Skip to main content

Minister's incompetence exposed!

Immigration Minister Kevin Andrews, a lawyer [crikey!], has displayed his incompetence in all its glory the last weeks. In fact he has all along demonstrated what an appalling and poor Minister he is in his present portfolio - as also in his previous portfolio of Employment and Workplace Relations. Apart from being the narrow-minded, religiously-driven, one-eyed individual he appears to be, he certainly doesn't come within a bull's roar of being capable of holding office as a Minister of the Crown - as Mike Carlton backgrounds in his weekly piece in the SMH:

"To give him the benefit of the doubt, it might just be that soapy Kevin Andrews, the Immigration Minister, is as thick as two planks.

That would be the kindest explanation for the trail of chaos he leaves behind as he bumbles along through the dismal affair of Dr Mohamed Haneef and the vanishing visa.

Then again, it is also possible that he set out deliberately to distort the public case against the good doctor by cherry picking from the ham-fisted federal police investigation and, when that collapsed, by plucking rank fabrications from thin air.

Either way, at every stage he has been exposed as an incompetent.

His latest embarrassment, at the hands of Judge Jeffrey Spender of the Federal Court, was proof of the pudding. Andrews's decision to ban Haneef on the grounds of a link to a distant second cousin who might or might not have had something to do with the London and Glasgow bombings blew up in his face.

Spender demolished him by ruling that "the minister cancelled the visa by adopting a wrong criterion; he fell into jurisdictional error by applying the wrong test. That error infects the cancellation decision. It follows that the decision must be set aside."

This would be farce if it were not so serious. In legislating extraordinary powers to deal with terrorism, the Government scrapped a truckload of the ancient rights and liberties we have known at law. The promise in return was that these powers would be used with scrupulous care.

Clearly they have not been. Andrews and his advisers, if that's what they are, have blundered around like pigs in a minefield."

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Pentagon's eye-popping spending....and waste!

Only a gigantic bureaucracy could get away with spending of such dimensions - and the amazing waste involved in part of that ginormous spend.   Think US Pentagon..... "From spending $150 million on private villas for a handful of personnel in Afghanistan to blowing $2.7 billion on an air surveillance balloon that doesn’t work, the latest revelations of waste at the Pentagon are just the most recent howlers in a long line of similar stories stretching back at least five decades.  Other hot-off-the-presses examples would include the Army’s purchase of helicopter gears worth $500 each for $8,000 each and the accumulation of billions of dollars' worth of weapons components that will never be used. And then there’s the one that would have to be everyone’s favorite Pentagon waste story: the spending of $50,000 to investigate the bomb-detecting capabilities of African elephants. (And here’s a shock: they didn’t turn out to be that great!) The elephant research, of course, represe...

Video: Israel demolishing a Bedouin village

From Mondoweiss - Israel's supposed "most moral army in the world", the IDF, engaged in immoral, and according to international law, illegal action.... "Israeli forces have demolished every home in the Bedouin village of Khirbet Taha in the northern West Bank district of Nablus during three separate demolitions since the start of the year. Unlike most Bedouin villages, the residents in Khirbet Taha own their own land. However that land falls in Area C, territory in the occupied West Bank under full Israeli control. The village’s only school was also destroyed, leaving children to study in a dilapidated 100-year-old mosque — the only structure left standing in the village. According the United Nations, Israel has demolished half as many Palestinian buildings in the first few months of 2016, as they had in all of 2015. In February alone, the UN found that more Palestinians homes were destroyed than any other month since 2009, when the organization began its docum...

What does a no-fly zone actually mean?

As some countries consider imposing a no-fly zone in relation to Libya, the pertinent question must be what does that mean and entail? FP provides the answers: "It depends on the circumstances. There are two primary types of no-fly zones imposed by air forces. The first is imposed by one military over another, while the two sides are at war. In practice, this type of no-fly zone amounts to a warning from one side that it will engage the other's aircraft if they are spotted in a given territory. The second type, more applicable to the situation in Libya, is when an outside power possessing overwhelming air superiority restricts flights over a given country in order to discourage an internal conflict or humanitarian crisis. This is a relatively recent tactic, which was used most famously in Bosnia and Iraq during the 1990s. No-fly zones are often a compromise in situations where the international community is demanding a response to ongoing violence, but full military interven...