Webdiary - Independent, Ethical, Accountable and Transparent
header_02 home about login header_06
sidebar-top content-top

Haneef – this year's "9/11 Australian Story"?

[Original post 21 August 2007] MARGO UPDATE 2/11: What does it take for Labor to have the guts to try to clean up our mess of  a justice system at the top under John Howard? Lots and lots and lots. Before Parliament ended, the Democrats moved a motion in the Senate calling for an independent inquiry into the Haneef debacle. Labor voted against it, despite Rudd's call for an inquiry. Last week Labor suggested there would be no inquiry - see Haneef inquiry no sure bet as Labor backs off.

But today it's all different, thanks to The Australian's Hedley Thomas, the reporter who began to blow the lid on the scandal by publishing the transcript of the AFP interview with Haneef. Now, after Keelty told the Bulletin last week he never thought there was a case against Haneef - contradicting his previous public statements - the news via Hedley in Secret Haneef plan exposed is:

CONFIDENTIAL emails between top AFP agents and a senior public servant advising Immigration Minister Kevin Andrews indicate that there was a secret plan to thwart a decision bya magistrate to release then terror suspect Mohamed Haneef on bail.

The emails show the AFP was aware of a weekend "contingency" plan to ensure the Indian doctor would remain behind bars by having Mr Andrews revoke his visa under the Migration Act in the event of bail being granted by Brisbane magistrate Jacqui Payne on the following Monday.

The disclosure of the emails will be used against Mr Andrews, who has always insisted that he made his decision to revoke Dr Haneef's visa under the Migration Act and that it was "unrelated to the question of proceedings in the criminal court in Brisbane".

Read on and you'll find - surprise surprise - that Andrews claims he knew northing of the contingency plan. Plausible denialbility strikes again! I mean, who IS governing the country, when on the really controversial issues - think AWB for example - the Government is left in the dark! I don't think so.

So now, Labor's immigration spokesman Tony Burke, , although not Rudd as yet - says Labor WILL hold a judicial inquiry into the matter should it win office. Thank bloody Christ for that! How how low does public confidence have to get in the Howard Government's corruption  of our legal system and the basic ethics of ministers, police and prosecutors in relation to it before Labor acts! This far, perhaps.

Only this week the former Chief Justice of the Hight Court, Sir Gerard Brennan, warned that the Haneef scandal was a bridge too far - see an edited text of his speech at Liberty's threat from executive power and this quote in Execution stance under fire:

Sir Gerard also condemned Australia's anti-terrorism laws for trespassing upon natural justice. He said a person could be detained in custody, virtually incommunicado, without ever being accused of involvement in terrorist activity, on grounds that were kept secret and without effective opportunity to challenge the basis of the detention.

He said the experience of Mamdouh Habib and David Hicks starkly illustrated the injustices that can occur when power is exercised without effective judicial review. "Yet in Australia in recent times we have witnessed a series of erosions of the jurisdiction of the courts to apply the rule of law."

 He said the "sad experience" of Mohamed Haneef had     eroded public confidence in the agencies entrusted to safeguard public security.

The Richard Tonkin piece that follows was the last Webdiary piece on the saga - for all our coverage see here.   And see Intelligence, counter-terrorism and trust.

Haneef – this year's "9/11 Australian Story"?

by Richard Tonkin 

The Australian Federal Court is now likely to face appeals from two government ministers on two cases of accusation of terrorism. In both cases the inference is that the suspects have been detained and booted out of the country on false and improper reasoning.

The Federal Court proclaimed today that Haneef's visa had been cancelled for the wrong reasons. If, instead of making his decision on the "character test", Andrews had revoked Haneef's visa on the grounds of his known associations (the second cousins involved in the UK incident), the court would have upheld the decision. Instead, Justice Jeffrey Spender, in setting aside Andrews' decision, said that the minister had made a "jurisdictional error”.

Justice Spender stayed his decision for twenty-one days. Today being August 21, that gives Andrews until September 11 to announce his course of action. Andrews has announced this afternoon that he will lodge an appeal. If he uses the allotted timespan (applied for by Crown prosecutors) the cases of Haneef and Scott Parkin will bear remarkable similarities.

On September 11 2005 the Australian media was awash with the story of another "terrorism arrest". The day before Halliburton activist Scott Parkin had been surrounded by immigration officers and Federal police at a cafe in Brunswick Street, Melbourne. Parkin had organised a street theatre protest in front of the KBR office in Sydney during the Forbes CEOs' Conference, and subsequently declined a request by ASIO to attend an interview. In his absence ASIO made an adverse security assessment. It was on the basis of this assessment that the Attorney-General, Philip Ruddock, cancelled Parkin's visa, detained him in solitary confinement, and deported him.

It was subsequently revealed by US magazine Newsweek that information on Parkin had been illegaly kept in a US Pentagon file, including another protest by Parkin involving the distribution of peanut butter sandwiches in front of a Halliburton office to protest against alleged profiteering by the company in its prices for the meals of US troops in Iraq.

The Federal Court later ruled that that Parkin should be granted access to the ASIO files that were used in his negative security classification. ASIO appealed this decision last year, and the case is yet to be heard.

If Andrews uses the days the court allows him, on September 11 this year he will be able to place his continued suspicions that Haneef was connected to terrorism in the Australian media. To use the significance of the date in such a manner would be another attempt to invoke the tragedy in "proving" a case. Given that their last September 11 stunt has, two years later, yet to be proven as appropriate, it would be a gamble to put Haneef in the same basket as Parkin. However, the Federal Government could well be desperate enough for political "nation security" success to try it to please a grumpy Sydney public that has just endured the ordeal of APEC security measures.

By September 11 this year there may well be new terrorism suspects sitting in Australian cells. If foreign nationals are imprisoned in Sydney on charges relating to the APEC Leaders' Conference, and the cases of Haneef and Parkin are still unresolved, the Australian government will have an international reputation of being unable to deal with even the suspects they've apparently mishandled in their haste for political gain.

[ category: ]

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

And The Hero Of The Day

..is Brisbane lawyer Peter Russo who must be warmly congratulated.. Overall, criminal lawyers and barristers do an outstanding job.

Thank God for our courts as well, and certainly journalist Hedley Thomas demonstrated that even News Ltd journos can do a great job.

a sensible judgement

I rather like the Full Court's judgement, now that I've had a chance to read it (only skipped the boring bits, honest).

