The NEXT coming Oz election thread!

Give us the whole story, minister
Tony Wright
August 1, 2007/the AGE

KEVIN Andrews' highly selective release of fragments of documents and a chat-room discussion designed to convict Mohamed Haneef of bad character - or much worse - fails to mention a crucial piece of evidence.

Missing is that part of Haneef's phone record that shows he dialled the telephone number of a British police investigator several times after he was alerted by his family about the discovery of his SIM card in Liverpool.

The police have perfect records of the phone calls. There were three calls between 3.08 and 3.29pm and another at 4.32pm on the day Andrews is convinced Haneef was trying to flee Australia in an attempt to evade the law.

When Haneef, in detention in the Brisbane watchhouse, was asked by police about those phone calls, he gave the answer the police knew was the only explanation.

"I didn't get any response to that number," he said. And neither he had - the records show the calls were not answered. They were to a British police investigator named Tony Webster.

And why was Haneef trying to call a British police investigator on the very day Andrews suggests he was wickedly trying to run from the Australian law?

His own explanation to the Australian Federal Police during his interrogation in the Queensland watchhouse was simple.

On the day before he tried to leave Australia - when he already knew of the attempt by his second cousin to bomb Glasgow Airport - the mother of his other second cousin, Sabeel Ahmed, had phoned him from Bangalore, India.

She told Haneef that British police had rung her looking for him. She said, according to Haneef: "There was something wrong with your mobile phone. Someone was misusing the thing."

And then she gave Haneef the number of Tony Webster.

The next day, Haneef tried to call Webster. Four times.

Yet there was no mention yesterday by Andrews of this attempt by Haneef to co-operate with the British police. Instead, we learned of splinters of a disembodied chat room conversation between Haneef and his brother, which can be interpreted as a frantic attempt by a worried, guilt-stricken man to flee the country. Or not.

There is little doubt that Andrews improved his shaky position yesterday by offering some explanation of his reason for revoking Haneef's long-stay work visa.

Given the sort of extensive powers he has as Immigration Minister to find why a person fails the character test and thus should not be in Australia, he was undoubtedly within his rights.

The merest hint of Haneef having an "association" with men who are now accused of terrorism in Britain was enough.

There is also little doubt that he will have persuaded many Australians that his decision was based soundly enough to warrant his action, and that where there is the mere breath of terror, no risk should be taken. But it doesn't explain why Andrews left out a crucial fact and drastically limited his "evidence" when he chose, finally, to offer his explanation to the Australian people.

Fortunately, perhaps, the legislation governing an Immigration Minister's rulings in a time like this specifically frees him from paying heed to the quaint concept known as natural justice.


http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/give-us-the-whole-story-minister/2007/07/31/1185647901382.html

This morning's AGE editorial.:

Only the full story on Dr Haneef will repair public trust

August 1, 2007


The matter will not rest until all the information concerning Mohamed Haneef's treatment is released.

The release yesterday afternoon of some of the previously secret federal police information provided to Immigration Minister Kevin Andrews gives the public just another part of the saga.

The story so farYesterday the Australian public was finally given the latest chapter in this frustratingly pieced together, partly told story. It is to Mr Andrews' credit, given the intense public interest in the case, in Australia and abroad, that he has offered a part explanation. The quotes from an internet chat room discussion between Dr Haneef and his brother add weight to the police case and allow some insights into why the minister cancelled Dr Haneef's visa. "The whole circumstances surrounding Haneef's attempted hasty departure, including the chat room conversations, when viewed against his clear prior association with the Ahmed brothers, led me to form a reasonable suspicion, as required by the act," Mr Andrews says. However, Mr Andrews' statement about the chat room discussion and the suspicions that arose from Dr Haneef's intended one-way departure from Australia is extremely limited. The quotes are selective and lack context. Australians remain partly informed as to why Mr Andrews acted so firmly against Dr Haneef. It is appalling that the minister has not fully clarified to the people he serves how and why he came to take a decision to usurp normal judicial process and revoke Dr Haneef's visa on grounds that have since been discredited.

