Haneef fiasco and the politics of (ir)responsible government
I am in the process of writing a post about what the dangers of overzealous anti-terrorism measures as illustrated by the Haneef case. But before that post is complete, it is worth commenting on responsibility of the various actors in the Haneef fiasco and the hypocrisy of denial of that responsibility by the government.
A government that is responsible for a mistake or a bad situation is not necessarily unfit to govern. Of course it depends on the nature of the mistake and the government's role in it, but we have to face the reality that mistakes, and sometimes serious mistakes, can and do happen. A government which makes a mistake, admits it, learns from it and does what needs to be done to correct the situation is not a bad government by reason of the error alone.
On the other hand, a government which is responsible (wholly or in part) for a mistake or a bad situation and does not admit its responsibility, instead blaming anyone or anything it can, is not fit to govern. Not because it is responsible for a situation, but because it is unwilling to be what a government in a democracy must be - responsible.
In the wake of the collapse of case against Dr. Haneef, the Howard government sought to distance itself from the fiasco, blaming anyone and anything it could point a finger at.
Let's take a look at some of the government's outrageous attempts to duck responsibility:
1. "We didn't detain him"
Perhaps the best example is the statement by Howard "The detention of the man was undertaken by the police and not at the request or direction or encouragement of the Government".
How stupid does Howard think we are? Haneef was granted bail and was to be released, until the government (via one of its ministers - Kevin Andrews) intervened and used its immigration powers to detain Haneef. I do not propose to repeat my previously expressed views about Andrews' action, but given that this action was taken, and apparently taken after discussions between Andrews and other members of the government, it is extraordinary that Howard would say that the government was not responsible for Haneef's detention! In fact, Haneef is still being detained (in residential detention), solely because of the government's action to revoke his visa.
2. We weren't involved at all - blame the AFP and the DPP
In a variation on the above theme, Howard and Downer joined forces to claim that the AFP and the DPP operated entirely independently and the government was not in any way involved in the prosecution of Haneef.
Immediately after making the "we didn't detain him" statement, Howard went on to say that "the case was prepared and presented by the Director of [Public] Prosecutions, I think that the right thing now is for those two men to explain the process and explain the reasons" and Downer added "These institutions operate at arm's length from the Government and they always should and they always have."
Yes, the AFP stuffed up (do I dare mention the additions to the diary?). The DPP stuffed up as one of their prosecutors incorrectly told the court that Haneef's SIM card was found in the burning vehicle at Glasgow Airport and that he resided with the London terror suspects. Yes, those two institutions should operate at arm's length from the government, but that's not what happened here - the government may not have conducted the investigation itself, but it was certainly involved. It became involved when it decided to make political mileage out of the whole affair.
Here are just a few examples of the government's involvement: publicly supporting extended detention of Haneef and the AFP handling of the matter, declaring Haneef to be of "bad character" and stating that he will be deported even if found not guilty, locking him up after he was granted bail, publicly attacking and threatening Haneef's lawyers for releasing a transcript of the interview (which they were entitled to release), putting pressure on the AFP and the DPP, implying that anti-terrorism laws may need to be strengthened (presumably to better deal with vicious SIM-card sharing doctors), etc.
Had the case succeeded, the government would not doubt be quick to claim responsibility and boast about the success of its anti-terrorism measures. But while it it happy to take credit for success, it won't take any responsibility for its part in the prosecution which has now been revealed as a sham.
3. The Opposition are to blame because they supported us
This has got to be the most amusing attempt to duck responsibility - Andrews blamed the Opposition for supporting the government on Haneef. That's right - Labor rather than the government are to blame because they didn't oppose the government's actions!
There can be little doubt that the Opposition deserves criticism (and a lot of it) for its supine, unprincipled and cowardly position during the entire affair. It's "me to" attitude on everything from extended detention to supporting Andrews' outrageous use of migration detention powers means that it deserves almost as much blame as the government.
Nonetheless, Andrews' suggestion is quite extraordinary, not least because it is not too hard to predict what the government would have done if Labor had some guts and stood up to it. Without a doubt Howard would have painted Labor as soft on terrorism, putting Australian lives at risk and trying to bring about the complete destruction of Australia. Consider the government's response to Peter Beattie's criticism of the AFP investigation (incidentally, Beattie deserves praised for doing what the federal Labor did not dare to do). Howard's response to Rudd would no doubt have been even more extreme and would have allowed Howard to score some much needed political points.
Let's contrast the government's failure to accept responsibility with other actors in this drama:
The government's lack of integrity, as evidenced by it playing the blame game, may be contrasted with the actions of others in the Haneef fiasco. Let's start with Damien Bugg, the Director of Public Prosecutions, who reviewed the case, admitted that a mistake has been made and took appropriate steps to remedy the mistake. That was his job, but it must have taken a lot of guts given how political the case is.
The government's actions may also be contrasted with that of Stephen Keim SC, whose decision to release a transcript of Haneef's interview probably significantly contributed to the speed with which the case unravelled. Keim immediately took responsibility for releasing the transcript to the media and stood his ground despite vicious criticism and threat of criminal sanctions by the government. Keim (and Haneef's solicitor, Russo) should be commended for having the integrity and courage that our government obviously lacks.
Without a doubt, the blame game will continue for some time. Perhaps we should take the opportunity to consider whether a government which cannot act with integrity and which cannot take responsibility for its failures is a government that we should return in the next election.
RSS
