Media scrutiny of the burgeoning  growth of the publicly-funded “Intelligence” sector in Australia is usually minimal.

Such docility has led some to speculate that the media itself may be spooky. That topic, needless to say, is even more of a no-go area than the spooks themselves.

He loved her smooth, firm moderation

Recently the Australian Broadcasting Corporation’s online magazine shone a little sunshine on the latest expansion of powers granted by Parliament to the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation – see ASIO’s overseas powers dramatically expanded.

The Author, Dr Michael Head, is an Associate Professor of Law at the University of Western Sydney. I recommend reading the whole article; it’s quite short.

Essentially, new legislation – the Intelligence Services Amendment Bill – has just rolled through the Australian Parliament. It was opposed by the Greens, but supported by both major parties.

The main thrust of the new law is to expand ASIO’s roles outside Australia – a new departure for an agency that’s traditionally had a domestic focus. Dr Head explains:

One of the amendments enables the Government, via the attorney-general, to authorise ASIO to carry out activities, including secret searches, phone-tapping, bugging and computer hacking, for the purposes of obtaining “foreign intelligence” that affects economic interests.

This means that ASIO could operate against anyone perceived as a threat to the profits of Australian corporations, such as the mining companies and banks. This could include rival firms, or Australians employed by them, as well as political groups or protesters opposed to the operations of Australian big business.

Another key amendment widens the definition of “foreign intelligence” from the activities of a “foreign power” to those of “people or organisations outside Australia”. Any group or individual – for example, WikiLeaks and its founder Julian Assange – regarded as a danger to “security” or “economic well-being” could be targeted.

In a written Senate committee submission, the Law Council of Australia warned that the new definition and test would afford the Minister and the agency “almost unfettered discretion” to “determine when and how ASIO’s powers may be used to gather information about people’s activities, communications and relationships abroad.”

The Government rejected the Law Council’s criticisms, insisting that the changes simply bring ASIO into line with the powers already exercised by ASIS and the DSD. But these powers themselves were only introduced in the past decade. Last year, the Government amended the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act to widen DSD’s activities, in line with those authorised for ASIS by the 2001 Intelligence Services Act.

The changes add to the vast powers handed to the intelligence services under the pretext of protecting ordinary people from terrorism following the 9/11 attacks in the United States. ASIO was given the unprecedented ability to conduct secret interrogations and detentions, as well as greater leeway to clandestinely search homes, use bugging devices and intercept email and other telecommunications, often without the formality of judicial warrants.

 Dr Head also discusses the historical context: very substantial growth of ASIO’s budget and powers in recent years. He writes:

ASIO has more than trebled in size since 2001, with the pace of growth only continuing under Labor since 2007. According to ASIO’s 2009-10 annual report, the “tempo” of its activities “remained high” with its workload including “over 38,000 visa Security Assessments, 98,000 counter-terrorism checks and over 22,000 personnel Security Assessments”. Through these programs, ASIO and the Government have virtually unchallengeable powers to reject visa applications, classify individuals or groups as terrorist threats and block public service appointments

The ABC had comments switched on, so I posted my comment and waited for it to be published. Today I notice that comments have closed; the ABC, apparently, received only 31 publishable comments. There hasn’t been much public interest, or so it seems…

She was captivated by his dark secrets and deep pockets

Reproduced below is one of the comments that was apparently deemed unpublishable, submitted by yours truly.

I wonder what other people may have said? We should communicate more with each other – via Twitter, the web or whatever.

Clearly the ABC prefers to keep us apart, in ignorance.

Does it too have guilty secrets?

People who trustingly believe ASIO is a benign institution need to ask themselves why, 32 years after the Sydney Hilton bombings, Australians are still waiting for either a completed inquest or a public inquiry.

To quote Wikipedia:

“In 1991 and 1995 the NSW Parliament unanimously called for a joint State-Federal inquiry into the bombing to examine whether there had been an official conspiracy. However, the Federal government vetoed any inquiry, and none has been held.”

The Federal Parliament last discussed the issue of an inquiry in 1995. One of the speakers strongly in favour of an inquiry was a newly-elected MP called Tony Abbott, who quoted Shakespeare to make his case. 

Yet no inquiry has ever been held, even though Abbott was soon afterwards a Minister and is now Opposition Leader. Mysteriously, no journalists seem to bother to ask him about it either.

See Foul deeds will rise: Abbott on the Sydney Hilton bombing

For an excellent general introduction to the topic, see the documentary Australian Conspiracy: the 1978 Sydney Hilton bombing

____________________

One final point.

The author mentions ASIO has tripled in size in a decade. It’s my understanding the budgetary increase has been closer to a full order of magnitude (ie TEN TIMES). If anyone can correct me on this, please do

See The exponential growth of Australian spookdom