One reason is that it rests on a principle I approve of, and that I used (or a slight variation of it) in what’s changed about me? to argue the illegality of the invasion of Iraq. (At I'll have a go, Justin and Was it legal?.) The principle is stated in the judgement as "It is an important principle that Acts should be construed, where constructional choices are open, so as not to encroach upon common law rights and freedoms". But I prefer this version, that they quote, just because of the language:

It is in the last degree improbable that the legislature would overthrow fundamental principles, infringe rights, or depart from the general system of law, without expressing its intention with irresistible clearness; and to give any such effect to general words, simply because they have that meaning in their widest, or usual, or natural sense, would be to give them a meaning in which they were not really used.
The discussion from 105 - 113 is worth reading.

It is also a very sensible judgement. It is about what is called a "character test". The judges find, reasonably, that it is a test of character. Not just because of the label, but because of its purpose and context, and because of the parliamentary debates, which clearly indicate the legislature's intent. They also find that simple association is not enough to find a want of character - there must be further indications that go to the nature of the association.

Andrews had available to him, on the public record and according to the original judge, matters which he could have used to argue those "further indications". (Strictly, it's not "argue", more like to arrive at a state of mind - but are we strong enough to explore the depths of his mind?) It's a puzzle why they didn't use them. I'm a bit inclined to incompetence more than conspiracy. To the extent they thought, it was probably that an association is an association, second cousins, done! They were under time pressure.

Just one last reason why I like the judgement: in the discussion of the parliamentary debates that show the legislature's intent, they quote (soon to be ex-) Senator Bartlett. He should be proud.

?:F - can anyone else help? Another puzzle

Those links to what’s changed about me? dont work, by the way. The thread is at ?q=node/1134, if anyone is interested.

I write this in Textpad (an excellent text editor), writing/copy&pasting my own html. The links work when I preview with textpad, and when I preview inside Webdiary. When the posts are published, they don't work.

If you look at the link above, "/?q=node" is missing from the address. As I write, it is there - I can see it, it will be there when I preview it in the reply box, but it will be gone when this is published. Bet on it.

Internal links from other posters seem to work, at least the times I've tried them - they're not all that common, but I reckon my method should work, and if the link works in preview, it should certainly work when published. I also reckon my method should be the safest. One reason I don't use Word is that it puts in a whole lot of crap that I don't trust.

There may be a known issue, nut if not we should raise one.

PS (entered in the preview box): I notice that the preview has removed most of the address that I pasted in  - just left "?q=node/1134". Strange!

Richard: I'll pass this through to Nigel and  see what he reckons.  For some reason we do have problems with elements not translating.  That's why we prefer comments to be written directly into the box.


Curiouser and curiouser 2 (amended)

Test 2. Here is the link: what’s changed about me?.

Scrap that previous one.


One reason I dont like using this reply box is that it is so easy to post a comment before it is ready! 

Richard:  Twitchy trigger fingers and all.. if that does happen, just send us a correction and we'll fix.  All part of the service, as the actress said.


The gremlin theory

That's that theory shot down in flames. Both the links work.

It does support my alternative theory, which is that there are malicious gremlins that live in computers with the aim of causing embarrassment and frustration by preventing bugs from operating when anyone is watching.

Curiouser and curiouser 1

I am caught out! The link that I said wouldn't work does work. Here it is again: what’s changed about me?

But I have a theory! Last night, I added the PS directly into the reply box and I don't normally do that. It may be that editing in the reply box forces it to parse the text, and everything ends up correct. Though why it would screw up to begin with is strange.

So I have a test. Step one is to post this - drafted in textpad - in my usual way. Step two is to make another reply - also drafted in textpad with that link - and post it after adding some text directly in the reply box. Then we see what happens to the links.

You're going to have difficulty getting me to abandon Textpad. Anything more than a couple of lines usually takes me hours, and the reply box doesn't give me the flexibility or security that I want. As far as I know, my posts don't have any other problems (on the html side, at least). So, Test 1

In other legal news,

ASIO gets leave to appeal in Parkin case. The SMH headline calls it an ASIO win, but that is because "Next step in Scott Parkin case" doesn't make a very exciting headline. It will probably be at the High Court sooner or later. It was always going to be appealed.

The courts seem to be very busy today. Probably trying to clear the decks before a lazy January.

Fiona: I'm looking forward to the AWB criminal prosecutions in February.

Daze Of Our ASIO

How long can they keep the Parkin case going for? Apparently till ASIO gets its way. The Peanut Butter Files are safely out of the way. Bloody ridiculous. I can understand that in might not be in our national interest to have intelligence who are internationally perceived as idiots, but it's too late for that, thanks to their former "handlers."

As for Haneef ... well, he still has to get a job, but as it looks like Anna Bligh is going to see to it personally, that one's a closed case.

Then we've got David Hicks, reporting to police and curfewed, because as he is capable of acts of terrorism he must be prevented from doing so.

This all still needs a bit of sorting out. Stay tuned for 2008.

Evans is doing a good job

Evans has closed the Nauru prison, given permanent residence to Tony Tran after 5.5 years of illegal detention and being almost killed in Baxter, now he is saying Haneef can simply come back.

Andrews of course wants him to appeal but Andrews broke the law and four senior judges have ruled as such.   Andrews would do well to shut up.

Minister for Immigration & Citizenship v Haneef

The judgement is at Minister for Immigration & Citizenship v Haneef [2007] FCAFC 203.

Fiona: Thank you, Mark. 

Dr Haneef wins right to work in Australia

From ABC Online nine minutes ago:

The Full Bench of the Federal Court has upheld a Brisbane judge's earlier decision to reinstate former terrorism suspect Mohammed Haneef's work visa.

Former immigration minister Kevin Andrews appealed to the Federal Court's full bench after Justice Jeffery Spender ruled in favour of the Indian doctor.

This morning the Federal Court found in favour of Justice Spender's earlier decision and dismissed the former minister's appeal.

The decision was handed down in Melbourne while Dr Haneef's legal team watched via video link in Brisbane.

Dr Haneef was detained by Australian Federal Police for 12 days in July before being charged with providing support to a terrorist organisation by giving his mobile phone to his cousin who was accused of being involved in the failed UK bomb attacks.

Those charges were later dropped.

Mr Andrews had revoked Dr Haneef's visa on the grounds he failed a character test.

a deserved smack in the face

What a contemptible misanthrope Andrews is.

What a fine piece of news.

God's Christmas present for Australians who still care, brought to this small corner of the empire courtesy of considerate Fiona.

Happy xmass, bloss!

Whither now for Hicks? And can/will Labor interfere with a Dr Haneef return, should the bloke be so infinitely forgiving as to want to?


