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

Last Saturday evening, architect Jan Utzon was viciously attacked by a ‘muscular’ young man in Manly, a seaside suburb of northen Sydney.

Oddly enough, I’d mentioned Mr Utzon for the first time last week on this website, in relation to his courageous support for re-investigating the 9-11 mass murders.

The Bigpond website reported yesterday morning: Opera House architect’s son beaten:

The Danish national (Mr Utzon) – who visits Sydney several times a year to consult on changes to the Opera House – said he was talking on his mobile phone in a lane beside the Manly Lodge hotel at about 10pm (AEDT) when he was approached by a muscle-bound man aged in his mid-30s.

Jan Utzon assaulted in Sydney

‘He told me I couldn’t stand here because it was where he lived and it was private property,’ Mr Utzon said. ‘He pushed me out into the street. I stumbled and put my hand out and he took a swing and hit me in the face.’

The man continued his assault after Mr Utzon fell into a raised garden bed, punching him again in the head.

‘He just started smiling – he was always smiling,’ Mr Utzon said.

‘Then he grabbed my phone, raised his arm and smashed it into the ground.’

A passerby and Manly Lodge manager Dominick Power came to Mr Utzon’s rescue, fighting off the attacker before they retreated to the safety of the hotel and called police.

But when Mr Utzon and the passerby ventured outside minutes later to collect pieces of the smashed phone he was set upon a second time.

The thug, bleeding from the face, spat blood at Mr Utzon and his rescuers during his frenzied attack before he was led away by two other men.

Mr Utzon said he would not let the horrific attack taint his view of Australia and Australians.

‘I really love Australia. The little things like this don’t alter my view of Australia,’ he said.

A police spokeswoman said no arrests had been made in relation to the attack.

Yesterday evening came follow up stories about an arrest. The ABC story – Man charged over Utzon bashing – reported:

Police have charged a 27-year-old man with several counts of assault and malicious damage.

He has been granted conditional bail and will face court next month.

The Manly Daily also reports the arrest – but also provides no detail about the alleged assailant’s identity who was shielded from photographers as he left court.

The New South Wales police are apparently confident this ‘smiling thug’, who launched not one but two unprovoked attacks on an elderly man, is no threat to the community and can safely be released on bail for at least a month. The Australian media apparently don’t believe the public need know the identity of this ‘free-to-punch-again’ alleged assailant.

I think we can be confident his first name is not Mohammed, Ali or Khalid.

On 24th August 1995, a Labor MP Chris Haviland introduced a resolution into the Australian House of Representatives.

It was a bold initiative .

Haviland proposed that this House (emphasis added):

1. notes the unanimous resolution of the NSW Parliament of 9 December 1991 calling upon the federal Government to establish a top level, open, joint NSW/federal Government inquiry into the bombing of the Sydney Hilton Hotel on 13 February 1978 and pledging the full cooperation of the NSW Government;
2. notes the recent statements of the NSW Premier, Mr Bob Carr, confirming his Government’s support for such an inquiry;
3. requests that the federal Government immediately establish a joint federal/NSW Government inquiry, with the powers of a Royal Commission, into all of the circumstances and consequences surrounding the Hilton Hotel bombing, including the events leading up to the incident, the bombing itself, the conduct of the subsequent investigation of the bombing and all relevant matters;
4. requests that the terms of reference for the inquiry include a full investigation of the role played by all NSW and federal Government agencies, including military and security organisations, before, during and after the bombing; and
5. requests that any provisions existing in any federal legislation which would otherwise prevent full disclosure to the inquiry by officers, employees, agents or sub-agents of federal Government agencies of any information under oath relevant to the terms of reference be set aside for the purposes of the inquiry.

It was the era of the Keating Labor Government. The Federal Attorney General Michael Duffy wasn’t keen at all. His dismissive response concluded:

“People are concerned about these matters. We understand that. There are allegations that arise which have always been examined very carefully and have been answered in the most extensive detail. If you go through the Hansard and look at the answers and the work that has gone into it, you will see that we are still of the view that there is no need, no requirement, to have a new inquiry.”

Independent MP for North Shore, Ted Mack, took the opposite view. Mack was effusive in his praise for Haviland’s resolution. He said (emphasis added):

The member for Macarthur (Mr Haviland) is to be congratulated for bringing this motion before the House. The motion is supported by the Premier of New South Wales and unanimously by the New South Wales parliament. It is a motion undoubtedly supported by the majority of the people of Australia. The Premier of New South Wales is to be particularly congratulated for following through on the unanimous decision of the New South Wales parliament in 1991 asking the federal government to agree to a joint federal-state inquiry.

The New South Wales Premier’s recent action of making state files available to the public on the Hilton bombing is a breath of fresh air after years of deliberate frustration of any attempt to find the truth, although anyone who has followed the 17-year saga of conspiracy of public officials to avoid accountability will not be surprised to see the Premier’s good intentions white-anted.

