Senate New security legislation in Australia

I know in the past I've been saying how good Australia is, and how I'm glad I don't live Someplace Else, but until recently I've had cause for concern of the new turn that our PM (who I did not vote for thank you very much) is taking with the new laws to gag the media and give ASIO a blank cheque to do whatever they want as long as it's a special operation.

This legislation has passed through our House of Representatives without so much of a whimper from the media, or other parliamentarians, and with the full support to the opposition.

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...ity-laws-says-law-expert-20140930-10o9i2.html

And I'm worried.

ASIO does not have a good history in identifying threats or even keeping their noses clean. In the fifties and sixties they couldn't tell hippies from actual communists. Now they are allowed to do whatever they like, in the name of security, and the media is forbidden to report on it.

Where is the outcry about freedom of speech? About these laws undermining our way of life? Why is everyone sitting idly by while we are frogmarched into a police state?

I'm hoping, hoping that something will happen to stop this going through. The senate, the high court, the Governor General. But I don't think it will happen.

Ender_Sai, I'm very interested in your views on this. It's actually why I logged on for the first time in ages.

 

Sigh.

As with all things vaguely left wing here, we get a bunch of hysterial shrieking occurs around minor changes because clickbait and need to shoehorn relevance into their lives.

The press is not being gagged; existing restrictions on reporting on ongoing national security or intelligence matters are reinforced. Given the significant risk to the life of ASIS and ASIO IOs, and their agents, I am ok with this. Any public interest test has to factor operational needs into the equation, and concerns about covers-up ignore the role of the Ombudsman for that purpose.

The Palmer United Party wanted to also increase the jail term from 1 to 10 years for anyone who disclosed the identity of an intelligence officer to the press, including journalists. This, too, is not something I have an issue with. IOs are similar constrained under Federal law (Intelligence Services Act) from disclosing any operational details or connection to operations after leaving the Service/Organisation.

Our American cousins might struggle with this, since they've a very open society and haven't worked out the reason their intelligence apparatus is a joke is because of the openness. Having secret intelligence services means they are not in the public bloody eye.

As for your comments on ASIO - what are you on about?

And that Herald article is proof the media should be gagged, because their inherent stupidity is a public menace. "If the agency suddenly killed people, we can't report on it". The journalist is a titanic anus; ASIO do not engage in any activities for which the use of force is common place. The immunity offered to IOs in the course of an operation more likely covers:

1) Currently under Australian law, bribing overseas officials is considered a crime. Which is interesting, because...

Anyway, in the course of an operation an IO may indeed need to pay a bribe to an official and since the Commonwealth statute would make that a crime... Draw your own conclusion.

2) If an operation resulted in the Security Service wrongfully detaining someone, or like 2001 executing a search warrant on an incorrect residence, there are avenues available for the affected parties to seek redress and for the media to comment without breaching the terms of the Act.

Katana, frankly, the fact you haven't done your own research and are worried makes you a bit stupid. I don't understand how the left, which prides itself on intelligence, could also be so ****ing stupid when it comes to these matters.

 

Okay, if I sound hysterical or under researched there's a good reason: have a three-month old baby. Things can be a bit extreme sometimes.

But I think I might have been a bit more open to these if there had been some debate, or at least something to give the impression this isn't being rushed through while people let it happen.

And I don't get what you say when you say the press need to be gagged. When they were in opposition, Abbott was all for freedom of the press until he became PM and people started criticizing him.

 

But this isn't criticism that can be gagged. ASIO has always been a subject of suspicion for Labor; they love ASIS but ASIO's role in breaking up radical left wing groups in Australia troubles the ALP.

The concern that the report, who I've tweated, raised is that ASIO could act against the public interest with immunity.

Firstly; ASIO aren't armed. So they can't "accidentally" or collaterally kill someone. Secondly, ASIS can be sanctioned to interdict targets if required and are, I believe, now armed. Thirdly, there's nothing which has diminished the power of the office of the Inspector General of Intelligence and Security (aka the intel ombudsman). I just... ok fine you have a baby but why are you just baa-baaing your way to intellectual slaughter.

http://www.igis.gov.au/faq/index.cfm

How does the IGIS ensure that Australian intelligence agencies act legally and with propriety?

The IGIS conducts regular inspections of the operational activities of ASIO, ASIS, ONA, DSD, DIGO and DIO. The IGIS can also conduct inquiries and handle complaints. The purpose of these activities is to provide assurance that each intelligence agency acts legally and with propriety, complies with ministerial guidelines and directives, and respects human rights.
Inspections

IGIS staff have full access to information held by Australian intelligence and security agencies. IGIS staff undertake regular inspections of a range of operational activities. Inspections may look at a sample of operations or may be targeted at a particular issue. Inspections are focused on activities that present a legality, propriety or human rights risk. Inspections enable the IGIS to identify issues or concerns before they develop into systemic problems that could require major remedial action. Activities include:

• monitoring agency compliance with relevant legislation
• reviewing documents that support ASIO’s requests for special powers warrants
• reviewing the basis for ASIO’S investigative activities
• sampling ASIO’s access to and use of sensitive data
• reviewing ministerial authorisations issued to ASIS, DIGO and DSD by their respective ministers
• reviewing the application of privacy rules and guidelines (which concern the retention and passage of information about Australian persons) by ASIS, ONA, DSD, DIO and DIGO
• reviewing ASIS operational files
• reviewing ASIS’s application of relevant weapons guidelines and approval processes for their personnel

The inspection program has a positive effect on the culture and performance of the AIC agencies

 

Congratulations Melissa.

