Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Australian National Security Intelligence Collection Since 9/11: Policy and Legislative Challenges

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
National Security, Surveillance and Terror

Part of the book series: Crime Prevention and Security Management ((CPSM))

Abstract

A key lesson from 9/11 was that intelligence agencies could no longer simply wait for information to arrive. The enhanced threat from Al Qaeda and their global franchises required an extensive and ‘real-time’ collection of intelligence. This new operating environment has refashioned Australian and other Five Eyes countries, therefore, to be more active ‘hunters’ of information. This chapter examines both policy and counter-terrorism legislative landmarks underpinning intelligence collection since 9/11, and the many challenges Australian agencies have faced managing policy and legislative reform. The Australian counter-terrorism response is then compared briefly to the Canadian policy and legislative context to identify common and unique challenges by policymakers.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    In Canada there were some early periods of terrorism primarily perpetrated by groups such as the Sons of Freedom Doukhobors, a Russian religious sect, and the Front de Liberation Quebec (FLQ)—the violence of the latter peaking in the mid-1970s. In the main, Canada was used as a base to support terrorism groups planning attacks elsewhere in the world such as the Air India Flight 182 bombing by Sikh separatists. See Mullins 2013.

  2. 2.

    While writing this chapter, Prime Minister Tony Abbott was deposed in a Liberal Party leadership challenge by his Communications Minister, Malcolm Turnbull. In September 2015 Mr Turnbull became the fifth prime minister since 9/11. It is still early days for the new Turnbull Government and there has been no major departure on counter-terrorism and intelligence policy or legislation from his predecessor to date.

  3. 3.

    The ASD or Australian Signals Directorate is Australia’s sigint collection agency. Until May 2013, it was known as DSD or the Defence Signals Directorate. The government changed its name to reflect a desire to see it have a more ‘whole of government’ function in Australia’s national security beyond the defence portfolio. Its Canadian counterpart is the Communications Security Establishment Canada (CSEC). ASIS or the Australian Secret Intelligence Service is Australia’s foreign intelligence collection agency. It does not have an exact equivalent in the Canadian intelligence community.

  4. 4.

    There is insufficient space to provide detailed discussion of both the Arar and Charkaoui cases. In brief, Maher Arar was detained in the USA on his way home to Canada in 2002 based on information provided to US officials from Canadian authorities. The USA then renditioned Arar back to Syria (the country of his birth), where he was again detained and tortured for a year by the Syrian Military Intelligence Agency. The Arar case demonstrated several procedural problems during Arar’s investigation in Canada particularly with sharing intelligence and its accuracy (see Walsh 2011, 154–155). Adil Charkaoui’s case related to an adverse security finding against him under Canada’s security certificate legislation (Immigration and Refugee Protection Act 2001), which enables usually the Ministers for Public Safety and Immigration to arrest, detain and eventually deport a person named in a security certificate, if the ministers have reasonable grounds to believe a person is a danger to national security. In 2009, a federal court declared the security certificate against Charkaoui null and void as the government failed to meet its burden of proof once it removed disputed material gathered by wiretaps (see Walsh 2011, 230–231).

  5. 5.

    In June 2016, however, the new Trudeau Government introduced Bill C-22 into parliament to create a new national security and intelligence committee.

  6. 6.

    There are some differences in the mandate and operations of Canada’s SIRC and IGIS in Australia. SIRC only has review and audit responsibilities for CSIS while Australia’s Inspector-General is responsible for reviewing all agencies in the Australian Intelligence Community. SIRC tends to do historical, ‘retrospective’ reviews while IGIS does regular inspections seeking to remedy an issue before it requires a more major intervention.

References

  • Clarke, John. 2008. Clarke Inquiry into the Case of Dr Mohamed Haneef. Canberra: Attorney-General’s Department.

