Row over defence intelligence grows

Peter Mac

Spin-doctoring over issues concerning Australia's intelligence 
gathering has once again landed the Howard Government in hot 
water.

The Government had previously commissioned a report by lawyer and 
former naval officer Captain Martin Toohey into the effectiveness 
of the activities of government agencies that gather and process 
military intelligence.

To the government's horror, Toohey's report found serious 
weaknesses, in particular the tendency for intelligence personnel 
to frame their reports in a manner bound to find favour with the 
government of the day.

After receiving his report, the government undertook a "fishing 
expedition" for a report that would better suit their purposes: A 
second report confirmed the conclusions drawn by Collins and 
Toohey., but this was also rejected in favour of a third report 
by Colonel Richard Tracey, which claimed that Toohey's report was 
without foundation.

Toohey claims that Tracey hadn't bothered to contact him and had 
not read transcripts of interviews conducted by Toohey. Tracey 
himself does not appear to have conducted any such interviews. 
Toohey commented: "I believe there is no basis for the Tracey 
report. It is merely personal advice."

Nevertheless, in a transparent ruse, the government accepted the 
Tracey version, describing the discrepancies between the two 
reports as simply a result of "differing opinions".

The affair has revealed the Government as totally cynical and 
morally bankrupt. However, it has also highlighted major changes 
emerging within the Australian intelligence services which 
involve issues of profound importance for the Australian people.

High-level intelligence is a most important political weapon, 
which is intended to serve the interest of the government that 
gathers it, and the class whose interests that government serves.

One of the most embarrassing revelations arising from the recent 
open letter sent by a defence intelligence officer, Lance 
Collins, is that there is a clique of members of Australia's 
Defence Intelligence Orgainisation who are sympathetic to 
Indonesia. Their views correspond to those that have prevailed 
among the major political parties since General Suharto's bloody 
neo-fascist coup in Indonesia in the early 1960s.

Specific reference was made in Collins' letter to the 1999 
situation in East Timor, in which post UN plebiscite violence was 
clearly and accurately forecast. The Howard government failed to 
act until the massacres were well underway, and then only with 
greatest reluctance as the principal member of a UN taskforce.

Howard's "yes men"

The modification of intelligence reports to make them acceptable 
to a government's political views is attributed to being a result 
of appointing intelligence officers with a background in policy 
formation and the diplomatic service.

The performance of these officers is undoubtedly supported by the 
Government. They are fully conscious of the government's 
requirements, share their views and are only too pleased to shape 
their reports accordingly. A prime example of this is the 
material used to back up allegations that Iraq possessed weapons 
of mass destruction prior to the invasion by US-led forces.

The Government is cultivating organisations of "yes men". It is 
abundantly clear that it wants a public service, including the 
intelligence agencies, that will produce material lending 
credibility to its policies.

It is also clear that the Howard Government is prepared to use 
this material to transfer the blame onto members of those 
agencies when things go terribly wrong, as is happening in Iraq. 
Let's not forget the hapless Mick Keelty, head of the Australian 
Federal Police, who was publicly humiliated and forced to recant 
when he stated that Australia now has a heightened danger of 
becoming a terrorist target as a result of the Howard 
Government's support of the war in Iraq.

The treatment of Captain Toohey, including commissioning reviews 
of his report, bears this out.

Alienating the intelligence service, defence forces

There is now an increasing tendency for government officials to 
publicly state their differences with the government. Notable 
recent examples include Captain Toohey and former Office of 
National Assessments officers Andrew Wilkie, as well as 
Lieutenant-Colonel Lance Collins and defence intelligence 
operative Jane Errey, both from the Defence Intelligence 
Organsiation.

Errey, a Ministerial briefer, claims she was sacked for refusing 
to write a report that exaggerated the threat posed to the West 
by the former Saddam Hussein regime. These people's decision to 
speak out is a direct result of the Government's practice of 
blaming catastrophes such as the Iraq war on faulty intelligence 
and, by implication, poor performance by intelligence 
organisations and personnel.

This practice is not only duplicitous; it is also very unwise. 
The government ultimately depends heavily on the support of the 
intelligence services and the public service generally. They want 
"yes men" to provide them with material to back up their more 
unpopular activities, but they also need competent professionals 
and operatives to provide them with accurate and objective 
information.

It is these people who are likely to feel the greatest 
resentment, both individually and collectively, at being asked to 
lie or cover for the Government. And this resentment is almost 
guaranteed to result in them speaking out.

Further scandals are emerging to dog the government. Some 200 
former and serving defence personnel are considering taking a 
legal class action against the Government. They claim that their 
behaviour, which in many cases comprised speaking out against 
unjust treatment, resulted in their being dismissed from the 
service on the totally spurious grounds of ill health.

More and more people close to the design and delivery end 
government's disastrous military policies are speaking out. Their 
courage and their contribution to the campaign to rein in this 
aggression are to be welcomed

And as if that was not enough, there is now a major scandal 
brewing involving radio announcer and right-wig rabble rouser 
Alan Jones.

The Prime Minister did not deny he had spoken to Jones, but 
stated that he had "no recollection" of a discussion with Jones 
about Flint's appointment. In the circumstances many people will 
see this as just another attempt by "honest John" to weasel out 
of another unpleasant and politically embarrassing scandal.