Despite some hints to the contrary earlier today, this is the latest - and I think it is good news:

Federal Immigration Minister Chris Evans will not move to cancel Indian doctor Mohammed Haneef's work visa.


Dr Haneef's lawyer Peter Russo has spoken to Dr Haneef and he says he is pleased with the ruling.

"He is very happy that the decision has come down the way it has, but he also understands we have to wait for the current Minister to make up his mind on what he's going to do," he said.

Queensland Premier Anna Bligh says she would be happy to have Dr Haneef return to work in the state if he can satisfy visa and medical registration requirements.

Ms Bligh says she does not know if there is a vacancy at the Gold Coast Hospital where Dr Haneef previously worked, but he would be welcomed back to Queensland Health.

"If Dr Haneef satisfied the visa requirements and the registration requirements, we'd be very pleased to have him and any other suitably qualified medical practitioners in our hospitals," she said.

"We have a lot of pressure on our hospitals, we want to see qualified doctors working in them as quickly as possible."

Not such happy news for Mr Hicks however - although we must pay attention to the final sentence of the extract:

Terrorism supporter David Hicks remains a risk of taking part in terrorist acts and will be subject to a control order, a federal magistrate has ruled.

Hicks will be placed under a curfew and have to report to police three times a week when he's released from jail next week.

Australian Federal Police (AFP) sought the order from the court ahead of Hicks' scheduled release from an Adelaide jail on December 29.

Federal Magistrate Warren Donald today granted the control order on Hicks, whose lawyers did not oppose the AFP's application.

Hmmm, time for another GetUp-style campaign?

Paul, thank you for your greetings - and the same to you.

The Gold Walkley

This year the Gold Walkley was awarded to Hedley Thomas of the Australian for his reporting of the Mohammed Haneef case. In his acceptance speech, Thomas

praised the lawyers acting for Haneef, the solicitor Peter Russo and the barrister Stephen Keim. In July Keim had in effect turned the case against Haneef around by giving Thomas a transcript of the record of interview of his client conducted by the Australian Federal Police.

And here's the chilling part of the Gold Walkley winner's remarks: "And I believe that every journalist in this room should understand that the Australian Federal Police and its Commissioner Mick Keelty is still trying to punish Stephen Keim for bringing out the truth."

A brief reminder of the state of play: AFP Commissioner Mick Keelty has complained to the Legal Services Commissioner in Queensland about Mr Keim’s conduct. Under the rules of the Queensland Bar Association, a barrister is prohibited from publishing material concerning current proceedings except in limited circumstances (e.g., providing copies of pleadings or court documents which are in the public domain). It should be noted that there is no equivalent rule affecting solicitors in the Queensland Law Society’s code of conduct. So, the Bar Association is investigating and will report in due course to the Legal Services Commissioner. The Bar Association, the Law Society, the Australian Lawyers Alliance and the Queensland Council for Civil Liberties have all made statements supporting Keim.

I consider it deplorable that Commissioner Keelty’s embarrassment at the incompetence of his force should have led to what Richard Ackland properly characterises as a “vengeful complaint”. However, there may be some light – even some accountability – about to be shed on this affair. From yesterday’s Age:

Prime Minister Kevin Rudd says the government is seeking advice on how to conduct an official investigation into the handling of former terrorism suspect Dr Mohamed Haneef.

Mr Rudd said Labor would make good on its pre-election commitment to establish a judicial inquiry into the case but did not yet know when one would be started.

He denied the government was "raking over the coals" and said the inquiry was necessary to ensure anti-terrorism legislation was kept accountable.

"What we're on about is establishing the facts," Mr Rudd told reporters in Brisbane.

"We want to make sure that with these tough anti-terrorism laws that we've got in Australia that we've got the proper institutional arrangements necessary for their enforcement and the proper checks and balances as well."

Let's hope that any enquiry also investigates Commissioner Keelty's actions concerning Mr Keim.

Law Council latest on Haneef


19 November 2007

Law Council Calls for AFP to Answer on Haneef

The Law Council is calling for answers as to whether or not AFP officers lawfully discharged their functions under the Commonwealth Crimes Act in relation to the Mohamed Haneef case.

On 2 November the Law Council wrote to AFP Commissioner Mick Keelty asking nine pertinent questions about the conduct of the AFP in the Haneef case.  The letter is now being publicly released.  The Law Council’s questions have not yet been answered.

Law Council President Ross Ray QC said, “Although the AFP has indicated an intention to reply, thus far the only responses the Law Council has received from the AFP have been directed at delaying the publication of the Law Council’s letter.”

“Australians deserve answers to the questions posed by the Law Council, and many more beyond”.

“It has become clear that our anti-terror laws, while draconian in certain respects, are only part of the problem. The source of the danger is not only what those laws say but what people, including AFP officers, think they say - we need to learn from the Haneef and ul-Haque cases”, Mr Ray said.  

The Law Council feels that law enforcement agencies, like the AFP, have been encouraged by sweeping anti-terror laws and the enthusiastic and uncritical support of the Federal Government to use their authority and resources inappropriately in a ‘win at all costs’ way.

The actual details of the law are ignored and calamitous results for ordinary people are only too apparent.

“It has become increasingly important to hold an independent, transparent and broad ranging inquiry into these matters and law enforcement culture.” Mr Ray concluded.

The Law Council’s letter to the AFP Commissioner is available at:



It's all interesting on the chess board, Margo. The Law Council's letter, having been sent on the day that Hedley Thomas "broke" the AFP/Immigration emails, turns up five days out from the election.  Naturally the AFP cite the ongoing appeal as reason not to reply.. oh wouldn't it be sweet if the verdict is handed down in the next few days? We can only live in hope.

Given the letter's timing, the last two questions are crucial.  It appears the Law Council believes that Haneef was not given his legal right of self-representation at hearings that continued his AFP detention, even as the AFP liaised with Immigration to keep the doctor under lock and key.

More terror from ASIO/AFP

Terror case thrown out:

A high profile terror case was abandoned before it got to trial today after a judge found that an ASIO officer had kidnapped and falsely imprisoned a young medical student, Izhar ul-Haque.

Mr ul-Haque's lawyer, Adam Houda, later accused authorities of launching a politically motivated and "moronic prosecution" against his client.

In a scathing judgment, NSW Supreme Court Justice Michael Adams said one ASIO officer had committed "the crime of false imprisonment and kidnap at common law" against Mr ul-Haque in a deliberate attempt to coerce answers from him.

