Flaying the use of “broad, unfettered” discretion to expel a person from the country, the Law Council of Australia said the Federal Court’s decision on the Mohammed Haneef case that the Government cannot cancel someone’s visa on the basis of an innocent association should be the end of the matter.

“Australians should be concerned that Minister (Kevin) Andrews is so determined to pursue the power to expel a person from Australia, on the basis that they have, without more, merely associated with a suspected criminal,” said Tim Bugg, Law Council President.

“This is a character test that is not about character at all,” Bugg was quoted as saying in The Australian on Thursday.

“Why would the minister want the discretion to expel a person based on an association that ended 10 years ago, or was only fleeting, or only reflected a familial connection or professional relationship?” Bugg added.

“Broad, unfettered discretions of that kind encourage sloppy research and lazy decision making. That is not the way to protect the Australian community,” he said.

Whether or not Justice Spender’s decision survives appeal, serious flaws will remain in how the criminal law and the Migration Act interact, he said.

Bugg said Haneef’s ability to obtain a fair trial was not a matter the minister was required to consider when cancelling his visa.

“Surely the Migration Act should require the Minister to take fair trial implications into account,” Bugg said.

“The minister’s continuing public comments on the alleged merits of the Haneef case, which are so inconsistent with any sense of procedural fairness or the presumption of innocence, provide sufficient cause for his removal,” Bugg said.

... contd.