Recent Correspondence regarding SIEV X with Dr Tom Frame, Anglican Bishop to the Australian Defence Force

 

Late in 2004, Dr Frame reviewed my book A Certain Maritime Incident: the Sinking of SIEV X in two journals: Defender and Public Administration Today.. The text of his review, entitled "SIEV X and public ethics" is accessible on my website, at

http://www.tonykevin.com/SIEVX-PublicEthics-TomFrame.html

I made brief references to Dr Frame’s review in my end-of-year commentary filed on 22 December 2004, "Reflections on a Difficult Year"

http://www.tonykevin.com/Reflections-difficult-year.html

I then wrote a considered response to his review, which appeared in New Matilda, issue no 20, on 12 January 2005:

"Somewhere between God and Caesar"

This piece was, with New Matilda’s permission, reproduced on my website as

http://www.tonykevin.com/GodnCaesar.html

On 15 January, apparently not having yet seen the New Matilda essay, Dr Frame initiated an email correspondence with me which I now reproduce below in full, except for his initial letter which he may have regarded as personal when he sent it. I made it clear in response that any subsequent correspondence would be potentially publishable.

I believe it is in the public interest for readers to know how Dr Frame initiated, and then terminated, his correspondence with me. Given his important public position as a bishop to the ADF and a well-regarded writer on military history, and the fact that his review in PAT carried the title "SIEV X and Public Ethics", I regret that he did not take up my invitation to debate our positions in a forum of his choice and with a moderator of his choice. Should he change his stance on this, I will be happy to engage in a courteous debate with him in future. Meanwhile, readers may form their own views.

Tony Kevin, Canberra 17 February 2004

Frame to Kevin, 15 January 2005: "Reflections on 2004"

(text withheld, as a courtesy to Dr Frame)

Kevin to Frame, 15 January: "Re Reflections on 2004":

Dear Tom.

Thank you for your letter responding to my comments about your review of my book A Certain Maritime Incident - the Sinking of SIEV X, in my commentary "Reflections on a difficult year – Christmas message by Tony Kevin, 22 December 2004" on my website www.tonykevin.com, in which I wrote :

"It [the book] was notably unfavourably reviewed recently by Bishop Tom Frame (Anglican Bishop to the ADF). Frame got a double dip in Defender (journal of the Australian Defence Association) and Public Administration Today (journal of the Institute of Public Administration of Australia, Canberra Branch)",

and

"My hands were fairly full these recent months defending myself. I’ve already mentioned the Frame review of my SIEV X book, that damned with faint praise but was actually deeply prejudiced against the book, and which requires considered responses on the merits of the arguments put forward by Frame, and on facts ignored by Frame."

I suggest you read the latest issue of "New Matilda" (www.newmatilda.com" which carries a 1600-word commentary by me setting out my considered responses on the merits of the arguments put forward in your recent review of my book, and on relevant facts you ignored in that review. A copy of this commentary is also now up on my website, together with a copy of the text of your review.

On your first point, I do not dispute that you were invited by Defender and then by Public Administration Today to publish your views on my book. I accept that you were not seeking to "gain any particular advantage " for your views by publishing in these prestigious journals.

Your position as Anglican Bishop to the Australian Defence Force conveys its own message to readers of presumed authority, moral standing, and good judgement. Fair enough - I cite my former position as an Australian ambassador (now, obviously, a diminishing asset) to enhance public interest in my views on the need for public accountability into the sinking of SIEV X which took 353 lives and is still unexplained.

On your second point, I don't believe I have criticised your motives or conduct, in my comments to date on your reviews of my book. I certainly have, in my New Matilda commentary now published, criticised your views on the book, views which I believe are profoundly and importantly wrong.

Though neither of us are lawyers, l am probably as familiar with Australia's laws of defamation as you are. Presumably, neither of us wishes to violate them. I have never set out to defame you and I do not believe that I have defamed you.

I believe we can conduct this argument without entering into that area, where I certainly have no wish to go as a retired person with three young children to bring up.

On your third point, I believe your review was deeply prejudiced against my book. (Also, incidentally, against Marg Hutton's scholarly work on her independent website www.sievx.com , about which your Defender review text offered quite unchivalrous and unsupported criticisms - but that is a matter for Marg Hutton, not for me).

My New Matilda commentary sets out some of the main reasons for my critical view of your review. I have many more detailed comments, to this point unpublished, on your review's offered arguments. I found many of these arguments unprofessional and inappropriate to a serious review in serious journals of my book, which is a work of exact historical scholarship that set out its sources, authorities, purposes and limitations clearly and honestly.