Some might superficially ask: what is the point of trying to reopen a 17-year-old affair which has already been worked over by a major inquiry, several court cases, many reports and thousands of media reports? The fact is that the Hilton bombing is the worst act of political terrorism in this country’s history. It was the largest security operation ever mounted in Australia, involving all key security agencies. It was also the most outrageous failure of security in Australian history, yet no-one responsible for the security operation has ever been held to account.

Mack added:

I have asked some 70 questions in this House about the Hilton bombing. The answers have been grudging, evasive, on occasions wrong and permeated with a `neither confirm nor deny’ mantra. Yet what information has been gleaned has only added more questions and more doubts. There were hundreds of people in the bureaucracies and security agencies involved to some degree in the Hilton, and many of those have played a part in blocking inquiries ever since.

Most interesting, in the current context, was the contribution by a newly-elected MP for the safe Liberal seat of Warringah. He spoke at some length in support of Haviland’s resolution, showing detailed knowledge of the complexities of the case – as well as a combative, partisan character. His speech began:

In supporting this motion I would like to quote Shakespeare’s dictum: `Foul deeds will rise, though all the earth o’erwhelm them to men’s eyes.’ If that does not move this House, the example of the Minister for Human Services and Health (Dr Lawrence) should be enough to show what happens to those who stand in the way of truth.

The Hilton bombing was Australia’s greatest act of terrorism and it marred what up till then had been Australia’s greatest international gathering. As a result, a man was charged and convicted but all the time protesting that he was the victim of a frame-up. Eventually, after several years in gaol, he was completely exonerated.

Years later, another man confessed and, on the basis of that confession, was charged and convicted. But any confidence in our knowing what really happened depends entirely on the slender thread of the confession of an unstable and delusional man….

The speaker concluded (emphasis added):

Our job is not, here in this parliament, to specifically probe into the dark and murky labyrinth of the security forces. Our job is to ensure that people who can do that job are allowed to do that job. Our job is to help establish an inquiry which can get to the bottom of this matter. It is so important that we do this because the people of this country are entitled to believe and to be confident that the forces of government, the security forces of this country, are working for them and not against them. The people of this country are entitled to have confidence that the various arms of government are working in accordance with the law and not, as it very well may be in this case, against the law.

Let me say most categorically that truth has nothing to fear from an inquiry. The government should have nothing to fear from an inquiry. ASIO should have nothing to fear from an inquiry. The police should have nothing to fear, the army should have nothing to fear from an inquiry, because truth has nothing to fear from an inquiry. This government should not be so concerned about the cost of an inquiry because truth is priceless; truth is precious. Any government which is prepared to spend $17 million investigating war crimes that happened in another country 50 years ago should certainly be prepared to help fund an inquiry of this nature.

Let all the documents be considered. Let all the witnesses be examined. Let all the options be considered and canvassed. Let the best conclusion possible be drawn, because the fact is we do not need to have this issue hanging over our heads in the way the JFK murder is hanging over the heads of people in the United States. I say to the Attorney-General: don’t do a Carmen Lawrence on us. Don’t say to the parliament, `Of course I want the truth to come out, but I just don’t seem to be able to find a suitable venue in which to tell it.’ Don’t do a Carmen Lawrence on us, Attorney-General, because you are better than that. The ghosts of three innocent men are hovering over us today. Let us get to the bottom of this so that their souls can finally rest in peace.

The speaker’s name? Tony Abbott, MP for Warringah – currently leader of the Liberal Party and the Federal Opposition.

At the conclusion of contributions by the four speakers, the Deputy Speaker declared an adjournment and concluded: “The debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting Monday.”

A month later, Chris Haviland returned to the topic. Here’s the extract from Hansard:

Mr HAVILAND (Macarthur) (5.58 p.m.) —On 24 August I moved a motion in the House of Representatives calling for a joint federal-state inquiry into the Hilton Hotel bombing in 1978. This followed, in 1991, the unanimous decision of the New South Wales parliament calling also for a joint federal-state inquiry. Since that time another motion has been passed in the New South Wales parliament, again calling for a joint federal-state inquiry. I notice that a similar motion to mine is now on the Senate Notice Paper for debate over there.

It is high time we got to the bottom of who was responsible for the bombing of the Hilton Hotel. I believe there are no further excuses. We need this joint federal-state inquiry. To not have an inquiry will mean that we will never get to the bottom of who committed these crimes. It is the worst unsolved murder case in Australia’s history. It was an embarrassment to Australia. I believe there will be a suggestion of a cover-up if people are not going to support an inquiry into this.

Bob Carr, the Premier of New South Wales, has supposedly opened the files held by the New South Wales government on this matter. When Terry Griffiths, one of the victims of the bombing, went down to look at the files he was told that eight particular files were restricted: he could not look at them. When he phoned the Premier’s office to ask why, he was told that the New South Wales government had opened the files but the Commonwealth government had placed restrictions on eight of those files. I would like to know why that is. There may be a very good reason.

Indeed, it is a debating point as to whether it is a good idea to just throw open files to the public anyway, given the sensitive nature of this issue. But, whatever the merits of that, it is high time we got to the bottom of this sordid issue and had a joint federal-state inquiry.