 

Could someone please outline Julia Gillard's position on this issue? Or failing that, another reliable Obama supporter? Please and thank you.

 

wow, the australian intelligence organization. now there's one you NEVER see in the movies

i bet you poached like 60% of your agents from new zealand anyways

 

wait wait wait i know nothing abotu australian politics but if im reading the internet correctly you guys have a version of the tea party that is literally making no attempts at being grassroots to the extent of being named after the mining tycoon who founded it. its like if the tea party was registered as "the koch brothers party"

 

Incorrect.

I've seen it exactly once.

 

Sort of hard to impress movie-going audiences with an agency tasked with finding criminal connections in a former prison colony.

 

ppor

 

Well, you probably never here of the ASIO because they were involved in two high profile indiscretions...er..events back in the 80's..maybe 90's.

1)The first one is actually kind of funny. As E_S pointed out, ASIO officers used to be armed, but aren't anymore (at least regularly). What happened was that a bunch of ASIO officers were supposed to undertake covert training, but instead, in true Australian fashion, they got drunk instead, and ran around a resort complex with pistols and submachine guns playing "cops and robbers." Except the police didn't know. The ASIO supervisors didn't know. The public didn't know. And it kind of scared everyone, and created a huge oversight controversy. It's something that the US Secret Service would be at home doing. Well, the Australian government yanked the ASIO's authority to even carry guns after that. But what a night it must have been.

2)The second was that during the cold war, the ASIO was cutting corners with regards to background checks, and ended up being infiltrated by a bunch of KGB agents, including a high profile one who was pretty high up in the ASIO. Back then, the KGB's goal wasn't to collect intelligence about Australia, but the US, and whenever the US would share something or engage in joint operations, there was a KGB agent who was masquerading as an ASIO agent. For a while, the CIA actually stopped giving the ASIO intelligence, and with it's track record, when the CIA stops doing something, it must be substantial.

To be fair, those incidents did result in a rather...robust...reorganization of the ASIO, so they don't apply anymore, and the organization has a more low profile attitude. But I don't think the various politicians in Australia have forgotten them either.

 

They show up in the Arrow tv show.

But it's not a movie...

 

But Manu Bennett was born in New Zealand, so it's a toss up.

 

Actually Mr44, it's ASIS that you're referring to.

See, unlike our colleagues in the US who have money but no tradecraft thanks to enhanced transparency (lol), our intelligence officers believe in discretion and tend to operate using the "secrecy" part as meaningful.

Australia has two main "spy" agencies:

ASIO - Australian Security Intelligence Organisation - This is our counterpart to Britain's Security Service (aka MI5). ASIO deal with internal security issues such as counterterrorism, counter-espionage etc. ASIO's most well known Cold War era operation was the Petrov affair, however it is worth noting that like Britain we take secrecy seriously so most of ASIO's files and operations during this time aren't widely discussed.

I think during the 70s or 80s the KGB managed to recruit a few agents inside ASIO, leveraging off the AUST/US information sharing arrangements to spy on America.

The closest agency in the US to MI5/ASIO is the FBI; however, the FBI's law enforcement operations are outside the remit of the security services.

Australia's external agency is ASIS, the Australian Secret Intelligence Service, which is our counterpart to Britain's Secret Intelligence Service aka MI6. ASIS is responsible for the collection of human intelligence overseas and distribution of that intelligence back to Canberra (where it is analysed by either ASIO or the Office of National Assessments (ONA) as required). ASIS were involved in the hotel incident Mr44 refers to - in 1983 they were undergoing a training operation at the Sheraton Hotel in Melbourne, and it went to hell and back. It's worth reading about for mild amusement.

In 1993, an investigative journalism program aired allegations by former officers that the Service routinely broke laws, and hounded officers out of the Service with no reason. These are not dissimilar to the claims made by former SIS officer Richard Tomlinson in his book The Big Breach - and they were never verified. Claims that ASIS, during the Cold War, acted as a proxy agency for SIS and served to assist British interests that had negligible benefit to Australia (involved in assisting Britain's efforts to protect her Falkland Islands; running agents in Hong Kong, etc) persist but again, are not verified either way because we're not the CIA and therefore don't give our opponents an opportunity to understand our tradecraft.

