Australian National Security 2007
Director-General's Address
‘National Security Intelligence and Counter-Terrorism'
27 February 2007
Thank you Mr Chairman for the opportunity to address the National Security 2007 Conference here at the Sydney Convention Centre today.
This is another valuable opportunity to bring together a variety of intelligence, security, law enforcement, policy professionals and people from the private sector who have important messages and experiences to share as part of a continuing collaborative approach to countering terrorism.
I have spoken previously about the importance of two things in particular:
The need for us to have a current and realistic appreciation of the threats we face; and
The need for a collective effort to counter the security threats to the people and interests of Australia.
This morning I would like to make a further contribution to the national security discourse by speaking about the role of security intelligence in countering the threat of terrorism within the Australian context.
In October 2007 we will mark the fifth anniversary of the 12th October 2002 attacks in Bali.
Sadly, that was not the only attack against Australians in Indonesia in the last five years.
The 2002 attacks, which accounted for the untimely and tragic deaths of 88 Australians, were a significant catalyst for shaping the way in which ordinary Australians perceive the threat of terrorism.
Many of the victims were young people, perhaps celebrating their academic achievements or the end of the football season.
Others victims were holidaying with their families in idyllic surroundings – families that will be forevermore incomplete as they mourn the brothers, sisters, sons, daughters or parents whose lives ended that day.
The attack in October 2005 also had tragic consequences for innocent Australian families.
These were ordinary people who were not engaged in risky activities, who were doing no harm to anyone, and who did not deserve to die in that way or at that time.
It was not the first time that young Australians have lost their lives while travelling abroad.
But, unlike other incidents that have been unfortunate accidents, the Australians who have died in terrorist attacks did so as a direct result of misguided and vengeful actions by extremists.
As a nation we are now much more aware that Australians are at threat from the actions of terrorists.
We also have had to confront the reality that we are not just at threat abroad.
Planned attacks in Australia so far have been disrupted or aborted – but attacks still could occur at any time, including without warning.
In recent years we have seen attacks in other countries including in Madrid and Jakarta in 2004; in London, Sharm al Sheikh in Egypt and again in Bali in 2005; and in 2006 in Mumbai to name a few.
If we are to be effective in preventing such atrocities happening in our country we need to reflect regularly on the nature of the threats we face.
Importantly, we need to test whether our current mindset remains relevant and appropriate, that we are making sound investigative decisions and that our preventative mechanisms remain effective.
Of course, terrorism is not the only security threat we face but it remains the most immediate and the most lethal.
That is why it continues to attract the most attention, the most resources and the most public discussion and commentary.
A frequent focus of that public discussion remains the issue of the balance between civil liberties and measures required to protect our citizens from harm.
Ultimately the question of what we are willing to tolerate as a community and as a society in order to keep ourselves safe comes down to the level of risk that we are prepared to accept.
This applies across the board, not just to security threats.
In the years that followed the 11 September 2001 attack in the United States and the 12 October 2002 attack in Bali, the Australian Government enacted legislation that was directed at ensuring that intelligence, security and law enforcement agencies have the powers available to them that will enable them to be effective in countering the threats we face.
We should not lose sight of the fact that the ultimate goal is the protection of Australia, Australians and Australian interests from those who would seek to maim, kill or destroy the people, values, and things we cherish.
In addition to legislative change, extra resources have been committed to all agencies with many continuing to grow in size and capability.
Time will tell how effective and worthwhile these resource increases and capability enhancements have been.
In the interim, questions will continue to be asked about the actions that were taken, the resources that were committed and the extent to which Australians were made safer or harm was prevented.
I have said previously, ASIO conducts its work strictly within the framework provided by the
ASIO Act 1979
and other relevant legislation, under a robust accountability and oversight regime.
However, the nature and definition of civil liberties and human rights within our society and how those rights are balanced against other rights, including the right to life, remains open to interpretation and argument, in the first place, in our National Parliament.
As Australians we generally see ourselves as having high levels of freedom in comparison with many other countries or societies.
Yet we accept many impositions or restrictions on our freedom and individual rights in an attempt to minimise the risks we carry.
