THE outcome of an inquiry into the handling and treatment of Indian doctor Mohamed Haneef, released last week, was a foregone conclusion.
It was wrongly handled – a bungle – as there was no clear evidence to link the doctor to the botched bombing of Glasgow Airport in Scotland in June last year.
On the face of what was published at the time, no one really doubted that it was a big mistake to arrest and charge him with supporting terrorism with the exception of, it is now revealed, two senior ministers of the former Howard government – a senior federal police investigator and a senior prosecutor.
Dr Haneef sighed with great relief last week as he was finally given the verdict he had sought for more than 16 months: to clear his name once and for all and to remove any lingering doubt anyone may have of his innocence.
In high spirits, he told journalists, who had gathered at his lawyers’ office in Melbourne, through a dozen microphones connected to Dubai where he is now working as a GP, that he had no resentment against Australia.
“It’s not in my nature to hold anything like that against anyone … I don’t have any enmity for any of the agencies and the people (who have accused him of being a terrorist),” he said in a cracking voice.
But he wants an apology from the government although he has left the matter of compensation for his wrongful arrest to his lawyers to consider.
His lawyers believe that he could win compensation of up to A$500,000 for being “wrongly branded a terrorist, detained and defamed”. Federal Attorney-General Robert McClleland, however, has refused to apologise to Haneef, blaming the former Howard government for the bungle. Neither would any of the former ministers.
The Australian government released the 310-page report in which retired judge John Clarke QC laid the brunt of the blame on federal police commander Ramzi Jabbour, who had “lost his objectivity” in the investigation, and senior prosecutor Clive Porritt for his advice to prosecute, which was “obviously wrong and should never have been given”.
Jabbour held a “strong personal view that Dr Haneef was implicated in the UK terrorist acts despite his inability to uncover any substantial piece of evidence upon which to anchor his belief”, Clarke said.
Porritt wrongly advised the police to charge Haneef against the advice of his superiors.
Clarke also criticised the handling of the case by former Immigration Minister Kevin Andrews and former Federal Attorney-General Philip Ruddock.
He described Andrews’ decision to revoke Dr Haneef’s visa after the case against him was dropped as “mystifying”, but found no evidence that Andrews was involved in any impropriety or conspiracy.
Andrews was interviewed by the inquiry and said he did not see a document of the Australian Security and Intelligence Organisation (ASIO) that Haneef was not a threat to Australia.
Confronted with details of the ASIO document, which was sent to his department, he said that even if he had seen it, he would not have acted differently to his action to cancel Haneef’s visa.
ASIO was convinced of Haneef’s innocence and issued a steady stream of advice to all key federal agencies and ministers to this effect. But ASIO’s advice was ignored.
The charges against Haneef were dropped last year. After investigations involving hundreds of officers, costing a total of A$8mil, AFP announced in August this year that Haneef was no longer “a person of interest” to them.
Clarke praised ASIO’s “good moral courage in expressing its views” on Haneef. He also found that the federal police generally was dedicated, competent and impressive.
Referring to Ruddock, who was formerly in charge of ASIO and AFP under the Howard government, Clarke said the former senior minister’s lack of concern for the fundamental difference in opinion of the two organisations “might be viewed as troubling”.
Ruddock did not ask the relevant questions, just as Andrews was not curious enough.
Former Prime Minister John Howard refused to attend the inquiry and refused to give his political adviser Jamie Fox permission to make a statement at the inquiry. Clarke has no power to compel them to do so.
“From a whole-of-government perspective … no serous attempt was ever made to interrogate ASIO’s assessment of Dr Haneef or to reconcile it with the approach pursued by the AFP,” Clarke said.
This failure went to as high as the National Counter-Terrorism Committee, chaired by Duncan Lewis, who was then a deputy secretary of the Prime Minister’s Department. He had noted the differing assessments but he did not take up an ASIO officer’s offer to explain them.
Clarke made 10 recommendations to improve the coordination of security agencies and procedures to prevent such an incident in the future.
Accepting the recommendations, McClelland agreed that mistakes had been made at the highest level of the government, but he would not take action against any official. He said the inquiry was not designed as a witch-hunt.
“We have been at pains in not satisfying what has been, at least in some quarters, a desire for a scalp or scalps ... We don’t adopt the view of life where we execute one to educate 1,000,” McClelland declared.
THE federal government’s bold step to begin cutting carbon pollution in the atmosphere in 2010 – irrespective of the actions of other nations – is facing some stiff opposition for various reasons.
The Opposition, like the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, does not think it is the right time to launch the plan because of the high cost when the economy is struggling against the current global recession.
They want to wait till other major industrial and developing countries agree to the same starting date as Australia and may oppose the complex legislation in the Senate debate early next month.
The environmentalists and the Greenies, on the other hand, are angry and are holding protest rallies against the government’s watered-down targets of between 5% and 15% carbon pollution reduction by 2020. They want a 25% reduction.
The union movement is split over the government’s climate change policy, with those representing heavy industries rejecting their national body, ACTU’s, push for deeper cuts in greenhouse gas emissions.
