'Children overboard' and ministerial responsibility: should members of the Howard government be held responsible for misleading the Australian public?

Click here to go back to the issue outlines list

Sections in this issue outline (in order)
1 What they said. 2 The issue at a glance. 3 Background. 4 Internet information links. 5 and 6 Arguments for / against. 7 Further implications on this issue. 8 Newspaper items used in the compilation of the outline.

Dictionary
To activate the in-built dictionary linked to this issue outline, double-click on any word in the body of the text (IE only).

Analysis help
Students and others can read a guide to analysing the language of the news media by clicking the graphic at right.

Age and Australian items
To list all Echo-indexed items on this topic for 2002, click the graphic at right

Sydney Morning Herald items
To list items indexed by the NSW State Library's Infoquick, click the graphic at right

'Children overboard' and ministerial responsibility: should members of the Howard government be held responsible for misleading the Australian public?

What they said ...
'It was advice tendered in good faith; advice ministers were entitled to use in good faith'
Australia's Prime Minister, Mr John Howard

'When the prime minister says he didn't know or wasn't told I quite frankly don't believe him'
Federal Opposition leader, Mr Simon Crean

The issue at a glance
On October 7, 2001, it was announced by the Prime Minister, the Defence Minister and the Minister for Immigration, that children had been thrown over the side of a vessel (SIEV4) carrying asylum seekers headed for Australia.
The implication was that the asylum seekers had been using their children to put pressure on the crew of the HMAS Adelaide that had been sent to intercept the boat and direct it away from Australian waters and territories.
On October 10 the Minister for Defence, Mr Reith, (who had already announced that he would not contest the next election) publicly released two photographs that he claimed showed some of these children in the water. Media critics at the time argued the photographs were inconclusive and suggested the Government was conducting a public relations stunt in the lead-up to the federal election.
The election date was announced on October 5 and the election was to be held on November 10.
On November 7, The Australian newspaper ran a front page story claiming that the photographs supposedly of children thrown overboard on October 7, were actually of children being rescued on October 8, after their boat had sunk.
Critics of the Government renewed their claims that the whole affair had been an election stunt.

Background
After the election there were two inquiries, an internal government inquiry that resulted in the Bryant report and a Defence Force inquiry that resulted in the Powell report. Both reports concluded that children had not been thrown over the side of SIEV4. The Bryant report also concluded that no government ministers were at fault in the matter, as neither the Defence Force nor their own departments had properly informed them.
The matter, however, did not rest there and in March and April of 2002 a further Senate Select Committee inquiry held into what is referred to as 'A Certain Maritime Incident' resulted in a number of revelations that suggested former Defence Minister Reith, at least, been told the truth prior to the election.
Mr Reith has consistently maintained that he never informed his Prime Minister that the original claims of children being thrown overboard were probably false, however, suspicions remain.

Internet information section.
A good place to start is with a Four Corners program titled 'Too Good to be False' which was telecast on March 4, 2002.
The program suggests that the Government either deliberately or through a lack of diligence allowed false allegations about asylum seekers throwing their children overboard to remain in circulation prior to the last election.
This is a very detailed program giving good background information and directly quoting many of the individuals involved. It concludes with an interview with the Prime Minister, Mr Howard, conducted by Liz Jackson, in which the Prime Minister defends himself and his Government against some of the allegations made.
The Four Corners program can be found at http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/stories/s496427.htm

Another very good overview of the issue is contained in a background piece written by Mark Forbes and Ian Munroe and published in The Age on November 10, 2001. The piece is titled 'Taping over the truth' and can be found at http://www.theage.com.au/news/state/2001/11/10/FFXILNRTSTC.html

Perhaps the best single source of information on this issue is a transcript of the evidence presented to a Senate Select Committee inquiry into the matter in March and April 2002.
The inquiry was titled 'A Certain Maritime Incident'.
The transcripts for March 25 can be found at http://www.aph.gov.au/hansard/senate/commttee/s5409.pdf
The transcript for March 26 can be found at http://www.aph.gov.au/hansard/senate/commttee/s5410.pdf
The transcript for April 4 can be found at http://www.aph.gov.au/hansard/senate/commttee/s5411.pdf
The transcript for April 5 can be found at http://www.aph.gov.au/hansard/senate/commttee/s5412.pdf
(Please note, the above transcripts are pdf files and require Adobe Acrobat Reader to be read. Please further note, though the inquiry transcripts are extremely informative they are difficult and lengthy reading covering days of detailed questioning and testimony.)

On October 10, Defence Minister Reith gave an interview to Virginia Trioli of ABC's Radio National. It was as part of this interview that the Minister first made public the two photographs then claimed to be of children thrown overboard on the morning of October 7.
A full transcript of the interview can be found on the Liberal Party's official home page at http://www.liberal.org.au/MEDIA/campaign/REITH/reithabc10oct.htm

Immediately prior to the election, the Prime Minister gave a large number of interviews dealing with the issue. Transcripts of most of these can be found on the Prime Minister's home page.
On the morning of November 8, 2001, Mr Howard gave an interview to Cathy McGrath of Radio National's AM program. The transcript of this interview can be found on http://www.pm.gov.au/news/interviews/2001/interview1454.htm
On the morning of November 9, 2001, Mr Howard had an interview with Glenn Milne of Channel 7's Sunrise program. The transcript of this interview can be found at http://www.pm.gov.au/news/interviews/2001/interview1458.htm
On November 9, 2001, Mr Howard gave an interview on Channel 9's Today Show with Steve Liebmann. The transcript of this interview can be found at http://www.pm.gov.au/news/interviews/2001/interview1459.htm
On November 9, 2001, Mr Howard had a radio interview with John Laws of Sydney's 2UE. The transcript of this interview can be found at http://www.pm.gov.au/news/interviews/2001/interview1455.htm
Also on November 9, 2001, Mr Howard had an interview with Cathy Extel of Radio National. The transcript of this interview can be found at http://www.pm.gov.au/news/interviews/2001/interview1457.htm

