By Mark Kenny
- Comment: Why Chan and Sukumaran never stood a chance
- The final journey of Bali nine duo
- Mary Jane Veloso still on death row
- Abbott government backflipped on death penalty directive
- The final journey of Bali nine duo
The Abbott government's reaction was too strident to be fully convincing, even if the rapid resumption of political point-scoring was jarring to Australians.
Foreign Minister Julie Bishop and Justice Minister Michael Keenan are incensed that Labor had the temerity to ask why a previous ministerial prohibition stopping the Australian Federal Police from engaging in international police co-operation – where it could put Australians at risk of capital punishment – had been scaled back.
Foreign Affairs Minister Julie Bishop and Prime Minister Tony Abbott address the media after the executions of Andrew Chan and Myuran Sukumaran.Credit: Alex Ellinghausen
Bishop, whose tireless efforts to save Andrew Chan and Myuran Sukumaran cannot be questioned, thought airing the issue now was in poor taste accusing Labor of courting popular advantage within 24 hours of the deaths.
Keenan, the minister directly responsible for the AFP, pointed out that its guidelines continue to require consideration of the risk of the death penalty before sharing intelligence with foreign equivalents. His argument is that this requirement need not be stated twice by being also set out in his statement of expectations. In full damage control mode, government minders were even describing the ministerial directive as little more than a "cover letter" anyway completely ignoring the fact that it is an important provision of subsection 37(2) of the Australian Federal Police Act, 1979.
Australians Andrew Chan and Myuran Sukumaran were executed by firing squad.Credit: AFP
In any event, the government's huffing was all about the inappropriateness of having the debate right now and almost nothing about the substance.
Despite its indignant bluster, there is no contest around the facts. It is a fact that the ministerial directive setting out the new Justice Minister's expectations for the AFP was reissued on May 12 last year. Equally, it is a matter of fact that said reissued ministerial directive differed in a number of ways from the Labor one it replaced and that among those differences was the absence of any specific reference to respect Australia's view on capital punishment. Whereas it used to require the AFP to "Take account of the government's long-standing opposition to the application of the death penalty, in performing its international liaison functions", it no longer does.
That it was removed, but not previously reported, is undeniably a matter of public interest and particularly so right now given the AFP's regrettable role in delivering up Chan and Sukumaran a decade ago.
The government's argument is that the AFP's guidelines are clear enough as is. Perhaps, but the previous mention in the ministerial directive was presumably included for a reason and presumably it was since removed for some other reason. In light of the tragic events of recent days, Australians might want to know what those reasons are.
It is a shame that the extraordinary political bipartisanship surrounding the executions of Sukumaran and Chan has so quickly given way to bitter division. But then getting the rules of engagement right so that the AFP knows the boundaries, must surely outrank current niceties on the national to-do list.