So are some vocal public members who accuse the government of back-flipping on its election promise of at least 25% cut by 2020. Women are the most vocal on this issue, with one saying that she finds it hard to accept the government’s reduced target when scientists have agreed that developed countries need to reduce their emissions between 25% and 40% by 2020 to avoid catastrophic climate change.
But Prime Minister Kevin Rudd is determined to maintain his targets as “the right balance” in the current circumstances of the national economy. He wants to act quickly because the longer the plan is delayed, the more costly it would be to implement it.
His rationale is that a 5% emission reduction target for 2020 would reduce cumulative gross national product by 1.25% from current levels. The 25% reduction would cut cumulative GNP by 2.03%.
But the government’s ultimate goal of cutting greenhouse gas emissions by 60% of the 2000 levels by 2050 would be unchanged under both scenarios, he declares.
Rudd has accepted the finding of a climate change review by Prof Ross Garnaut that it is in Australia’s interest to stabilise concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere at about 450 parts per million or lower by mid-century. To achieve this, a 25% cut is needed.
However, the Prime Minister believes that achieving global commitment to such a goal would be a great challenge. His government would pursue to move the economy to a low pollution future and position Australia to be part of a 450ppm agreement “if that proves possible”.
Brushing aside criticisms of his targets, Rudd points out that the plan is even more ambitious than the European goals announced last week. While the EU’s 20% target is equal to a 24% reduction in emissions for each European from 1990 to 2020, Australia’s 5% unconditional target is equal to 27% in carbon pollution for each man, woman or child from 2000 to 2020 or 34% reduction from 1990.
This is because Europe’s population is not projected to grow between 1990 and 2020. By contrast, Australia’s population is projected to grow by 45% over the same period.
The per capita cut of emissions in Australia will be even bigger than that of US President-elect Barrack Obama’s 2020 proposal for no growth in emissions against the 1990 levels.
Rudd’s plan will allow Australia to pursue deeper cuts if a global climate change agreement is struck by 2010, In a White Paper on Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme released last week, Australia’s biggest polluters – about 1,000 of them – will pay an estimated A$11.5bil in the 2010-2011 financial year for the pollution they generate.
All the money will be used to help businesses and householders, particularly the low-income group such as pensioners, senior citizens, carers and people with disability, to adjust to the scheme due to higher prices.
They will receive between A$382 for singles and A$320 for couples and tax benefits to families up to A$157 per child. Some concessions will also be given to other families affected by the overall increase in costs.
Why the higher prices on carbon?
Federal Treasurer Wayne Swan, who drives a hybrid Japanese car and whose young son makes sure that his household lights are switched off whenever they are not required and use water conservatively, explains that the reason is to encourage people to be more energy efficient.
It is also to encourage businesses to invest in new technology so that the nation can reduce its consumption and increase productivity.
The White Paper outlines a package of cash assistance, tax offsets and other measures to help Australian households maintain their standards of living while creating a low-pollution future.
It warns that climate change poses a substantial threat to Australia’s economy and its way of life.
“Australia faces a choice,” it adds. “We can either wait and leave our children and grandchildren to face the full impacts of climate change, or we can take responsible action now by investing in the industries and jobs of the future. As a hot and dry country, we have more to lose than any other developed nation if the world fails to reduce the carbon pollution that causes climate change.”
It’s bad enough that Australia is being threatened by what is believed to be one of the worst global recessions ever known, but to be faced with a re-emerging influx of boat people at its northern shores is an added unexpected problem.
WITH multi-billion-dollar stimulus packages to boost a shaky economy and a possible deficit in next year’s federal budget, plus rising unemployment due to shutdowns or cost-cutting exercises in commerce and industry, the continued arrival of boat people with no means or trade skills to support themselves will bring back memories of the controversial massive influx of refugees in the late 1990s.
What is of concern to the general community is that the so-called asylum seekers will have to depend on government funding for food, clothing and shelter until their claims can be verified. Even if they are eventually given asylum status, they will still need welfare benefits at a time when the nation’s economy is going through a difficult period.
The reality is that there are limited funds and accommodations to maintain their well-being.
And, like the general community, the Rudd government is concerned that these boat people are the first of a new wave of suspected refugees who were brought by money-grabbing organised people-smuggling syndicates.
Concern about terror
More importantly, there is also serious concern of an unknown factor: an al-Qaeda agent with a secret mission to set up a terrorist cell in Australia may easily be among them. So far there is no evidence of this, but the fear is ever present when groups of people try to land illegally on the country’s shores.
Nonetheless, those responsible for national security and border protection are understandably apprehensive because Australia is a terrorist target in view of its involvement in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.
This concern has been intensified by simultaneous attacks on hotels in Mumbai three weeks ago in which the terrorists had aimed to kill 5,000 people. The terrorists were targeting mainly foreign tourists.
Prime Minister Kevin Rudd acted swiftly last week to reorganise and boost government agencies in dealing with the resurgent threat to Australia’s border integrity.
The Australian Customs Service will be augmented, re-tasked and re-named Australian Customs and Border Protection Service with capability to analyse intelligence, coordinate surveillance and engage internationally to deter people smuggling.