On November 8, 2001, the Prime Minister addressed the National Press Club. This is interesting, in part, because the Prime Minister defended himself against allegations that misinformation had been circulated by citing an Office of National Assessment report.
A partial transcript of the Prime Minister's address can be found at http://www.abc.net.au/pm/s412065.htm

On February 18, 2002, the ABC's 7.30 report included comments from Mr Howard, new Defence Minister, Senator Robert Hill and former Defence Minister, Peter Reith, defending the government's handling of the 'children overboard' allegations.
A transcript of the segment can be found at http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/s484540.htm

On February 28, 2002, the current Minister for Defence, Senator Robert Hill, answered questions about the 'children overboard' issue and Admiral Barrie.
A transcript of these answers can be found at http://www.minister.defence.gov.au//2002/280202.htm

On February 27, 2002, the radical left publication, Green left Weekly, was one of a range of media outlets and commentators to be extremely critical of the Government's handling of the issue, suggesting it actually undermined the legitimacy of John Howard's third term.
An editorial developing these views can be found at http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/2002/482/482p3b.htm

The ABC's current affairs program, Four Corners, investigated the mood within the electorate just prior to the election in a program that was telecast on November 5, 2001. Titled, 'Fear and Loathing', it can be found at http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/stories/s409081.htm

A very useful overview of responsible government as it operates in Australia, including a consideration of ministerial responsibility, can be found on Palmer's Oz Politics site at http://www.webone.com.au/~bdpalmer/rules/rg.htm

The current guidelines for federal parliamentarians, 'A Guide on Elements of Ministerial Responsibility' can be found at
http://www.dpmc.gov.au/pdfs/Key_Elements_Ministerial_Responsibility.pdf
The most directly relevant information can be found on pages 13 and 14.
(Please note, this document is in pdf format and requires Adobe Acrobat Reader to be read.)

A clear account of the practice of the Australian Parliament can be found on the Australian Houses of Parliament web site. Chapter 4, pages 47 to 49, deals with ministerial responsibility.
This information can be found at http://www.aph.gov.au/house/pubs/PRACTICE/4Ch02.pdf

Arguments suggesting that members of the Howard government should be held responsible for misleading the Australian public
1. A number of senior ministers, including the Prime Minister, made statements that were later found to be inaccurate
On Sunday October 7, 2001, at 11.30am, the Minister for Immigration, Mr Ruddock publicly announced that some asylum seekers had thrown their children overboard while the HMAS Adelaide had been attempting to turn their boat back to Indonesia.
Mr Ruddock stated, 'A number of children have been thrown overboard with the intention of putting us under duress.
I regard these as some of the most disturbing practices that I have come across in the time that I have been involved in public life - clearly planned and premeditated.'
Later that day, after receiving a phone call from the Immigration Minister informing him that children had been thrown overboard, Mr Howard also made a public statement denouncing this behaviour.
On the afternoon of October 7, 2001, the Prime Minster's People Smuggling Task Force cleared a paper that included a brief reference to 'passengers throwing their children into the sea'.
On Alan Jones radio program on 8 October, Mr Howard stated, 'Genuine refugees don't throw their children overboard into the sea,'
In a statement to a Sydney radio interviewer, Philip Clarke, Mr Howard also stated, 'I don't want in Australia people who would throw their own children into the sea.'
The captain of HMAS Adelaide has since maintained that children were not thrown overboard and that he has no memory of having told anyone they were. It has now been established that the statements made by the Minister for Immigration, the Prime Minister and later the Minister for Defence, Mr Peter Reith, were inaccurate.
On October 10 the Minister for Defence, Mr Peter Reith, announced that he had photographic evidence that children had been thrown overboard.
It was later revealed that the photographs released to the media were of children being rescued from the water on October 8, after their boat had sunk. Therefore, all references to these photographs as proof of children being thrown overboard were also inaccurate.

2. Senior members of the Department of Defence and members of the Defence Minister's staff appear to have known these statements were inaccurate shortly after they were made
On October 10, 2001, the military public affairs adviser, Brigadier Gary Bornholt, contacted Mr Reith's media adviser, Mr Ross Hampton, on his mobile phone and explained to him that the photographs being circulated were of children being rescued from a sinking vessel on October 8, not of children thrown overboard on October 7.
Mr Hampton queried Brigadier Bornholt's advice. Brigadier Bornholt went away and checked his advice, then rang Mr Hampton back and left a message on his mobile phone that the previous information provided about the photographs was correct.
On October 11, when Mr Hampton did not reply to Brigadier Bornholt's message, Ms Jenny McKendry, the head of the Department of Defence's Public Affairs and Corporate Communication Division, contacted Michael Scrafton, the senior adviser in Mr Reith's office, by telephone to inform him of the misrepresentation. Ms Kendry spoke with Mr Scrafton and then emailed him. (There has been some discussion as to how precise Ms McKendry's communication was.)
Ms McKendry had made this contact at the request of Dr Allan Hawke, the Secretary of the Department of Defence, who had become aware that the photographs were being falsely represented.
On October 10, Commander Banks of HMAS Adelaide had cabled a detailed chronology of the events of the morning of October 7 up the line of command making it plain children had not been thrown over the side.
On October 11, Rear Admiral Ritchie claims that he told Admiral Barrie that the children overboard incident 'never happened'.
Rear Admiral Ritchie further claims that Admiral Barrie then told him he would inform Mr Reith that the photographs were being misrepresented. Admiral Barrie later told a Senate inquiry that he had rung Peter Reith that same day and told him the photographs were not of what was being claimed.
Critics of the Government's handling of this matter query whether it is really possible that the Defence Minister's staff received none of these warnings. They also doubt that the Minister was ignorant of the concern surrounding the photographs.

