence of events that lead to the tragic death and injury of so many.
Yet, so many commentators are furiously accusing the Rudd Government of a cover-up, despite the fact that we have seen what happens when incomplete information is relayed to the public by a government keen to score points from a tragedy. Imagine the outrage if Kevin Rudd held a press conference on Saturday to communicate the bits of the story he knew, only to be forced to admit the next Wednesday that it turns out some of those bits were wrong, or that there were new bits that changed the context of the original bits.
It’s unfortunate that some commentators seem to be desperate for the worst possible version of events to be true because it would allow them to score points in their wars against the Rudd Government. It’s also unfortunate that other commentators, such as Gerard Henderson, seem to have made up their minds despite the lack of evidence to confirm their theories (my emphasis):
The explanation for what happened seems clear. It is known that, at times, desperate people take desperate and sometimes ill-considered actions. It is likely that petrol was ignited on the boat by a person or persons who believed that this was the most effective way to ensure that those on the boat were taken by the navy to Australian territory. It is unlikely that anyone intended that there should be an explosion followed by a sinking.
It’s possible that Gerard’s right, but it’s possible that he’s wrong. It’s possible that the petrol was not ignited by a person, and it’s also possible that somebody fully intended to destroy the boat and those upon it. There are also dozens of other possibilities.
Speculation is inevitable but it’s unfortunate when newspaper columnists cross the line from speculation to conclusion. The Rudd Government should release the official version of events as soon as possible, but everyone should understand that five days elapsed does not necessarily indicate a cover-up.
14 Comments
Talking of contemptible – “The media apologists for the five boat people deaths”?
Andrew has gone from speculating to somehow knowing what happened on the boat.
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/illegals_riot/
“We’re not allowed to know anything that might reflect badly on the Rudd Government or the boat people who blew up their own vessel.”
They set off the explosion? How the hell does he know?
Similar theme at Tim’s
http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/timblair/index.php/dailytelegraph/comments/they_blew_it_up/
“THEY BLEW IT UP”
Although i think that was more of an attempt by Tim to put a Planet of the Apes reference in a tragedy that involved five deaths.
The fact that this happened about as far from Canberra as Moscow is from London might be hampering things a bit, too. But hey Bolt/Blair et al, don’t let any considerations of being reasonable and considered slow you down…
I find Henderson’s following paragraph a bit of contrast to some of other commentators who are using this to justify Tampa, Children Overboard and SIEV-X. Akerman has even drawn up his own hysterical/historical Tampa timeline.
“It is much the same with the children overboard controversy that occurred before the 2001 election. In fact, in that particular instance, no children were thrown from an asylum-seeker boat by their parents or guardians. But if such an eventuality had taken place, this would have been motivated by desperate persons believing that this was the best way to ensure that all the occupants of the boat were rescued by the navy. John Howard got the facts wrong. But his more significant failing was an inability to exhibit an empathetic understanding about how desperate people sometimes act.”
“But his more significant failing was an inability to exhibit an empathetic understanding about how desperate people sometimes act.””
This is what I can’t get my head around, I don’t think it’s only Howard that has this problem. We were arguing about this on the way to work in my car, with my passengers, one 50 male, one 25 Female (me 41 male). I told them that I would want the best for my family and would like to think I’d be prepared to go as far as these asylum seekers go in securing that. Hence I can empathise with these people, I can look at the situation from their perspective.
I got told pretty much by my passengers that I’m naive, I didn’t bother pressing the point except to say ‘I’m alright Jack, everyone else can fuck off’ (taking the piss out of their positions), I’m quite confident that I’m smarter than both my passengers
)
I think if anyone needs any reminding of the sort of extreme actions desperate people will take when they see no other alternatives, we just need to remember back to 9/11 and the tragic footage of people throwing themselves out of 80+ story high windows as the towers went down.
As a point of pure speculation on my part, let me ask these questions.
According to reports, there are two people “unaccounted for” after this incident.
Are the crew/people smugglers all accounted for?
Would a burning boat not make a perfect distraction for those attempting an escape in a smaller vessel?
See how easy it is to speculate with only a handful of facts?
Cheers.
“Some commentators”. Why no direct mention of Laurie Oakes’ hissy fit during Monday’s Today Show over the government’s silence on this issue? Or no mention of Michelle Grattan’s piece in yesterday’s Age accusing a “desperate” government of manipulating the information flow?
When even these two Labor spokespeople smell a rat, so do I.
Fair call, Pedro. I didn’t see the Today interview but Grattan seems to think that one day is sufficient time to complete a full investigation.
Oakes is in it for himself and his own self-aggrandisement, always has been. But Michelle? The most well-informed, balanced, experienced, well-connected political commentator in the media, a position she has occupied for decades. You diminish yourself with your dismissive nonsense Pedro. This kind of extreme partisanship bedevils sensible political commentary in this country.
Ok, Bloods. We get it that you have the hots for Michelle.
On Sunday’s Today Show Oakes interviewed Miss Gillard. She shot him down. On Monday’s Today Show he was furious and said so. Personally, I expect that was the first ace Oakes has ever been served by the Rudd government. And good on Gillard.
Michelle Gratton also took the government to task in her column which has now been linked to.
So can you explain where I have diminished myself or shown “dismissive nonsense” by simply pointing out an omission in blogging this story?
“….the hots for Michelle”. Pure class.
The “dismissive nonsense” I was referring to was your description of Oakes and Grattan as “Labor spokespeople”. Cheap rubbish.