He said this misconduct meant subsequent police records of interview with Mr ul-Haque were inadmissible as evidence.

The judge's findings forced the Crown to withdraw its case against Mr ul-Haque, just before a trial jury was to be empanelled.

Refugee Action Coalition to target Liberal campaign launch

Refugee Action Coalition spokesman Ian Rintoul said "Refugees haven't been at the centre of this election campaign but the government is still blowing their racist dog-whistles over the issue," Mr Rintoul said.

"From the deportation of Chinese asylum seekers, to the Haneef scandal and cover-up, to (Immigration Minister) Kevin Andrews' racist restriction of African refugees, the federal government has been vigorously playing the race card just as it did in previous elections."

Mr Rintoul branded Foreign Minister Alexander Downer hypocritical for declaring the government would prioritise Burmese refugees in the wake of the military crackdown in Burma.

Yet the government had left seven Burmese refugees to languish on Nauru for more than a year and had done nothing to bring them to Australia, he said.

A large number of Sri Lankans also remain on Nauru despite having had their refugee claims approved.

"The seven Burmese and seventy-two Sri Lankan asylum seekers on Nauru are an ongoing reminder of the horrors of the government's Pacific solution and the unfinished business that the refugee movement has with the Howard government," Mr Rintoul said.

To make sure we don't forget the Howard governments treatment of refugees, the Refugee Action Coalition will target Howard's launch in Brisbane. It is time Australians stood up and told Howard just what we think of his Pacific Solution.  

Haneef & Parkin Civil Liberties Election Issues-Age Ed


 A lenghty extract, but it's worth it.  I hope it's the clarion call to get these issues out in the open before the election

Yet the past week or two have produced reminders of several cases that should provoke more debate about misuse of executive powers under draconian security and immigration laws that are also reshaping Australia.

A former chief justice of the High Court, Sir Gerard Brennan, has spoken out at this point in the election campaign about the inevitability of injustice when power is exercised without proper judicial review. More evidence of this has emerged in recent weeks, starting with the cases of Guantanamo Bay detainees Mamdouh Habib and David Hicks, Australian citizens who were effectively put beyond the law for several years in US military detention. The Government denies reports that Vice-President Dick Cheney arranged a political fix that resulted in Hicks being jailed in Australia, and barred from speaking publicly, until after the election. Yet the former chief prosecutor in the case, Colonel Mo Davis, resigned, citing continual, high-level political interference.

Other cases involve Indian doctor Mohamed Haneef, US peace activist Scott Parkin and Iraqi refugees Mohammed Sagar and Mohammad Faisal, who fell foul of ministerial and security assessments and were unable to properly defend themselves against a state that withheld material on which it relied.......

Attorney-General Philip Ruddock suggested on Friday that established relationships with security agencies meant a Coalition government was better able to respond to threats than a Labor government. But what if some aspects of close relationships have become unhealthy, as the above cases and the broader political misuse of intelligence to justify a disastrous war in Iraq suggest? Labor, which at first supported the actions against Dr Haneef, says a judicial inquiry is required.

The Age would go further and argue that the next government of Australia cannot be allowed to ignore the other injustices of recent years. All arose from a lack of ministerial accountability and judicial oversight of harsh security and immigration laws, which both sides of politics supported in response to public fears. Not only is injustice almost inevitable, but political interference and opportunism are eroding public confidence in agencies entrusted with keeping them secure.

For some reason the thought's finally just struck me that if Cheney's sticky fingers have been involved in the Hicks and Parkin cases, is there any chance he messed with Haneef?  That NBC story denying that Haneef was planning to infiltrate US cities for bomb attacks was probably useful to Dick in the run-up to 9/11.

Come to think of it, we still haven't been told who in the White House was responsible for the leak and subsequent early transmission of the Osama 9/11 video while Bush was in Sydney for APEC.  Anyone care to place bet that it's not Cheney?

The point I'm trying to make that if Australian civil liberties are being compromised by an international political figure with such an increasingly nefarious reputation, then the problems the Age elaborates on extend much further.  Given the commercial influence that Cheney has had on infrastructure and defence in this country, an addition of selling the country's ethical soul in the cases of Parkin, Hicks and Haneef creates a picture of a country "owned" by one man.  Is Australia Dick's "spoils of war?"

I know this sounds over the top but given the way things are going the possibility is well worth considering.

Was Andrews "Fishing" For A "Somali Haneef"?

I asked a similar question a while back half in jest.  Reading a speech given today by the head of MI5 to the UK Society Of Editors, I'm now aware of the perceived threat from Somalia, and that Kevin Andrews appears to have behaved extremely badly in a second potentially volatile counterterrorism situation.

Having incurred Mick Keelty's wrath for the demeanour  of his responses to the Haneef situation, after the London/Glasgow incident that heralded "a generation of terrorism" in the UK (words later echoed by ASIO's Paul O'Sullivan at the Defence Industry Conference in Adelaide) Andrews' attitude to something that MI5 takes extremely seriously could be considered extremely counterproductive by intelligence operatives.

Of Somalia MI5 Director General Jonathan Evans said that:

There is no doubt that there is training activity and terrorist planning in East Africa - particularly in Somalia - which is focused on the UK

So now we've not only Indians in our midst that might be part of planned international terrorist atrocities, but Somalis as well.   While  Victoria  Police is receiving the commissioned report from Monash University suggesting  that non-alienation of minority groups would be an effective measure in averting terrorist attacks, Andrews was out in the media vilifying the Somalis.

Andrews had a much more benign attitude to the situation in March, as is demonstrated in this interview.



Has Australia made mistakes in the past by letting in a large number of people from countries such as Somalia and Lebanon, and not providing sufficient services to new migrants travelling in a foreign culture?


Well we’ve let people in from country’s like that in response to humanitarian needs and in response to refugee crises from time to time around the world.  And we’ve always taken the view in Australia that we have an obligation to pull our weight if you like so far as refugees and humanitarians are.  And as I said on a per capita basis we’re one of the most generous countries in the world.  Now, given the background can differ for people coming from a war torn civil conflict, then extra effort can be needed to help those people to settle.  We’ve got people in Australia who’ve come in recent years whose level of education, even in their native tongue, is at a much lower level than previous refugees to Australia.  It makes sense that therefore you’ve got to do more things to help them settle.


Now consider Andrew's attitude in early October, after announcing Australia's suspension of Somali refugee intake.


