The `secret police': did Victoria Police Operations Intelligence Unit behave appropriately?

Issue outline by J M McInerney

What they said ...
`We should have the right to raise our voices over issues that concern us. If that gets confused with subversion, I think we have a real problem in our democracy'
Edith Morgan, 78-year-old vice-president of the Older Persons Action Centre

`People need to recognise as a general observation, often people with extremist views seek shelter with moderate groups. We must not let down our guard'
Deputy Commissioner (Operations), Mr Graham Sinclair

On October 6, 1997, The Age began a series of exclusive reports apparently drawn from the files of the Victoria Police former surveillance and information gathering unit, the Operations Intelligence Unit.
The files indicated that information on some 1200 Victorians had been kept on an electronic database. The reports also claim that the unit had conducted elaborate undercover operations with some officers actually infiltrating a community radio station and acting as presenters while another officer posed as a student at Melbourne University and infiltrated a student strike committee.
Such activities and the large number of apparently ordinary people who had been observed and kept on file engendered heated debate and led to calls for guidelines and an independent monitoring body.

Background
Some key terms
`Intelligence' in this context refers either to information or to a branch of the police or the military which specialises in gathering information. In the military, the intelligence gathered is about the enemy, in the police the intelligence gathered is about those who are seen as being a potential threat either to public safety or to property.
`Covert surveillance' refers to undercover observation of a group or individual. This may involve bugging premises or tapping phones. It may also involve having officers assume false identities and join the groups about which they are seeking information. This is referred to as `infiltrating' the group.
A `dossier' is a detailed file of information built up about a particular person or organisation.
A brief history of the Operations Intelligence Unit
The Operations Intelligence Unit came into being in 1983 after the election of the John Cain Labor Government in Victoria.
It was one of two groups intended to replace the former police intelligence gathering body, the Special Branch.
The Cain Government apparently intended that the Operations Intelligence Unit would liaise with the organisers of major events and demonstrations to help with the allocation of uniformed police at public events.
It has been claimed however that six of its operatives adopted secret identities and covertly infiltrated groups with which they were liaising.
Dossiers were built up on a large number of people including a number of religious organisations, some elected politicians and a number of conservation groups. The Labor government first under Cain and then under Kirner were apparently not informed of this additional role undertaken by the Operations Intelligence Unit.
The Operations Intelligence Unit was disbanded in 1992 with the election of the Kennett Government, however a similar body performing somewhat similar functions has replaced it.

NOTE: There appears to be no Internet information dealing directly with this issue as it affects Victoria. However, there are a number of pages on the Internet which look at the intelligence gathering procedures in the United States, particularly as they involve the FBI.
The United States Centre for National Security Studies has released a paper
Recent Trends in Domestic and International Terrorism. This paper attempts to survey the threat terrorism poses from an American perspective.
The United States Centre for National Security Studies has also released another paper of particular relevance for this issue which examines the government guidelines which direct the surveillance and other activities of the FBI. This paper is titled
The FBI Domestic Counterterrorism Program.