Rudd has appointed Australia’s first National Security Adviser to strengthen strategic direction and support national security policy development and crisis response.
He is retired major-general Duncan Lewis, former commander of the tough elite SAS troops who are specifically trained to combat terrorists. Lewis later described the Mumbai attacks as a warning that terrorism is an enduring issue for Australia for some time into the future.
Crackdown on crime
Rudd believes the new arrangements will meet the need for a more integrated national security structure that enhances its policy coordination in view of the increasingly complex and interconnected security environment.
He also points out that transnational crime such as trafficking in persons, people smuggling, drugs and firearms and the illegal exploitation of resources will remain a continuing challenge.
According to the Australian Crime Commission’s estimate, organised crime is costing Australia more than A$10bil (RMb23.7il) each year.
The government has launched a series of new measures costing A$44.1mil (RM104.6mil) to fight against people-smuggling operations in the region, especially in Indonesia and Timor Leste.
It was informed last week that Indonesian police, assisted by officers of the Australian Federal Police, have arrested a people-smuggling kingpin and his accomplice in Java.
The man is alleged to have been the local ringleader of an international people-smuggling syndicate that has successfully ferried some of the 20 boatloads of asylum seekers to Australia in recent weeks.
So far 127 asylum seekers, including Afghans, Iraqis, Iranians and Pakistanis, have sailed to Australian waters in the past three months and 15 others have had their journey stopped in Indonesia.
They have been brought in small boats by people smugglers in rough seas – a new tactic that has baffled officials.
RICHARD Eckersley’s analysis of the available data on the well-being of young Australians is quite revealing.
An expert at the National Centre for Epidemiology and Population Health of the Australian National University in Canberra, he finds that 50% of those who responded to surveys were experiencing one or more problems associated with depression, anxiety, anti-social behaviour and alcohol use.
The anti-social behaviour includes illicit drug use and alcohol abuse as defined by binge drinking, which is based on males drinking at least seven glasses of alcohol straight five times a month and females at least five glasses of alcohol straight in the same period.
These youths would not see the drug and alcohol use as a problem, but as part of enjoying life.
Eckersley explains that alcohol and drug use “can be seen as an adaptive response to life’s pressure (yet) it is part of the ‘good life’ our culture promotes”.
Overall, however, 80% of the young people in the surveys expressed satisfaction with their lives, including their lifestyle, work or study and relationships with their parents and friends.
But just as shocking are the results of another survey by Flinders University in Adelaide, released last week. It shows that most teenage girls have had their first full drink of alcohol by the age of 15 – eight years earlier than their mothers had.
This put the teenagers at a greater risk of alcohol dependence, mental health problems and drug addiction.
About 20% of the boys began drinking at the age of 12, 52% at 14, and 82% at 16, according to Flinders lead researcher Toby Freeman.
Eckersley’s findings on young people are contained in a recent paper titled “The Health and Wellbeing of Young Australians: Present Patterns and Future Challenges”.
He strongly believes that the official view on young people’s health and well-being underestimates the importance of adverse trends in a range of chronic physical and mental health problems.
The view is that young people “generally enjoy a level of health that is good and has been improved in recent times”, as indicated by levels of mortality, morbidity and disability. It also suggests that with health improving, attention needs to be focused on social inequalities in health, which has increased.
But Eckersley insists that medical and health professionals need to recognise that “the politics of health must be seen as much more than the politics of healthcare services”. They need to continue to be part of the solution to better health; not part of the problem.
“Quality of life is not the same as standard of living, and how well we live is not a matter of how long we live, especially in rich nations such as Australia,” he says.
He quotes a doctor telling him recently: “Before we just tried to keep people alive; now people are staying alive, but they’re not very happy.”
While surveys of young people consistently show that many of them are healthy, happy and satisfied with their lives, other health indicators point to many others not faring well.
“The adverse trends in young people’s health range across both physical and mental problems and from relatively minor but common complaints to rare but serious problems,” Eckersley adds.
“Young people are experiencing mental health problems at higher rates than older age groups, and retaining their increased risk beyond youth into older age.”
The result of one survey shows that almost one-third of young males and a quarter of young females (both groups between 12 and 24 years of age) are overweight or obese. The number is increasing proportionately.
This places them at risk in a range of health problems later in life, including diabetes, heart diseases and some cancers.
And Eckersley’s paper also discloses a growing concern among parents of a risk to their children because the daily environment in which they live is perceived to be increasingly less safe.
They worry about their children’s future and feel that the children are being targeted too much by marketers for television advertisements or product promotions.
Another disclosure is that although many young people are optimistic about their own lives, there is a growing proportion that appears to believe quality of life in Australia is declining despite the hitherto long resource boom that has seen economic growth and rising income.
This proves that the gap between their expected and preferred futures has widened and that concerns about the future of the world have increased. Nevertheless, differences in perspectives on young people’s health have remained.
In his conclusion, Eckersley proposes that the central purpose of Australia’s social system should be made to create health rather than wealth.