Now coming to the matter you asked about, I get regular reports from my department, provided information through various community groups and ethnic organisations from other sources, police and otherwise, and there's been a number of matters which are continually being brought to my attention about things like the establishment of race-based gangs, altercations between various groups, disagreement between various community organisations, tensions within families, and a range of other things.

 Perhaps the Somali al Qaeda training was one of the "other things?"

If, in the media beat-up that followed the announcement, a Somali carried out an anti-Government act of violence, would Andrews take the opportunity to point to intelligence reports that the Somali community in Australia might be harbouring all Qaeda operatives with international terrorism in mind.  Might he do something so horrible as to use this as to use this to vindicate his treatment of Haneef?

I feel horrible raising the hypothesis, but it's obvious that Andrews is prepared to trample over sensitive counterterrorism environments in order to save his own political skin.   All possibilities should be considered.

  At any rate, there's been no Somali violence, and Andrews is in daily increasing trouble over how he's treated Haneef.  Would MI5 want to give the AFP or ASIO anything else that Andrews might misuse? I doubt it.   They were probably getting worried when the Cabinet used an illegally kept Pentagon file to deport Parkin... with the latest Australian political mishandlings of sensitive operational information, I doubt our law enforcers are going to be told anything more than necessary until there's a change of government.


The full text of the MI5 speech is here, and there are many thoughts within that warrant further discussioni  When you compare the UK intelligence approach to that of the  politicians who've come to possess their information, you begin to see where things became twisted.  I invite anyone interested in counterterrorism to have a read

As I write this I'm remembering the fifth of November by watching V for Vendatta for the second time today.   As the sun sets in the UK on what used to be Cracker Night, and a celebration of an inspired political terrorist, a movie on how a government might mistreat its people is the perfect background setting for thinking about Kevin Andrews, and his mates Ruddock and Downer. 

Kevin Bloody Andrews - Comical

This makes the Cabinet's AWB routine look like vaudeville... Andrews is classier.  It seems he wasn't aware of the email outlining the plan he enacted..

Surely Andrews' antics have become unfunny to the PM.  When the likes of Tony Abbott and Mick Keelty are dropping you in the poo, a message is being sent.  Bye Bye Kev... even if Howard gets back in I doubt you'll ever be considered ministerial material ever again!

Andrews, Somalia, and Credibility

A passing thought.. was Andrews' counterterrorism credibility so badly destroyed that when MI5 sent throught their Somalian intelligence he had to fabricate all that bull to do the required job?   The clue was when he said that one of their problems was the decreased literacy levels in their kids from all the time in refugee camps.  Cripes, even Eliot noticed that one!

As I said, not ministerial material.. he doesn't lie as well as Downer, or at least has sloppier scriptwriters. 

Health crisis was predictable

It was Indian doctors at the Mersey who were in danger of losing their jobs after Abbbott screwed up as well.

Now every time Howard wants to kick the states about medical care they can kick back about his destruction of the overseas doctors program for the sake of a three card trick for the election.

The anger from the 250,000 strong Indian community including about 8,000 in Howards own seat could explain why his primary vote has dropped to 46%.

Those of us with the smarts handling this pack of clowns knew it was all a set up and if you check in India it is a growing scandal again.

Haneef case exacerbates our existing health crisis,

The number of overseas doctors seeking to work in Australia has fallen 90 per cent because of the federal government's handling of the case against former suspected terrorism supporter Mohamed Haneef, a medical association warns.

The Overseas and Australian Medical Graduates Association (OAMGA), in a joint statement with the United Indian Associations (UIA) group, said the massive drop in the number of doctors seeking temporary visas to work in Australia was exacerbating the existing health crisis.

The number of overseas doctors has fallen sharply because of the Howard governments handling of the Haneef case. We are all suffering from more Howard incompetence. 

ASIO To Appeal Parkin Again ? Awww..

Thanks Mary J regarding the Parkin news!!  Woohoo!! But if the Age is right ASIO's going to keep this dog chasing its tail forever. They'd already self-exonerated themselves, and while it might be fair enough to say that a security mob would compromise its power-base by being forcibly accountable (not that I think so) the very fact that the information they'd be forced to divulge might reduce their credibility to tatters renders this approach akin to the long-running argument (everyone heard Howard use it in the debate?) that the loss of face for the Americans in pulling out of Iraq is justification for staying there. 

This lot are avoiding being exposed for extremely shoddy workmanship, just as Andrews has regarding Haneef.

Ruddock has no choice but appeal.  Especially as the Parkin case has such a staunch group of followers in the US.  And if you think the Indian reaction to Haneef is bad, wait for the US rumblings hit the fan after the Parkin paperwork is out.  How America will see it is as a case of a foreign government badly mistreating one of its citizens in order to appease the increasingly unpopular Cheney.  And it still could happen before the federal election.  Wishful thinking..

The thing is that by appealing Ruddock will in fact be further tarnishing ASIO's reputation  by rendering its modus operandi politically malleable.  How are they going to argue against Downer's campaign to empower the AFP when they've been so stupid?  If both organisations' self-assessments continue to be contrary to those of the judicial system, how long can they be allowed to consider themselves as our security guardians?

If Rudd wanted to play some interesting chess he could promise to  instate the Australian Department of Homeland security as the co-ordinator and supervisor of intelligence and counter terrorism measures. How could Howard complain if Labor used the same methodology of his good buddy Dubya?

Poor old ASIO.  Damned if you don't, damned if you do, some days.

Haneef and Parkin, what a pair of cards.  Electoral  Blackjack!  Yeah.. tell me I'm dreamin'.

Investigation Needed

I reckon someone has planted a drug in the hair dye used by these 2 hopeless vanity ridden dummies - Keelty and Andrews - just as bleach eventually ate away at Jean Harlow's brain. These 2 are facing jail if the alleged conspiracy between the AFP and the Immigration department to pervert the course of justice is proved to be true.

Margo: They're not dummies, they're unethical, to the core. Let's hope Rudd wins and has the guts to hold his judicial inquiry. Not just to nail the culprits, but to clean out the casual lies and distortions in the higher echelons when it comes to criminal investigations and prosecutions which politcians want to make mileage out of or are themselves the subject of. The inquiry should make strong recommendations to restablish public service norms and restore ingterity and independence to the DPP and the AFP in dealings with government.

Keelty should have been sacked

Keelty has been rotten to the core since we heard of his carry-ons in the CMI investigation, an investigation we can now all agree had hidden depths to be called on everytime another stuff up occurs in the country.

Also today ASIO have been ordered to give certain documents to the lawyers for Scott Parkin and the two Iraqis left rotting on Nauru.

