Keelty – getting the facts right

I'm flattered the P8 lead [1] in today's Sydney Morning Herald drew on material from my Grumpy Old Journo blog. Alas, it also repeated an error. A later GOJ post did make the correction , but I had failed to go back and fix the mistake in the earlier post. My apologies to the Herald and its readers.

On August 30 last year, in a post titled, “This time Mick Keelty must do the honorable thing and resign,” [2] GOJ described the Jana Wendt interview in which Keelty said the words which angered Prime Minister John Howard, and went on to say:

Prime Minister John Howard saw the interview and went ballistic. He immediately rang his loyal chief of staff, Arthur Sinodinos. Less than eight minutes after the interview ended, Sinodinos phoned Keelty in Nine's green room – the VIP lounge for interview guests – to communicate Howard's extreme displeasure.

The comment was based on the most reliable information at the time. But on October 27, Sinodinos was interviewed by Sally Neighbour on an ABC Four Corners program, Good cop, bad cop. [3]

After reading the transcript, I put up another post on October 28, “Is the Federal Police Comissioner a servant of the government in power?” [4]

In it, I described as “chilling” Sinodinos's comments which showed John Howard believed the AFP was required to do whatever he demanded, provided it did not involve breaking laws. I went on to comment:

Is it taking it too far to say John Howard and his chief of staff believed it was acceptable to sool the Federal Police on to targets which suited their political agenda? Providing, of course, it did not demand something which would be illegal. Did Mick Keelty fail to dispute that view, especially after having submitted to the brutal public humiliation imposed by Howard and Sinodinos?

And that post concluded :

A correction: In my earlier post I said John Howard saw Keelty's TV interview and went ballistic. In last night's Four Corners program, Mr Sinodinos said he saw the program and phoned Howard to say there could be a problem. Howard's response was: "Ring Mick and let him know that I'm very concerned about this because of the way it could be interpreted."

Grumpy Old Journo deserves a pat on the back. Its Keelty analysis and comments have held up well as more of the story unfolded. (This post was offered to the Herald as a letter, but we haven't heard back.)

.

Is the Federal Police commissioner a servant of the government in power?

On August 30, I put up a post headed “This time Mick Keelty must do the honourable thing and resign.” It was not without some misgivings – it's a harsh call, and the Federal Police Commissioner appears to be a decent fellow.

But as the Dr Haneef affair showed, he allowed himself to become a servant of John Howard's government in its duplicity and spin doctoring. Last night, ABC television's Four Corners program confirmed my view.

In my August post, I wrote:

When he won office in 1996, one of Howard's first actions was to sack six public service department heads – a third of the departmental secretaries – in a sudden and brutal putsch.

Many of us saw it as an assault on the public service obligation to give "frank and fearless" advice to ministers, although some might argue it was to ensure the public service implemented the will of an elected government.

But a police commissioner is not just a public service head. He or she has an obligation greater than implementing government policy – an obligation to uphold the law without fear or favour. When Howard bullied Keelty into a humiliating submission, and Keelty accepted it, they both destroyed something of value.

Last night, Four Corners revisited the humiliating "clarification" John Howard and his chief of staff Arthur Sinodinus forced Keelty to make in a televised press conference in March 2004. You will recall this came after the Federal Police Commissioner made an honest comment on Channel Nine which did not accord with the Howard government's spin on terrorism.

Chillingly, the Four Corners program showed that John Howard did believe the AFP was required to do whatever he demanded, provided it did not involve breaking laws.

In the course of a program titled Good Cop, Bad Cop – in which journalist Sally Neighbour investigated "what's wrong with the Federal Police" – Mr Sinodinus gave an interview on camera, and he is to be commended for his frankness.

Mr Sinodinus said the AFP's job was to "work within the framework of policy, subject of course to their not breaking the law".

Sally Neighbour came back at him: "Is it their job to do the bidding of government as long as it's not illegal?" Sinodinus replied: "In my view it is."

Think about this for a moment. Is it taking it too far to say John Howard and his chief of staff believed it was acceptable to sool the Federal Police on to targets which suited their political agenda? Providing, of course, it did not demand something which would be illegal.

Did Mick Keelty fail to dispute that view, especially after having submitted to the brutal public humiliation imposed by Howard and Sinodinus?

Perhaps, then, I was justified in this comment in August:

We now know there never was a persuasive case that Haneef was involved in terrorist activities or knew of the Glasgow bomb plot.

Yet Keelty oversaw the expenditure of more than $8 million in the investigation. He let the AFP become part of a political agenda driven by John Howard, Phillip Ruddock and Kevin Andrews. He did so at a time when the British authorities had accepted Haneef's innocence, and when our security services like ASIO had already ruled out Haneef as a terrorist concern.

The Four Corners program may be viewed online at
http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/content/2008/20081027_cops/interviews.htm

My August post should come up on
http://grumpyoldjourno.blogspot.com/2008/08/mick-keelty-must-do-honourable-thing.html

A correction: In my earlier post I said John Howard saw Keelty's TV interview and went ballistic. In last night's Four Corners program, Mr Sinodinos said he saw the program and phoned Howard to say there could be a problem. Howard's response was: "Ring Mick and let him know that I'm very concerned about this because of the way it could be interpreted."

It may seem like keystone cops, but the Haneef affair should disturb us all

The following post expands observations I placed on What, Me Grumpy? last Thursday.