    Google Scholar 

  • Farson, Stuart, and Nancy Teeple. 2014. Increasing Canada’s Foreign Intelligence Capability: Is it a Dead Issue? Intelligence and National Security 30(1): 47–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Flood, Philip. 2004. Report of the Inquiry into Australian Intelligence Agencies. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoffman, Bruce. 2002. Rethinking Terrorism and Counter Terrorism Since 9/11. Studies in Conflict and Terrorism 25(5): 305–316.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hurst, Daniel. 2015. Australia’s New Improved Data Retention Laws: How Will They Work? The Guardian (Australian Edition), March 19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lacqueur, Walter. 1999. The New Terrorism. London: Phoenix Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lowenthal, Mark M. 2012. From Secrets to Policy. 5th ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: CQ Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maley, Paul. 2013. Austerity for Spies a ‘Disgrace’ says Labor MP Anthony Byrne. The Australian, May 28.

    Google Scholar 

  • McDonald, Geoff. 2007. Control Orders and Preventative Detention-Why Alarm is Misguided. In Law and Liberty in the War on Terror, eds. A. Lynch, E. MacDonald, and G. Williams, 106–115. Annandale: The Federation Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mullins, Sam. 2013. ‘Global Jihad’: The Canadian Experience. Terrorism and Political Violence 25(5): 734–776.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roach, Kent. 2007. A Comparison of Australian and Canadian Anti-Terrorism Law. University of NSW Law Journal 30(1): 53–85.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2011. The 9/11 Effect: Comparative Counter-Terrorism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Rudner, Martin. 2007. Canada’s CSE, Signals Intelligence and Counter-Terrorism. Intelligence and National Security 22(4): 473–490.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • The Commonwealth of Australia. 1995. Criminal Code Act. Canberra.

    Google Scholar 

  • The Parliament of Canada. 1985. Canada Consolidation Criminal Code. RSC., c. C-46. Ottawa.

    Google Scholar 

  • The US Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. 2014. Committee Study of the Central Intelligence Agency’s Detention and Interrogation Program. Washington, DC.

    Google Scholar 

  • The 9/11 Commission Report. 2004. Final Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walby, Kevin, and Seantel Anais. 2012. Communications Security Establishment Canada (CSEC), Structures of Secrecy, and Ministerial Authorization after September 11. Canadian Journal of Law and Society 27(3): 363–380.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walsh, Patrick F. 2011a. Intelligence and Intelligence Analysis. Abingdon: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • ——— 2011b. Intelligence and National Security Issues. In Policing in Practice, eds. V. Herrington and P. Birch, 109–127. South Yarra: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • ——— 2012. Submission and Testimony to Inquiry into the Use of Criminal Intelligence (Joint Parliamentary Committee on Law Enforcement). Canberra: Australian Parliament.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walsh, Patrick F., and Seumas Miller. 2015. Rethinking ‘Five Eyes’ Security Intelligence Collection Policies and Practice Post Snowden. Intelligence and National Security 31: 1–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wark, Wesley. 2013. How To Reclaim the National Security Agenda. The Globe and Mail, October 11, A15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilkinson, Paul. 2001. Terrorism vs. Democracy: The Liberal State Response. London: Frank Cass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams, George. 2011. A Decade of Australian Anti-Terror Laws. Melbourne University Law Review 35(3): 1137–1151.

    Google Scholar 

  • White, Margaret. 2012. A Judicial Perspective—The Making of Preventative Detention Orders. In Law and Liberty in the War on Terror, eds. A. Lynch, E. MacDonald, and G. Williams, 116–127. Annandale: The Federation Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Australian Graduate School of Policing and Security, Charles Sturt University, Manly, NSW, Australia

    Patrick F. Walsh

Authors
  1. Patrick F. Walsh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Sociology and Criminology, University of Windsor, Windsor, ON, Canada

    Randy K. Lippert

  2. Department of Criminal Justice, University of Winnipeg, Centennial Hall, Winnipeg, MB, Canada

    Kevin Walby

  3. School of Humanities and Social Sciences, Deakin University, Geelong, VIC, Australia

    Ian Warren

  4. School of Humanities and Social Sciences, Deakin University, Geelong, VIC, Australia

    Darren Palmer

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Walsh, P.F. (2016). Australian National Security Intelligence Collection Since 9/11: Policy and Legislative Challenges. In: Lippert, R., Walby, K., Warren, I., Palmer, D. (eds) National Security, Surveillance and Terror. Crime Prevention and Security Management. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-43243-4_3

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-43243-4_3

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-43242-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-43243-4

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation