Interestingly though, I read somewhere today that someone in the US was seeking a civil (vs criminal) case against Al Queda. That type of legal action was used against the KKK as well about twenty years ago IIRC.

NB, my (limited) understanding of the recent development of migration law suggests that the Labor party would be exceptionally hypocritical to attack the current regime.

It wont be any difference. If was a tragic 15 years ago I am sure I could have pointed out exception governance from the Hawke/Keating governments. It is becoming the norm in western democracies. Given that Rudd has joined the war cabinet over the indiginous emergency and gave the nod to this, I dont doubt that exception governance will become the norm under labor.

Unfortunately separation of powers is very poor in westminster so legislative only parties, like the Democrats and Greens should be encouraged in upper houses IMO. But Westminster doesnt have an energetic legislative, the executive nearly always dominates parliamentary systems.

mushy-left-libertarians

heh, it actually fairly absolutist in the dominance of the individual – almost … liberal. Most self-professed Australian conservatives are liberals. Conservatism however, has arisen since Marxism as the competing political philosophy for governance to liberalism.

I do prefer to think he meant that, but it is slightly puzzling since he must actually mean civil in distinction to ‘executive’, which is not a clear-cut distinction (to me).

There is a pretty big difference between civil and criminal prosecution.

He also has an astonishing view of terrorism: Terrorism is a civil issue and must be prosecuted to the laws full conclusion in the civil courts . I dont believe I have heard even the mushiest of mushy-left types say that before.

There are a number of precendents

Isn’t all this actually quite counter the point? Ie, doesn’t all the press and blog attention to this suggest that the ’system’ is working quite well? I do have a soft spot (well, you’d want to be William Tell to hit it) for mushy-left-libertarians like Cam, but I am an evil conservative at heart, so I am uncomfortable with the bright-line absolutes required to be any kind of libertarian .

From that perspective (ie discomfort with the bright-line absolutes of individual liberty) the mere fact that these cases do get so much attention suggests to me that the system does provide a high level of protection against abuse, and we might not need hard rules.

Cam seems to me to have a particular view of the rule of law – it may never have existed to his satisfaction under a Westminster government.

He also has an astonishing view of terrorism: ‘Terrorism is a civil issue and must be prosecuted to the laws full conclusion in the civil courts ‘. I don’t believe I have heard even the mushiest of mushy-left types say that before.

NB, my (limited) understanding of the recent development of migration law suggests that the Labor party would be exceptionally hypocritical to attack the current regime.

I was looking for PRECEDENTS. If there have been PREVIOUS uses of this power, then there should already have been notices of the decisions laid before parliament, and I cannot find them.

Sylvia.

Why is Haneef going to be tried in this country at all? All of his alleged offences occurred in Britain, so shouldn’t he just be extradited to Britain as soon as they ask fr him?

And supposed Haneef is tried here for what he allegedly did in Britan and found not guilty. He will certainly be deported back to Britain right away after that. Can he then be tried in Britain for (effectively) the same offences?

How does anyone else get here without a passport? Boats.

The difficulty is that there is now a trail of cases in which it has become clear that people exercising offices of trust have been economical with the truth or have refused to take responsibility for their actions.

Once trust has been betrayed, as it has been by this Government, it is perfectly reasonable to be suspicious of claims which rely us to trust their judgement and accept without question the basis on which they are claiming to make it.

For the sake of the point I am making, even if Andrews has a solid basis in law and evidence for his decision, a reasonable person would have valid grounds for not accepting his assessment and decision on face value. And that is a situation of the government’s own making.

You do not seem to understand that Dr. Haneef is lawfully in the Commonwealth of Australia by order of the magistrate to order him to be granted bail, but he is not by this allowed to leave the Commonwealth of Australia.
He therefore did not need a visa to remain, as the Federal Government itself (via the Australian federal Police) opposed for Dr. Haneef to leave the Commonwealth of Australia.

The Migration Act and neither so the Minister for Immigration (of the Commonwealth) cannot override a JUDICIAL DETERMINATION of a COURT OF LAW. As the framers of the Constitution made clear DUE PROCESS OF LAW by way of JUDICIAL DECISION was to be applied.
My blog http://au.360.yahoo.com/profile-ijpxwMQ4dbXm0BMADq1lv8AYHknTV_QH sets these kind of issues out in considerable details.

The issue is not if the Minister can cancel a visa but that he cannot enforce his own decision to have anyone to be detained/deported WITHOUT A judicial determination BY A State Court, as the Framers of the Constitution made clear.
We have seen with Vivian Alvares Solon how terrible wrong it can go when they ignore the RULE OF LAW and DUE PROCESS OF LAW. Yet, this could have been avoided in hundreds of cases had they followed the very legal process the Framers of the Constitution made clear was to be followed.
Again, let the minister make any decision but unless it is enforced by a JUDICIAL DETERMINATION of a State court, the decision cannot be enforced! That is the issue you ought to consider.

