You're stirring them up Bruce - a good thing.

But I wouln't knock Keelty's AFP. Its organised. Its leader is dynamic and it may well increase in influence under Labor.

Rumours that ASIO may be absorbed into the AFP to form an Australian FBI may, or may not, come to pass.

Pete

So bruce, who is the Sir Humphrey you could pinpoint?

Ah Bruce, your credentials describe you as “a retired Australian diplomat.”

You doubtless know your way aroud the corridors of power and have obviously supped handsomely from the public trough.

Regarding Howard, your assertion that “his consuming passion to remain at the centre of power and his innate mendaciousness, in my opinion, made him evil.”

Is obviously as illusory as it is, itself “mendacious”.

Howard” is clearly, not “at the centre of Power” and he appears to be dealing with his electoral defeat with an air of public “diplomacy” which you could learn from, instead of writing vindictive articles and “kicking the man" now he is, obviously, down.

As for the "politics" of the civil service,

one does not require membership of either Mensa or some “society of arts” to deduce the “hue” of the bureaucracy which Howard inherited from years of socialists government (who would have pandered and elevated those of a particular “collectivist” bent (maybe that was Bruce's highway up the "diplomatic" corp, it would not be for his reasoning or "diplomatic" skills).

All in all this article shows the author to be unworthy of being called a “diplomat”.

I would suggest he rant and spew his venom in a paddock somewhere.

With that in mind, he seems to have chosen well, olive trees are regarded as an extremely hardy shrub, well able to endure the harshest of environments and atmospheres.

Ah yes, Col. Without actually addressing the secrecy of the Minister's Indonesian visit, you somehow manage to give an appraisal of Mr Haigh's diplomatic skills, without actually referring to, well, anything related to his diplomatic background.

As for ranting and spewing venom in a paddock somewhere... careful Mr Rouge, lest someone give you similar advice.

It takes a long time to change the culture of an organisation, especially a bureaucracy, and if this article is anything to go by:

http://www.newmatilda.com/2008/01/18/new-minister%2C-old-department

It's going to be very difficult getting a new attitude accepted in DFAT.

Whoops, wrong link - that was another version of this article. The one I meant to link to is here - "What DFAT needs is a scalpel, not an axe."

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,,23067836-7583,00.html?from=public_rss

I have the general low opinion of politicians most Australians do. But, to refer to as “evil” anyone who has ever been elected by the mainly sensible Australian electorate, is inane. Haigh has deemed Howard evil after he has seen him in operation as PM for 12 years. While I’m sure Rudd is not evil either, Haigh hasn’t waited to see what a man who has been in politics a mere 8 years and who has never been PM turns out like before saying that he “does not appear to be evil”.

If a child made such a stupid comment, we would ignore it. But, this man is a retired diplomat; a person who should also know that the Government did not need to give the public warning of Senator Evans’s trip to Indonesia – even if they gave a toss.

It’s a good thing for Australia that Haigh is no longer a diplomat.

The rest of his article clearly indicates that he is just another simple fool who thought that, because the Coalition was ‘no good’ and got its come-uppance, the ALP was going to do everything he had envisaged it would

What a whiny, self-righteous, blinkered article.

As the other commenters have implied, this is real life. Ministers do get briefed at the last minute before meetings. They do, ESPECIALLY at high level, go along for meet-and-greet as they get to know the new job.

And politicised upper-level public service is just a natural outcome of long incumbency. The new government will soon change the scene there - as they always have. The political appointees are usually competent, and usually change as the political climate changes.

But WHO died and made this author the emperor of everything? Why the HELL should Ministerial staff answer to him on how they do their jobs, and why should he screw up their minister's working relationship with overseas governments by getting their meetings misrepresented in the media for no good purpose?

There is one fundamental thing that no form of explanation or demonstration ever seems able to penetrate the loony left - that is, that Howard's policy on illegal immigrants has always had the overwhelming support of the Australian people. When the Tampa incident occurred, the most interesting aspect to me was the fact that Howards strongest supporters were the opposition's heartland. The pictures of the attempted landing of illegal immigrants being prevented by the armed forces of the Commonwealth (something that all too sadly we may see much of over the coming decades), struck a very basic chord in the people, and reminded us that immigrants enter by leave, not by right, and that entry without leave constitutes invasion. The persistent failure to recognise the overwhelming will of the people demonstrates to me the contempt for democracy that seems to permeate the left - that something that they want to do that is not supported by the people shall be done by trickery or deceit.

In a century where the basic problem of the world, overpopulation, is hardly mentioned, and where we are not only running out of resources but are unsustainably polluting the world with the resources we have, it is obvious that mass starvation, war, and general devastation are not too far away from many of the world's people.

Thank heavens we have a sea boundary.

I'm confused. Does the author support people smuggling or it's prevention?

And if he had an expectation that Rudd and his ministers would do what he judges to be the right thing before the election but didn't bother to find out their position at that time ... well he can't expect anything other than what they do now.

