The Risk
ASIO, the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, is at the forefront in protecting the country from terrorist attack. The chief, Paul O’Sullivan, has recently appeared before the Senate to address the genuine threat of attack here. Or anyway, the feasibility of such an attack. I agree, it is indeed feasible. But that’s not the question I’d ask of ASIO. Instead, I’d ask, how likely is it? To that, Mr. O’Sullivan has no answer.

Mr. O’Sullivan references four instances of terrorism having previously occurred in Australia: in 1986 the Turkish Consulate in Melbourne was bombed. In 1982, the Israeli Consulate and the Hakoah club in Sydney were bombed (negligible damage, two people injured). In 1980 the Turkish Consul-General was assassinated by Armenian separatists. And in 1978 the Hilton hotel was bombed. The perpetrators of the 1978 attack remain unknown, damage was negligible, and casualties limited to three deaths and a few injured. Interestingly, in every instance the attack was carried out by foreigners against foreign interests. Some have suggested that the 1978 attack was actually ASIO itself, acting to obtain increased funding at a time when its usefulness was seen as slight.

But despite the increased threat – yes, one that has existed before September 11, 2001, but that doesn’t negate the increase that’s occurred since joining the Iraq debacle – no credible threat has been received of an attack here. That there was no warning received of attacks in Bali is of little relevance to actions anticipated within Australia, especially since ASIO is only charged with “collecting foreign intelligence in Australia.” They are not, in other words, the CIA, an agency charged with overseas operations. The Bali attacks were carried out by Indonesian national on Indonesian soil using Indonesian materials. Unless Indonesia had information and elected to share it with ASIO, Australia wasn’t going to get any warning. As of Australia itself, protecting against attacks is why ASIO exists, and it needs to anti-sedition legislation to conduct surveillance or investigations.

So while it’s gratifying to know that ASIO will conduct itself within the limits of the law, now that we’re looking at unwarranted and ineffective increases in their powers and those of the police, that isn’t particularly reassuring. I note that former Federal Police Commissioner Mick Palmer has been hired on as a per diem consultant to investigate terror attacks but without the power legislated to actually do anything, let alone anything to actually investigate. That the legislation is expected no earlier than sometime next year is a telling indicator of how unnecessary the new anti-terror laws themselves are. There has been no attacks, and ASIO’s got Australia all sewed up regarding the alleged 70 or 80 “persons of interest,” some of whom it’s already been shown weren’t even interesting.

Although it appears the legislation has popular support, it looks increasingly like a put-up job, one of those instances where “you can fool all of the people some of the time,” as the saying goes.