For example, in an attempt to reduce the road toll we accept speed limits enforced by speed cameras and radar; we accept random breath testing by police and in some places random roadworthy inspections of vehicles.
I note the change late last year in the Northern Territory where previously there was no speed limit imposed on the most remote highways; now there is a maximum speed limit of 130 km/hr.
Few in Australia would argue that a greater public good is served by restricting the freedom of those who would seek to drive at high speed or under the influence of alcohol.
The compulsory requirement to wear protective helmets when riding a motor cycle or a bicycle is intended to reduce the risk of serious injury to the rider.
Although it may be an important safety initiative, it is a restriction on personal freedom of choice and personal responsibility.
Limits are imposed on what can be taken into some sporting venues and enforced through bag searches which are now accepted as part of the spectator experience.
Increases in the number of public venues where smoking is not permitted have created a situation now that is far different from what existed in the recent past.
Airport security checking, including random checking for explosives, x-raying of shoes and other carry-on items, and – in some cases – pat down body searches, continues to cause frustration and inconvenience but is largely accepted as necessary to ensure the safety of the travelling public.
While some may complain about such measures, most accept it as necessary because there is a widespread perception that such measures are unavoidable in the interests of public safety.
Such measures are not accepted universally.
In some other countries people do not so readily accept such restrictions on their individual freedoms, even in the interest of wider public health and safety.
When it comes to the issue of security intelligence – which has at its core the protection and safety of each one of us, our families and loved ones – the level of acceptance varies.
That is why it is important that security and intelligence agencies in an enduring parliamentary democracy like Australia operate in ways that dispel such concerns.
That said, there is no escaping the fact that security intelligence work involves the identification of people who are intent on doing harm before they can be successful.
In other words, security intelligence investigations and related activities are directed at identifying the intentions and actions of that small minority of people who, if undetected or left unchecked could cause the death or injury of potentially large numbers of innocent people.
Because the would-be perpetrators of such acts seek to conceal their true intentions and their preparations for attacks, the investigation of them necessarily needs to be done discreetly, in some cases through the exercise of special powers authorised under warrant by the Attorney-General.
The tools and powers available to ASIO to conduct security intelligence investigations are authorised under legislation and subject to rigorous accountability and oversight mechanisms.
Another aspect that I would like to focus on today is the more complex issue of what the community expects that a security intelligence agency in Australia should be doing at this point in our history.
Very few people would seriously dispute the fact that we are at threat of attack by terrorists abroad and at home although there is less agreement about the reasons, and about the factors that might contribute to the particular level of threat at any given point in time.
The threat within Australia has remained largely unchanged since late 2001 – a terrorist attack is feasible and could well occur.
In a number of places around the world attacks have occurred and more are likely.
I have said previously that the threat we face is not static and continues to evolve.
Unfortunately that evolution is not in ways that bring clarity or definition to the task of countering the threat.
Indeed, there does not appear to be any linear progression in the development of the threat, nor any constraints on those who would seek to do harm to others.
Such people have little, if any, regard for the social, legal and political structures, traditions and values that underpin our society.
The varying scale of their operations and the speed at which people can become intent on destruction is alarming.
Nor do those intent on harm operate as tangible, identifiable organisations with a street address or clearly defined organisational structures that can be easily known or determined.
Rather, they can operate as a loose network driven by shared ideological or religious commitment that would see them die for their beliefs, operating with a mindset that is well outside the mainstream of civil society or religious faith.
Clearly, the number of people who operate within, or who are drawn to, this mindset is a very small proportion of the population.
Nonetheless, if allowed to go undetected their potential impact is substantial in terms of the injuries or fatalities that they can cause;
And in the disruption and loss of confidence in the safety of our everyday lives.
That is why we need our intelligence and law enforcement agencies to be attuned to activity that may point to a terrorist plan in the making;
or that brings attention to nuances in changes of behaviour that could be the precursor of an attack;
and that allows a lawful and appropriate response to ensure such plans do not progress to a fatal outcome.
We have seen how such a threat can arise from previously unexpected quarters.