3. Senior ministers, including the Prime Minister, repeated these statements after having been warned they were the subject of debate
On October 10, 2001, Virginia Trioli interviewed Mr Reith on Radio National. In the course of that interview he presented her with photographs which he claimed showed children in the water from October 7.
Ms Trioli disputed that the photographs necessarily showed what the Minster claimed.
The Minister stated, among other things, 'Those photos are produced as evidence of the fact that there were people in the water. You're questioning whether it even happened, that's the first point and I just want to answer that by saying these photos show absolutely without question whatsoever that there were children in the water... here are photos, you say it's a tight shot, they are clear as day.
A mother and her presumably son, aged seven or eight clearly in the water and clearly being assisted by a female member of the Royal Australian Navy. The second photo shows a male member of the Royal Australian Navy with a child who I would say is female because I think she has got some headdress on or some sort who looks to me four or five, a very young child and behind her a mother, presumably a mother, and a male behind her, presumably her father.
Now, the first thing to say is there were children in the water. Now, we have a number of people, obviously RAN people who were there who reported the children were thrown into the water. Now, you may want to question the veracity of reports of the Royal Australian Navy. I don't and I didn't either ...'
Mr Reith made these comments approximately fifteen minutes after Brigadier Gary Bornholt had warned his media adviser, Ross Hampton, 'My advice to you is that the photographs could not be of 7 October because Strategic Command have informed us that of the 14 people that they understand were in the water, there were no women or children ... my advice to you is that the photographs could not be of 7 October because Strategic Command have informed us that of the 14 people that they understand were in the water there were no women or children.'
Mr Hampton disputed this advice and claimed it was at odds with what he had been told by Admiral Barrie, however, critics of Mr Reith's behaviour wonder how he could have asserted the validity of the photographs and the incident they purported to represent just fifteen minutes after his media adviser had been warned that the photographs were bogus and that 'there were no women or children' in the water.
Further, Mr Reith now admits that Air Marshal Houston and Brigadier Bornholt had informed him on November 8 that there was no evidence children had been thrown overboard and the photographs were bogus. Despite this, Mr Reith made no public acknowledgement of these developments.
On November 8 at a Press Club luncheon, 7.30 Report reporter Fran Kelly questioned the Prime Minister about the validity of the photographs.
The Prime Minister chose to ignore the core of the question and instead assured Kelly that his own comments about children overboard had been based on information received from Mr Ruddock, Mr Reith and the Office of National Assessment.
It has been suggested that this response was disingenuous, as Mr Reith had warned the Prime Minister the night before that there was 'debate' about the photographs.

4. Neither the Prime Minister nor the Minister for Defence appear to have made sustained efforts to verify that their statements were correct
On October 31, 2001, Brigadier Silverstone told the Defence Minister, Peter Reith, that the videotape made from on board HMAS Adelaide on October 7 did not confirm that children had been thrown overboard. Brigadier Silverstone also told the Minister, 'We also have concerns that no children were thrown in the water at all and we have made an investigation of that.'
The minister is reported to have replied 'Well, we'd better not see the video, then,' and to have left Brigadier Silverstone's office.
Critics of the Minister's conduct argue that he was deliberately avoiding evidence that either did not confirm or went against his Government's preferred version of events. Mr Reith is accused of having ignored repeated warnings by a number of members of the Defence Force that children were not thrown overboard and that the photographs purporting to show that they had been were being misrepresented.
On his own admission, the Prime Minister appears to have spoken with no one other than the former Defence Minister, Mr Reith, in an attempt to verify that the events claimed to have occurred on October 7, 2001, actually occurred. Mr Howard spoke with the Minister about these matters on October 10 and November 7.
According to the account given by Prime Minister in a Four Corner's interview with Liz Jackson on March 4, the discussion of November 7 was cursory and focused primarily on the release of the inconclusive video evidence.
On November 7, The Australian newspaper had published a front-page story disputing the photographs and Mr Reith had again been privately informed that they were being falsely represented. Critics of the Prime Minister's conduct ask why he did not address the matter more directly with his Minister.

5. There are serious inconsistencies in the statements made by the Prime Minister and the Minister for Defence
The former Minister for Defence, Mr Peter Reith, at first claimed that he was never advised that asylum seekers had not thrown their children overboard.
On November 20, 2001, Mr Reith signed a statement as part of a military investigation into the incident in which he stated, 'At no stage have I received advice that the children were not thrown overboard ... There has been no evidence presented to me which contradicts the earlier and first advice.'
As recently as February 14, 2002, Mr Reith made the same claim. 'It was not raised with me as to whether or not children had been thrown overboard. Even at the end of October and in fact some weeks later, I was still under the impression that there was no question that children had been thrown overboard.'
However, on February 21, 2002, Mr Reith acknowledged that Air Marshall Angus Houston had advised him on November 7, 2001, 'that as there was no evidence to support the claim that children had been thrown overboard then the event had not happened.'
Critics of the Government's management of these allegations of children being thrown overboard note that Mr Reith's statement of February 21 2002 directly contradicts all his earlier statements.
On April 5, 2002, Northern Commander Brigadier Mike Silverstone testified before a Senate inquiry that he had told Mr Reith on October 31 2001 that children had probably not been thrown overboard. While Admiral Barrie relayed similar concerns (without endorsing them) as early as October 11.
At the very least the former minister appears to have been highly confused as to what he was or was not told. His harshest critics, such as Andrew Bolt of the Herald Sun, have suggested that Mr Reith lied. They claim that he did not want to admit that he knew, prior to the election, that the children overboard story was untrue.
On February 22, 2002, the Herald Sun editorial stated, 'What is clear is that through incompetence or deception, we were duped.'
Mr Reith also repeatedly stated that he had never passed on to Mr Howard any concerns that had been expressed to him about the children overboard account. On February 14, 2002, Mr Reith stated that the Prime Minister had never at any stage spoken to him about the matter.
This statement put Mr Reith in conflict with the Prime Minister who claimed to have spoken to Mr Reith about this issue by telephone on the evening of November 7, 2001. This was the same day on which Air Marshall Houston apparently told Mr Reith 'that ... there was no evidence to support the claim that children had been thrown overboard.'
Some critics have construed Mr Reith's denial that a conversation between himself and the Prime Minister took place as an attempt to avoid admitting that he had told his leader there were doubts about the children overboard information.
Mr Howard claims that he did discuss the matter with Mr Reith but only to the extent that Mr Reith told him there was some 'debate' about it. Mr Reith later appeared to recall his telephone conversation with Mr Howard and endorsed the Prime Minister's account of what was said. Mr Howard maintains that Mr Reith never told him that there was reason to doubt the validity of the photographs, let alone the original claim that children were thrown overboard.
However, a number of commentators and members of the Opposition have doubted Mr Howard's assurances here and have suggested that Mr Reith did in fact tell the Prime Minister what Air Marshall Houston had told him. The leader of the Opposition, Mr Simon Crean, has stated, 'When the prime minister says he didn't know or wasn't told I quite frankly don't believe him.'