Mr SPEAKER —Order! It being 6 p.m., the debate is interrupted. The House stands adjourned until Monday, 16 October 1995 at 12.30 p.m., in accordance with the provisions of standing order 40.

That appears to be the last reference in Australian Hansard, to this day, on the topic of the Sydney Hilton bombing.

In March 1996, a Federal election was held.

Chris Haviland was deselected by the Labor Party for his seat in the run up to the election – somewhat unusually for a sitting member.

Ted Mack retired.

John Howard and the Liberal Party, who swept to office, promptly seemed to forget the Hilton bombing. With so much national focus on the Port Arthur atrocity from April 1996 onwards, it was easy to do…

As a backbencher in the early years of Howard’s new Government, Tony Abbott may not have held much sway at the time. But in September 2010 that’s no longer the case.

Whether he’s Prime Minister or not by the end of this week, Abbott could now set in motion the demand he so strongly supported 15 years ago.

This time – with his personal support and given the new balance of power in the House of Representatives and the configuration of the Senate – a resolution to establish this long overdue inquiry would undoubtably be carried.

Australian Conspiracy: the 1978 Sydney Hilton bombing

The main purpose of this post is to recommend the documentary ‘Australian Conspiracy‘ to a wider audience.

It can currently be viewed in six segments on You Tube (displayed below). A DVD is also available from FilmArtDoco.

Written by Daryl Dellora and Ian Wansbrough and produced by Sue Maslin, Australian Conspiracy was made in the mid-1990s and shown on Australian TV at the time. Norm Dixon’s February 1995 review in Green Left Weekly – The Hilton bombing revisited – is well worth reading. As far as I’m aware, Australian Conspiracy hasn’t been broadcast in recent years.

It’s a gripping, very well-made documentary – and a story of considerable contemporary relevance.

In the 15 years that have elapsed since it was made, little has changed regarding the subject of the documentary: the complicated saga of the Sydney Hilton bombing. The bombing incident that took place in Sydney in February 1978, causing three deaths and shattering the lives of survivors, remains a mystery, slowly fading from public attention.

Sydney Hilton Hotel bomb scene 1978

That’s more than unfortunate. The Sydney Hilton atrocity, after all, was claimed by the authorities at the time to have been a terrorist attack – an event of extreme rarity on Australian soil. It had a major impact on the reorganisation of Australia’s ‘security forces’ – and led to a sharp rise in funding for the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (ASIO).

From the outset, investigating authorities also claimed the bombing was the result of a conspiracy. That is, they asserted it was not the work of a lone bomber. So… in 1978, using the terminology used by the authorities, Australia was the target of a terrorist conspiracy involving loss of life. A true landmark event for the ‘Lucky Country’!

Yet despite the great significance of the incident, the real culpits have never been publicly identified or brought to justice. There were notorious – and very confusing – trials in the decade following 1978. People did spend time in jail for the Hilton bombings. But they were not the killers. Even the bizarre character who claimed in the late 1980s to have been personally involved in the ‘conspiracy’, Evan Pederick, gave self-incriminating testimony at his own trial that isn’t credible.

Overall, justice has not been done in this important murder case.

As the documentary shows, due process was breached repeatedly in the investigation and subsequent judicial process. The inquest, held in 1982, was aborted before crucial evidence could be heard. Despite arrests, trials and incarcerations, it’s clear the real murderers have never faced trial. Instead, there’s abundant evidence of a long and tangled miscarriage of justice.

In the early 1990s, demands for a thorough and credible public inquiry into the bombing gained sufficient momentum to be the subject of a resolution unanimously endorsed by both Houses of the NSW Parliament.

Such an inquiry required Federal involvement. It has never taken place. In the mid-1990s, the Independent MP Ted Mack raised the issue in the Federal Parliament, but his queries led nowhere. Then in 1996, the conservative Howard Government came to power. Within months, the shocking Port Arthur massacre re-focused the nation’s attention. It appears no-one has since raised the issue of the Hilton bombing in the Australian Parliament.

Immediate press reaction to the 1798 Sydney Hilton bombing: a foretaste of 9-11

That’s not acceptable. As things stand, anyone who studies the case with an open mind is likely to conclude that powerful elements in the Australian security services, at the time of the Hilton bombings and for years afterwards, conspired (perhaps with outside parties) to carry out the bombings and pervert the course of justice thereafter. In modern parlance, the Sydney Hilton bombings were most likely an ‘inside job’ of some type. That’s important. Way too important to gloss over.

Thirty years after the Sydney Hilton bombings, politicians are  less keen than in the 1970s to ask probing questions about the security forces in this country.

In NSW, perhaps there’s a feeling that the need for self-examination has passed following the demise of the Special Branch in the late 1990s and other major reforms to the State’s police force.

Yet successive Australian Parliaments, in the first decade of this new century, approved quite staggering increases in expenditure on ASIO – amounting to more than 1,000% annual budget increase since 2001.

In that context, questions about the Sydney Hilton incident would have been appropriate. Does it make sense to fertilise a tree infested with rot? Why should an agency whose own bona fides remain under suspicion be given vast new powers and huge budget increases?

Those questions have yet to be asked.

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Part 4

Part 5

Part 6