Government secrecy and leaky asylum-seeker boats On-water matter: A group of asylum seekers being transferred to Christmas Island before other boat arrivals began to be turned back. Photo: Nic Ellis Not long before he became head of Australia's border protection operations, Lieutenant-General Angus Campbell penned a short commentary on the need for the military to be open to the media. In a contribution in June last year to an army publication on the Australian Defence Force's media embedding program in Afghanistan, Campbell wrote that giving journalists close access to military operations was "an absolute requirement and should be factored into planning from the very beginning." The war in Afghanistan was more open than the war against the people smugglers. "As Australians we live in a democracy and, in that democracy, media agencies play a key role that has been acknowledged by the government and population we serve," he wrote. Maintaining silence: Angus Campbell and Scott Morrison. Today, Campbell heads Operation Sovereign Borders, where such principles are honoured more in the breach than the observance. To be sure, he and Immigration Minister Scott Morrison face the media for briefings, but their answers to questions are severely truncated. Inquiries about what's going on up north are met with the steel-shutter phrase "on-water operational matters." Most jarring is the refusal to confirm that the government has been turning or towing back asylum-seeker boats - an election pledge - or even to commit to revealing past operations once the boats have stopped. The secrecy has at times become the stuff of ridicule, notably when Morrison's office refused even to confirm whether he would continue to give his regular weekly media briefings. Now, with the government stepping up operations in recent weeks, turning back up to six boats and using a lifeboat to send asylum seekers back to Indonesia, the secrecy is in the spotlight and under pressure. Asylum seekers have accused the navy of abuse and Australia has repeatedly breached Indonesian waters while carrying out the unacknowledged operations. Meanwhile, detainees on Christmas Island have gone on hunger strikes and sewn their lips together, also the subject of an information clampdown. From the start, the Abbott government has bet on the fact that, if it stops the boats, most Australians are not too fussed about the details. It is a fair bet, assuming everything goes smoothly. But last week, the government was forced to admit that navy and customs ships had inadvertently strayed into Indonesian waters multiple times in recent weeks. It is no small thing. As an Indonesia expert at the Lowy Institute, Dave McRae, puts it: "The swift apology from the Australian government shows they are aware that Australian vessels entering Indonesian waters is very serious." Fairfax Media understands at least some of these incursions happened while asylum seekers were being turned back to Indonesia, including an incident when 56 asylum seekers and two crew were sent back by navy and customs to Indonesia on a specially purchased lifeboat. This raises the stakes with Jakarta, given turnbacks are the policy it has repeatedly warned against. The government has ordered an inquiry into how the incursions happened, but is leaving it up to the Chief of the Defence Force, David Hurley, and the Customs and Border Protection chief executive Mike Pezzullo to decide whether the report is made public. If it is released without crippling redactions, it will necessarily confirm that boat turnbacks have been happening. Given the seriousness of the blunders, there will be considerable pressure for public release. Hot on the heels of the territorial incursions, asylum seekers gained attention with claims navy sailors had forced them to hold the hot muffler of their boat engine, causing burns to their hands. The claims are at best unsubstantiated, at worst downright implausible, but the episode has raised doubts as to whether the navy is able to rebut the claims in as much detail as it should. Thanks to the official silence on boat turnbacks, Morrison, Campbell, Hurley and Chief of Navy Ray Griggs were all in the awkward position of denying the episode took place without being able to acknowledge there was a boat at all. Griggs, who had earlier made an impassioned statement defending his people but not referring to any specific incident, ended up using Twitter to reject the hand-burning claims. Former foreign minister Bob Carr - who takes a tough line on border protection by Labor standards - argues the navy deserves the chance to defend itself properly but is hamstrung by the government secrecy. "The government has been hoist with its own petard," he said. Its obsession with secrecy has left the Defence Force unable to rebut allegations against their competence and capacity. Again, open government is the best government. Some in the navy are known to favour having journalists on border protection missions, so-called media embeds of the kind Campbell praised in his paper last year. At the very least, such scrutiny would likely scotch the kind of abuse claims that have surfaced this week. James Brown, a former soldier and now military fellow at the Lowy Institute, says media have been embedded in Afghanistan even with the clandestine special forces. "The media are rightly sceptical about why journalists can be embedded with the SAS in Afghanistan but not with the navy in Australian waters," he said. The government has a clear mandate to stop the boats, but now risks severing trust that has been built over years between the military and the media. It's highly unlikely navy personnel mistreated illegal entrants, but uncritical media reporting of such allegations is the blowback to navy from the intense secrecy imposed on their operations. Indeed, Prime Minister Tony Abbott may compare border protection to a war but, by many measures, the war in Afghanistan was more open than the war against the people smugglers. Many Afghanistan operations were reported by Defence in detail after they happened. Not everyone buys the idea the navy is boxed in. Peter Leahy, former chief of army and now director of the National Security Institute at the University of Canberra, says Griggs' Twitter denial should be enough, irrespective of how much detail the navy is able to give. These are professionals, they're well trained, they're part of a values-driven organisation. They're honourable men and women trying to do the best by Australia and the refugees. And I for one trust them," he said. Then there is the secrecy over detention centres, notably on Christmas Island where, in the past few weeks, there have been protests, including hunger strikes and self harm such as sewing lips together. The Howard government, which set the benchmark for toughness on asylum-seeker policy, provided information about such protests. Morrison refuses even to confirm cases of self harm are happening, saying to do so will encourage more behaviour of that kind. But Monash University psychologist Louise Newman says hiding the incidents of self harm breeds hopelessness and worsens the problem. You can't make false promises of a positive outcome because that can't be offered at the moment, but engagement can stop them escalating. These are basic psychological principles. So where does the insistence on secrecy stem from? When it comes to operations at sea, Campbell, a highly respected soldier, regarded as one of the intellectuals among the senior brass and a decent man to boot, says he doesn't want to advantage people smugglers by arming them with tactical information. Refugee advocates don't buy that. The chief executive of the Refugee Council of Australia, Paul Power, says genuine national security may warrant government secrecy, but this isn't one of those situations. "It shouldn't be OK that people are much less confident they know what the government is doing on their behalf," he said. They're promoting this as a military-style operation but they're not operating against a military force. Sensitivities in Jakarta clearly play a role. Neil James of the Australia Defence Association says we can't "rub Jakarta's nose" in the fact we're turning back boats against their wishes. He believes the motives for secrecy break down to five parts operational, four parts diplomatic, and one part political convenience. It is worth noting that the Abbott government is working against its own political interests by refusing to confirm it has turned boats back. Indeed, Labor operators have professed bewilderment that the government is not singing this fulfilled promise from the rooftops. But there is always some political benefit in not having to explain how the proverbial sausage is made. Word has got out that boats have been turned back. The government can say it is getting the job done without having to explain the messy detail, a stance that will resonate with many voters. The catch is that, if the government is not controlling the information, somebody else is. Former navy commodore Sam Bateman wrote for The Conversation in September in remarks that already seem prescient: "When the leaks about actual operations occur, the rumours may do more harm to Australia's international image than the actual facts."