6. The Government politicised senior members of the defence force and government departments so that they no longer acted independently or gave independent advice
This claim has been made with regard to Defence Force chief Admiral Chris Barrie.
Admiral Barrie was the last senior military spokesperson to defend the validity of the children overboard claim, despite the captain of the Adelaide, Commander Norman Banks, repeatedly maintaining that no children had been thrown overboard.
Rear Admiral Ritchie has claimed that on October 10, 2001, he told Admiral Barrie that the photographs supposedly showing children after they had been thrown overboard were of children being rescued the following day. Vice Admiral Shackleton also claims to have told Admiral Barrie that the photographs were being misrepresented on the evening of October 10, 2001. Rear Admiral Ritchie further claims that during a conversation with Admiral Barrie on October 11 he told the Admiral that the children overboard incident 'never happened'.
On October 11, 2001, Brigadier Gary Bornholt took a detailed chronology of the events of October 7 produced by the captain of the Adelaide to Admiral Barrie's Chief of Staff. Brigadier Bornholt told Admiral Barrie's Chief of Staff that this evidence 'indicated there were no women and children in the water.'
On October 11, Admiral Barrie apparently advised Mr Reith that the photographs were bogus, however he claims to have told the Minister that he still supported the original representation of the events of October 7. It has been suggested that Admiral Barrie, in promoting the first publicly stated version of events, despite clear evidence to the contrary, was acting as a creature of the Government.
Craig Skehan, Foreign Affairs and Defence correspondent for the Sydney Morning Herald made this point. Mr Skehan stated, '... the range of emotions in the Defence Force when Admiral Barrie was seen to be backing the Government in this sordid affair would've been one of astonishment to anger.'
On February 27, 2002, Admiral Barrie was questioned at a Defence leadership conference. He was asked about the politicisation of the military and the damage done to its reputation by the children overboard affair.
Following this conference Admiral Barrie publicly announced that he no longer believed that there was any evidence to support the claim that children had been thrown overboard. However, the perception that he had previously acted without proper political neutrality remained.
A commentator for The Australian, Patrick Walters, observed, 'The ADF has not been politicised by the Howard Government, but it has been used for political purposes in a reckless manner that has damaged the institution.'
Evidence that the military have been used for political purposes in ways that have damaged their own internal procedures was given by Northern Commander Brigadier Silverstone on April 4 at a Senate hearing into the children overboard affair.
Brigadier Silverstone claimed that the original report of children being thrown over the side (later denied by Commander Banks) was made over the telephone by Commander Banks on the morning of October 7, while HMAS Adelaide was trying to intercept the people smugglers.
Brigadier Silverstone had rung HMAS Adelaide at Air Vice Marshall Titheridge's request. After speaking with Commander Banks, Brigadier Silverstone had then to contact Air Vice Marshall Titheridge and pass on the information that Banks gave him. That information was apparently being sought by both the Minister for Defence, Mr Reith and the Treasurer, Mr Costello. Both men wanted the information for media engagements later on Sunday, October 7, 2001.
Brigadier Silverstone claimed that if normal procedures had been followed the telephone conversation would never have occurred and its now disputed contents would never have been relayed to the Defence Minister.
Under normal circumstances only formal written reports are passed on to the Minister and no official signals from the Adelaide ever mentioned children thrown overboard.
While giving evidence at an earlier inquiry, Brigadier Silverstone stated 'there is a new culture in Defence, which seeks to be more responsive to the government/Minister, and ... this may have "anaesthetised" people to some sensitivities.'
Brigadier Silverstone also stated, 'The [Government's] desire to feed the media has sometimes been allowed to drive operational practices and ... this should not occur.'
Critics of the Government have argued that it politicised Defence personnel in pressuring them to supply information for distribution to the media and that this both lead to misinformation being given out and potentially interfered with the conduct of some operations.
Brigadier Silverstone made it very plain that he would not have telephoned Commander Banks in the middle of conducting a sensitive operation if he had not been required by Air Vice Marshall Titheridge to do so.
The Howard Government and in particular its former Defence Minister, Mr Reith, have also been criticised for the restrictions they placed on direct media access to members of the defence forces.
Mr Reith had issued a departmental instruction on August 8, 2001, titled, 'Public Comment and Dissemination of Information by Defence Members'. This prohibited any defence personnel, or even the Defence Media Liaison Unit, from talking about defence operations and required that all information be presented to the media via the Defence Minister's office or the Minister personally.
Point 26 of the guidelines stated 'To ensure that the Government is not taken by surprise by issues that attract media attention, and which can damage the reputation of Defence, it is important that the private offices of our Ministers and Parliamentary Secretary are informed well in advance of any activities with the potential to arouse public of media interest.'
One of the immediate effects of these guidelines is that they prevented defence personnel, including Commander Banks, from publicly correcting the misinformation about the events of October 7, 2001.
Critics have argued that the effective media monopoly that the Minister for Defence had on defence information was contrary to the caretaker provisions that should have applied in the period before an election and gave the Minister the capacity to control information to his Government's electoral advantage.
It has also been argued that a gradual change in the operation of Government departments, accelerated since the election of the Howard Government, has reduced the capacity of department secretaries and others to give ministers independent advice.
Former Prime Minster and Labor leader, Paul Keating, has claimed, 'The (Howard) government is to blame for the shameless politicisation of the public service ...'
Critics have argued that when the Howard Government abolished tenure for department heads it radically undermined their independence and tied their careers to those of their political masters.
John Nethercote, an author and expert on the operation of the public service has claimed, 'There is no question [that] under the operation of the present Public Service Act we have a politicised public service.'
Commenting on the 'children overboard' affair, Mr Keating has suggested that public service officials preserved 'the impression of ignorance among ministers ... because the truth might be politically inconvenient.'
Critics have further argued that the failure of the current Minister for Defence, Senator Robert Hill, to accept the resignation of the Secretary of the Department of Defence, Dr Allan Hawke, suggests that the secretary is being rewarded for a job well done. (The secretary claims to have offered his resignation for having failed to advise the Defence Minister in writing that the photographs circulated by his department as evidence of children being thrown overboard on October 7 were in fact of children in the water after their boat sank the day after.)

