http://www.abc.net.au/local/stories/2011/04/04/3181209.htm

The above link is an interview between ABC’s Richard Fidler and Customs whistleblower Alan Kessing. It is just over 50 minutes long but worth the investment.

Alan Kessing wrote two reports for Customs that were shelved as being too costly in fixing identified problems with airport security processes including, among other things, information surrounding the ramifications of using sub-contracted airport personnel who could access the sterile areas of airports.

The early part of the interview describes national security and airport security measures as ‘theatre’. That is governments seeking to appear to be vigilant about terrorism and trans-national crime but behind the scenes shelving two important and revealing reports about lax security measures, particularly the conflict around commercial interests of privatised airports – described as retail centres with runways.

The discussion wraps up with the role of the AFP in protecting the interests of the Commonwealth (acting as a sort of ‘Praetorian Guard”) over the interests of the citizenry. During Kessing’s trial the judge advised the jury to ignore any ‘public interest’ aspects of the case; many documents were suppressed, not being produced for the defence or the Crown. The most disturbing aspect was the prosecutor’s request for a jail sentence “because (you) had embarrassed the government and to deter other public servants”.

Many would agree at times “governments need to keep secrets” but as Kessing remarked there are very few “necessary secrets”, the vast majority being used to save embarrassment and hide incompetence.

The interview leaves room to ask further questions about national security in general. Is much of what is revealed on the public stage just well managed theatre? What other areas within national security are fraught with problems similar to those experienced by whistleblowers like Kessing (and Wilkie)?

Is Kessing right when he comments that public and political attention spans are short implying that this sets the mood and framework that makes reform of areas like FOI, accountability and transparency an exercise similar to, as I would put it, pushing shite up a hill

Dear Pelly,

The following website may be of interest:

http://www.crikey.com.au/2009/09/14/allan-kessing-my-side-of-the-story/

The treatment of Robert Allan Kessing is a disgrace as a reader wrote on the above cited link. Makes one wonder - why was the man charged when he should have been congratulated for doing his job so thoroughly. Scary.

Wilkie is a blind egoist. It's not the pet causes it's the attention he craves.

Hey did anyone see the 'patting down' of a six year old girl recently in America? Hands inside pants elastic and all.

http://www.news.com.au/travel/news/outrage-over-invasive-pat-down-of-child/story-e6frfq80-1226038902302

Never know what six year olds bring on a plane, might be a Barbie AK47 in there.

http://www.redbubble.com/people/sniperphotog/art/5551289-x-is-for-xenodocheionology

http://www.redbubble.com/people/sniperphotog/art/6427091-d-is-for-dacnomania

I always reckon the whole security screening is to attempt to get people into the duty free shops for longer. Make them get to the airport earlier and have nothing to do but browse the shops.

'Is much of what is revealed on the public stage just well managed theatre?'
Of course!

PS: Much of my life is managed theatre!

Thanks for the link Lexi. The treatment of Kessing is something governments should use as the benchmark for what not to do should similar events reoccur. The comments by the prosecutor arguing for a jail term because Kessing embarrassed the government is something truly worthy of a Huphrey Appleby award. Since when has it been illegal to embarrass governments. The truth is though, that these sorts of trials and humiliations do have the desired effect.

If you listen to the interview Houlley, you will see Kessing argues something similar. That the screening processes are largely over-valued in counter-terrorism and the real threat comes from large container ships and imports. Airport screening plays but a small part and one does have to wonder at the OTT approach. Thus far I have never been searched nor do my bags get checked - must be my angelic face, but my hubby who has a beard rarely misses a pat down or a scan.

Dear Pelly,

I had to laugh when you wrote that your husband gets searched because of his beard. I used to have very long hair and would wear it braided.
And when travelling - I too would always be stopped. Perhaps it was some sort of "hippie," image (they thought) - or maybe it was the combination with my red hair that made me stand out (plus the fact that I love wearing jeans)? When I wear suits and sunglasses I don't seem to have as much of a problem. Whoever said that appearances don't matter - ha!

Houlley, I don't believe Wilkie to be an egoist. Certainly no more than anyone else.

An egoist is more likely to keep stum. Why bring negative attention on yourself and all the usual repercussions of whistleblowing such as accusations of mental problems. Generally not the actions of an egoist.

I always get the impression that Mr Wilkie is reticent about public appearances, he certainly does not appear to be basking in the limelight.