The ministerial statement compounds rather than clarifies the confusion about the handling of the caseIf the Federal Government is to restore public faith and trust in its ability to manage national security issues with fairness and transparency, then clearly further explanations are required from Mr Andrews. The minister must release more information that vindicates his decision. Until such time, the sorry story of Dr Haneef continues.

http://www.theage.com.au/news/editorial/only-the-full-story-on-dr-haneef-will-repair-public-trust/2007/07/31/1185647900770.html

Haneef/Andrews fallout. How the Oz cartoonists see things.:

# 1

# 2 :

#3 :

#4 :

An interesting opinion piece from the president of the Foreign Correspondents' Association of Australia and the South Pacific. The changes in how others see Australia & why.:

Scaring off the world
August 1, 2007/the AGE



Other countries are not blind to Australia's many faults, ranging from the political to the environmental, writes Urs Walterlin.

The question of whether the Haneef case has damaged Australia's reputation overseas is purely academic. Of course it has. Not only in Britain and India, but all over the world media have reported this story under bold headlines.

Like their domestic colleagues, the members of the Sydney-based Foreign Correspondents Association, who report daily for an audience of millions of people in more than 50 countries, have been working overtime in the past weeks.

After all, it is not every day you see in a Western country what appears to be a monumental bungle in a police investigation, and such blatant, mean and unapologetic political interference from the very top of government in what should have been a simple legal process.

But the Haneef case is only the latest of many stories that over the past years have changed how Australia is perceived overseas.

To my knowledge, there is no comprehensive independent research on the image Australia enjoys in different countries. However, there is ample anecdotal evidence that it has changed for the worse - be it reports from foreign correspondents living here, or feedback from media and expats overseas, or even from Australian travellers who prefer to display a Kiwi-flag on their backpack so as not to be identified as Australians.

A bad image is bad news for the economy. Australia not only exports coal and iron ore to the world, but also - through the work of Tourism Australia - a lifestyle and a picture of an inclusive society welcoming the world. It is this image that attracts millions of visitors. They bring billions of dollars and create hundreds of thousands of jobs in the tourism and associated industries.

Many foreign correspondents would name the Tampa incident in 2001 as a turning point in the history of reporting from Australia. It was certainly my biggest story in 15 years here. The storming of the Norwegian freighter by the SAS, the appalling treatment of sick and desperate people, the so-called refugee crisis, the children overboard affair and the detention camps were a bigger story than the Sydney Olympics. ...<cont>

http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/scaring-off-the-world/2007/07/31/1185647899156.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1

Just reread your post, ooragnak. Who said Dr Haneef should never have been detained in the first place? At that early stage most of us couldn't have known what we know now & were waiting to see what evidence the government had against him (apart from the SIM card & his UK relatives). I certainly wish his case had been handled with a lot more integrity, though! :wink:

Well, all this has confirmed one of my suspicions. Everything you do, say, or type on the internet is saved and filed away. No doubt this little reply is dated, time stamped, and filed with my name on it.

Do a search on the word ECHELON

Is there no end to this? Tonight I was watching Dateline on SBS & there was reference to an Indian police dosier on Haneef. Rather wishy-washy contents, like reference to "alleged links to Al Qaida". No evidence of any related activities supplied - very vague. i wonder if someone will quote this as "evidence" of something sinister? :

Indian police file on Haneef
August 01, 2007/the Australian

INDIAN police have created a file on Dr Mohamed Haneef, possibly after his arrest in Australia, which refers to possible links to terrorists.

The document which was revealed on the SBS Dateline program tonight, has only sparse information, much of which had already been revealed by the Australian Federal Police.

The undated document says Haneer, alias Athar, had "alleged links to Al Qaida" and that after his education in Karnataka that "he must have come into contacts with the members of terrorist entities and assisted".