They obviously had no stated position or policy on people smuggling...except the now familiar me tooism. And now the author who didn't exercise judicious enquiry before the election is all p... off, well more fool him.

Next time he should check the policy of the people he barracks for and he might not be upset when they don't do as he expected...doh.

Bruce is driven by impressions, not neccessarily facts, as evidenced by phrases such as"smacked of his being captive...." and "to me the visit had all the hallmarks.....".
I'm afraid this cap is a bit too small for your ex-bureaucratic head.

Bruce made some unexceptional comments. Howard is evil. I suggest he be tried for war crimes in Iraq, along with Bush and Blair.
Howard politicised the public seervice, especially Immigration, to such an extent that investigations of the Department (eg into the imprisonment and deportation of Australian citizens) are now classics used in training other departments in what not to do, especially how not to build a culture of what I call echoing Howard. Evans is being suckered knowingly because he and Rudd want to dog whistle to what is still I think a majority in our society - those who irrationally fear refugees and others. If capital is free to roam the world without borders, labour should be too.

Col Rouge you are a bully. Thanks for the insight. Col and Leigh let me provide you with a definition of evil from the American College Dictionary.
Evil: anything causing injury or harm; violating or inconsistent with the moral law; wicked; bad character or conduct.
Howard's actions in locking up refugee men,women and children for long periods which caused physical and mental harm was evil.
Howard's denial of the rights of Hicks and Rau were evil. Sending Australian troops overseas to war on the basis of a lie was evil. Fingering Haneef was evil. Failing to provide veterans with proper care was evil, particularly in the face of his jingoism.
The article obviously hit some raw nerves. ChrisPer, looks to me like you were done by the bureaucrats. Why shouldn't Ministerial staff give me answers, they are paid from the public purse. If Evans was misrepresented let him say so. Where is the report of his visit? He issued a press release normal practise would demand that he provide details of his trip and his discussions. Watch it ChrisPer you will be led into a blind gully and ambushed by these public servants in which you place too much faith and good intent.
Plerdus what you describe is what might have been the position before Howard was defeated. Give me some evidence that this might still be the case.
Yes you are confused keith.
I note that no one is prepared to put their name to their cutting and insightful comments. Don't therefore expect to be taken too seriously.
And tell me why am I a socialist and a leftie for highlighting the deceit of a Labor Minister.
Could it be that you are changing sides Col and Leigh and your old rhetoric hasn't yet adapted to your new masters.
Bruce Haigh

For those who still don't get the point - there was no people smuggling to Australia as the refugees threw themselves at the authorities to seek protection under the refugee convention.

Here is how is works, and always has. Genuine refugees cannot get documents so they are smuggled out of their own countries and sent onwards to other countries that have signed and ratified the refugee convention. For Afghans and Iranians and Iraqis who couldn't get to Europe that was us and only us as none of the Asian countries they transit are signatories.

This is all legal under international law. Now Australia pretended that there was a gang of organised criminals in Indonesia exploiting refugees but they never produced a skerrick of real evidence that they existed. In one case they were aware in October 1999 where a Pakistani man helped Afghans and turned him into a "smuggler" on information given by the refugees.

Abu Quessay was known to the AFP and ASIO in early 2000 but he was still operating when SIEVX sank and even though 353 people were loaded at gunpoint the AFP never investigated and certainly never tried to get Quessay.

On the other hand DIMA and DFAT have been trafficking unwanted people out of Australia and dumping them without documents and declaring that it is legal to do so.

I have done a study of 89 of the boats of people supposedly smuggled to Australia and none of the ferrymen were sent to prison for smuggling but they did have a trial, a lawyer and a sentence, while the refugees didn't.

Just last week I got a letter from one of the criminals in DIMA telling me that the Bakhtiyari family were deported on papers obtained legally from Pakistani authorities. Except we have known since January 2005 that this was not true.

Bruce is right, the new government should sack the criminals in DIMA or imprison the ones who are trafficking and breaking the law.

An interesting article.

The Public Service had indeed become heavily politicised and it's about time they resumed working for the interests of their real masters - the public - rather than as defacto Ministerial aides.

Personal appointees working under mysterious performance-based conditions and the sacking and public discrediting of any dissenters is not a recipe for integrity and openness.

It will be interesting to see what the new Government do with all the things they have inherited - dismantle them or adapt them to their own use.

Bruce Haigh “Col Rouge you are a bully.”

Because I dare to disagree with you?

How and in what way have I threatened, tried to intimidate or otherwise “bullied” you?

That you call me “bully” because I exercise my right to disagree with you merely confirms what I gained from reading your drivel in the first place . .

That you are someone who regales himself in the title of “retired diplomat”, yet, from your writing, presents as one with the diplomatic dexterity of an earth worm.

Now, your sampling of examples of evil are merely expressions of your personal hysteria, which I disagree with.

