Melbourne: Australia has refused to make
public parts of a "potentially explosive diplomatic cable"
from its mission in New Delhi believed to detail India`s
concerns on the detention of Mohd Haneef, wrongly accused of
having links with the failed UK terror plot.
Prime Minister Kevin Rudd`s department is refusing to
release parts of the document, believed to detail the Indian
government`s concerns over the detention of the Indian doctor
because of fears it will damage Australia`s international
relations, `The Australian` reported today.
The cable in question was sent from Australia`s high
commission in New Delhi on July 17, 2007, the day after then
immigration minister Kevin Andrews revoked Dr Haneef`s working
visa and ordered his continued detention, it said.
The day the cable was sent, the Indian government
reportedly summoned the Australian High Commissioner in New
Delhi and insisted Haneef be treated fairly.
Reams of documents have been released, but Haneef`s
team has hit a snag with a request to the Department of Prime
Minister and Cabinet over several extracts of the document.
"The department refused to release the cable in its
entirety, arguing that certain paragraphs would damage
Australia`s international relations and that others contained
information communicated in confidence by or on behalf of a
foreign government," the report said, adding that Haneef may
use the information garnered to seek compensation.
Haneef was working at a Gold Coast hospital when he
was arrested on suspicion of being involved in the bombings of
the Glasgow airport. Later, he was exonerated of the charges.
The report said the "cable also contains some
commentary from the high commission."
Haneef`s lawyers took the matter to the Administrative
Appeals Tribunal, which ruled in October that more -- but not
all -- of the cable should be released to Dr Haneef.
"I am at a loss to understand how the material in the
first entry or the second entry could damage Australia`s
international relations," the written decision of AAT senior
member Bernard McCabe says. "The material is, for the most
part, platitudinous."
He also ruled that some of the information that the
government had argued was communicated in confidence should be
released. But the department has taken the matter to the
Federal Court, where it has applied for a review of the AAT`s
decision.
PTI