Rudd on board, again

ABC news tonight had a grab of Rudd renewing his promise of a judicial inquiry into the Haneef scanda if he wins office. About time...

See 'Haneef inquiry a must':

"If we form the next government of Australia there will be one," Mr Rudd said. "Each time new information comes out it becomes clearer and clearer to me there are many questions to be answered, and given the nature of this case and given that some of it involves sensitive information and classified information, a judicial inquiry is the proper forum.

"I would call upon Mr Howard to have the integrity to call such a judicial inquiry. It's the only means by which we'll have the truth."

a core promise

Now that could be a big can of worms eh? I heard it too so it must be true.:) Hopefully a core.


Bin Laden to mark anniversary of 9/11.

An Islamist website said today it would "soon" carry a new video of bin Laden to mark the anniversary of the September 11, 2001 attacks on New York and Washington.

I hope this is all Bin Laden is going to do to mark the anniversary. With most our police and military tied up in Sydney. Who is keeping an eye on the rest of the country? Was it so smart to have APEC just before this terrible anniversary?

We have nothing to fear,just the Hilton bombers, MK2.

Don't worry John, OBL was just arrested by our intrepid police who cleverly recognised him in the Chaser's car.

Poor Canadians, identity theft yet again. We always get the Rahrah video/audio when issues arise that need it. Like, um, when people were questioning just how the pictures and names of the 19 hijackers were available to the newspapers within 48 hours of 911,yet there were no names on the flight records, damn clever that quick bit. And how they knew, heck,they just knew,  have faith,  that it was OBL..

Richard:  Yep, I remember hearing Bush on the day, and had never heard of OBL or Al Qaeda before.

Don't; you even think of asking why someone would want to do that and frame him, don't you dare question the information we give you , heck straight to the news papers. We'll do it again when we want to invade Iraq,see those WMD articles, just must be true...

Usual propaganda crap until proven otherwise. The only possiblity that a guy with end-stage renal disease requiring dialysis is still alive after camel riding through that dialysis unit free zone called mountains of Afghanistan is if he has been all along in the care of those with such units,even had a transplant. ie not Afghanistan .Also we must condier the death notices in 2001 . Until proven otherwise the data supports he is dead,and probably killed in the mini-nnuking of Tora Bora. (as per article I already linked about Bunkerbusters, the mininuke bunker busters were rejected as proven too superficial, hence the newer models now stage 3 apparently about 150 times Hiroshima. mind boggles). ....

There is so much data out there,i wonder whether MSM journalists are thick,lazy or some other reason for not deeping into all the inconsistencies.That is how we get accountability.Fear to tackle such is how the same criminals are still in power.

There is no evidence in the public domain that OBL is guilty of 911. So why was Afghanistan attacked ,as already planned and announced it would be,three months earlier. Goodbye bridge methinks,magnificent engineering but built with so much blood, such spoils will not survive.

OBL video, I can hardly wait. This should be interesting. But why now? Why no video on any other anniversary until now? And let us hope this time the stamp of the Alqaida propanda unit is placed at a different time to the stamp of the Pentagon....heheh,that was an amusing slip, perhaps. (see Sabah controversy at conference on computer imaging and analysis).

Take care Richard, take foil for your camera. Did you see that article where the Bogota military admitted the car bombings? It's a bit like the Philipine mutiny when the officers said the violence was staged to gather US harware and military presence. Lucky we don't have any of that here . Now, who did do that Hitlon bombing?


Richard:  I just want to know why the NY State Health site has info about the non-lethality of dirt-bomb radiation, and yet Sydneysiders haven't been told that if such a situation arises the major problem will be fear and panic, but not radiation.

Yeah, the famous AFP

Young Australian's are being demonised by this crowd who couldn't find a piss up in a brewery.

Russo and Keim were dead right to expose the dirty stunt they were trying to pull.

In case you aren't aware - the AFP still won't release the death list from SIEVX because they claim they are "investigating" - which we all know is a lie.

Qld Law Society Defends Russo, Appeal Deadline Looms

Less than a week before Kevin Andrews needs to confirm an appeal over the Haneef decision, we get this.  Expect to hear from Andrews before the weekend.  Perhaps with supportive comment from Dubya?

Media Release:

LAWFUEL - The Legal Newswire - The Queensland legal profession has defended lawyers representing Dr Mohamed Haneef against Australian Federal Police claims that they have been “unprofessional and inappropriate” in releasing a media release about police-led interviews with the doctor in July, Lawyers Weekly reports.

Haneef’s legal team last week released a 378 page transcript of an interview with police held on 13 July, having released another last month.

In a letter to the Legal Services Commissioner in Brisbane, the president of the Queensland Law Society, Megan Mahon, criticised Australian Federal Police (AFP) claims that “the continuing attempts by Dr Haneef’s defence teams to use the media to run their case is both unprofessional and inappropriate and the AFP has raised this aspect with the Queensland Legal Services Commission”.

But having sought legal advice on the matter, the QLS argued that Ryan and Bosscher Lawyers partner, Peter Russo, has breached none of the conduct rules that govern Queensland solicitors’ professional conduct.

In her letter to the Legal Services Commissioner, Mahon said Rule 19, which addresses the publication of material that is currently before the Courts, states: “19.1 A solicitor must not publish, or takes steps towards the publication of, material concerning current proceedings for which the practitioner is engaged which may prejudice a fair trial of those proceedings or prejudice the administration of justice.”

The AFP claimed last week in releasing the transcript of Haneef’s second interview with police, his lawyers had helped generate “misinformed and speculative reporting” in the media that had forced the AFP to “take extraordinary steps to correct the public record”.

Fallguy Eliot ??

From what I've read..the unfortunate Dr Haneef's cousins didn't need a fall guy. The one who drove the 4 wheel drive into the gates at Glasgow seemed to be on a suicide mission and apparently sent a "suicide note" to his other cousin.

"Fall guy" doesn't really make sense in this case. Besides-you are extrapolating something out of little. There a lots of things Dr Haneef could be but so far it seems he was just as presented-an Indian doctor working in QLD with a deranged cousin. I've got a mad cousin myself.

Eliot is the brother a suspect now in your mind?

No Eliot, I will not answer the flame throwing nonsense you spout.   The words Andrews used were never mentioned and in fact young Shoib told Haneef to leave his details with the English police and all of this happened after the tickets were bought and paid for and he was waiting for the transit van to the airport.

Now go and play somewhere or read the damn transcript yourself.

Haneef's cousins were not involved in some conspiracy.  One brother had a brain snap while working in Glasgow and the other brother was simply working hard as a doctor in Liverpool at the time.   He didn't have a clue about his brother's acts until 90 minutes after they happened.

They didn't use Dr Haneef for anything and Dr Haneef was not setting up some grand conspiracy to leave the country.   After all not a single thing ever suggested that he was involved in Glasgow while he was at work in Brisbane.

Let's get this perfectly clear once and for all Eliot - Dr Haneef is a complete innocent without so much as a traffic ticket.  He was fitted up by the feds. for politics.

Presidents and Protesters

If the two cousins and Haneef were in fact an organised trio the situation could have been perceived along these lines.

AN al-Qa'ida attack during next year's APEC summit in Australia was likely to be on a grand scale and could include simultaneous bomb blasts in Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane.

A story created by denial.  Then, after the Glasgow attacks there's a real possibility of simultaneous strikes, then the US denies Haneef and his cell were planning to infiltrate the US, then New York has a radiological scare, days after which its police department releases a report excarberating the effects of racial profiling,  days after which the US's "dirty bomb terrorist" is convicted on other charges, days after which the government reveals its counterterrorist medical funding and the development of a dirty bomb research unit in Adelaide.

Then their "Australian alibi" disappears in a puff of jet created carbon emission, and all we're left with is presidents and protesters.

Very good point by Richard

Richard:  If the translations are reliable.  The AFP seem to have trouble with even the spelling of the name of the language,  got "Urdu" wrong twice

Did they? How did they spell it? It is sometimes also spelled Ordu?

In general, the term "Urdū" can encompass dialects of Hindustani other than the standardised versions. But it's not written with Roman letters, beingg normally wruitten in Nasta`līq (also anglicized as Nastaleeq; نستعلیق nastaʿlīq)

Anyway, thanks again Richard.

Richard  I'd added the link to that Jabberwocky piece by The Age's Sushi Das as an afterthought.  Das claims it was "Udo in the first police interview, and as Burdu in the second interview."  Das also draws attention to the fact that Andrews' claim that Haneef was told in the chatroom that "nothing has been found out about you" does not appear in the transcript. You know the Monty Python sketch about the translation at the tobacconist's?  To refresh your memory: "please fondle my butttocks."

Was Dr Haneef a fall guy?

Michael de Angelos asks

And how was Dr Haneef used by his cousins as a political pawn, Eliot?

I think there is at least an even chance that Dr Haneef was being strung along by his cousins as a patsy or fall guy to serve as a diversion after the London attack.

Mary j Shepherd says:

Eliot, Dr Haneef is allowed to know his cousins.   OK?   When did he lie about his visa? 

Earlier you said:

How then can Andrews possibly continue with a silly appeal to claim that Dr Haneef knew his own cousins and even spoke to them long before one of them was up to no good?

Dr Haneef's brother, Mohammad Shuaib, told Dr Haneef on the day he was trying to leave Australia, July 2, to "tell them you have to as you have a daughter born. Do not tell them anything else."

Richard:  If the translations are reliable.  The AFP seem to have trouble with even the pronunciation of the name of the language,  got "Urdu" wrong twice.

" Mr Shuaib had urged Dr Haneef not to delay leaving and not to let anyone else use his phone number in Australia or give it to anyone, Mr Andrews said. The brother referred to their cousin, Kafeel Ahmed, who was pulled from the burning Jeep that rammed Glasgow Airport."

In other words, Mr Shuaib and Dr Haneef clearly conspired between them to create a cover story to get Dr Haneef out of the country when the issue was not his daughter at all, but his cousin being at the centre of a terrorist attack.

I certainly don't think this implicates Dr Haneef in the attack, but it is clear he was lying for his reasons for leaving the country.

By the way, Marilyn, it's been nice having a chance to answer your question. I was wondering if in future you might like to answer some of mine for a change?

Eliot you are a tiresome boy still

Eliot, Dr Haneef is allowed to know his cousins.   OK?   When did he lie about his visa?   He had a police security check before being allowed to enter Britain in 2004 and didn't even have a traffic ticket anywhere in the world.

He had another security check before he was allowed to enter Australia and he came here as a doctor to work in the Brisbane hospital, he left under his own passport with an exit visa in it.

Where is the lie dear child?

As for the rest of it.   The British police didn't want him, had no interest in him, he was not manipulated by his cousins at all, he is allowed to speak to them as that is not a crime and they are not in contact with him now unless Kafeel is channelling him from the great beyond.

In short Eliot he was an innocent, hard working man caring for his widowed mother and siblings from the time he was 18 years old in a country that throws their hindu widows into the streets.

Now enough already about Haneef being guilty of anything at all as he is not.

Used by his cousins ?

And how was Dr Haneef used by his cousins as a political pawn, Eliot?

As far as we know he had one (deceased) second cousin who had what looks like a total brainstorm and another one charged on what sounds like very dubious evidence. If driving a car full of petrol cans into an airport gate is considered a major terrorist attack then we really should be worried about those who are meant to care for us.

Besides, members of the public may seek to manipulate the media but the government and police have a duty to act lawfully and correctly at all times.

For far too long police forces and particularly the AFP have been courting the media in a manner that would shame a show biz publicist.

Not only have they been spreading porkies about persons charged with crimes – exaggerating events with a mindlessness that feeds gutter rags like the Daily Telegraph – for virtually no real reason as accused persons can get a trial delayed if there is a perception of media bias (and this happens on far too many occasions these days), they are utterly ignorant of how to actually use the media to their benefit. It doesn't seem to have dawned on these publicly funded dolts in media units that the general public now has a five minute attention span.

So-called "messages" like the Bali Nine bust which Mad Mick Keelty deludes himself is going to frighten Aussie youngsters to steer clear of drugs in Bali ends up having the opposite effect. Try to pound people over the head and young people start to believe it only happens to others, never them but once the truth comes out, as is its wont, the real message does get across: never ever go near the AFP for assistance, as one of the Bali Nine's parents did.

You would think that Keelty would resign out of sheer shame – just talk to anybody in the street now and they think the guy is a complete ass.

And there is another scandal brewing with this cumbersome pack of dingbats over their provision of "evidence" to the NSW police that led to raids on a number of Kings Cross porn shops before the State election that saw one police commander gravely pontificating to the cameras and providing screeching headlines about all manner of "filth" that had been uncovered, with the assembled media tipped off to film boxes and boxes of this stuff being loaded onto police vans.

All the shops are back in business, two cases have been dismissed in the local courts, and the others look like being quietly dropped.

