“That’s not insulation, THIS is insulation,” a Canberra insider quipped in mock Paul Hogan at news of Australian involvement in the Dubai assassination plot.
Three weeks of intense scrutiny over the bungled $2.45 billion free home insulation scheme, suddenly gave way to a news of an `actual’ political assassination.
And what a story it was, instantly providing Kevin Rudd and his beleaguered Environment Minister, Peter Garrett with some welcome political insulation. As former Liberal leader, John Hewson, noted, the PM grabbed it with unusual relish, so keen was he to start talking about something else.
In strict terms of course, Australia was not ``involved,’’ but the fact that cloned Australian passports were used by the Mossad team dispatched to the United Arab Emirates to in turn, dispatch a Hamas militant, piqued immediate public interest. Government figures won’t say it directly but few doubt that Israel, a close ally loyally supported by Australia at some cost, has betrayed that bond by stealing Australian identities.
``We will not let the matter rest’’ an angry Mr Rudd fulminated. This would ``not be regarded as the act of a friend,’’ Foreign Affairs Minister, Stephen Smith said. In the soft-shoe world of diplomacy, this was pretty strong language.
The Government had been keen to change the subject from the insulation debacle since the beginning of the week. Perhaps unsurprisingly in these days of professional politics, it attracted some criticism for the ``convenient’’ timing chosen to tumble out its long-withheld Counter-Terrorism White Paper on Tuesday morning.
The surprisingly slim security blueprint, certainly captured some attention by describing the threat from home-grown terrorists as permanent and canvassing the possibility of a ``dirty’’ chemical or even a crude radio-active bomb being set off in Australia. But in national political terms, it was not a game changer. Word was the document had been altered, if only in tone, because the PM’s office wanted an ``announcable’.
Circumstantially, the claim seemed plausible because the $69 million spending measure accompanying the release dealt with establishing a list of ``around ten’’ countries in which special biometric information would be required of applicants for Australian visas. You can see the point. This initiative has nothing to do with addressing the home-grown terror risk. Indeed, the White Paper seemed to offer little in the way of counter-radicalisation measures.
Britain by contrast, is spending around a hundred million pounds specifically on programs to address youth alienation and subsequent radicalisation of young British Muslims. It may be money well spent. Indeed some security experts now regard terror attacks emanating from Britain as among the more significant threats facing the US. Which raises the question, why has Australia gone for the a piecemeal approach requiring biometric finger-printing and face recognition information for visa applicants from some countries, but not others?
From a diplomatic point of view, this could yet bite the Government because a country like India should be on the list simply by virtue of its enormous population and its well known internal security tensions. After all, the Counter-Terrorism White Paper was actually commissioned in the days after the November 2008 Mumbai attacks.
Yet it is obvious that in the current environment, with India already suspicious of Australians thanks to a spate of attacks on Indian students, putting India on the list of potential hostile nations, would not go over well. Ditto for Indonesia and Pakistan who would also be offended. Moreover, from a counter-radicalisation standpoint, the watch list may even be counter-productive because local minorities from those countries singled out, are apt to feel more alienated by their targeting. The Government has not explained why it doesn’t just go to full biometric screening for all visas as the US has done, thus avoiding these problems.
The Opposition believes it has Labor’s measure on border protection especially as boats continue to arrive. Thus, Julie Bishop wasted no time trying to turn the Dubai/Mossad passport story against the Government also. She noted that the assassins deliberately chose stolen identities from a spread of benign countries unlikely to arouse suspicions in the UAE, to wit: Australia, France, Germany, Ireland and Britain. Her point? That terrorists intent on acts of violence here would similarly avoid entering Australia from the small number of countries required to submit to biometric testing.
The Dubai assassination and Australia’s unwitting role in it was no doubt a cracking yarn. It was like an episode of Spooks yet real. But its dominance of the front pages has offered only temporary relief for the Government and its troubles with the home insulation program.
Make no mistake, this is a king-size stuff-up and it probably has a way to run yet. Mr Rudd has now taken full responsibility for the scrapped program. Yet it remains unclear what that responsibility amounts to. It certainly insulated Mr Garrett because the Opposition obliged by training its guns on the PM. Mr Garrett survived but the Government has taken on water. And the Westminster convention (make that, myth) of ministerial responsibility has taken another hit into the bargain.
By Thursday night, Mr Rudd had completely abandoned any defence of the scheme, which Mr Garrett had been lamely attempting, instead turning up the contrition knob by admitting he should have asked more questions. The Government has now sent its MPs out into the `burbs and regions armed with information kits and a new message: we know it went wrong but we are now fixing it.
Politically, the hope is that this approach will steady the ship and restore voter confidence. But considerable damage has been done and nothing will insulate the Government should another house catch fire from dodgy insulation or worse, someone else comes to harm from this bungled program.
Facebook Recommendations
Read all about it
Punch live
Up to the minute Twitter chatter
Recent posts
The latest and greatest
Would you kill for a job?
Who would work in an abattoir? Most of us have done jobs we didn’t want to do because we needed…
Friday Dilemma: child cruelty or harmless fun?
Parenting. It’s the new oneupmanship. Ah, how quaint the days now seem when parents could raise…
Hipsters with hip replacements
Someone once told me that when people reach a certain age they begin dressing in the manner they did…
Nosebleed Section
choice ringside rantings
From: Punch on: Open thread 09/02/2012
marley says:
I'm one of the older ones, so I've certainly seen a few changes in my time. When I started school I learned to write with a nib pen, dipped in an inkwell (no, I'm not kidding). My mother became a dab hand at getting inkstains out of my clothes. Flicking ink at one another in the classroom was an essential… [read more]From: I’d rather have a piece of toast than listen to crap lyrics
Erick says:
Led Zeppelin are responsible for my all-time favourite mixed metaphor: "There you sit, sit and stare, like a book on a shelf rusting." (Misty Mountain Hop) I laugh every time I hear it. Hmmm, I believe I've decided what to play on the way to work today. [read more]Gentle jabs to the ribs
No wuckin forries. These nuckin futs are tuckin fops
Well, puck me with a fitchfork. The F-word is apparently an acceptable part of Australian speech. That’s… Read more
Most commented