The Clarke inquiry into the Haneef affair has revealed several interesting things. Amongst them is the statement in ASIO’s unclassified submission that they participated in “whole of government” discussions of the possible threat posed by Haneef. As the statement says:
ASIO’s consistent advice to these meetings was that, based on available information, ASIO did not assess Dr Haneef as a threat to security and did not have grounds to issue an adverse security assessment. However, in the early days of the investigation, ASIO nevertheless considered that further investigation of Dr Haneef was warranted.
So even ASIO – who presumably had everything the AFP did – didn’t think Haneef was a threat. Given that, the hypothesis that the AFP has further damning, but classified, information on Haneef that justified the continued detention is looking extremely shaky.
But the most controversy, so far, has arisen due to the AFP’s refusal to release its submission to the inquiry – or even parts of it – publicly.
The purported reason why the AFP’s submission cannot be released relates to documents provided by the British police and prosecutors. As Justice Clarke puts it in a statement of a few days ago:
Some time after the Inquiry had embarked on its investigation we were apprised of serious objections which had been raised by the Metropolitan Police Service and Crown Prosecution Service of the United Kingdom. They objected to a significant proportion of the documents held by the Australian Federal Police, containing United Kingdom sourced and derived material, being provided to the Inquiry except under severely restricted conditions…It is clear that, without the agreement of the Metropolitan Police Service, publication of those Australian Federal Police documents that the Inquiry has been given would seriously damage the international relationship between the two countries.
Fair enough. But, as already noted, even ASIO was able to provide a public, unclassified submission to the inquiry, which may have been brief but still contains very useful (and rather damning to the AFP, by the looks) information. While those parts of the submission relating to the British information may genuinely need to remain secret, there seems no reason why the AFP can’t make the rest public. Robert McLelland seems to think so, and he’s publicly calling for the AFP to do so. However, the AFP is apparently refusing.
But hang on a minute. Who is this McLelland character again? That’s right, he’s the Federal Attorney-General. In other words, the Cabinet Minister responsible for the AFP (though it reports directly to junior minister Bob Debus). Mick Keelty works for him. And if McLelland thinks that Keelty, as head of the AFP, is failing to live up to its accountability duties by not issuing an unclassified submission to the Clarke Inquiry, he can do something about it.
Robert McLelland, you’re not in opposition any more. If Keelty’s not doing his job to your satisfaction, you can sack him. The power is yours, and if you’ve lost confidence in Keelty, it’s your duty to use it.
“Yesterday, former Howard government immigration minister Kevin Andrews said he did not receive any advice from ASIO about Dr Haneef.”
Might we presume, also, that Andrews received no advice from the Queensland police who also concluded that Haneef had no case to answer either?
Keelty should be sacked and it is hard to see why Andrews be ever allowed to run even a chook raffle.
Believe me – the AFP now wields an awful lot of power.
They certainly see themselves as the peak authority in almost all areas.
I’m sure if you ask them they’ll happily tell you about their superiority to ASIO.
With the ability to spy, and without the proper oversight, comes paranoia.
Power, paranoia and improper oversight has created a very very dangerous organisation. There isn’t enough political capital in putting the house in order at present.
Bring on the re-principling of the FOI legislation I say.
Surely Bob wouldn’t go against Keelty’s advice? (I don’t know whether to put a smile in here or not, as this query is not entirely in jest oir sarcastic.)
But here’s a question which is completely serious.Is it possible the Labor Government is a lirrle fearful, regardless of McLelland’s instruction, that our security services might, just might engage in destabilising leaks if Labor got too offside with them? After all, similar things happened in the past. Like the Petrov Affair, spyting on Labot politicians etc.
Could this be yet another unholy legacy from the Howard years that Rudd’s ignoring?
Paul: if Keelty really has a good reason (other than career self-preservation) why the AFP can’t release an unclassified version of its submission to the Clarke inquiry, all he has to do is pick up the phone and give McLelland a call, or vice versa. The fact that they seem to be communicating through the press would suggest that there is something seriously wrong with their working relationship.
As regards the AFP destabilizing the government, I doubt it – or, at least, I doubt it would happen in the same way it did back during the Cold War. There’s no national security pretext for spying on left-wing politicians any more, and, frankly, the Rudd cabinet hardly rates as left wing.
Agree with you about the Rudd Government, Robert. Is for the rest I suppose being a slightly paranoid old leftie so fae as the security services go is hard to shake off.
I don’t like “security services” either. They are, at best, a necessary evil. whose role and resources should be tightly circumscribed. The more resources they receive, the more “security threats” they will find, whether they really exist or not.
Agree absolutely, Robert. (Was using the term secutity services as a kind of descriptive shorthand.)
I think all of you should be aware. ASIO and the AFP have very little like for each other, if any. The writing was on the wall at the beginning. ASIO would have been very unhappy if he was a terror suspect, because would have wanted to know what his network in Australia was. But good old Keelty comes steaming in on a white donkey and makes an ass out of himself….again. Any other member of the AFP would have been dismissed by now for the conduct Keelty has been exhibiting.
Lets just say I have it on good authority Keelty is going to move into politics when his contract is up. Guess which party!
Socialist Alliance?
Ydntk
The fact that each organisation applies the full raft of electronic intelligence and counter-intelligence measures against each other should also be known more widely.
The AFP is apparently in the business of creating enemies these days.
http://news.theage.com.au/national/afp-not-able-to-release-haneef-info-20080804-3po2.html
Can’t release the information because it’s not theirs to release is the explanation.
Has anyone even asked?
Did any of the reporter ask if this permission had been requested?
The UK authorities have been more forthcoming than the ALP thus far – I’d rather hear a denial from their own mouths, or the submission be made directly from them, instead of the 3rd party AFP thanks very much.
Robert McLelland – make it happen or explain why not. Keelty is digging the country in to a hole, but you’re responsible.
Unknown: WRT the claim that the AFP and ASIO are surveilling each other, that’s a fairly extraordinary claim, and would require fairly extraordinary evidence to back it up.
Organisations tend to mimic the strengths and weaknesses of their leaders after a while, and though it would be immensely satisfying to see Keelty booted from the AFP, that wouldn’t remove the flaws which he has added to its culture. The Rudd government has decided not to do a night of the long knives on the public service; the road they have chosen is the slower and harder, but more thorough road of change by altering the programmes that public servants administer (it must be interesting working in Immigration right now!).
Those who don’t have hearts or minds to be changed will eventually get fed up and leave, unless they are silly enough to allow themselves to be pilloried in an inquiry. I’m guessing that McDebus will wait till the Clarke Inquiry runs its course, at which point there will be “no option” etc etc. Why force the issue now when the course of the inquiry is likely to cause Keelty more suffering? (Cf Turnbull waiting for Nelson to self-immolate.)
The knowledge is commercial in confidence to the persons (multiple) who told me, and those people are in private industry and have no security clearance ie: it’s not a real secret; they’d just prefer you don’t know.
The polite way of putting it is that they like to test their apparatus on a suitably defended target – I’m not sure ASIO appreciated being tested on home soil.
Take a look at the lines of sight between AFP property and ASIO in Canberra and check out the infrastructure.
I’ve no motivation for exposure – I’d just prefer a few more people had their eyes opened for them.
If someone really wanted to know, and have evidence, a reasonably simple FOI claim, or even less, would reveal the information.
spot on Chookie
It’s a cultural nightmare in the AFP.
Anyone with the slightest sense of justice left Immigration long ago.