Federal Immigration Minister Kevin Andrews’ weekend media performances merely confirmed what must be becoming obvious to any disinterested observer of Mr Andrews’ conduct over the Haneef matter – he lacks the insight and wisdom to be a government minister in a sensitive portfolio where he is dealing with people’s lives.

Mr Andrews can’t seem to acknowledge the fact that he, and his Cabinet colleagues on the National Security Committee, appear to have got it wrong a fortnight ago when they decided that Mr Andrews should cancel Dr Haneef’s visa.

Yesterday he made the extraordinary claim because Dr Haneef’s “lawyers indicated to my department … that he wanted to get out of Australia as soon as possible. If anything that rather heightens, rather than lessens, my suspicions.”

Boy Kevin, most Australians could think of some pretty sound reasons as to why Dr Haneef would want to get the hell out of this supposed land of the fair go after what he’s been put through over the past three weeks.

Let’s see now – why would he stay, given his life has been trashed by the AFP and Queensland Police and his reputation torn to shreds by the still unapologised for Lincoln Wright story in the New Limited papers last Sunday week that suggested, without a scrap of evidence to back up the assertion, that Dr Haneef was part of a plot to blow up a Gold Coast building.

This statement also demonstrates that Mr Andrews disturbingly appears to have a similar political instinct to that other right wing Catholic legislator – the infamous rabid anticommunist of the 1950s, US Senator Joe McCarthy.

Even when McCarthy’s accusation that someone was a communist were proven to be demonstrably false, the Senator just could not admit he was wrong. Mr Andrews is beginning to sound like that in the case of Dr Haneef.

And what should concern anyone whose file is on Mr Andrews desk awaiting his decision on their visa or other application to stay in Australia, is that if the thought process and modus operandi he has applied to the Haneef matter is indicative of his general standard of administration of his portfolio, they have cause to be very worried.

And what’s this about Mr Andrews’ wanting to release the “protected information” on which he says he based his decision to cancel Dr Haneef’s visa?

Presumably such a decision will enrage his colleague, Attorney-General Philip Ruddock, ASIO and the AFP given the very dim view that Mr Ruddock and AFP Commissioner Mick Keelty took of Dr Haneef’s lawyer Stephen Keim to release his client’s first record of interview to The Australian.

But then probably not, given that hypocrisy is the Howard government’s stock in trade.