To get back to the point of the civil service, as a supposed “diplomat” your role was to comply with the chain of command which your superiors directed for you, just like anyone else operating within any organisation. That you happen, in your own humble opinion, to consider Howard as the epitome of evil is just crap. I think Howard was the best thing that happened to Australia when he wrested government from the despotism of Keating and his socialist cronies. That is my opinion, that you think I am a bully for holding such opinion is your problem. Consider yuourself lucky that I, believe in and support you sovereign right your write drivel and behave like a pretentions pratt.

So I suggest, back to the olive trees with you Bruce (they are less likely to respond unfavourably to your vexatious venom).
Calling people “bully” is no way to win friends and influence people, as you should have been taught in year one at “diplomat school"

Plantagenet – you worry me. The last thing Australia needs is an aspirational J.Edgar Hoover copycat running a combined AFP-ASIO.
The AFP role in Immigration matters, including the so-called “disruption” operations on foreign soil, has never been openly scrutinised. At home, the AFP failed to act to stop physical abuse of detainees in Detention Centres. The infamous case of a 13-year old boy being taken from the care of a doctor to be bashed by three guards at Woomera was swept under the carpet when the perpetrators failed to respond to summonses and were simply allowed by the AFP to melt back into the system. The first transcript in the bungled Haneef case shows all too clearly the inadequacy of sections of the AFP. Even at the simple level of time references in potentially vital evidence, the record shows a senior AFP agent unversed in interview technique and the universally accepted operational structure of the 24 hour clock. Relatives of those members of the Bali Nine facing the death penalty will certainly spend the rest of their lives wondering why your dynamic Mr Keelty decided to tip off a foreign service rather than wait and use surveillance to snare the wider network on their return to Australia. APEC showed all too clearly that the current AFP leadership prefers suppression by paramilitary force, to the open display of democratic ideas

Leigh,

The German people elected Hitler in 1933 in an election that most historians agree was democratically conducted. And they went on carrying out their national patriotic duty under his policies for the next 12 years (interesting coincidence with our Johnny, there). If you see the brilliant German film "The Lives of Others" and read Anna Funder's interesting critique of it in "Best Australian Essays of 2007" (Black Inc, 2007) you might learn some things you dont know about what can happen to societies under democratically elected but evil leaders.

It is a shame you and Col Rouge - neither of whom wishes to name himself/herself even now - resorted to personal abuse of Bruce Haigh who is an intelligent and honourable man, and the least naive person I know. I thought OLO had left that style of debate behind.

Tony Kevin

John Highfield

I stand before you as a bod who was as critical of the AFP over the Haneef (pre-election Muslim scare) as any.

Yet Haneef made $2 million for a 20 minute interview and of course deserves many more millions $$$ for his two weeks confinement. I wish his stockbrockers well and know that his lawyers expect much, much, more fees.

I'm talking about organisational effectiveness which is often un-nice and doesn’t reach the media. The AFP have cut a very wide swathe over the last 7 or so years because they have most of the tools available in contrast to the rest of Australia's fragmented and frequently bitchy intelligence network.

The AFP have been performing some of the roles that ASIO and ASIS traditionally/possibly tried at. All this was apparent in making the Indonesians more effective following the bombings (Bali I and Bali II) at locating, catching and trying those talkative Jihadis.

The problems you point out may well be valid but I'm talking about organisational change which might be in train under our all Labor Government Australia.

Pete
http://spyingbadthings.blogspot.com/2007/11/asio-in-poo-over-ul-haque-case.html

Awwwh heck Bruce, couldn't you be a little more immaginative in your insult?

Tony Kevin “neither of whom wishes to name himself/herself even now . . I thought OLO had left that style of debate behind.”

Not that it has anything to do with you but I have good reason for not using my own name, which our host, Graham Young is well aware of.

As for the fawning accolades you heap on Bruce Haigh, they seem just “peachy”.

I trust the two of you will be very happy together.

As for talking down to me – I could not give a rats arse.

I am happy to present a polemic to whatever you care to elect and then swap roles and argue in reverse.

Please “bring it all on” but if you expect to “talk down” from your lofty . . . loft,

be prepared for a visceral exchange.

Oh to come back to the civil service and the subset of the diplomatic corp..

The 1853 Northcote Trevelyan report encapsulated the real problem

“Admission into the Civil Service is indeed eagerly sought after, but it is for the unambitious, and the indolent or incapable, that it is chiefly desired.”

Which confirms alot.

Of course to Bruce and his “diplomat in retirement”

An ancient Greek proverb “To deceive a diplomat speak the truth, He has no experience with it”

Regards to the “pot” who called Howard’s kettle “Mendacious”

Typical Col Rouge when he says;

"I am happy to present a polemic to whatever you care to elect and then swap roles and argue in reverse."

Col just wants to argue, with no matter who or what for.

He's just a grumpy 'old fart' with nothing better to do than complain about anything and everything - regardless of what is true.