7. The principle of ministerial responsibility requires that ministers who mislead Parliament should stand down
The concept of ministerial responsibility is important to the functioning of an accountable government. Ultimately any democratic government is responsible to the electorate on whose behave it governs. A government that is not judged to have governed properly will be voted out of office.
In between elections, however, one of mechanisms that ensure that ministers are held accountable for their actions is the principle of ministerial responsibility. Ministers who are considered to have behaved beneath the standards expected of their office can either be asked to resign by the prime minister or may lose a vote of confidence in the House of Representatives that would also lead to resignation.
One of the grounds for resignation is having misled Parliament. This is seen as significant misconduct as untruths damage the operation of a democracy. If a minister misrepresents some aspect of his or her responsibilities in the House it reduces the capacity of the electorate to hold that minister accountable.
Within the House of Representatives Practice (as published on the Parliament of Australia Internet site for the House of Representatives) it is stated, 'Resignation is ... a valid sanction where ... the minister has misled parliament.'
Author and social researcher Hugh Mackay goes further. He promotes the Westminster tradition that any untruth, even when innocently or ignorantly promoted by a Minister is automatic grounds for resignation. Mr Mackay states, 'If it turns out that either [the Prime Minister or the Minister for Defence] has misled parliament over any aspect of this affair, they must go. It matters not one whit whether their false statements were made inadvertently, carelessly or deliberately; they must simply go ...'
While there is little question here of ministers directly misleading the Parliament as Parliament had been suspended in the period leading up to the federal election, some critics have argued that the misinformation circulated during this period was a distortion of the electoral process and requires the resignation of the relevant ministers and perhaps the government.
This argument has been put by Green Left Weekly, 'The argument that Howard is now making is that the lie is not his fault, because, despite being prime minister, despite his defence minister being aware, and his key advisers also being aware, that it was a lie, nobody told him. Can't be blamed for that, can he?
It is a moot point whether Howard did know, or whether he simply surrounded himself, and his ministers, with people not willing to bring him bad news. Howard was the head of a government that lied to an electorate in the middle of an election campaign ... the Coalition government has betrayed its electors. Whether the lie was enough to swing the election is not the key point - deception should have no place in an election campaign.'
Under the Westminster system, as it operates in Britain, a minister is also held accountable for the operation of his department and any significant misconduct or incompetence from members of his department can lead to the minister's resignation.
This does not apply to the same extent in Australia, however, in the current 'Guide on Key Elements of Ministerial Responsibility' produced at the direction of Prime Minister Howard in December 1998 it states, '[Ministers] would properly be held to account for matters for which they were personally responsible, or where they were aware of problems but had not acted to rectify them.'
According to this guide, then, Minister Reith and any other minister, including the Prime Minister, who was aware of the misinformation re the children overboard affair and of a government department's failure to deal with this matter could be held accountable for not having rectified the problem.

8. Perpetuating the 'children overboard' fiction was to the political advantage of the Government in the lead up to the 2001 federal election
It has been repeatedly maintained that the children overboard allegations and border protection generally were important issues in the last election.
In a Four Corners program that was telecast on November 5, a former Labor pollster, Rod Cameron stated, 'Howard showed his great skill. He capitalised on something and went like a rat up a drainpipe to that issue [of asylum seekers and border protection] and forced the public perception to be that Beazley had vacillated and was actually more pro-asylum seeker than he, Howard, was.'
Throughout the campaign commentators continued to suggest that the Government's strong stand against illegal immigrants was contributing to its popularity with voters.
Four Corners reporter, Andrew Fowler, asked the Prime Minister, toward the end of the campaign, 'The centrepiece of your campaign launch was a tax concession for young couples, yet the biggest applause went to Philip Ruddock and you for your no-compromise position on border protection. Why was that, do you think?'
The Prime Minster responded, 'The only comment I'd say is that the Australian people feel very deeply that it's fundamental to the independence of a nation that we have the right to decide who comes here and in what circumstances.'
If the Prime Minister's assessment was correct then the popular belief that asylum seekers had thrown their children overboard may well have contributed to the electorate's apparent support for the Government's strong border protection policy.

Arguments suggesting that members of the Howard government should not be held responsible for misleading the Australian public
1. Any inaccurate statements made by senior ministers, including the Prime Minster, were made in good faith and based on advice
Mr Howard has repeatedly claimed that his original statement that children had been thrown overboard was based on advice forwarded to him from the Minister for Immigration and later confirmed by the Minister for Defence, Mr Reith and the Chief of the Defence Force, Admiral Barrie.
Mr Howard has stated, 'We received unambiguous advice on 7 October. It was advice tendered in good faith; it was advice that ministers were entitled to use in good faith.'
Mr Howard has also claimed, 'I was subsequently informed in writing that the incident had occurred without any qualifications. I had every reason to believe it.'
These written confirmations came from the Office of National Assessment and the Prime Ministers Task Force on People Smuggling.
At a Press Club luncheon on November 9, 2001, Mr Howard stated, 'The claims that were made by Mr Rudduck and Mr Reith on the Sunday ... October 7 ... were based on advice from Defence sources.
My own comments were based on my discussions with Mr Ruddock and Mr Reith.'
During the same Press Club luncheon, Mr Howard declared, 'On October 9, I received an ONA (Office of National Assessment) report that read, in part, as follows, "Asylum seekers wearing life jackets jumped into the sea" and children were thrown in with them.'
(When it was later revealed that the ONA report had been solely based on the media statements made by the Prime Minister, the Immigration Minister and the Minister for Defence early in October, Mr Howard claimed that he was unaware that this report was not based on substantial evidence.)
Mr Reith offered a similar defence for inaccurate statements that he made. The then Defence Minister claimed, 'I have faithfully said publicly what I've been told at the time.'

