DOCUMENTS have revealed the department of former prime minister John Howard became involved in the Mohamed Haneef affair less than 48 hours after the Indian doctor was arrested in connection with a British terrorist attack last July.
Lawyers for Dr Haneef said the early involvement of the Prime Minister’s Department raised the possibility that Mr Howard may have colluded with then immigration minister Kevin Andrews to politicise the issue.
“One can have a view whether it was to Howard’s political benefit to whip up a storm like he did with Tampa,” solicitor Rod Hodgson said in Brisbane yesterday.
Mr Howard has denied any involvement in the handling of the Haneef investigation.
This highlights the fact that the Clarke enquiry lacks the power to compel witnesses to appear, and in fact that some are being examined without being on oath, and that witnesses will not be cross-examined. Will John Howard be giving evidence? And if he does, will it turn out to have all been Kevin Andrews’ idea? That was never easy to believe, and it’s getting harder.
Howard was able to push WorkChoices and Haneef on to Andrews, I don’t envy the man. Are to believe that the Haneef issue was not politicised from the top? Who was it then, the bureaucrats?
John Howard is the Bart Simpson of Australian politics - “I didn’t do it, nobody saw me do it, you can’t prove anything”.
Moreover the PMs Department and the Immigration Department are refusing to release some crucial documents under FOI. Perhaps Kevin Rudd might like to instruct them to do so?
It would appear neither party actually cares about our national security after all. Unless we get to the bottom of what happened, ‘mistakes’ will not lead to reform and organisational change, and we will continue to chase the wrong people.
Of course, if they weren’t ‘mistakes’ but people following corrupt orders, then our national security was directly threatened by politicians, who must be punished with the full force of the law, ex-Prime Minister or not.
You droog, Kim [insert Smilie here].
It doesn’t matter how involved Howard’s department was in this matter. He can always say he wasn’t told anything by his public servants or that, if Cabinet discussed it, it was a group deliberation. The Cole Commission established this as a supposedly rock-solid defence. Howard would have made sure his signature wasn’t on anything material to the investigation.
On the broader point, he could claim that Haneef merited Cabinet consideration because at that stage it was possible Haneef himself was just the tip of some major terrorist iceberg involving doctors all around Australia. After all Keelty says they’re still investigating, even as the current inquiry progresses. Remember the mem at the time wasa lot of old ladies and gentlemen ringing La Trioli (and her equivalents around australia) at the ABC and saying, “Better to be safe than sorry.”
On the other hand, if the missing (or should I say “non-supplied”) document evidences an intention to keep the Haneef Affair on the boil, no matter what the merits of the case, that would be damaging. Hardly likely that any smoking gun like that would be still around, I’d warrant. The shredders after the election would have seen to that.
Yes, Paul Burns @3 it looks mighty like FOI applies ONLY to those documents that some consider should to be freely available.
It is not a good look for Kevin Rudd to appear to be protecting John Howard; as surely he would have ticked off his departments decision to withold some documents.
Messing with his mind, Joe2, messing with his mind.
This is not the only case of Rudd appearing to protect Howard. Rudd has already declared there will be no “night of the long knives”, meaning no mass sacking of public servants who supported Howard, after they leaked info to the media over Fuelwatch. Actually I am witholding judgment of Rudd until the Senate changeover in July. It is then that we will see the true nature of the political landscape.
Rudd can’t order the Howard documents to be released. It would look like political interference. He’ll be waiting for the bit in the report which says, “I can’t investigate any further until I have Royal Commission powers” and then Rudd can safely “act upon those recommendations”, ordering the release.
So its a case of:
“Softly softly catchee monkey”
or
“Dammit he’s gone, he was here a moment ago”
It’s unlikely, alas, but it occurred to me last night that maybe the reason Rudd hadn’t yet had a clean-out of the public service (foolish, in my view) is that he’s waiting for some substantial evidence of big-time misbehaviour, such as might come out of the current Haneef enquiry or a renewed AWB enquiry.
It would be better if the inquiry had the poower to compel witnesses and all statements had to be given under oath. Why it lacks at least these essential poweres is beyond me.
Of course, there will be no sign of Howard;s grubby little fingers anywhere in this case, any more than there was in the AWA scandal, cildren overboard or Patrick’s fight with the maritime workers. They are, neverthless, undoubtedly there, but he was probably wearing rubber gloves.
David, Rudd and Goss did a clean out of the Public Service in Queensland. There was a lot of talent lost along the way. With the election of Beattie, there was no clean out. The lesson had been learned.
Most of the SES will have their contracts up for renewal in the not too distant future. An opportunity not to be missed.