The closest US agency to ASIS is the CIA; except ASIS are not inept, ruined by Congress, and letting former officers write memoirs that give all the goddamn tradecraft away.

There are issues in these laws, but the problem is our journalists are people who are failures at life, generally underpaid, and therefore looking to build their profile with sensationalist headlines. You know, like most print journalists in most papers.

The main risk in Katana's article - that ASIO could collaterally kill someone in error during an operation - is breath-takingly stupid since ASIO don't carry out armed operations. The actual main risk is whether the expanding powers impede the capacity of the Inspector-General's office to conduct their duties of keeping ASIS and ASIO accountable. That is; does the IGIS require additional resources? Additional powers? etc. Does the Inspector-General make recommendations on whether there's a public interest angle? See, ASIO is aligned to the Attorney-General's Department, and ASIS are aligned to the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade - meaning if any discretion is ministerial you have scope for differing standards of interpretation.

Allowing an officer to bribe a government official, or in the course of penetrating a suspected extremist network engage in the illicit sale/s of arms, materiel or narcotics with legal immunity is a sensible step. Any risk of abuse should be managed by the IGIS, not by the media reporting on matters of national security.

 

It's not actually just mine. Even notwithstanding what I may have heard from Americans directly, people like Bob Baer make it pretty clear the transparency and politicking hurts the CIA's capacity to perform its duties abroad and made the US government reliant on SIGINT and SATINT over HUMINT - and directly or indirectly ill-equipping the US from being able to effectively predict or even disrupt the 11 September attacks.

 

Truly if we fixed the whole "transparency" thing, there would be no major problems with the CIA.

 

Have you read Baer's memoirs "See No Evil" or "Sleeping with the Devil"?

Just a yes/no answer will suffice.

 

Listen DarthGuyslament this is a typical comment from a Kony2012 Ameridumb leftist hysterically shrieking about issues your puny American mind can't conprehend.

 

Christ, it's just going to be a collection of stupid comments isn't it?

Do either of you know much about how an intelligence officer - or case officer, in your slang - recruits a HUMINT source or "agent"?

Tell me why you think a person would sign up to go to hostile territory and break a number of laws and diplomatic protocols by doing as you asked of them if you'd hang them out to dry back home?

Do you even know how much "transparency" hindered your ability to report on Saudis? Hell, did you even know your intelligence analysts were forbidden for years from conducting ANY assessment at any level of risks arising in Saudi Arabia or from the House of Saud?

 

Ok, so I'm assuming there's basically little knowledge here and a kind of hazy, "I'm progressive so I guess I have to feel this way about the CIA..." going on.

Transparency is not the same as oversight. Oversight from a dedicated entity such as an inspector general, ombudsman or similar figure is necessary because it facilitates a culture of compliance with the intelligence community. Earlier I quoted that our Inspector-General has a right of access and inspection for agencies; that is made possible but the understanding that the IG is not reporting their findings through open channels.

Transparency, on the other hand, takes the notion of shining a light onto clandestine affairs and assuming this is good and healthy. It's not. Whilst some aspects of the US clandestine services remain clandestine - such as DEVGRU or 1SFO-D, the CIA is more often than not not afforded the same shielding. It does not help that, at least to a point, you allowed CIA officers to talk openly about their work afterwards and only minimally redacted details. If you read Bob Baer's books - and See No Evil is definitely worth it - you'll understand my point. He talks about trade craft, shortcomings, internal politicking and the only redacted details are the occasional name. Consider the lengths SIS went to to prevent Richard Tomlinson writing his memoirs - he was jailed for breaches of the Official Secrets Act. This is what I mean; as a society, from Congress down, you feel like these things should be talked about.

Nobody, I don't think, feels the Services should be allowed to go back to post-WWII levels of unaccountability. But, recognising the nature of the work they do, the accountability should be through private channels and not reported upon. The public does not have a compelling interest or right of access here; it's juicy and interesting gossip. The same goes with our laws; no journalist is mentioning the IGIS because they don't do any research and don't care.

If you want a debate on the CIA, transparency, clandestine operations and open democracy, you will need to do basic research first boys.

 

Pot, kettle. You had your fair share of penal colonies.

Ender, can you blame me for not wanting to trust government in regards to secrecy and security? I'm referring to the the whole "on water matters" with refugees where the media was not told anything at all. That's transparency for you.

And if you want an example how good we are at findng terrorists, look no further than Muhammad Haneef (though that was the AFP).

I'm also wondering how serious these terror raids are, are these people actually serious in planning attacks or are they just mouthing off. I'm also wondering that about Numan Haider.

You do have a point about our media, these an urge to have big headlines and sell papers at the expense of lack of fact checking. But that doesn't mean it's all bad. When caught with the Indonesian phone bugging, the main complaint was the media knowing about it or in other words, getting caught. Oh, and the ABC was mean to the government.

Edit: Ender, IGiS is being mentioned.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/20...wants-clarification-on-national-security-plan