2. The Prime Minster was never formally advised that the original account of children being thrown overboard was wrong and the Minister for Defence never received unequivocal advice that the original account was wrong.
The Prime Minister has consistently maintained that he has never been informed by anyone - not a member of the Defence Forces, a public servant, one of his own staffers or another Minister, including the Minister for Defence - that the original information that children had been thrown overboard was inaccurate.
On February 14, Mr Howard assured Mr Crean, the leader of the Opposition, within Parliament, 'No advice was tendered to the Minister for Immigration by his department, at no stage was I told by Defence, by Mr Reith or by anybody else, that the original advice was wrong.'
Mr Howard also explained that he had spoken with the Minister for Defence about the issue on November 7 and had not been told that the original account of the events of October 7 was incorrect.
'I did speak to Mr Reith ... I asked the question whether there had been any contradiction of the (original) advice, and I was assured there hadn't been.'
In an interview with Four Corner's Liz Jackson on March 4, the Prime Minister claimed that Mr Reith had told him only that there was some 'debate' about the photographs.
Mr Reith has argued that he did not believe he had received 'conclusive' advice even after Air Marshal Houston had informed him that there was no evidence to support the claim that children had been thrown and that Defence believed this action had not taken place.
In a written statement Mr Reith claimed, 'I was concerned that I had not had the opportunity to speak to the Chief of the Defence Forces and had not had a proper detailed and conclusive report. I am certain I did not discuss Air Marshal Angus Houston's comments with the PM because I felt it was wrong to do so without talking first to [Admiral Barrie].'
Mr Reith has also claimed that the telephone line he had when speaking with Air Marshall Houston was not good.
With regard to other attempts that were made to inform Mr Reith's media adviser, Ross Hampton, Mr Hampton has claimed that he did not accept Brigadier Gary Bornholt's original information that the photographs of children in the water were being misrepresented. Mr Hampton said at the time that he did not accept this advice because it was in conflict with advice received from Admiral Barrie.
Mr Hampton has further claimed that he never received the telephone message that Brigadier Bornholt later sent him confirming that the photographs were being misused.

3. The photographs of children in the water appeared to support the children overboard claim
The photographs released by Mr Reith on October 10 appeared to support the original claim that children had been thrown overboard.
It has been claimed that concerns about the original report within the Prime Minister's Office were put to rest after the photographs were published.
The ABC's Four Corner's reported on March 4, 2002, 'It's now emerged that the Prime Minister's own department had asked Defence headquarters for evidence of what happened and a chronology of events'. This occurred on or before October 10.
However, the release of the photographs appears to have allayed their concerns.
Max Moore-Wilton, the Secretary of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet testified at a later inquiry, 'Subsequently on that day or the following day, photos were released by the Minister for Defence and the departmental officers concerned considered that that matter therefore had been clarified because the photos at that stage were assumed to be of events on 7 October.'
The Minister for Defence also appears to have believed that the photographs put the events of October 7 beyond dispute. In an interview conducted by ABC Radio's Virginia Trioli, Mr Reith first released the photographs and then explained what he believed was their significance.
Mr Reith stated, 'Those photos are produced as evidence of the fact that there were people in the water. You're questioning whether it even happened, that's the first point and I just want to answer that by saying these photos show absolutely without question whatsoever that there were children in the water...'
(When he was later told that the photographs did not represent children thrown in the water on October 7, Mr Reith still appeared to hold on to the original version of events, apparently because it was supported by Admiral Barrie.
For Mr Reith, and others in the Government, the issue then appeared to become that even though these photographs did not show children in the water on October 7, that did not mean that children had not been thrown overboard on that date.
The question of how these photographs came to lose the captions indicating that they had been taken on October 8 has not been satisfactorily answered. Nor has the question of how the photographs that were released came to be separated from other photographs sent to the Ministry of Defence clearly showing people being rescued from a sinking boat.)

4. Both the Prime Minister and the Minister for Defence necessarily relied on second hand information, some of which changed over time
During an interview, conducted on November 9, 2001, Mr Howard claimed, '... at all times I acted on ... advice. I mean, I can't do anything other in a situation like this. These incidents happen up around Ashmore Reef and Christmas Island. I'm not there. And I was told that defence people on the spot had indicated that children were being thrown overboard.'
When it later eventuated that the advice from those 'on the spot' was disputed and that Commander Banks believed he had not said that children had been thrown overboard, while Brigadier Silverstone, to whom he was reporting, believed he had, all parties where left in a position where it was difficult to determine exactly what had happened.
The Secretary for Defence, Dr Allan Hawke, when giving evidence before a Senate inquiry on March 25, 2002, put this view.
Dr Hawke stated, 'Attempts to correct the view that children had been thrown overboard were affected by significant reliance on oral communication, confusion over the nature of photographic and video evidence, and the distribution of the commanding officer's message of 10 October 2001.
An obvious difficulty in assessing the evidence in the issues now before the committee is that many participants have different perceptions of the same events. They have different recollections of what was said, to whom, what was heard, and when. There also seemed to be a perception that, while evidence to support the claim that a child or children had been thrown overboard had not yet been found, there was still a possibility that such evidence existed and had not yet been located.'
The new Minister for Defence, Senator Robert Hill has made a similar claim. The senator has noted, 'You get told something that's said to be authoritative one day, and hear a slightly different version the next - sometimes several different versions in the one day.'
Former Defence Minister, Mr Reith has also made this complaint, arguing that Defence Public Relations originally told him the photographs were of children thrown overboard on October 7, then told him they weren't, and then later contradicted that advice. Mr Reith claims that ultimately he decided to say nothing publicly to clarify the issue until he got written advice, which never came.
As an indication of the confusion that even now appears to surround the issue in the minds of some people, Dr Hawke indicated as late as March 25, 2002, that he was still uncertain as to whether or not children had been thrown over the side of the vessel intercepted on October 7, 2001.
Dr Hawke stated, 'I have read Bryant's report and Powell's report and I understand clearly the conclusions that they come to on the matter but, to this stage, I am not convinced that we have heard the whole story.'
In an interview with John Laws on November 9, 2001, Mr Howard acknowledged the difficulty of getting consistent and reliable advice. He said, 'In the future, if I'm still in the chair, when these sorts of things happen, what I'm going to do is get a report from the people on the spot and put it out.'