The Dateline document refers to his arrest in Australia and the allegations he may have "rendered assistance to the prime accused persons in the Glasgow Airport blast attempt". ... <cont>

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22173727-2702,00.html

The Haneef Indian police file appears to be a bit of a fizzer, at this stage, anyway. We'll see if anything eventuates ...

In the meantime >>>>> STOP PRESS!!!!

Kevin sends a strong message!!!!

Well, I never!:

Rudd launches attack on Andrews
August 2, 2007 - 5:33PM/the AGE

Federal Labor leader Kevin Rudd has launched his strongest attack on Immigration Minister Kevin Andrews over the Haneef case, listing a string of inconsistencies in the minister's statements.

Labor has supported in principle the government's handling of the terror case against Indian doctor Mohamed Haneef but has called for an independent judicial inquiry.

Mr Rudd went a step further today, outlining a series of inconsistent statements by Mr Andrews since the minister cancelled the junior doctor's work visa last month.

"Take this for example - on 27 July Mr Andrews says he would not release Dr Haneef from immigration detention, on 28 July he releases Dr Haneef from immigration detention," Mr Rudd said.

"I don't know the basis for the change in that position.

"On 28 July, Mr Andrews claimed that he had no objection to Haneef leaving Australia; on 29 July Mr Andrews claimed Haneef's decision to leave actually heightened rather than lessened his suspicions.

"And on 29 July, Mr Andrews claimed that Dr Haneef attempted to fly home to India, his baby having been born for a month at that stage, and later he admitted it had only been born six days previous.

"All I'm saying is that these positions are difficult for us to understand, those most recent positions and statements by Mr Andrews."

The only way to restore public confidence that the case had been handled properly was through an independent judicial inquiry, he said.

"I've seen those (Haneef) reports today and I think it underlines further the need for an independent judicial inquiry into this entire matter," Mr Rudd said.

"Every day something new seems to drip out, come out, authenticated or not authenticated and I think for the public's mind to be put at rest on this, we need to have all the facts on the table," he said.

"What's the best process for doing that? An independent judicial inquiry.

"Why? Because such an inquiry enables all the information to be properly assessed in an independent manner and if there is a problem with ongoing investigations, they do not need to be compromised because that's the way in which an investigation would be conducted."

AAP

http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/rudd-attacks-andrews/2007/08/02/1185648040299.html

... & for a change, something not about Dr Haneef! :wink:

John Howard as "saviour" of this small Tasmanian hospital.

So, since when did the Howard government give a fig about struggling, under-funded state-run hospitals?: Well since the Lib's member in the seat needed a bit of a push-up for the coming election, that's when!

What can you say? Some sort of "new federalism", perhaps? Nah. Sheer, bloody-minded opportunism! Our taxes at work to support a lagging Liberal candidate! This is truly, breath-takingly pathetic.

Perhaps, as there are many such struggling public hospitals all around Australia, the Libs could have increased their funding beyond the absolute bare minimum way before now? They've been told often enough about the funding problems. But no, JH saves his one (so far) intervention for his political campaign ... in a seat where he needs to win votes for his candidate. And uses this as an opportunity to denigrate the states! This from one of the strongest supporters of privatisation of the health system we've experienced!

And this was all announced on YouTube <snigger> at the crack of dawn yesterday! For maximum impact! :wink:

Honestly, you wouldn't read about it! Pathetic. :

Hospital takeover 'desperate politics'
Posted Wed Aug 1, 2007 10:16am AEST
Updated Wed Aug 1, 2007 10:55am AEST

Mr Howard says the Federal Government will bypass the Tasmanian Government and directly fund Latrobe's Mersey Hospital.

It is the latest in a series of federal interventions in areas traditionally run by the states, but Mr Howard argues communities do not care which level of government provides services.

Ms Giddings says the State Government was in the dark about the plan until Mr Howard announced it via a video posted on YouTube.

And she accused Mr Howard of not understanding the state's health plan.

