‘That?s not the way to protect Australia’

Flaying the use of “broad, unfettered” discretion to expel a person from the country, the Law Council of Australia said the Federal Court’s decision on the Mohammed Haneef case that the Government cannot cancel someone’s visa on the basis of an innocent association should be the end of the matter.

“Australians should be concerned that Minister (Kevin) Andrews is so determined to pursue the power to expel a person from Australia, on the basis that they have, without more, merely associated with a suspected criminal,” Law Council President Tim Bugg said.

“This is a character test that is not about character at all,” Bugg was quoted as saying in The Australian on Thursday.

“Why would the Minister want the discretion to expel a person based on an association that ended ten years ago, or was only fleeting, or only reflected a familial connection or professional relationship?” Bugg said.

“Broad, unfettered discretions of that kind encourage sloppy research and lazy decision making. That is not the way to protect the Australian community,” he said.

Whether or not Justice Spender’s decision survives appeal, serious flaws will remain in how the criminal law and the Migration Act interact, he said.

Bugg said Haneef’s ability to obtain a fair trial was not a matter the Minister was required to consider when canceling his visa.

“Surely the Migration Act should require the Minister to take fair trial implications into account,” Bugg said.

“The Minister’s continuing public comments on the alleged merits of the Haneef case, which are so inconsistent with any sense of procedural fairness or the presumption of innocence, provide sufficient cause for his removal,” Bugg said.

Immigration Minister Kevin Andrews this morning lent his support to the Australian Federal Police which is referring the conduct of Haneef’s legal team to authorities.

The AFP said it had complained to the Queensland Legal Services Commission over the release on Wednesday of the interview between police and the Indian-born doctor on July 13 and 14.

Haneef’s lawyers said they had released the transcript, which they say shows the former terror suspect has nothing to hide, to counter “slander” by federal authorities.

Andrews said he agreed with the criticism of the disclosure of the transcript.

“They (AFP) are obviously very concerned about this, they regard the release of that transcript as irresponsible and unprofessional and that’s why they’ve taken that stand,” the Minister told reporters.

“I share their view,” he said adding “This is a balance of public information on one hand and national security on the other.

“I don’t think Haneef’s lawyers, running around, conducting some sort of public relations campaign the way they are, is doing anything in terms of the national security of the country,” Andrews said and stated both he and the AFP were concerned about the release of any information which could jeopardise ongoing investigations of the foiled Britain attack both in Australia and the UK and the prosecutions in the UK.

“Information should not be released which jeopardizes those investigations,” he said.