5. The head of the defence forces, Admiral Barrie, continued to support the original children overboard account until well into the controversy
It was not until February 27, 2002, that the Defence Force chief, Admiral Chris Barrie, publicly stated, 'I have now reached the conclusion that there is no evidence to support the claim that children were thrown overboard.' Even this statement is not a clear indication that the event did not occur. Prior to this, Admiral Barrie had consistently placed the opposite emphasis, arguing that there was no reason to believe that the first publicly circulated account of the events of October 7 was wrong.
As recently as the week before he finally changed his position, Admiral Barrie had told a Senate committee there was no compelling evidence to counter the original advice.
Admiral Barrie supported the original account of the events of October 7, 2001, for a period of nearly five months. This is important because, as the head of the Defence Forces, Admiral Barrie could be seen as the most authoritative source from which to gain information about a matter involving defence personnel.
On February 19, 2002, Admiral Barrie told a Senate committee, 'No, I do not [accept the finding that Defence had concluded, by October 11, 2001, that at no time had a child been thrown from SIE4]. I go back to my opening statement. I am the principal military adviser to the government, and it's my view that if you talk about Defence with a capital D, I'm it. And I never accepted that finding.'
The Prime Minister appeared to rely heavily on Admiral Barrie's continuing support of his Government's position on the children overboard issue. After Admiral Barrie's February 19 testimony before the Senate committee, Mr Howard countered Mr Crean's criticism of his Government's handling of the issue by stating, 'I think you have had a decent torpedo from the admiral.' Mr Howard appeared to be of the view that the Admiral's continuing support of the originally presented version of events put it beyond contention.
At several key stages in the development of this issue, Admiral Barrie's position appears to have been crucial in determining the position adopted by the Government or its advisers.
As early as October 11, Admiral Barrie had informed the Minister for Defence that there were concerns about the validity of the claims that children were thrown overboard. What is significant is that Admiral Barrie claims to have always advised the Government that he did not share these concerns as he continued to give credence to what he believed was the most accurate version of Commander Bank's in the field report, that is, the diary notes taken over the phone by Brigadier Silverstone.
It is interesting to note that the principal reason given by Mr Reith for not automatically accepting the advice of Air Marshal Houston that there was no evidence children had been thrown overboard was that he had not been able to confirm that advice with Admiral Barrie.

6. The information dissemination practices adopted under Mr Reith as Minister for Defence were not intended to misled
It has been claimed that the guidelines Mr Reith introduced for determining how information would be relayed from the Defence Force and the Department of Defence to the media were intended to ensure that that information was accurate, impartial and did not jeopardise either Defence operations or the implementation of government policy.
It has been claimed that all these aims are legitimate and did not represent an attempt by the Government, through the Department of Defence, to control all defence information being given to the media in a way that would be to the Government's political advantage.
Mr Reith's departmental instruction of August 8, 2001, 'Public Comment and Dissemination of Information by Defence Members' includes the provision, 'Defence members are not to comment publicly or disseminate information about Defence policy or administration which could place in doubt their political impartiality or acceptance of the obligation to implement the policy of the elected government.'
Defenders of the departmental instruction note that it was specifically intended to preserve political impartiality, not put it at risk.
It was further noted that under the new instruction or guidelines, '... only members trained through the PACC (Public Affairs and Corporate Communications) will be authorised to speak to the media, and then only after clearance of talking points.'
Defenders of the instruction have claimed it is intended to ensure the accuracy and clarity of media statements issued about Defence. They have further claimed that if these provisions had been properly followed on October 7, 2001, and the days that followed then much of the misinformation that was released to the media would never have seen the light of day.

7. A minister is not always responsible for the actions of his or her department
A number of sources make it plain that under the conventions that currently operate within Australia a minister is not accountable for failures within his or her department unless directly involved in the incompetence or misconduct.
Brian Palmer, in his Australian politics information site, Palmer's Oz Politics, states, 'The convention of individual ministerial responsibility has always been interpreted far more flexibly in Australia than the United Kingdom. At its most potent ...individual ministerial responsibility in Britain was asserted with phrases like, "The Minister is responsible for every stamp stuck on an envelope", and "If a bed pan is dropped, the Minister will hear it".
[However, in Australia the situation is different.] In 1965 Billy Snedden, then Attorney-General, clarified that there is no compulsion to resign if the minister is free from personal fault and could not by reasonable diligence in controlling his department have prevented the mistake.'
In the current 'Guide on Key Elements of Ministerial Responsibility' issued at John Howard's direction in December, 1998, it states, 'The secretary of a department is, ... responsible "under the minister" for the general working of the department and for advising the minister in all matters relating to the department.
This does not mean that ministers bear individual liability for all actions of their departments. Where [the minister] neither knew, nor should have known about matters of departmental administration which come under scrutiny it is not unreasonable to expect that the secretary or some other senior officer will take the responsibility.'
The Government's defenders argue that neither the Minister for Defence nor the Prime Minister can be held responsible for the failure of his department to keep him informed, nor for any mismanagement of the 'children overboard' affair which occurred without his knowledge.
Finally, it is suggested that there is no penalty that can reasonably be applied to the former Minister for Defence, even if it were established that he knew about his Department's mishandling of information or that he personally misrepresented information. The only sanction that could be applied to him is that he be required to resign from the Ministry. This has already effectively happened as Mr Reith resigned from federal Parliament on November 10, 2001.

