Kevin Andrews is a sanctimonious, god-bothering twerp who acted as John Howard’s cypher in torpedoing the Northern Territory’s ground-breaking (if slightly flawed) euthanasia legislation some years ago. In fact, he’s one of the few politicians on either side whom I instinctively dislike.

But I must say, in light of the just-released information about Dr Haneef’s chatroom conversation with his brother the day before he tried to leave Australia and was arrested, that a lot of people owe Andrews an apology. AFP errors in relation to where Haneef’s SIM card was found; whether he flatted with cousins in the UK; and whether he had given an explanation for his attempted departure from Australia; certainly together justified the dropping of charges against him (as did the more central factor of whether it could be proved that he knew about the terrorist propensities of his relations when he handed over the SIM card). But the contents of the chatroom conversation (if true) are suspicious as all hell, and in themselves justify both the refusal to reinstate his visa and keeping him under the closest surveillance.

Indeed, even if the Federal Court quashes Andrews’ original decision to cancel Haneef’s visa (as it may well do, because it was clearly based on several jurisdictional errors, namely the taking into account of the irrelevant/incorrect information outlined above), in my view Andrews (or an acting Immigration Minister whose decision cannot so easily be legally impugned) should reconsider the matter and again cancel Haneef’s visa under section 501. It is almost impossible to imagine an innocent explanation for the reported chatroom conversation (assuming it occurred as alleged).

This should be an object lesson to all those who rushed to judgment without being in possession of all the facts.

On the other hand, it’s difficult to see a principled justification for the AFP and DPP’s withholding these allegations from Haneef and his lawyers. No doubt it falls legally under the classification of “protected information” that can lawfully be withheld under existing anti-terrorism legislation. But that simply underlines the inadequate protections in that legislation. Can it really be convincingly argued that any genuinely secret sources of intelligence would have been compromised by disclosing this information before now? You don’t need a PhD to realise that authorities would certainly be monitoring all sources of communication (including email, mobile phones and Internet chatrooms) that might possibly be used by any terrorism suspect as soon as the identity of that suspect is known. Unless both Haneef and his lawyers were complete fools, they would already have contemplated the probability that the authorities were aware of all communications occurring within a day or two of his arrest. In those circumstances, what was gained by withholding the information and denying him the opportunity to advance any explanation he might have had for the conversation? If intelligence sources would not have been compromised (as I think is clearly the case), then basic principles of natural justice should have required that the substance of these allegations be disclosed to him before his visa was cancelled. ¹1. KP: Update – it now appears that the chatroom information WAS disclosed to the bail magistrate, so Haneef was not denied natural justice in this respect. In addition, I should also note that the decision to cancel Haneef’s visa was made under section 501(3) of the Migration Act, which doesn’t require natural justice to be afforded prior to a cancellation decision, but requires an opportunity to be heard after the event [↩]

The immediate political consequences of these revelations are unclear. Rudd has backed the Howard government’s actions to date, and still hasn’t backed away from that stance, despite having backtracked to an extent yesterday. Presumably he was briefed on the protected information some of which has now been revealed. That makes his refusal to criticise the government easier to comprehend in principled terms rather than just as “wedge avoidance”. Nevertheless, these revelations may reinforce for the average punter the fact that Islamic terrorism is a real threat for Australia, contrary to the glib assumptions of many on the left. That could conceivably reinforce an already detectable poll trend back to the Coalition.

Watching Rod Cameron on Lateline last night brought home the watershed that we have just passed through in the history of the Howard government.

Effectively, it has come to pass that the personal credibility of the Prime Minister as an economic manager has been completely blown out of the water. Either that is true, or the Federal Treasurer, Peter Costello, has no credibility as a witness.

The very person who the government must depend upon for public credibility as an economic manager has not only seized its entire reputation on this for himself. On his own word, he forged that very reputation despite John Howard, who couldn’t manage interest rates and always threatened ruin with profligate election spending.

In one foul biographical swoop, Peter Costello has robbed John Howard of his critique of Kevin Rudd on economic management, the only weapon left in the government’s armoury. Don’t take my word for it. Ask the Treasurer.

No doubt everyone on the government’s side of the political fence will mumble their way through this disaster, gesticulating about what punters think, growing weepy over the great political partnership, praying for rabbits, hats, and so on.

From where I sit, the only credible conservative political option in the wake of this disclosure is for Howard to retire for Costello. This would induce a honeymoon and tighten the race, which would, at the least, save some of the furniture.

Will Ratty go? How hard has the araldite set on the prime ministerial bottom? The sight of a besieged monarch fighting his way to the gallows would be ugly.