What Australian newspapers say on Wednesday, August 1, 2007

AAP General News (Australia)
08-01-2007
What Australian newspapers say on Wednesday, August 1, 2007

SYDNEY, Aug 1 AAP - Immigration Minister Kevin Andrews ended last week claiming he
had been forced to argue his case against Mohamed Haneef with one hand tied behind his
back, The Australian says today in an editorial.

This week Mr Andrews is stumbling about with both feet firmly in his mouth. Since dealing
the government into the Dr Haneef saga on July 16, by cancelling his working visa, Mr
Andrews has done more to fracture public support for the Howard government's tough anti-terror
laws than any other person.

"On what was released to support the minister's decision late yesterday, Mr Andrews
has either embellished an online conversation, the significance of which can be discounted
from what is already known from elsewhere, or he has let a potential terror suspect walk
free.

"Either way, it does not let Mr Andrews off the hook."

On the basis of material in email correspondence between former terrorism suspect Mohamed
Haneef and his cousins, brothers Kafeel and Sabeel Ahmed, Mr Andrews had ample grounds
for refusing to renew the Indian doctor's visa, The Daily Telegraph says.

The material Mr Andrews had been anguishing over for days is strongly indicative of
a close relationship between Dr Haneef and the British terrorism suspects. To say the
very least.

In one exchange, he is told by his cousins that "nothing has been found out about you
yet". In another, he's asked when he proposes to leave Australia. "Today" he replied.

"But here's a question for Mr Andrews - and for the Commonwealth DPP," it says.

"If this material - which looks so much stronger than anything we have heard hitherto
- was available, why was Dr Haneef not charged with more substantial offences in the first
instance?"

The Haneef affair will not end until the federal government releases all information
on the case, The Age says.

The "tawdry and scatty" state of the Haneef case continues to erode public confidence
in the word of the law against political imperatives, the editorial says.

"The release yesterday afternoon of some of the previously secret federal police information
provided to Immigration Minister Kevin Andrews gives the public just another part of the
saga," it says.

"It is to Mr Andrews' credit, given the intense public interest in the case, in Australia
and abroad, that he has offered a part explanation.

"The quotes from an internet chat room discussion between Dr Haneef and his brother
add weight to the police case and allow some insights into why the minister cancelled
Dr Haneef's visa."

Labor's "new federalism" discussion paper enticingly promises to liberate the states
from ties on $30 billion annual grants, eliminate cost-shifting between the commonwealth
and the states and end the "blame game", The Australian Financial Review says.

In other words, the paper pushes every button in the federalism debate, but barley
adds to the sum of human knowledge on it.

Mystifyingly, Opposition Leader Kevin Rudd is quoted three times, as if he were a constitutional
guru on a par with Quick & Garran or Bagehot.

"As with many of Mr Rudd's attention-seeking policy ideas - from absolving households
of the need to balance their budgets to curing obesity - this sounds like a revolution
in name only," it says.

"There is plenty of scope for reforming federalism, but there is no chance a Rudd Labor
government would surrender its power over the states in the way hinted at. Likely as not,
it would end up at loggerheads with the states regardless of who ruled them."

Do Australian children need to be protected from Shrek? Not in cinemas, obviously,
where the screen ogre is wildly popular, The Sydney Morning Herald says.

But what about in supermarkets and television advertising breaks where big food makers
are co-opting him to sell junk food to children?

"The Labor Party says the answer that question is yes. We believe Labor is wrong,"

the paper says.

"There is a balance to be struck here. On one hand, junk food, much of it heavily marketed
- can undoubtedly cause health problems. An occasional hamburger does no harm; too many
hamburgers or packets of chips, or pizzas, or cans of soft drink (or sweets) make a diet
unhealthy and help to cause obesity and other lifestyle diseases which are becoming epidemic
in Western societies."

Some companies are falsely touting their green credentials in a bid to win business
in a more environmentally conscious market, The Herald Sun says.

The federal government has found at least 12 cases where companies failed to plant
additional trees to offset carbon emissions despite promises to customers, the editorial
says.

"Often, companies charge consumers extra for the peace of mind they get in believing
their purchases are being offset by tree plantings," it says.

"Failure to plant these trees is a fraud and risks undermining consumer confidence
in carbon and greenhouse initiatives."

AAP cmc

KEYWORD: EDITORIALS

2007 AAP Information Services Pty Limited (AAP) or its Licensors.