After having read reports of Kevin Andrew’s press conference where he provides further reasons for revoking Mohamed Haneef’s visa (like this one) I’m satisfied that he had good grounds.
The minister only has to operate on the basis of the balance of probabilities. Evidence that might not be sufficient to obtain a criminal conviction can easily sustain a visa decision. Criminal law requires a higher standard of proof because the penalties are so onerous, but there is no alienable human right to a visa, as there is to freedom from imprisonment.
That doesn’t justify Andrew’s entire actions in this case. To revoke a visa in order to hold a man without trial for a period of perhaps two years while awaiting trial on a matter where he had been granted bail, is a denial of basic human rights. It also, as Julian Burnside stated on Radio National some mornings ago, constitues a breach of the rule of law.
No-one will be interested in this point because hardly anyone understood it, or made it. Instead the debate divided into those who say that Haneef is innocent, and those who say that he might be, but there are enough problems with his story to treat him with extreme caution.
While he was in custody, the pro-Haneef forces seemed to me to have the upper-hand. Since the collapse of his case, and Andrew’s proper exercise of his discretion to deport him, the balance has changed. Haneef has made a number of mistakes.
He did a paid interview with 60 Minutes. Not an error on its own, but tacky. Then when he got back to India he put it in the context of claiming to be “victimised”. The tenor of his responses was clearly political. Islam is a “religion of peace” so he couldn’t have been involved in anything. Yes, well… And I’m sure I heard him say his training was against violence (but can’t find the video clip anywhere).
The government is a little lucky that these comments by Alexander Downer have disappeared, “What do you expect them to do, fall on the ground and grovel? Eat dirt? I mean, get real.” But Kevin Rudd must be wishing he’d kept to his original plan and said nothing, rather than calling for a judicial inquiry.
It could be that this will be a turning point in Rudd’s opinion ratings. He needed to take some risks on this issue, and he has, but the wrong ones. If they’d made a stand on using the visa to lock Haneef up after he’d been granted bail, then they’d be clearly differentiated from the government, but broadly on the publicly acceptable right line. Instead, they’ve allowed themselves to get side-tracked onto an argument about whether Andrews had the right to revoke the visa, which appears to have now been settled against them.