Chris Ellison (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Human Services) Share this | Hansard source

It might be helpful to preface my answer by saying, at the outset, that if a person has a temporary visa to visit Australia that is not an inalienable right to stay in Australia. It is a permission to be in Australia, conditional on a number of things: one is that you obey the laws of Australia and one is that you be of good character. Of course, it is in that context that the minister exercised his discretion. On 16 July 2007 the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, Mr Andrews, cancelled Dr Mohamed Haneef’s visa on character grounds under section 501 subsection (3) of the Migration Act. That decision was based on the information and advice received from the Australian Federal Police and on the fact that the minister reasonably suspected that Dr Haneef has or has had an association with persons involved in criminal conduct, namely terrorism.

The minister also decided that the cancellation of Dr Haneef’s visa was in the national interest. On Tuesday, 31 July the minister met with the Solicitor-General and received his written opinion in relation to the exercise of the minister’s power to cancel Dr Haneef’s visa under the Migration Act. He also discussed with the Solicitor-General and the Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police the release of the part B protected information which had been provided to him by the Australian Federal Police. Quite rightly, the minister was mindful of the balance that exists between protecting information that is of relevance to ongoing investigations in Australia and the United Kingdom and informing the public of all information that was available to him in making the decision that he did.

The Solicitor-General’s advice was clear. There was material before the minister from the Australian Federal Police on which he could validly make a decision to cancel Dr Haneef’s visa. The minister has made public the advice that he received from David Bennett QC which outlines the different standards of proof and satisfaction that are required in criminal proceedings, in civil proceedings and in the discretion under section 501 of the Migration Act. The Solicitor-General gave an opinion which said that the minister was entitled to make the decision that he made and that based on the material that is known now he could still make that same decision. The minister released the Solicitor-General’s advice, which included reference to some elements of part B information. It included important information on which the minister relied when making his decision. The full part B protected material was not released as the minister was advised that this would have the effect of prejudicing further investigations both in Australia and internationally. The Solicitor-General’s advice addressed matters already known, including Dr Haneef’s cousins in the United Kingdom, accommodation arrangements and a number of other issues. Importantly, the Federal Police advised the minister prior to making his decision that the AFP investigators suspected that the internet conversation between Dr Haneef and his brother may be evidence of Dr Haneef’s awareness of the conspiracy to plan and prepare acts of terrorism in London and Glasgow, and further that his attempted urgent departure from Australia on a one-way ticket for a purpose which appears to be a false pretext could be considered highly suspicious and may reflect Haneef’s awareness of the conspiracy to plan and prepare acts of terrorism in London and Glasgow.

It is important that we put on the record the background of the decision by the minister for immigration, Mr Andrews. It was a very serious decision which was properly made and made in the national interest of this country.