We have seen otherwise ordinary people drawn towards an extreme set of beliefs, often in a short period of time, and sometimes with preparedness to kill and maim others.
There is no denying that extreme interpretations of religion and causes have been invoked as justification for attacks on others who do not share these views.
Having said that, I should make clear that does not mean that ASIO targets particular communities.
We investigate behavior that threatens security, not communities.
Intelligence investigations are and must remain focussed on quickly pursuing and resolving lead information that points to a threat from either traditional or non-traditional sources.
Specifically, they must be focussed on identified threat activity and behaviour that could lead, if left unchecked, to the perpetration of an attack.
Sometimes that will mean taking action at a relatively early, but appropriate, stage on the basis of a rigorous assessment of the information that is available to prevent a tragedy from occurring.
I can't go into details in a public forum about how ASIO goes about identifying such behaviours or activities or in making its assessments.
But I can assure you that essential elements of this role include continuing to work closely with the community; even greater cooperation and coordination across a range of government agencies; and rigorous checking and testing of information, assumptions and assessments.
I do not believe that it is an unreasonable expectation that the community should accept such investigations as a legitimate part of a wider strategy of protecting them from harm.
That said, they have a right to expect that such investigations are conducted lawfully.
The value of security intelligence lies in its ability to inform decision-making that will enable the prevention of harm.
Comprehensive and accurate advice after the fact cannot bring back loved ones or repair shattered lives.
An issue that requires careful consideration and sensitive handling is the issue of the use of security intelligence in the context of criminal prosecutions.
The protection of sensitive intelligence sources and capabilities is a difficult issue and one that the judiciary, law enforcement, intelligence and other agencies continue to work through.
This dilemma is not unique to Australia – the legal systems of other countries are grappling with similar issues in criminal and civil proceedings.
These issues cannot be considered in a vacuum; they occur within the Australian context that I outlined earlier; one in which:
There is a relatively low level of risk tolerance across the board, not just in connection with security matters;
There is a high level of expectation that the relevant authorities will prevent harm;
There is a real and persistent threat of terrorism and other security threats that require thoughtful and innovative intelligence responses in addition to sensible protective measures; and
There is a robust and effective oversight regime that provides assurance that intelligence agencies are acting legally in discharging their functions.
Let me reiterate that the focus of ASIO is on obtaining information, conducting investigations, undertaking analysis and providing advice that will allow for the prevention of harm from terrorists, those who would seek to engage in other forms of politically motivated violence, espionage or other threats to our security.
That is the role of ASIO.
Avoiding preventable mistakes and so-called intelligence failures is very high in our priorities, and our systems and procedures are designed with this in mind.
There can be no guarantees of course, but that does not absolve us from our responsibility to the government and to the Australian community.
Let me conclude by making the following points.
Security intelligence work is not a theoretical or academic pursuit devoid of consequences – matters of life and death, as well as damage to property, public confidence or the ease with which we can go about our everyday business are at stake.
Security intelligence has a central role to play in protecting the people of Australia and its interests by preventing harm before it can occur.
Performing this function will continue to involve complex and sensitive work, sometimes relying on the use of special powers but always conducted within the legislative framework and under a rigorous accountability and oversight regime.
It is a role that the people of ASIO take very seriously.
The preventative nature of this work means that planning for terrorist acts or other threats to security must be disrupted before they can be put into effect.
Our effectiveness in this role as a nation is dependant on how well agencies at all levels of government, the business sector and the wider community work together in the interest of the whole community to counter the plans of a small but dangerous group of extremists.
We need to examine regularly our understanding of the threats we face to ensure that our perceptions are aligned with reality.
We should neither underestimate the resourcefulness of extremists nor over-estimate the strength of our own position.
We need to remain tightly focussed on the small number of people who are a problem and not cause innocent sections of the community to feel threatened.
If all those in the intelligence, security, law enforcement and policy communities are mindful of these factors, then we will have the best chance of protecting the people and interests of Australia in ways that are consistent with the broader values of Australian society and preserve the things we hold dear as a nation.
Thank you.