This isn't some convicted, proven ruffian. This photo (published on the front page of The Sydney Morning Herald on Thursday, July 19) is believed to be the Indian doctor Mohamed Haneef being driven from the Brisbane watchhouse in a police vehicle. We should all find it deeply disturbing.

Haneef may or may not have given support, or had some prior knowledge, of the attempted terrorist bombings in London and Glasgow. A Brisbane magistrate found the case against him so weak she granted him bail, despite our anti-terrorism laws' removal of the presumption of innocence.

Immigration Minister Kevin Andrews immediately ordered his detention under his powers to lock up and deport undesirables.

Andrews said, and Australian Federal Police commissioner Mick Keelty backed him up, that he'd been shown secret files which justified his action action.

Why weren't they put before the magistrate, even in chambers? Is it because magistrate Jacqui Payne is Aboriginal and has a reputation for requiring even the Queensland police to comply with the law? Perhaps the Feds thought they couldn't trust her – "not one of us."

As I keep saying, I may be a bit to the left, but I try to be fair. Reluctantly, I accept the need for some civil rights to be weakened as we protect ourselves against fanatics with murderous intent.
But when the authorities feel the need to detain or put on control orders those people who worry them, if they haven't been convicted let's accept a limited presumption of innocence. If we have to take them to detention, let's hire a limo to do it. Let's detain them in comfortable accommodation. A four-star hotel might be about right. And let them keep their shoes on.
Read the SMH's report here.

That was my original post, and I was going to leave it there. But then the story blew up, as anyone who's seen, heard or read the news in the past five days must know.

First, someone on the government or federal police side leaked so-called facts to The Australian to justify Kevin Andrews's action.

Then Haneef's barrister Stephen Keim, SC, leaked – and openly admitted it – the material supplied by the Feds to the Haneef legal team, and it didn't take long before a close reading created significant doubts about the Feds' competence or honesty.

As The Australian said in last Friday's editorial: “Mr Keim has removed the ability of investigators or public officials to cherry-pick and distort the evidence to manipulate perceptions to suit their purpose.”

Reading on, one feels The Australian says:

This is not to suggest that the federal Government and its law enforcement agencies have attempted to use Dr Haneef's plight for political gain. It does, however, recognise the fact that the Government has already spent a great deal of public goodwill and trust when it comes to fighting the war on terror.

It is difficult not to conclude that there has been a striking hypocrisy on the part of authorities in criticising Mr Keim for supposedly compromising his client's position when, by the admission of
Australian Federal Police Commissioner Mick Keelty, Dr Haneef has been the subject of extensive leaks by both the prosecution and defence.

By releasing the transcript of interview, Mr Keim has shown that the principal distortions have been to the disadvantage of his client.

One of life's pleasures would be to see a custard pie hit Kevin Andrews in the face. He projects the smug, self-satisfied visage of a man who knows God votes conservative. My anticipation of his discomfiture rose further with weekend disclosures that even John Howard had been concerned by the relish with which he drew up WorkChoices legislation which would leave workers worse off.

But was Andrews worried? Not at all. He had secret information, too vital to our security to be told even to the judiciary, or, unthinkably, the public.

Saturday's Sydney Morning Herald, under a P1 banner headline “Haneef case turns to farce”, quoted Andrews that none of the revelations would affect his decision to cancel Haneef's visas and keep him in detention.

The same day, The Australian had a perceptive feature (and a good pun) in “Trial by leak in the age of error”, a roundup of the case written by Cameron Stewart (who should know – he appears to have been the recipient of some of the leaks from the Feds).

The Oz introduced the feature with these words: "The Haneef case exposes the underbelly of national security in which spin and counterspin are used to influence public opinion." And these: "The case highlights the bankruptcy of trust in the government."

The whole episode is disturbing, but the most disturbing aspect is the erosion of trust.

It was unfortunate for the Howard government that the affair coincided with the Fairfax newspapers – The Age and the SMH – publishing excerpts from John Winston Howard: The Biography (which goes on sale today, July 24).

Last Thursday, the Haneef photo and story above sat next to the SMH's P1 lead: "PM failed as treasurer, says Costello".

Later disclosures revealed that when the government's top legal minds gave advice it would be unlawful to turn away the Tampa, Howard sent it back until he got the advice he wanted.

And just in case you thought Howard's word might have some value, we read that his wife Janette told his biographers, in relation to his dishonoured 1994 deal with Peter Costello, that "you don't go back and honour every single one of those [promises] unless you have made a firm commitment about it, and John wasn't into making firm commitments". Hah! The birth of the non-core promise!

There's one more issue worth examining, and that's the role and in particular the ethics of newspapers in the Haneef affair. At this point we'll hand the mike to Denis Muller, visiting fellow at the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics at the University of Melbourne and a former editorial executive on The Age and The SMH.

On Crikey.com yesterday he said an examination of the ethical issues made an irresistable case for publication of the leaked material, and went on:

In a more general sense the public interest has also been served by demonstrating the dangers of what can happen out of public view when the State is able to act in secrecy and without adequate lines of accountability.

Moreover, subsequent analyses by The Australian have shown major inconsistencies in what was presented to the magistrate, justifying the accusation by one of its writers that the police had "verballed" Dr Haneef.

It is now five days since the leaked transcript was published, and everything that has happened since has vindicated the newspaper’s decision.

As recently as yesterday the Australian Federal Police were allowing a false story to run about Dr Haneef’s alleged plot to attack a building on the Gold Coast, until the commissioner, Mick Keelty, was finally dragged into a denial.