The war in Iran has produced a classic example of the practice of politicians twisting the meaning of words which are then used in their new and artificial meaning for political ends – and usually for lying. This little classic is the devious meaning now to be given to the word ‘participation’, at least according to our Foreign Minister Penny Wong.

This piece of sophistry merged last week when it came to the surface, as it were, that a United States submarine had attacked an Iranian warship off Sri Lanka and sent it and 87 of its crew into the arms of the Supreme Leader in the Sky and the 72 virgins awaiting them. On further examination of the facts, it emerged that the submarine crew included three Australian sailors. Some observers were quick enough to conclude from this discovery, which seemed obvious to me from the beginning, that Australia was joining with the US in the war and that it was doing so on the side of the US and actually killing people as a contribution to the war effort, no matter how unpalatable it may be to our sensitivities. What else could it mean?

My first reaction to this news was a sudden surge of pride. Instead of pussy-footing around on whether we supported the US or not, here was clear evidence that we were actively doing so. If this revelation infuriated the commentariat, I also thought, so much the better.

Moreover, the US submarine was nuclear-powered and, although the mainstream press seems to have ignored this point entirely, US submarines carry nuclear weapons or are fitted to carry them and there is no reason to doubt that this facility was available to the submarine in question. It must also have been clear enough to anyone who thought about it that the US submarine must have been operating with the assistance of the facility at Pine Gap which casts its watchful eye over all communications to and from the world’s trouble spots, including the Middle East, and it is hard to believe that the submarine was not using the information gleaned from it. So, here was evidence for the first time that Australia was a real partner of the US and prepared to back up its commitment with force, up to and including termination with extreme prejudice. Yes, we were participating in the war and what a good thing it was. So, for me, it was time for celebration.

But ‘No!’ cried Penny Wong, in a sudden intrusion into the debate to confuse what was already clear to everyone else: we were not allowed to think for one minute that we were really in the war and doing the right thing by actively supporting the US, which we clearly were; we had to pretend we were not taking part in the war at all and to use weasel words to carry out the pretence.

The facts did not show, according to the minister, that Australia was participating in the war, she claimed, because we are not participating in it, so there; they showed only that our sailors were on the sub while it was engaged in an act of war. It did not mean that the sailors were actually doing anything warlike such as firing torpedoes. In particular, she claimed, it is the Australian policy not to ‘participate’ in the war and the fact that Aussie sailors were simply working in a submarine that destroyed an enemy warship during a warlike encounter showed that they were not actually participating in the war; the Australian sailors just happened to be there and you are not really participating in a war unless you are pulling the trigger.

To test this piece of sophistry, we should first ask what did Penny Wong think the sailors were doing if they were not ‘participating’ in the war. Were they perhaps playing poker, watching replays of The Caine Mutiny, or touching up their tattoos? And surely, working in the engine room, plotting a course, running communications, cooking the evening meal or, indeed performing any action on the submarine, must surely be integral parts of running a ship and therefore participation in what it is being used for, namely for war. Senator Wong was asking us to believe that being on the ship and helping it perform its tasks, was not participating. It was just sort of being there. This is plainly nonsense. Moreover, it smacks of a distinct lack of conviction in our participation in the war, no doubt to curry favour with Muslim voters.

Then Ms Wong added to the nonsense by asserting that the sailors were only on the submarine for training under the Aukus treaty and the coming days when Australian sailors will have to serve at sea regularly with Americans and they were just getting used to the idea. This is double nonsense because Aukus is a naval pact designed to be used in a war, or if you like the more refined language, while participating in a war. What is Aukus for, you may ask, if it is not for exactly the manoeuvre in which the Australians were actually engaged and exactly in conflicts like the war in Iran?

Thus, the Australians were participating in the war during their action off Sri Lanka, despite the new meaning given to the word ‘participation’ by Senator Wong. Participation might have become the word that dare not speak its name, but this naval battle – which we won – was participation pure and simple.

So, Ms Wong is wrong on two scores; the truth is that we are participating in the war against Iran and it is a good thing that we are. Two wrongs do not make it right.  Australia is participating in the war and we should be proud of it and not disguise the fact by promoting the use of weasel words, especially those invented by politicians for their own devious ends.