"I must say, to me it just smells of desperate politics [by] the Prime Minister in what is an election year," she said.

"I don't think that the PM realises what a can of worms he's opened up here on the basis of trying to help Mark Baker retain his seat in the Liberal seat of Braddon.

"He has not had the courtesy of contacting me, the Premier, the State Government - his officials have not contacted us to discuss this proposal at all."

Queensland Premier Peter Beattie has attacked the plan as a sneaky pre-election strategy, and accused Mr Howard of picking a fight with the states.

"If the Commonwealth is really serious about funding health then they should increase the share the Commonwealth gives under the Medicare levy to the states," he said.

"But let's study what they're doing here. My initial reaction is to simply say to the Commonwealth, you're in the middle of an election here, this is just one of those crafty, sneaky little strategies to try and pick a fight with the states, so let's just be restrained."


http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/08/01/1993704.htm

I just watched a very interesting interview on the 7:30 Report. Kerry O'Brien was asking Kevin Rudd what he was going to do about regaining some of the front-running on important issues in the electorate. I think O'Brien is right. While Labor has held a commanding lead in the polls for quite some time now, the Libs have dominated the headlines for weeks now, with issues like the intervention into Aboriginal communities in the NT, water & Haneef. We've barely heard a peep from Labor (or Rudd) apart from quite a bit of "me too-ism". So where to for Labor from here? As Kerry O'Brien suggested, it's time for Rudd to spell out exactly what alternative policies Labor would implement. For a time, lying low & avoiding controversy has served Rudd well in the polls, but surely as the election draws closer, the voters will want know how a Labor government's approach would actually differ from the Liberals.

.... & for that matter, where's Julia?

And what's happened to Labor's & the trade unions' IR campaign?

The latest Haneef update.:

Haneef al-Qaeda link denied
August 2, 2007 - 4:59PM/SMH

A senior Indian police officer today labelled as "incorrect and false" a media report that linked Indian doctor Mohamed Haneef to the al-Qaeda terrorist network.

Australia's SBS television yesterday reported that an Indian police file, completed after Dr Haneef's arrest in Australia, said the 27-year-old doctor had "alleged links with al-Qaeda".

Dr Haneef was later charged with recklessly supporting a terrorist organisation in relation to the recent failed attacks in London and Glasgow.

But the case collapsed due to a lack of evidence and he has since returned to India.

Gopal Hosur, Bangalore's deputy police commissioner, today said police in Dr Haneef's hometown did not even have a file on the doctor.

"That is all incorrect and false," he told The Associated Press of the media report.

"I don't know where they got this information from or who they're quoting."

Before his comments, Australian Federal Police Commissioner Mick Keelty said Australian police intended to check the claims with police in Bangalore, where Dr Haneef has returned to his family.

Mr Keelty said he was not aware of an al-Qaeda link but did not dismiss one outright.

Dr Haneef's lawyer Peter Russo said the alleged al-Qaeda link is "simply untrue". ...<cont>


http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/haneef-alqaeda-link-denied/2007/08/02/1185648047650.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1

Perhaps the last Haneef-related cartoon? (We can hope!) From today's Australian.:

Interesting.:

Judge says terror power 'too broad'
August 02, 2007
The AUSTRALIAN

HIGH Court judge Michael Kirby has used a minority judgement today to lament that his colleagues are allowing governments too free a rein and allowing laws that might be misused in the future.

A five to two majority of the the High Court today upheld the constitutional validity of an interim control order under the anti-terrorism laws made last year against Joseph Terence Thomas, also known as Jack Thomas.

The court found the use of the defence power under the constitution was not limited to external threats or to war between nations but extends to protecting the public from terrorist acts.

Justice Kirby - who dissented along with Kenneth Hayne - believes the use of the Constitution's defence powers to combat terrorism was too broad and invited the danger that the military could one day intrude in civilian affairs.

The outspoken liberal has questioned whether the present terrorism threat is exceptional and while political "rhetoric'' may invoke a state of war, the courts have to make an objective judgement.