I guess it all depends on what you think “involved” actually represents. Rudd is “involved” with Belinda Neal, it doesn’t mean he’s responsible for her actions, let alone instructed her to perform them.
The fact that Haneef’s team is resorting to vague weasel-words like “involved” tells me that any documents they have are utterly benign.
Personally I think any inquiry will find it an at-the-time reasonable process managed by a career politician and public servants, all risk-averse, who were subsequently backed into a corner by an aggressive defence team to the point where they very slightly over-reached.
All perfectly explainable as erring on the side of protecting the Australian citizenry - their first charge - at the expense of a resident alien - their distant charge - who had genuine enforcement questions to answer.
i.e., it will go nowhere. The only matter where I might see some recommendations would be regarding leaks to the press, absolutely intended to influence process, both from the federal police, possibly Andrew’s office, and Haneef’s lawyers.
This issue needs to be pressed to preserve the notion of responsible government in this country. Ministers, including the Prime Minister, are supposed to be accountable to Parliament for their actions and the actions of their Departments. This is a fundamental check on the power of the executive in our Constitutional structure (much as impeachment is in the USA).
Howard certainly got away with it when he was in Government, and the fact is that Bennelong put him beyond reach anyway. But this should be examined until we reach a point where it can be concluded whether Howard’s and/or Andrews’ departments acted inappropriately (and it looks at this point as if they did).
If Rudd wants to talk about improving the accountability of Government then he can apply it to his predecessor as long as he also applies it to himself.
“Messing with his mind, Joe2, messing with his mind.”
It would be nice to think so PC @7.
More likely Howard is outside of the country, spending up big on the goldcard, and has his hearing aid permanently turned down. Or Rudd is busy organising an American style bi-partisan precedent to let the executive off the hook no matter what it has done.
Nah, you can’t blame Howard for the original decision to withdraw the visa - that was all Andrews’ doing, and Howard let it be known at the time in no uncertain terms that he thought it was a stupid decision. Of course, once the original damage was done he took over the management from his bungling subordinate - ie get Haneef out of the country as quickly as possible, make leaks to friendly journos about “secret evidence”, etc.
The original cause of the kerfuffle was simple incompetence on the part of the AFP and Andrews (not that the outcome for Haneef was any better than if they’d been competent Machiavellians). The dishonesty came later as part of the damage control - they chose to “hang tough” at an innocent man’s cost rather than admit they’d made a mistake.
What is meant exactly by this phrase “politicised from the top”? One the one extreme you can argue that Howard decided to interfere with the justice system and see to it that Haneef was made the goat to precipitate another avalanch of xenophobia. On the other it simply means that Howard found out about it and decide to spin it that way. The reality seems favour the latter. It’s hardly shocking we all know that politicans spend most of their time trying to
distort reality in their favourspin the issues..
I don’t see Kevvie as being any different here. Howard’s closed down debate, rolled back civil liberty and introduced a certain totalitarian element into Oz political life. But Kevvie’s just as much of a control freak at least so far.
Issues of this importance (and dozens of others) are raised within PM&C and other departments every day. While it may have been discussed and even brought to the PM’s attention, it doesn’t mean that any decisions would have been made. Usually these things are noted, with an expectation that the Minister will want to be kept updated.
Bear in mind thousands of decisions are made in government departments every day by the APS staff at all levels. The relevant minister may not ever be aware of the specific issues or decisions, even if he/she is ultimately ‘responsible’. The inference/conclusion by Haneef’s team that the ex-PM was involved in some sort of conspiracy because he was briefed on Haneef within 48 hours is childish and simplistic.
It comes from an inadequate understanding and unrealistic expectation about the way the Australian Public Service functions.
It was pretty obvious at the time that Andrew’s inept blundering around on the Haneef case had sanction from above - apparently from Howard’s office.
His orders were to keep pushing the terrorist line to instill fear in the Australian population and drive us all back into “Johnny’s safe hands”.
Trouble was, his credibility was shot by then, and Andrew’s futile blundering beat up was seen for what it was.
Reminds me somehow of that Cheech and Chong line:
“Looks like dogsh*t, smells like dogsh*t, tastes like dogsh*t. Sure glad I didn’t step in it!”
To mix metaphors, it seems like some of the dogsh*t has come home to roost.
David at 11, there have also been funding cuts to the APS and the encouragement for the upper echelons to work long hours. The latter, in particular, would get rid of at least some of the Howard supporters. I agree, however, that some areas are heading for a sluicing Augean stables style, particularly the AFP.
Without knowing what the documents contain I might invite people to imagine how the PMs department wouldnt be involved in some degree.
Of course if it was blatant politicking then it needs revealing, but just a “Pms department was involved”, its a bit thin to be calling it a conspiracy so far.