Arguments suggesting Victoria Police's Operations Intelligence Unit has not behaved appropriately
One of the principal criticisms made of Victoria Police's covert intelligence units is that they have kept innocent groups and individuals under surveillance.
This is regarded by some as an unjustifiable infringement of the civil liberties and the right to privacy of those who were spied upon and whose organisations were infiltrated.
This view has been put by the premier of New South Wales, Mr Bob Carr, who has argued that the recent revelations about the covert operations of Victoria Police represent an `absolute affront to civil liberties' and should be investigated by a royal commission.
It has also been claimed that conducting spying operations against community groups and individuals who have committed no serious offences is a misuse of police resources.
According to this line of argument police personnel and the money required to employ them would be better used attempting to catch those involved in clearly criminal activities.
This view has been put by the former premier of Victoria, Mr John Cain, who has claimed that if the Operations Intelligence Unit behaved as has been claimed this was `quite absurd and a waste of resources'.
Further, it has been suggested that there has been a political bias evident in those whom the Operations Intelligence Unit have selected to spy on and that the decisions as to who should be `assessed' seem to have been made from an outdated view of Australian society.
According to this line of argument the intelligence unit was more concerned to scrutinise those on the left of the political spectrum than to investigate those on the right. In a report published in The Australian on October 11, Stuart Rintoul noted, `the most noticeable aspect of the OIU list ... is that most of those targeted were outside mainstream conservative thought ... the list overall displayed a Cold War attitude to social risk, or a vision of pre-war Australia.'
The Age, in its editorial of October 11 also noted, `it (the list of those under surveillance) does ... seem to have been gleaned more from the left than from the right of the political spectrum - and that in itself raises questions about police culture that an inquiry needs to answer.'
According to this line of argument, many of those who were `assessed' appear not to have been selected on the basis of any genuine threat they may have posed but because of an apparent bias within the Victoria Police against those with a leftist orientation.
A further general criticism of having police intelligence units spying on a wide range of ordinary citizens is that this practice could serve to discourage people from taking part in any form of protest action or lobbying.
According to this line of argument, if those interested in a particular environmental cause or a social or political issue know that they could be targeted by a covert surveillance unit and have dossiers built up on them then they may be reluctant to join an association or take any other form of action to promote their point of view.
This point has been made by Mr Goldbloom, a former secretary for the Congress for International Cooperation and Disarmament. Mr Goldbloom has claimed that whatever the justification offered for such spying on individuals and organisations, one of its main purposes is to discourage dissent.
In addition, it has been suggested that a number of the operations of the Operations Intelligence Unit may not have been legal.
Joseph O'Reilly, the executive director of the civil liberties group, Liberty Victoria, and Ms Pauline Spencer, the policy worker at the Federation of Community Legal Centres, have claimed, `... the preparedness of the police to view their actions as above the law, and thereby to break the law ... appears to be disturbing routine. To bug, tap and infiltrate meetings and organisations without the approval of a judge or magistrate is to open the floodgates to totally unfettered police power ...'
Finally, there are two major underlying criticisms made about the actions of the Operations Intelligence Unit.
The first is that there appear to have been no established guidelines to determine how the unit would proceed or whom it would investigate.
The second related criticism is that those who conducted the `assessments' do not appear to have been accountable for the way in which they operated.
Mr Joseph O'Reilly, the executive director of Liberty Victoria, has summed up this criticism in this manner, `We concede that these units exist and that they have a rightful purpose. But what the chief commissioner has failed to do is articulate the standards, the ethics and the criteria, and also the nature and extent of the operations.'
The Age, in its editorial of October 11, also argued, `it is clear that procedures must be put in place to ensure accountability for intelligence operations.'
The Age went on to recommend that the previous operations of the intelligence units of Victoria Police should be investigated and that in future the operations of the such intelligence units should be monitored by a `bipartisan parliamentary committee.' The Age editorial further suggested that `an annual review of police files, perhaps by a retired judge or other independent person, could be instituted.'

Arguments suggesting Victoria Police's Operations Intelligence Unit has behaved appropriately
The chief commissioner of Victoria Police, Neil Comrie, has defended the police force's use of information or intelligence gained through covert operations.
Neil Comrie has suggested that the primary reason why the police have to resort to undercover operations to gain information is to protect the community from the action of extremist groups from `both the left and the right, as well as those with vastly differing religious beliefs and social customs.'
Chief Commissioner Comrie argues, `accurate and timely information is an essential aspect of all elements of policing ... police must have information on the background, capabilities and intentions of the vast number of groups in the community based around political, environmental, ethnic, religious and other beliefs.'
Chief Commissioner Comrie has observed that numbers of groups with legitimate aims are prepared to take dangerous and illegal actions in order to achieve them.
For example, Chief Commissioner Comrie notes, there are those who conduct `Terrorist-like raids on poultry farms, (put) metal spikes in trees (and) incendiary devices in letter boxes.'
Neil Comrie has also noted that some apparently harmless organisations are front groups or fund-raisers for terrorist organisations overseas.
Chief Commissioner Comrie also claims that some groups are `unknowingly exploited by extremists who use them as a cover to pursue their own agendas.'
The same point has been made by the Deputy Commissioner (Operations), Mr Graham Sinclair, who has observed, `People need to recognise as a general observation, often people with extremist views seek shelter with moderate groups. We must not let down our guard.'
Neil Comrie notes that the fact that a group is being placed under observation, referred to as `risk assessment', does not mean that it is considered guilty of any criminal activity. It merely means that there is the possibility that it or others who have associated themselves with a particular group may at some time pose a risk to the community.
Chief Commissioner Comrie claims, `Victoria Police has a clear duty to conduct risk assessments so that informed decisions can be made about the potential threat posed to public figures, or the risk to community safety from demonstrations, marches and other public events.'
Chief Commissioner Comrie also notes that the information gathered is not used `in a sinister way or to persecute people or groups.'
Neil Comrie claims that the primary use of the information gathered is `to plan deployment of police personnel and resources, and to alert police to potential acts of politically motivated crime and violence.'
Such information is said to help police know what to expect from a particular organisation. For example, Chief Commissioner Comrie notes, `File information will tell us whether group members conducted themselves peacefully or violently in past demonstrations ...'
Further, Neil Comrie has observed, by no means all of those whose names were listed in the files viewed by The Age would have been the object of police observation.
Some may simply have been contacts within particular organisations with whom the police liaised to the advantage of the particular group concerned. It is also possible that some of the people named were there because they were being observed so that the police could better guarantee their safety.
Defenders of the Victoria Police information gathering procedures have maintained that if an organisation or group has nothing that they wish to hide then they should not have any objection to having been assessed by the Operations Intelligence Unit.
Mr Peter Bailey, in a comment published in Access Age on October 8, noted, `What's all the fuss, if you've nothing to hide, you'll find overt or covert, the police can be most helpful.' Similarly, the Victorian premier, Mr Jeff Kennett, claimed that he would be `furious' if Victoria Police did not have a file on him.
With regard to suggestions that Victoria Police's covert operations should be carried out according to guidelines established by the government, the premier, Mr Kennett has rejected this proposal.
Mr Kennett has claimed that this is not a policy matter which can be legitimately influenced by the government. Rather, Mr Kennett has suggested, the functioning of any intelligence gathering unit is an operational matter which is the concern of Victoria police.
`It's up to the police,' Mr Kennett has claimed. `It's an operational matter. Their job is to protect and uphold law and order, public safety (and) property safety. They can't do that unless they have got a certain amount of information.'

