Director-General’s Speech for the release of
Records of the Hope Royal Commission on Intelligence and Security
National Archives of Australia 27 May 2008

• I'd like to thank the National Archives for inviting me to speak at today's special event.
• I should say at the outset that since ASIO first became subject to the Archives Act in 1983, we have developed a very close working relationship with the National Archives, and both organisations now have significant experience in managing the complicated processes involved in declassifying and releasing materials.
• This project has been considerable in scope, involving not only ASIO, but all agencies encompassed by the Royal Commission, so I'd like to thank all ASIO staff and, if I may, all other AIC members, who contributed to the preparation of these records for release.
• The English historian, Hugh Trevor-Roper, once remarked that 'ideas and skills are evolved under the pressure of the outer world'.
• Given the context in which the Hope Royal Commission was established - which Dr Stokes has already spoken about -
  • determining the right mix of 'external pressures' for the then secret, perhaps overly cloistered world of intelligence and security, was an important, albeit complicated, issue.
• Indeed, viewing the task from 'behind the desk' of the Royal Commission, so to speak, it was effectively being asked to traverse areas of great controversy and sensitivity, and resolve questions of significant moment ... questions that had neither simple nor easy answers.
• The Commission therefore required the stewardship of a person of great intellect and integrity; someone who would be able, Janus-like, to trace the historical pathways that Australia had taken in establishing and building its intelligence and security capacity; whilst possessing the judgement and moral imagination needed to guide the national approach into the future.
• The various reports show that the then Prime Minister, Mr Gough Whitlam, had found such a person in the Honourable Justice Robert Marsden Hope.

• It's remarkable just how firmly anchored were the terms of reference in an historical appreciation of the issues under review.
• And this, no doubt, led Justice Hope to commission Dr Jacqueline Templeton, of Melbourne University, to write a history of Australia's security and intelligence services from 1901 to 1950.
• In terms of past experience, Justice Hope said that 'the past is relevant to show what might happen in the future', although he would, above all, be 'concerned with the future rather with the past and to point to what should happen, in the future.'
• There are clear signs he succeeded in this concern.
• For one, many of his recommendations were accepted, implemented and have endured to this day.
• For another, he was invited back by the Hawke Government to do it all again in 1983-85 - an invitation which, I understand, he may have accepted only after some initial reluctance.
• And, a recent reconfirmation of his achievement came in the Flood Report of 2004, which broadly concluded that the 'architecture designed by Justice Hope in the 1970s for the Australian intelligence community remains valid'.
• To these measures of success, I would add the sheer quality, balance and lucidity of much of his analysis. Some parts of which, admittedly, make for bracing reading - particularly the findings about the way ASIO had been managed in the period leading up to the Royal Commission.
• Indeed, Justice Hope found the 'large number of most capable and intelligent members' of staff hitherto had been let down by poor leadership; inadequate internal management; and miscalculation of priorities. All of which was compounded by the Organisation's 'too great [a] distance from central government' - from whom, Justice Hope added, it had received insufficient guidance 'as to its priorities and tasks.'
• These, and other fascinating details about the character of ASIO at this time, can be found in some of the documents released today,
• I should emphasise, in anticipation of the likely questions regarding what information has being held back, that frank criticism or possible embarrassment are not grounds under the Archives Act for withholding material.
• With regards to ASIO, the only information exempted from release today concerns:
  • the identity of former and current ASIO personnel;
  • the identity of sources, contacts and informants;
  • capability and methods that may be still in use; and
  • relationships with foreign intelligence and security services.
• So there is a wealth of new information being made available today, which will be of great value for academics, policy analysts, journalists, and members of the public in understanding this period in our history.

