By Neena Bhandari, IANS
Sydney : Australia’s image in the world has taken a tumble following its treatment of freed terror suspect Muhammad Haneef, says a prominent rights lawyer drawing comparisons with South Africa’s apartheid regime.
“Most Australians don’t realise how much bad publicity this country has received as a result of the treatment that Dr Haneef has received from the Australian authorities,” Kirk McKenzie, partner in a Sydney-based law firm and member of the Human Rights Committee of the Law Society of New South Wales, said about the Indian doctor who was jailed for 25 days on charges of supporting the foiled British terror plot and then cleared.
“It is regrettable that the current Australian government is coming to be perceived just about as careless of the rights of its citizens and visitors as the apartheid-era government of South Africa,” McKenzie told IANS.
He said the perception was probably incorrect but the Howard government was now in election mode and seemed determined to use its “official egg beater and try to whip up a security scare of massive proportions in an effort to divert attention from other issues which have it lagging well behind in the opinion polls”.
This negative publicity had wide ranging implications for Australia, currently in the middle of a boom with labour shortages in key areas, particularly among skilled workers and professionals.
“We need to encourage migrants with the right skills including medical practitioners to come to Australia. This Haneef debacle has not helped this at all,” said McKenzie, who is also chair of the Finance and Economic Policy Committee of the New South Wales Branch of the Australian Labour Party (ALP).
“I think it is fair to say that the legal profession is appalled at the way in which this matter has been handled. Until 2004, a person arrested would have to be charged within about 24 hours of arrest or released. This is what should have happened to Dr Haneef, if a charge was to be pursued at all.”
The other aspect of the case that has raised concern is the cancellation of Haneef’s visa, hours after being granted bail by a Brisbane magistrate.
In 1998, the immigration minister was given very wide powers to cancel visas, and McKenzie said: “There is a widespread view among immigration lawyers here that these powers give the minister and the department far too much discretion. And the process is not transparent at all.”
He added that Australian authorities still seemed keen to plant the idea Haneef may be guilty after all. “However, I think the government’s willingness to allow him to leave the country suggests there is no evidence which could possibly stand up in Court and no prospect of obtaining any.”
As the lawyer sees it, sooner or later the Australian Federal Police and the government would have to admit that they have little prospect of obtaining evidence of Haneef’s involvement in terrorism.
“When they do so, they should emphasise that he is entitled to the presumption of innocence which is supposed to be basis of our legal system.”