Bruce, you are a man after my own heart. I suggest you check out the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity. This body was established by the Howard Government in 2006 - see www.aclei.gov.au -it has the powers of a Royal Commission to look into all aspects of Federal Law Enforcement corruption. After over a decade of lobbying by myself and many others we were able to force the introduction of an external oversight body for the AFP and others - the ACLEI, however our celebrations were short lived. Unfortunately the funding allocated to this much needed fledgeling organisation was so inadequate it took the Attorney General nearly 12 months to find a suitably qualified Intergrity Commissioner prepared to work for almost nothing (compared to the current professions remuneration levels in the private sector). Then they had to employ senior investigators and coordinators - well these poor devils were expected to take on the might and entrenched administrative and other corruption at the Federal Law Enforcement with wage packages that were less that a Sergeant/Team Leader in the AFP - and they had to move to Canberra to do it. Needless to say there hasn't been a public peep out of this newly formed body...

Please keep advocating for accountability, particularly accountability in the AFP. I once hoped to form a survivors of the AFP organisation - they will destroy there own members to save their public face and their mates. You might want to check out an old Commonwealth Ombudsman's report from 1997 - http://www.comb.gov.au/commonwealth/publish.nsf/AttachmentsByTitle/reports_1997_afp.pdf/$FILE/AFP_report.pdf

It is very heartening to see these issues finally being discussed in public...hopefully the Haneef Judicial Inquiry will be the catalyst for a full, public, Royal Commission into the AFP. (Note not another Claytons inquiry like the Harrison Inquiry - on which, for the trivia files, Mick Keelty was the Senior/Chief Investigator).

An interesting and troubling article, but first a recent book gives some information on the roles of the many and varied security/intelligence groups. It is “Plunging Point” by Lance Collins and Warren Reed 2005 Fourth Estate an imprint of HarperCollins publishers.

Spin and hype have become the current manner of doing things bringing us the war on terror, whatever that is, other than something good for those wanting a standard to wave, empires to build and headlines in the press.
Part of this has been well summed up in the saying of Herman Goering, people don’t want war, the Gov finds a fearful issue hypes it with media help and proclaims all disagreeing are idiots if not traitors. Good for those who would rule poor for democracy, i.e. the ruled!

It would seem from this article that the AFP is well and truly mixing policing, intelligence and confrontational posturing, even perhaps potentailly a Himml;er style organisation in a democracy. Yet remember much of the criticism to a war like response to the previously unexperienced terror, on themselves though much accustomed to dealing it out. Europe of course is accustomed to both and has been for a long time.
The inappropriateness of army style approach to an issue demanding intelligence subtlety and the skills of criminal investigation and apprehension of culprits. Granted the definition of terrorism like international justice tend to be in favour of those who command. I.E. we are not terrorist everyone else is! Thus Saddam’s neck was stretched but allied terrorists escaped in WW2 and subsequently.

Note that the call was for activity by policing not paramilitary. Thus there surely needs to be some rationalisation of what task belongs to which group, granted that some means of ensuring co operation and sharing of information between groups rather than competition, sulks and status building denying information to others.
Did this not happen in America or was that part of the smoke screen?

It seems to me that many real questions are raised by this gentleman may he write more-soon.

TRTL

Not only the AFP, ASIO, ASIS and DFAT but as you say parts of DEF including DSD, DIGO, DIO and national security divisions housed in other departments such as AGD (see www.ag.gov.au) and ONA.

Problem with some of these agencies is that the complaints mechanisms are often narrow and encourage suppression of information particularly when personnel are bound by the obligations of a security clearance or the Crimes Act. Many public servants often feel they have nowhere to go should they witness or become aware of corruption or any other illegal activity whether it be of a minor or major nature. The police services are probably the best example of where whistle blowers are hounded and discredited but I am sure it happens in other agencies eg. Andrew Wilkie (ONA) and others in the Defence Forces who have spoken out about Iraq and East Timor.

IGIS (www.igis.gov.au) only provide recourse for complaints about ASIO, ASIS, DIGO and DSD. It is one of the few agencies where even highly sensitive information can be relayed without fear of prosecution. However, other agencies are not covered by IGIS jursidiction and internal reporting or whistle blowing is not viewed favourably within government.

ILMC

Very interesting post. ACLEI does not have a high profile and I can see from the www.gold.gov.au website that it is linked with the parliamentary committee system. Maybe the Rudd government will give it a higher profile and funding to establish ACLEI as a truly independent overseer.

Damn. Politicians and policemen are scary these days!
If these bastrds start doing a CIA and turning crimminal for "national interest", and are backed by politicians because they are too scared...time to emmigrate.
God the last 10 years are a shame. US sickness industry, US "management", US insurance costs (911 made local fetes expensive!), US divisive education, now US "security".
God help us from Authority!

Excellent points Bruce.
Apart from the dubious nature of the AFP paramilitary role, I think that we should be equally concerned about the Praetorian Guard function it performed during the Howard years of hunting down dissenters, whistleblowers and contrarians in the civil service.
WHat chance that role will diminish under the new Government? I'm not holding my breath.

Hi amphibious

Rudd has stated he is striving for a more honest, accoutable and transparent government but the proof will be in the actions not the words. It is easy for politicians to be critical and make grand declarations in Opposition now that Labor is in power we will soon see if they are true to their promises.

One wonders if the AFP are just as vigilant with politicians' travel rorts as with the silencing of dissenters within the public service.