8. The 'children overboard' claims were not a significant factor in the last federal election campaign
The Howard Government had put two slightly contradictory positions on voter behaviour in the November 2001 federal election. After the election it maintained that the border protection issue, as initially exemplified by the 'Tampa crisis' and later by the 'children overboard' allegations was not a key factor in determining the voting behaviour of most of those who supported the Liberal Party.
At a National Press Club luncheon held on November 21, 2001, the federal secretary of the Liberal Party, Mr Lynton Crosby, stated, 'When asked to give the number one reason why they voted for the Liberal Party, 29 per cent of people who voted for the Party sighted Party reasons - that is, either a long-standing commitment to the Liberal Party, or opposition to the Labor Party.
Twenty-two per cent sighted economic and financial management. Eighteen per cent sighted John Howard's leadership. Fourteen per cent said they wanted the Government to continue along its current path, in effect endorsing the Government's track record - 11 per cent sighted Kim Beazley's leadership, and 10 per cent - in sixth spot - was the issue of illegal entrants and boat people.'
The other position put on this question was slightly different. It was argued that though border protection may have been an important issue for many voters, the allegations that had been made about children being thrown overboard were not.
The Prime Minister put this position on a number of occasions immediately prior to the election.
In a television interview on November 9, 2001, the Prime Minister stated, 'No, I don't think people's attitudes ... [are] going to change because of the debate over whether children went overboard or not because what people ... hold strong views about is the maintenance of strong protection of our borders. The [children overboard] issue is important and emotional and I understand the interest but it really is not at the core of the debate. The core of the debate is ... whether the public agrees with the line the Government has taken about deterring illegal immigration. That's what people are interested in. And if people agree with us on that issue, well, they'll support us [electorally]. If they don't agree with us I guess they won't support us ...'
Both of these interpretations of voting behaviour in the last federal election argue that the 'children overboard' allegations were not significant. This is important because, if accepted, it would mean that the Government's legitimacy has not been undermined by the discovery that children were not thrown overboard.

Further implications
Public opinion polling conducted in February 2002 indicated that a clear majority of voters did not believe Prime Minister Howard's claim that he did not know about the 'children overboard' misinformation and cover-up.
Some political analysts have claimed that the damage done Mr Howard's credibility by this issue is not sufficient to prompt an imminent change of leadership within the party, but may be sufficient to see Mr Howard resign mid-term, probably in favour of his treasurer, Peter Costello.
Such speculation has seemed a little premature in recent days with the Prime Minister suggesting he may contest the next election. If he does, this will be a real test of the extent to which the battering Mr Howard's 'Honest John' image has taken concerns the electorate. It is interesting to note that Mr Costello has been in no way connected with the 'children overboard' allegations - he neither made them, nor has he defended any of those who did. If this affair should become a liability at the next election, Mr Costello will be able to present himself before the electorate with clean hands.
Whatever implications the matter may have politically and whatever it may say about the health of our democracy, there is another institution upon which it has had a devastating effect. The Defence Force, in particular the Navy, has been severely shaken by the whole affair. It seems all but inevitable that Admiral Barrie's days as chief of the Defence Force are numbered. The current Defence Minister, Senator Robert Hill, claims to have heard that Admiral Barrie is interested in taking up a position at Oxford. But more than the reputation of one man has been harmed. The communication procedures within the Defence Force have been called into question and more disturbingly, it has been suggested that the Defence Force has been exploited and compromised by its political masters. Interestingly, one of the first things Senator Hill has done as Defence Minister is to remove the all but total control his office exercised under Mr Reith on Defence media releases.
Regrettably, it would appear that cynicism about politicians and public servants is such that the electorate may be prepared to accept the shenanigans they believe occurred over the 'children overboard' issue. The Defence Force, however, appears unwilling to again find itself implicated in such goings on.

Sources
The Age
15/2/02 page 7 chronology of events, 'How the "children overboard" story unfolded'
22/2/02 page 1 news item by mark Forbes, 'Navy cable scuttling "children overboard" claim tabled in Senate'
22/2/02 page 4 news item by Farah Farouque, 'Children overboard debate a fiery affair'
23/2/02 page 1 (Insight section) comment by Mark Forbes, 'The dogs of war let loose (on each other)'
23/2/02 page 2 (Insight section) comment by Michael Gordon, 'An unnecessary circle of defeat'
23/2/02 page 7 (Insight section) comment by Shaun Carney, 'The sinking of an "honourable man"'
23/2/02 page 7 (Insight section) comment by Hugh Mackay, 'To stay or to go: a moral dilemma'
24/2/02 page 5 news item by Brendan Nicholson, 'Poll finding could push Howard toward early exit'
24/2/02 page 5 news item by Frank Walker, 'It never happened: sailor'
25/2/02 page 4 news item by Darren Gray, 'Voters split on "overboard" claims'
28/2/02 page 1 news item by Mark Forbes, 'Defence chief admits his overboard testimony was wrong'
2/3/02 page 2 (Insight section) comment by Louise Dodson, 'Silence is golden in corridors of power'
4/3/02 page 15 comment by former Prime Minister, Paul Keating, 'John Howard's legacy: the trashing of our great institutions'

The Australian
15/2/02 page 1 news item by Ian Henderson and Michael Bachelard, 'Howard didn't ask me: Reith'
23/2//02 page 4 news item by Megan Saunders, 'Reith blames bad telephone line'
23/2/02 comment by Patrick Walters, 'Defence feels a shake-up in the ranks'
23/2/02 analysis by Matt Price, 'Friends with hazy memories prove handy for a PM being hung out to dry'
23/2//01 page 22 comment by Greg Sheridan, 'Out of the blue, a big whopper'
28/2/02 page 3 news item by John Kerin, 'Admiral recants on boatchildren'
28/2/02 page 3 comment by Patrick Walters, 'Barrie's backflip clears the decks'

The Herald Sun
22/2/02 page 3 news item by Andrew Probyn, 'I was told it wasn't true - Reith'
22/2/02 page 18 editorial, 'Sinking the truth'
22/2/02 page 19 comment by Jill Singer, 'Going overboard on belief'
25/2/02 comment by Andrew bolt, 'Reithed in lies'