Justice Kirby also laments that the tide of judicial opinion had turned so far in the past fifty years that laws banning the Communist Party which were quashed by the High Court in 1951 might be found to be valid today.

"It is another instance of the constitutional era of laissez faire through which the Court is presently passing,'' he says.

The High Court was being asked to decide whether judge could place an interim order limiting an individual's liberty at the request of authorities before a full hearing on the facts could take place.

Chief Justice Murray Gleeson argued that the fact there would be an eventual hearing should allay concerns.

"There is nothing to suggest that the issuing court is to act as a mere instrument of government policy,'' he said.

"On the contrary, the evident purpose of conferring this function on a court is to submit control orders to the judicial process, with its essential commitment to impartiality and its focus on the justice of the individual case.''

Justice Gleeson said the level of risk of the occurrence of a terrorist act, and the level of danger to the public from an apprehended terrorist act, will vary according to international or local circumstances.

But assuming there is a sufficient connection between the order and the protection of the public "the legislation is supported by the defence power supplemented, where necessary, by the external affairs power''.

Justice Kirby argued that State police powers were sufficient to deal with combatting criminal acts by terrorists.

Any expansion of powers should be by means of a reference from the States to the Commonwealth.

Justice Kirby said terrorism was not a new phenomena and "conduct sharing features now associated with "terrorism" has occurred for centuries

"It should reject legal and constitutional exceptionalism,'' he said.

"Unless this court does so, it abdicates the vital role assigned to it by the constitution and expected of it by the people. That truly would deliver to terrorists successes that their own acts could never secure in Australia.''

Some acts which might have been done with intention of "intimidating the public or a section of the public", and be therefore be defined as a terrorist act, might not involve endangering life, he suggested.

"Moreover, drawing a line between acts designed to coerce or intimidate an Australian government for a political, religious or ideological cause (thus falling within the definition) and pure advocacy, protest, dissent or industrial action (falling outside of the definition) could be difficult,'' he says.

Justice Kirby says courts had carefully guarded against properly defining threats and limiting the scope for military to interfere in civilian affairs.

"This Court should maintain and uphold that historical approach. It should do nothing to undermine it. Any departure invites great danger, as the constitutional history of less fortunate lands, including some that once shared our tradition, has repeatedly demonstrated.'' ... <cont>

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22178133-601,00.html

Indeed, will it work this time? The recent JH messages to the voters are more shrill, more outrageous & transparent than ever before. For example, anything that ails the country is automatically declared to be the fault of the (Labor) states. (Every Australian state right now is governed by Labor.) The housing crisis, the anticipated increase in interest rates, hospital closures & waiting lists ... you name it - it's all the fault of state Labor governments! And as for the Haneef case, I was taken aback, listening to ABC radio last week, to hear a respectable ABC political commentator declare that he believed that the scare tactics of the Haneef case had "bitten" with the electorate. Much like "children overboard" had in the last election campaign. The next poll (next week?) should tell. Wouldn't it be amazing if he actually got away with it? ..... Again. :

The Howard game


Illustration: John Dyson

Shaun Carney
August 4, 2007/the AGE

JOHN Howard's fourth-term moment of truth is finally here. Will voters, who have become so familiar with the Prime Minister's way of simultaneously blowing dog whistles and throwing money around in an election year, once again give him a tick or are they tired of it? When it has really counted, in 2001 and 2004, a clear majority of voters have approved of Howard's frighten-and-spend methods. And once again he's unpacked the tools that, more than anything else, have made him the nation's second-longest serving prime minister.

This week, Howard took control of the Coalition's floundering, slapdash re-election effort and got out two important messages to the Australian electorate: better to be safe than sorry on terrorism; and I am still listening, chequebook in hand, pen in the other. His handling of the Haneef affair and the takeover of the Devonport hospital were classic Howard election-year plays.

The "frighten" part of JH's frighten & spend campaign.: