It’s hard to know why Philip Ruddock decided to speak out in recent days about his time as Attorney General in the Howard Government. Based on Ruddock’s own comments, it doesn’t appear he paid a lot attention to what was happening in three key agencies for which he had ultimate ministerial responsibility — the Australian Federal Police, the office of the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation.
Ruddock says he didn’t know whether his Cabinet colleague Kevin Andrews — who clearly had a need to know —saw a key ASIO assessment that Mohamed Haneef was not a security threat. Nor did he know that the AFP had failed to give the DPP crucial documents before Haneef appeared in court on terrorism- related charges. Ruddock’s revelations about what he didn’t know about the treatment of an Australian citizen Mamdouh Habib are even more astonishing.
The then head of ASIO Dennis Richardson told a senate committee in May 2005 that his agency had "definitely” established early in 2002 that Habib had been transferred to Egypt after being detained by US agents in Pakistan in October 2001. But Ruddock recently told The Australian, "My understanding is Richardson formed a view that that's where he [Habib] might be . . . simply I think on the basis of supposition."
Richardson is a meticulous public servant. He would not tell the senate that ASIO had definitely established where Habib was merely on the basis of supposition. Nor would he tell the senate about something as important as Habib’s “rendition” by the CIA to Egypt, where he as almost certainly tortured, without first ensuring that his minister was informed. However, when referring to “the circumstances of his rendition”, Ruddock told The Australian, “We were never informed about where he was or what had happened to him”.
This is a sensitive issue for members of the Howard cabinet. Persistent questioning by a Green senator Kerry Nettle has established that Richardson told US officials in an “oral aside” that Australia could not agree to Habib’s rendition to Egypt. He also raised the issue with officials in three government departments, but there is no record that anyone, let alone ministers, lodged a formal written objection. The Howard government's almost casual disregard for Habib’s fate is in striking contrast to the vigorous action that the conservative prime minister Stephen Harper took in a similar case in Canada. A thorough official inquiry found that the CIA —relying partly on information supplied by Ottawa— had rendered an innocent Canadian citizen Maher Arar him to Syria where he was savagely tortured. Harper then offered $12.5 million in compensation and formally apologised to the victim.
Haneef's mistreatment is another black mark against the Howard government and the AFP. In contrast, ASIO's performance was exemplary. The Rudd government has appointed a retired judge John Clarke to undertake a limited inquiry into the AFP’s decision to charge Haneef in July 2001. The charges had to be dropped after it emerged that the AFP did not have a jot of evidence against Haneef who had been working as a doctor a Gold Coast hospital.
The AFP commissioner Mick Keelty recently acknowledged that ASIO had access to the same information as the police. ASIO drew very different conclusions, as O’Sullivan made brutally plain in a submission to Clarke. O’Sullivan said that three days before the AFP laid charges, ASIO gave written advice to the Howard government that it had no information that Haneef had foreknowledge of the failed terror attacks in the UK. “Nor was there any information”, O’Sullivan said, “to indicate that Dr Haneef was undertaking planning for a terrorist attack in Australia or overseas”.
When a government receives such unequivocal advice, it would normally ensure that all relevant ministers get a copy. But the then immigration minister Kevin Andrews says he never saw the advice, despite going out on a very long limb to publicly attack Haneef’s character on the basis of information supplied by the AFP.
Ruddock told journalists last week that he didn’t know if Andrews was on the distribution list for the ASIO assessment that exonerated Haneef. Given that Andrews was digging himself a deep hole on the issue, it is surprising that neither Ruddock nor John Howard personally warned him about the pitfalls indentified by ASIO.
The AFP has classified its entire submission to Clarke. But an unclassified version of the DPP’s submission was released last week. However, Ruddock said last week that he was not aware of many of the problems raised in the submission.
The DPP admits it made mistakes but is highly critical of the AFP for not keeping it properly informed. The DPP says it was not supplied with the records of interview with Haneef and sworn police statements before one of its lawyers appeared in court. Nor was it shown the ASIO assessment unambiguously stating that Haneef was not a security threat.
The AFP’s core problem is the disturbing combination of incompetence and recklessness that it displayed in charging Haneef without any justification whatsoever. Haneef’s alleged crime, shortly before left the UK for Australia, was to assist a terrorist group by leaving a mobile phone sim card with a second cousin who said he wanted the unused credit. But this relative was not a terrorist; something the British police had established well before the AFP charged Haneef.
At least, Ruddock is no longer a minister. Keelty still has his job.