Yes, they did debate this issue extensively, and I have quoted many, as I do in my books published in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI

‘
Parliament won’t accumulate 15 sitting days for more than a month from now.

If the AFP regards harmless facts like these as evidence of association with a terrorist organisation then there’s no reason to think the secret information is any more damning. And if it is, why aren’t the UK authorities demanding his extradition? The Scotland Yard detectives who were allegedly racing against time to question Haneef before he had to be released seem to have disappeared without trace.

The legislation clearly gives the minister a discretion. no more. He’s chosen to exercise that discretion within hours of a magistrate granting Haneef bail, when there is no reason whatsoever to believe that Haneef poses a threat to the Australian community. Nor is the question of Haneef fleeing the country remotely relevant to Andrews’ responsibilities – in fact given his promise to deport Haneef as soon as he can he ought to be glad if he clears off of his own accord. Therefore the only practical effect of Andrews’ decision is to let the Commonwealth lock him up indefinitely and charge him for the privilege.

Cancelling his visa is an act of sheer bastardry, presumably done in the faint hope that Labor would criticise the decision and thus enable the ‘Labor’s soft on terrorists’ screeching to start again. And Andrews’ boss has the effrontery to go on television and ask in wide-eyed wonder why the people don’t like him any more.

IIRC, he had to surrender his passport as a condition of bail, so how could he then flee this isolated island continent?

So far, I have not been able to find any indication of any such notices laid before Parliament.

Sylvia.

As things stand, the Government is claiming that there is information, but only those whove already decided that Dr Haneef should be locked up are allowed to see it.

Now when have we heard that before?

Mr Andrews action in cancelling the visa may be unlawful if it was for an improper purpose. The specific purpose in this case was clearly to cause Dr Haneef to remain in detention despite the decision of the Magistrate’s Court. That may well be an improper purpose. The minister also has to be satisfied (not merely of the opinion) that the cancellation is in the national interest. A court could find that there was no evidence, or insufficient evidence, on which the minister could be so satisfied.

Even if there is evidence about Dr Haneef that cannot be made public, it could have been made available to the magistrate during the bail hearing, and could be made available to the AAT in the event of an appeal against the decision to cancel the visa (which appeal would only be possible if the decision had not been made by the minister personally).

As things stand, the Government is claiming that there is information, but only those who’ve already decided that Dr Haneef should be locked up are allowed to see it. That amounts to asking us to trust the Government. They haven’t exactly earned that trust in the past.

Sylvia.

On the other hand, the charges and considerations that Andrews and the AFP must be acting on are quite serious: assistance to terrorism, in the context of a series of failed attempts at mass murder in the UK.

So Andrews and the AFP have got to balance these two things up – considering Dr Haneef’s human rights on the one hand, and considering the connections to terrorists on the other. Frankly, I’m not surprised that they appear to have fallen on the latter side. But it’s probably too quick to judge, as Andrews himself has made the point repeatedly that there is evidence relating to Mr Haneef’s connections to terrorism that can not, as yet, be made public.

On the face of it, then, the response of Andrews and co doesn’t seem outrageous, though maybe it is disproportionate. But surely, if there is a huge problem with the anti-terror legislation that allows this sort of thing to happen, then it behooves the critics of Andrews and the AFP to offer practical suggestions as to alternative legislation to deal with unfolding cases such as this one?

[On the face of it, someone could make a baseless accusation that a married couple were involved in criminal activity, and then the minister could cancel their visas on the grounds that they were each associating with the other.]

The second part of the test is that the minister is satisfied that cancellation is in the national interest. I have not seen the minister quoted as addressing that part of the test at all. Andrews appears to want us to believe that he is more or less compelled to act, when he’s not.

It beggars belief that Dr Haneef could represent a threat now that he is under suspicion, and would be watched, whatever the AFP might think he was up to before (and there seems to be precious little evidence that he was up to anything).

It is also concerning that the minister has chosen a path that renders his decision almost immune to review. Had he got a delegate to cancel the visa (after allowing Dr Haneef the opportunity to explain why he should be considered to be of good character, because natural justice would be required), then the Administrative Appeals Tribunal could have looked at all the facts, and formed an independent view about whether cancellation of the visa is appropriate.

There is such a thing as group-think. It’s entirely possible that the AFP and government together have convinced themselves that Dr Haneef is a great threat, when an independent observer provided with the same facts might reach quite the opposite conclusion.

As things stand, we’re being asked to trust the Government. Previous events such as the children overboard saga, suggest that that trust would be misplaced.

Sylvia.