We are all waiting with anxious anticipation to see what information Immigration Supremo, Kevin Andrews, is going to reveal about Mohammad Haniff that justifies the continuing revocation of his work visa.
Haniff appeared on 60 Minutes last night some what at pains to protest his innocence ( a little too 'butter wouldn't melt in my mouth' for my liking but perhaps I am as tinged with xenophobia as my fellow compatriots (here)).
One thing we can be sure of, if there is nothing forthcoming from Andrews, who can hide behind the excuse of confidential information.....then we can be pretty sure there will be no apology.
In fact this feels like the same sort of 'no-apology' land that we have visited before.
The protestations that no apology is necessary because he has acted within the law only stands up if evidence is presented that shows that there was indeed niggling doubt about Haniff's soundness. We wait in vain.
It begs the question about what the right way to act is. Ethics 101 tells you in tutorial one that there is huge difference between what is legal and what is right. Holy Writ tells us recourse to the legal system is the last resort and things should be settled before that stage....Andrews should know this since he is one of the klatsch of Christian politicians (instrumental you may remember in overturning the Territory's euthanasia legislation) who seek to have their faith-voice heard. I find his recent action strangely lacking in Christian character.
So I wait with baited breath for the information....and will not hold the same breath for the apology that Haniff deserves if he is, as he claims, a coincidental player.