BUSY ASIO

Turns out Big Brother is watching your every move
Saturday, 10 September 2005

ASIO can monitor your phone and e-mail, listen to your conversations in your car or phone, open your mail or enter your home, all without your knowledge or permission.
Federal agents can gain access to your voicemail and SMS and use tracking devices to monitor suspects.

Suspects, referred to as "people of security interest", are followed by surveillance teams, whose numbers have been boosted by a strong recruitment drive.

ASIO asked for and was given three warrants for questioning suspects in 2003-04. The three were held for, respectively, 15 hours 57 minutes, 10 hours 32 minutes, and 42 hours 36 minutes (where an interpreter was required).

Government reports show just over 2000 telephone interception warrants were issued in 2000-01.

An ASIO spokeswoman would not answer any questions about how many terror suspects were believed to be in Australia.

She would not discuss any operational matters, including how suspects were identified or followed. The annual report is classified but a heavily censored public version is issued.

"Legislation enables ASIO, subject to a warrant approved by the Attorney-General, to use intrusive methods of investigation such as telecommunications interception, listening devices, entry and search of premises, computer access, tracking devices, and the examination of postal and delivery service articles," the latest annual report says.

"The overall terrorist threat level in Australia remained at medium throughout the year, and at high for Australian interests in much of South-East Asia, South Asia, the Middle East and parts of East Africa. The picture is unlikely to alter significantly any time soon.

"That Australia is a terrorist target was brought home by the presence of French al-Qaeda suspect Willy Brigitte in Australia in 2003 and the attack on the Australian embassy in Jakarta on 9 September 2004.

"As of 30 June 2004, 17 terrorist groups were proscribed by law in Australia."

The national security hotline, established in December 2002, referred 13,381 calls to ASIO in 2003-04, of which 2602 contained sufficient information to begin investigations.

ASIO conducted 58,000 security checks for people working in specified areas such as airports.

This week, the Government proposed boosting the powers of the spy agency in the wake of the London bombings.
 

More news

Comment from Fredrick Töben

This fact alone indicates that in any activity to have an open and transparent policy, as does Adelaide Institute, is the best policy. Mystery-mongering and peddling 'open secrets' is time-wasting because it does not clarify pressing social problems.

============

Leash tightens on a nervous nation
By Michelle Grattan
September 11, 2005

In an ACNielsen AgePoll late last month, seven out of 10 people expected a terrorist attack in Australia within two years. Yet Australia's terrorism alert level remains at "medium". It hasn't changed since the New York and Washington attacks, four years ago today.

In political terms, however, there is a big link between people's fears and their willingness to accept drastic measures in the name of security. London didn't change the Australian alert but, as John Howard said, it had a special impact on Australians' thinking.

That's the climate into which the Prime Minister last week dropped yet another set of mooted security measures, tougher than ever.

People could be detained, on spec, for up to a fortnight. The sedition law would be replaced by a new offence of inciting violence against the community. Police could obtain from a court a 12-month "control order" on someone who posed "a terrorist risk", and attach an electronic tracking device. And there's much more.

The Law Council of Australia and others have attacked the undermining of civil liberties. The measures may or may not be modified around the edges.

But, unlike Telstra or industrial relations, the special climate means the debate won't take skin off the Government. Another Nielsen poll, in late July, found much support for strengthened measures (although there was opposition to indefinite detention of terrorist suspects without charge).

There has been one huge change since earlier anti-terrorism laws, including a substantial widening of ASIO's power, passed the Federal Parliament. The Government now (more or less!) controls the Senate.

Both the Opposition and Coalition backbenchers saw to it that sweeping changes were made to those previous bills to protect rights. The backbenchers' clout was boosted by the reality that the anti-Government Senate majority had the final whip hand.

Now Labor and the minor parties are impotent. If the civil liberty issues are to be pressed, it will be up to the states (all Labor) and the backbenchers.

Immediately after the London bombing, the premiers called for the federal-state summit on terrorism, which is to be held on September 27. In general they are in favour of stronger action, although there are doubts about specific measures.

Queensland's Peter Beattie is concerned about preventive detention and control orders. (The Government needs the states to legislate to allow preventive detention for a fortnight because Commonwealth constitutional power only permits probably about 48 hours.)

