Security and secrecy

In a world where truth is not respected, and violence is a common weapon in social, political, economic and ideological conflict, security and secrecy is a tricky business.

Those who are responsible for security need to be able to keep information secret. It is not always possible to explain why decisions are made, often because to explain and justify the decision would be to put sources at risk.

But there is a real risk in this need for secrecy, a danger that secrecy become the cloak to hide that which should be shared. Secrecy can be a form of self-protection and a way to avoid accountability and appropriate scrutiny.

Security agencies are as likely to be ideologically driven as any other body, and to be shaped by personal interests (including the desire for promotion or to protect personal agendas) as any other organization. For example, there is significant evidence that ASIO offers quite biased assessments of the Palestinian community and the place of Israel in the world.

And what happens when ASIO decides that people are a security risk. Just a couple of weeks ago Ranjini was living a fairly normal life in Australia. She had fled from Sri Lanka, was found to be a refugee, married, had children, was newly pregnant, and settled into a new life in Melbourne.

And then without warning, she and her two sons are whisked away to the Villawood detention centre in Sydney because ASIO decided she was a security threat. She cannot defend herself because no-one will tell her what she is accused of. Along with her boys she faces indefinite detention and separation from her husband.

No-one wants to jeopardize national security, but there has to be a way by which one trustworthy person can review such cases in ways that protect intelligence sources and the rights of individuals. The last Labor Conference asked for such a mechanism, but the government will do nothing. “Legal complexity” is the excuse, although the real reason is more like people whose lives depend on secrets hate allowing others to check what they claim to know. This is about power and control.

We need to protect human rights in a culture where the use of the words ‘security risk’ seem to wipe out the rights we claim to be trying to protect. ‘Legal complexity’ is a lousy excuse for inaction, and an abdication of responsibility by governments of their need to hold our security organization accountable.