• To gauge responsibly the place of the Hope Royal Commission in Australian history, it is essential not to trivialise or sensationalise these materials, but to weigh them carefully in context of the deleterious impact error or misjudgement may have had on the nation's future.
• In terms of its far-reaching consequences for security intelligence, I would draw attention to four areas of particular significance.
• First, the Royal Commission asked whether Australia was in need of, and should have, a security intelligence service.
• Justice Hope answered Australia did need, and should have, such a service.
• Second, in considering the proper place of a security service in a liberal democracy like Australia, Justice Hope refused to accept the soft options, and instead acknowledged frankly that it was no simple or easy thing for the nation to achieve a balance between the rights of individuals and the preservation of security. As elements of public policy, security and individual liberty should 'sustain each other'.
• Some of the evidence he reviewed indicated this may not always have been the case, and the situation was unlikely to improve without an underlying modernisation of the administrative and policy framework adopted by government.
• In practical terms, this meant providing clearer statutory definition for the meaning of security, ensuring, among other things, that ASIO's power to deal with the rising international threat of terrorism (politically motivated violence) was formalised.
• The Report of the Royal Commission also advised that the investigative process, while necessarily intrusive in some respects, should be scaled according to the seriousness of threat.
• Modernisation also meant, third, that firmer strategic direction from the very apex of our political system was essential to achieving a national approach.
• Justice Hope masterfully navigated a course through the difficult waters of the relation of policy and intelligence; of political oversight and statutory independence; and the way to maintain a politically bipartisan culture on matters of security.
• The Fourth Report reaffirmed the need for the Director-General of Security to have direct access to Prime Minister - a tradition begun by Chifley, and continued by Menzies. And recommended that the Leader of the Opposition be briefed from time to time on matters of security; and that the Leader of the Opposition be shown the Director-General's classified annual report under 'executive councillor' conditions.
• Interestingly, Justice Hope didn't recommend two things we now have; namely: parliamentary oversight, in the form of a parliamentary committee charged with responsibility for intelligence agencies; and the preparation by ASIO of an annual (unclassified) Report to Parliament.
• It's interesting to ask whether the breadth and depth of information now included in ASIO's annual unclassified Report to Parliament would satisfy his doubt that any "useful purpose would be served" by such a report.
• In my view, Justice Hope was too conservative on this point.
• The increasing wealth of detail we make available in this Report shows it is possible to reconcile the requirements of security with those of accountability.
• Fourth, Justice Hope was concerned that ASIO take its place within 'the official family of government departments and agencies', concluding that as,

  ASIO has a special place because it has a high duty for the defence of the realm .... [it] must take its place in government decision-making. On matters within its competence, it should be prepared to give advice and, also to come forward with advice even when not asked for it.

• I am confident that the ASIO of today is living up to this counsel.
• As an Organisation, we contribute our expertise and advice across various areas of government decision-making, and beyond the circle of government, have extended into new territory by ongoing, innovative engagement with the private sector.
• Our client base continues to grow, as does the number of products we produce for customers. Over the last ten years, for example, there has been a significant increase in the written advice we provide, with:
  • a nine-fold increase in the number of intelligence products we produce, reaching 934 in 2006-07; and
  • a three-fold increase in the number of threat assessments we issue, with a total of 1,994 in 2006-07.

• History strongly informed the Hope Royal Commission, and so to coincide with today's release of documents, it's my pleasure to announce that ASIO is commissioning an official history of the Organisation from its establishment in 1949 to 1978.
• We anticipate that it will be similar to those produced for 'Australia's Official War Histories' series commissioned by the Australian War memorial.
• ASIO is an Organisation that places much weight on the lessons of history, and we believe there is great merit not only in further informing our own understanding of the past, but in increasing public awareness of the role of one of its key national institutions.
• As such, we are seeking proposals, through a tender process, from suitably qualified individuals or organisations who will be able to write a balanced, independent history using information sourced from ASIO's archives.
• Full details of the project are in the tender package, which will be available at the Austender website (www.austender.gov.au) from tomorrow (28 May).

• In a speech I gave to the CEW Bean Foundation, I made the point that one of the merits of historical reflection is that it inevitably obliges us to ask ourselves 'how future generations will judge us'.
• In forming judgements about the Royal Commission's legacy, I think we should consider not only the contribution of Justice Hope himself, and those who assisted his work; but also the men and women within the intelligence and security services who took those important steps into a then unknown future, guided along the way, by the Royal Commission's grappling with the foundations of a modern security and intelligence system, in a liberal, democratic Australia.
• What judgements will be made in 30 years time about our current mission, the performance of which is now subject to an extensive oversight and accountability framework, including the strong powers of review of the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security?
• I would like to think that future generations will look back at today's ASIO and see an organisation actively committed to communicating and explaining broadly its role to the public; and highly committed to delivering an intelligence edge for a secure Australia.
• Time will tell if we have, in our time, absorbed the painful, clear-eyed judgements of Justice Robert Hope, and fashioned a security intelligence organisation fit for Australia's purpose, as we pursue our varied interests in a world even more complex and challenging than Hope imagined.
• Thank you.