Further implications
Unless further information comes to light, it currently seems very unlikely that there will be a royal commission or any other form of investigation into the previous operation of Victoria Police's intelligence gathering unit.
The government has stated emphatically that it sees no reason for an investigation and has declared its confidence in both the current chief commissioner and in his two predecessors.
The government has also stated that it sees no need either for government guidelines for police covert operations or for any form of on-going independent monitoring body.
Given this it seems very unlikely that any changes will occur. Two of those calling for an inquiry are Bob Carr, who is the New South Wales Labor premier and John Cain who is a former Labor premier of Victoria.
The current government is likely to see such calls by their political opponents merely as an attempt to embarrass it. Ideologically, also, the current government appears happy with the past and present operation of Victoria Police intelligence gathering units. As already noted, the Victorian premier sees it as an operational matter which should be left to the discretion of Victoria Police.

Sources
The Age
6/10/97 page 1 news item by Gerard Ryle and Gary Hughes, `Secret police revealed'
6/10/97 page 1 news item by Gary Hughes and Gerard Ryle, `In style befitting James Bond ...'
6/10/97 page 6 news item by Gary Hughes and Gerard Ryle, `In a covert operation, dossiers mounted on the lives of ordinary people'
6/10/97 page 6 news item by Gary Hughes and Gerard Ryle, `Secret files on citizens shown to ASIO"
6/10/97 page 6 news item by Gary Hughes and Gerard Ryle, `Policemen posed as reporter to bug meetings'
6/10/97 page 6 news item by Gary Hughes and Gerard Ryle, `Agents presented breakfast show on 3CR'
6/10/97 page 6 news item by Gary Hughes and Gerard Ryle, `Picketing nurses spied on'
7/10/97 page 1 news item by Gary Hughes and Gerard Ryle, `1200 on secret police list'
7/10/97 page 1 news item by Gerard Ryle and Gary Hughes, `Force defends right to infiltrate activist groups'
7/10/97 page 11 comment by Philip Cleary, `Unseen eyes keep their sinister vigil'
7/10/97 page 11 comment by Joseph O'Reilly and Pauline Spencer, `Force in need of urgent treatment for its paranoia'
8/10/97 page 1 news item by Gerard Ryle and Gary Hughes, `Blacks and migrants the targets'
8/10/97 page 1 news item by Rachel Gibson, `Victoria's "most wanted"
8/10/97 page 9 news item by Gareth Boreham, `Kennett scoffs at probe calls'
8/10/97 page 9 news item by Gary Hughes and Gerard Ryle, `The student who majored in watching his peers'
8/10/97 page 14 editorial, `Who will guard the guards?'
8/10/97 page 14 cartoon by Tanner
8/10/97 page 14 letters from Gerry Harant, Paul Reid, Joseph Toscano, Lawrence Pope and Richard Snow
8/10/97 page 14 comment, first five items in Access Age
8/10/97 page 15 comment by Art Veno, `Why we must have someone to watch over us'
10/10/97 page 19 comment by Neil Comrie, `Legitimate use of power'
11/10/97 page 11 editorial, `Acting on the best intelligence'

The Australian
11/10/97 page 28 comment by Stuart Rintoul, `Taking liberties'

The Herald Sun
10/10/97 page 19 comment by Neil Comrie, `Why police are watchful'

Internet
There appears to be no Internet information dealing directly with this issue as it affects Victoria. However, there are a number of pages on the Internet which look at the intelligence gathering procedures in the United States, particularly as they involve the FBI.
The United States Centre for National Security Studies has released a paper Recent Trends in Domestic and International Terrorism. This paper attempts to survey the threat terrorism poses from an American perspective. This paper can be found at http://www.interlog.com/~vabiro/pubs/NCSS_trends.htm
The United States Centre for National Security Studies has also released another paper of particular relevance for this issue which examines the government guidelines which direct the surveillance and other activities of the FBI. This paper is tiled The FBI Domestic Counterterrorism Program and can be found at http://www.interlog.com/~vabiro/pubs/NCSS_FBI.htm