Talk about lunatics being in charge of the asylum!

Christian Democrats call for controls on Muslim immigration.

A New South Wales Senate candidate for the Christian Democratic Party has compared controlling Muslim immigration in Australia to stopping the spread of bird flu.

The Christian Democrats are pushing for a halt to Muslim immigration because there has been no serious study of the effects of Muslims on Australia.

Christians are calling for controls on Muslim immigration. Why stop there, lets ban Christians from immigrating to Australia? There has been no serious studies done on the effects of Christians in Australia. Look at what has happen to our indigenous population since Christians started to arrive. Yes, lets ban all people of religious belief, they are all dangerous. 

How Haneef generated terrorism fear

Regarding the premise of my last Haneef piece, I rest my case:

 [AdelaideNow extract]

AUSTRALIANS are becoming increasingly worried about their personal security and that of the nation, new polling shows.

The Unisys Security Index gives Australians a rating of 144 out of 300 in terms of their collective security fears, according to a new survey showing a rise in concern for the second consecutive quarter.

Unisys Asia Pacific Vice President Andrew Barkla said the rating of 144 indicated the nation's populace was “at the high end of moderately concerned”.

“We now have a year-and-a-half of data and trends across four primary areas being national security, personal security, financial and internet security,” Mr Barkla said.

“This is the highest level in the history of the index at 144, up 10 points since we polled a quarter ago.

“And the area we've seen the largest rise is in the national security which was up 14 points and, in particular, there was an increasing concern about terrorism.”

Newspoll conducts the quarterly survey of 1200 people across the country, and across all demographics, and this data is then compiled into the security index.

Issues at the fore when the latest polling was conducted included the undetonated car bombs found in London, the terrorist incident at Glasgow airport and the following investigation and deportation from Australia of Indian doctor Mohamed Haneef.


I'll have the pawn cocktail, thanks

Keith Antonysen says:

" Dr. Haneef was used as a political pawn by the Coalition...."

Not to mention his cousins. Just out of interest, is it okay with everyone here if visa applicants lie about their reasons for coming and going from Australia?

And if you were in Andrews' position, you wouldn't think it suspicious for example if the applicant was connected to a major terrorist incident?

I mean, I don't want to appear ungrateful for all the wonderful things Dr Haneef has done for Australia, but given how everyone's smirking at the CIA for not stopping September 11?

Mr. Andrews' Cover Blown

Eliot Ramsey, you might find this article in The Australian interesting.

The Second Haneef Transcript

Haneef asked his lawyers to release the second AFP transcript (here).  Andrews response was to send a staffer out to say that most of his decision was on the first interview.

Flick through to about eightish on the night following a long day of happily answering questions of details and locations.  When the Cambridge mosque comes up, and Haneef says that he only visited it once, that appears to be the end of the matter.

I've heard that there's a fairly popular rumour around the Gold Coast that Haneef was planning to blow up the K1.  I doubt the AFP were the ones who put it into circulation.

Of course he knew his cousins

Mary j Shepherd says:

How then can Andrews possibly continue with a silly appeal to claim that Dr Haneef knew his own cousins and even spoke to them long before one of them was up to no good?

Of course he knew his cousins, Mary J. He was in regular correspondence with them and even gave one of them his SIM card. I don't think he was privy to the plot details, but there's no doubt he lied about his reasons for leaving Australia.

Also, his cousins' extremist politics were no secret, not that that should affect our judgement of Dr Haneef's character. But I'd be a lot more sympathetic to him if he hadn't lied about why he was going to India. He cooked that story up with his brother-in-law.

Caught Out

If we suspected that Mr. Andrews had made a poor decision regarding Dr Haneef, a Federal Court Judge has now confirmed our suspicions. Dr. Haneef was used as a political pawn by the Coalition; regardless of the damage they did to him or his family. It turns out that Dr. Haneef had requested leave from his workplace prior to the humbug that subsequently occurred. It is the character of Mr. Andrews and his cohorts that needs to be examined, not that of Dr. Haneef.

Fear Is Here! Thanks John!

There's no doubt that John Howard is a scaremonger without peer. We, the poor, suffering Australian citizens, have to fear the following:

massive unemployment after the Labor win; skyrocketing interest rates;  huge deficits; union thuggery; invasion by terrorists disguised as doctors; parliament controlled by ex-ACTU officials; massive Labor State incompetencies; drowning by water cannon; rendition and torture; incarceration in immigration centres; government takeover of land; forcible health checks; email and phone taps; strip clubs and grog; drought; the Second Coming; solariums; global warming; obesity; growing old;  the nuking of Iran; the continuing follies of GWB;  halitosis; Tony Abbot's ears; Downer's simpering smirk; and Armageddon!

Pass the bottle, quick! No, the hemlock one, you fool!

Andrews has lost the plot


I found a small piece in the Guardian yesterday showing that Sabeel didn't know in advance as the police had claimed but in fact didn't know until 90 minutes after his brother had self immolated.

Hedley got Peter Wilson to check it out and it is true.   How then can Andrews possibly continue with a silly appeal to claim that Dr Haneef knew his own cousins and even spoke to them long before one of them was up to no good?

He is going to rely on information from 2004, but what the hell has that got to do with a spur of the moment decision in 2007 that killed the man?

He is also going to re-argue the notion that the victim of a crime can be considered to be of bad character because they know the criminal who hurt them.

He really is nuts.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
© 2005-2011, Webdiary Pty Ltd
Disclaimer: This site is home to many debates, and the views expressed on this site are not necessarily those of the site editors.
Contributors submit comments on their own responsibility: if you believe that a comment is incorrect or offensive in any way,
please submit a comment to that effect and we will make corrections or deletions as necessary.
Margo Kingston Photo © Elaine Campaner

Recent Comments

David Roffey: {whimper} in Not with a bang ... 12 weeks 6 days ago
Jenny Hume: So long mate in Not with a bang ... 13 weeks 7 hours ago
Fiona Reynolds: Reds (under beds?) in Not with a bang ... 13 weeks 2 days ago
Justin Obodie: Why not, with a bang? in Not with a bang ... 13 weeks 2 days ago
Fiona Reynolds: Dear Albatross in Not with a bang ... 13 weeks 2 days ago
Michael Talbot-Wilson: Good luck in Not with a bang ... 13 weeks 2 days ago
Fiona Reynolds: Goodnight and good luck in Not with a bang ... 13 weeks 3 days ago
Margo Kingston: bye, babe in Not with a bang ... 14 weeks 7 hours ago