Beattie says he's willing to "go a long way down the path with Howard".

"But we are nervous about some of these things because they are draconian"
and present legal nightmares, he says. "You have to be sure you don't have a broadening of these powers to things that are not terrorism."

Liberal backbenchers George Brandis (Qld), Petro Georgiou (Vic) and Marise Payne (NSW) gave the Government curry at the special joint parties meeting on the package last Thursday. A lot of the agitation was because the measures weren't taken to the backbench committee. There was a hostile face-to-face conversation between committee chairman Brandis and the PM. But there were also worries about the lack of detail and especially the principle of detaining people even though there was no evidence they had done anything.

Only a few backbenchers are concerned, however, and it's unclear how hard they'll fight (they won't cross the floor).

Victorian backbencher Jason Wood, formerly a senior sergeant in the Victorian Police Counter Terrorism Unit, has little time for the civil libertarians' concerns. "Their hearts are in the right places but they are the same people who opposed finger-printing suspects, and DNA testing on rapists, murderers and pedophiles. If we'd listened to them we'd have rapists, pedophiles and murderers walking free from the courts."

Wood strongly backs the preventive detention proposal. "If you have an attack or a planned attack, you need sufficient time for investigators to build a successful case to prevent anyone involved from walking free. It has been proven overseas that the more time you have a terrorist suspect in custody, the more likelihood of getting a conviction."

Attorney-General Philip Ruddock promises "considerable consultation" with premiers and backbenchers on safeguards. He says the legislation will definitely go to the backbench committee. Howard also indicated on Friday that a "sunset" clause might be considered, which would be a significant protection.

Previous security legislation ran the gauntlet of long Senate inquiries, and they were vital to the debate. That won't happen this time. (We saw the new Senate way on Friday in the one-day hearing on the Telstra legislation.)

Ruddock says: "I'm not averse to having parliamentary committee scrutiny, provided it can be done quickly and not affect the timetable." The Government hopes to have the legislation through by Christmas.

The logical thing would be to send the legislation to the parliamentary committee that scrutinises ASIO and other agencies. Ruddock won't commit himself on this. He does say that if MPs want to hear reasons why the security agencies support the proposals, such as the size of the problem, that would probably have to be in camera. Duncan Kerr, a Labor member of the ASIO committee, says it's the normal course for legislation to go there and he expects these measures to do so.

Kerr, from the left and a former justice minister, says that without prejudging the measures, he is sceptical - pointing out, for example, that when ASIO appeared before the committee, it did not suggest it needed extra powers.

The Opposition is wedged on the changes, and marginalised because while state Labor governments have a role, federal Labor does not. Also, federal Labor doesn't want to be seen as soft on security, but can't ignore the civil liberty issues. Labor's homeland security spokesman, Arch Bevis, says the party will discuss the Howard statement this week but won't be pushed into a response until it sees detail.

Professor George Williams of the University of NSW, who played a big role in the debate about earlier security legislation, questions the timing of the latest proposals and is scathing about their content.

Williams says new laws can "give unrealistic expectations about just how safe we are".

"My position is not that the law should be static, but there is a bit of a race to the bottom, to maximise the toughness. They may not be needed and may not be effective," he told The Sunday Age. "I do support tough laws, but they have got to be balanced against fundamental liberties - (preservation
of) the sort of free society we've had."

This means "not being in fear of being detained by the government, and the ability to speak your mind about important issues". Williams sees the proposals as inhibiting free speech in the Muslim community.

The measures "would represent an enormous shift in our laws and how we deal with issues", he says.

"The rationale for the new laws is to protect our democracy and freedoms.
Yet these laws would pose a great danger to them - a danger even greater than that potentially posed by terrorism itself.

"The alert level has not been changed after the London bombing. So what is the justification (for taking) this great extra step?"

Of course, an attack can come out of the blue and Ruddock notes that "medium" is the highest alert without information that would suggest a specific threat.

But dramatic legal changes are no automatic solution, and what is done should be measured and fully considered. While some of this package is reasonable, other parts raise deep concern. It requires thorough debate and extensive modification. It's at times like this when a Senate that's awkward for a government would be good for the country.