Joe Hildebrand: Anthony Albanese and Labor nail the dark political art of tactical obfuscation

One of the golden rules of politics is never answer the question you are asked, only the question you want to be asked. Enter the Russian air base fiasco, writes Joe Hildebrand.

Earlier in this campaign I coined the term “tactical obfuscation” to describe the dark political art of what the uninitiated might unkindly call “lying”.

Little did I know how much it would take-off — although hopefully not from an Indonesian air base.

Dominating the headlines once more today is the question of when and how much the Australian government knew about a Russian request to use a military base off Papua, just 1300km from Australia, for its own aircraft.

This request was apparently made in February but only publicly revealed by the venerated international military journal Janes this month. However The Australian today revealed the government has been aware of the request since March.

Plenty of people are now jumping up and down saying that this means Anthony Albanese and/or his ministers lied about what they knew and when they knew it.

In fact, with one glaring exception that proved the rule, the PM and his ministers have been incredibly careful to not lie about it — but that doesn’t mean they have told the whole truth.

Enter the art of tactical obfuscation.

Anthony Albanese has perfected the art of “tactical obfuscation” when it comes to Russia’s request for a military air base in Indonesia. Picture: Asanka Ratnayake

One of the golden rules of politics is you never answer the question you are asked, you answer the question you want to be asked.

In this case the questions being asked are whether there was a request from Russia to use Indonesian air bases but the question the government wants to answer is whether that request has been granted.

Thus a typical exchange might go as follows:

Q: Minister, was the government aware of a Russian request to use Indonesian air bases just north of Australia?

A: Look, as I have said, there are absolutely no plans for any Russian use of any Indonesian air bases, and the Indonesians have made that very clear to us. Anyone who suggests otherwise is simply living in fantasy land.

Now anyone listening to this on their car radio or with half an ear to the tele while they cook the breakfast is obviously going to hear this as a full-throated denial which suggests the question is based on a falsehood.

But of course it isn’t. The politician has simply answered a question the journo didn’t ask — namely whether there were plans, not whether there was a request.

And they have done so in a way that effectively rubbishes the question and the questioner without actually telling a lie.

This is something all political journos have to deal with constantly but it is a subtlety that often escapes the public as the press and the pollies scramble to discredit each other — which frankly just ends up in a mud wrestle.

Instead, if you read and listen through that distorting gauze you see that the story isn’t technically wrong and nor is the politician technically lying. Such technicalities might not sound like much in a cynical world but you need to be aware of them if you are going to navigate through all the chaff to get to the truth, which is in this case: Yes, there was a request and yes the government knew about it, but no, it has not been approved and no there are no plans.

All these things can be true at the same time but both sides want you to believe that it’s one or the other.

Clear as mud? That’s the point.

Originally published as Joe Hildebrand: Anthony Albanese and Labor nail the dark political art of tactical obfuscation