On your fourth and last point, saying that this is not the way to conduct a dialogue on any subject: I will be happy to debate these matters with you further in any forum of your choice, including before any ADF and/or senior public service professional audience or at an ANU public forum. I believe my book and your review of it raise matters of great public interest and importance, and that our views should therefore be courteously debated further in a public place - and not through any further private correspondence. I believe such a debate would be in the public interest, and I hope you will agree to it.

Your letter to me was clearly intended to be private, and I will respect the privacy of that letter, but I will regard any further correspondence between us on this matter, including my letter to you herewith, as publishable.

Regards,

Tony Kevin

Kevin to Frame, 14 February 2005:

Dear Tom,

In coming days I will be speaking at discussion events based on my SIEV X book in Darwin ( 24 February, Launceston (4 March) and Hobart ( 6 March). These dates will complete my program of book events around Australia.

Your review of my book in 'Defender' and 'PAT' has been, for better or worse, the most substantive discussion from a pro-government perspective of the issues raised by my book. I think that your arguments in your review, and my considered response in 'New Matilida', are important contributions to public debate of this issue.

We both perhaps got a little personal in these pieces, but I am happy to set that aside now and focus on the issues of governance in both our pieces.

I wonder whether your position (as expressed to Rosemary Nairn, who sent me her correspondence with you) that you do not wish to comment further publicly on my book, is considered and final ? *

* [Ed: Rosemary Nairn, independently of me, had initiated a correspondence with Dr Frame on his review of my book. She copied this correspondence to me.]

I would be sorry if this were the case. I think that, as a naval historian and as the Anglican Bishop to the ADF, you might want to be seen to be prepared to have a public dialogue with me on your response to the issues my book on SIEV X raises. After all, you expressed some strong views in your review, which I challenged equally robustly - would you not wish to have the opportunity to discuss the basis for your views further before a neutral or sympathetic audience ?

I have no wish to ambush you before a hostile gathering. I would be happy to discuss SIEV X with you in such venues as : Australian Defence Association, Institute of Public Administration (ACT Branch), ADFA, Defence College, ANU Public Lecture Series, the Sydney Institute (Gerald Henderson).

I would also be happy to leave the choice of moderator to you, and would suggest names like Pat Weller, John Warhurst, Hilary Charlesworth, Terry Lane.

You see, Tom, I am absolutely convinced in the integrity of my position on SIEV X. The Senate would not have supported my concerns in the form of motions if they did not see the case is strong for an independent judicial inquiry into SIEV X and the disruption program. They know that I have laid my public reputation as a former ambassador on the line, because I believe in the rightness of this cause and I believe I can convince any reasonable audience of the worth of my evidence that something more needs to be done.

As evidence of cases of government malpractice and cover-up grows - Habib, Cornelia Rau, Bakhtiaris, the chained and gagged deportee, Australian witnessing of torture of prisoners in Iraq - SIEV X looks less and less like an aberration and more and more like business as usual for this government. That makes it all the more important for us to have such a debate.

I would like to be able, in discussing your and my published views in SIEV X in Darwin and Tasmania, to say that you and I have agreed in principle to a public discussion later in the year. (I will be busy until the end of May - I am sure you are busy too).

But if we could agree on a mutual preparedness to discuss this further later this year, I would like to be able to say this.

Finally let me assure you that the correspondence Rosemary Nairn initiated with you was her independent initiative and I did not prompt it in any way.

Hoping to hear from you in coming days,

Regards,

Tony Kevin

Frame to Kevin, 15 February 2005:

Dear Tony

I am adhering to my decision. I have nothing further to say about your book and I am not prepared to enter into a public debate.

Tom

Kevin to Frame, 15 February 2005:

Thanks tom - it's clear where each of us stands now.

I wanted to go on talking civilly - you declined.

Of course this means that it would not be honourable to you to make derogatory public references to me or my book on SIEV X anywhere again - unless you said at the same time that you had declined my invitation to debate the issues you raised in your reviews.

I regret your decision.

Tony Kevin

Frame to Kevin, 16 February 2005:

Dear Tony

You draw a series of wrong inferences from my decision. I am not, nor have I ever sought to be, a proponent of any position or an advocate for any person. I am not your opponent nor do I want to be.

Having said that, I have never been derogatory or uncivil to you nor would I intend to be so in the future. To suggest that I have is inaccurate.

Put simply: I have already said all I want to say about the matters raised in your book. There is nothing more that I would want to add.

I am not, of course, under any compulsion to conduct a debate with you nor do I feel it would be profitable in any event.

Tom