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