http://www.crikey.com.au/2009/05/27/by-2010-asio-will-have-doubled-in-size/ now with extra source Sun, 12 Feb 2012 00:58:05 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 http://www.crikey.com.au/2009/05/27/by-2010-asio-will-have-doubled-in-size/#comment-27404 kathleen fisher Wed, 27 May 2009 05:11:06 +0000 http://www.crikey.com.au/?p=61697#comment-27404 Glad someone's keeping half an eye on them. I've given up in disgust. And its not just the sensational failures that we hear about (which of course beg the question about what other sensational ethical failures of duty we don't hear about) but the petty little incompetencies and perversions that get me. You know that despite this exponential growth in staffing it can still take years (literally) to get security clearances. And I don't mean a process of back and forthing over some dispute on a security clearance, I mean total silence for years.... Are they really that busy? or are they really that incompetent? Has the customer-service revolution not reached the deep dark depths of secret-service land? That's always possible. Certainly, when they're questioned through the proper channels they say 'ooh, sowry, must've forgot about that one, just a little departmental error'. Then you continue waiting and waiting. Perhaps there's a computer error. Can't be anything wrong. How could we ever doubt our stupendously effective secret Parliamentary committee and the incy-wincy Inspector-General resources? But wait, perhaps, just perhaps, the tax-payer funded secret-secret services are not as entirely impartial and unbiased as we believe? Is it possible that they are still doing what they were found out to be doing under Menzies and being entirely political about who they give security clearances to? [those darn lefty-communist ratbags] Hell, we can't forget that time because it was probably the first (and last) time that public service staff organisations have ever been known to support the introduction of freedom of information laws. A great moment, even if it was just to stop their secret service colleagues from interfering with their job prospects with deceitful political meddling. Of course, they couldn't possibly be doing that now, because now we have administrative law and they have to give reasons for what they do (what an innovation that was). And they couldn't simply be doing a 'go slow' or 'bottom drawer' on particular individuals for politically partisan, or perhaps even personal, reasons to get around this? Nooo, this is Australia. We don't do that here. We're like the Brits, we're as white as Whitehall and as bribe-free as BAE. And how could we think anything else when the lovely David Irvine tells us that he has a very nice organisation with terribly nice ethical staff that have just been horribly misunderstood by that nasty biased judge. Clearly, this man knows whats going on, we've nothing to fear, we're in good hands. Glad someone’s keeping half an eye on them. I’ve given up in disgust. And its not just the sensational failures that we hear about (which of course beg the question about what other sensational ethical failures of duty we don’t hear about) but the petty little incompetencies and perversions that get me. You know that despite this exponential growth in staffing it can still take years (literally) to get security clearances. And I don’t mean a process of back and forthing over some dispute on a security clearance, I mean total silence for years…. Are they really that busy? or are they really that incompetent? Has the customer-service revolution not reached the deep dark depths of secret-service land? That’s always possible. Certainly, when they’re questioned through the proper channels they say ‘ooh, sowry, must’ve forgot about that one, just a little departmental error’. Then you continue waiting and waiting. Perhaps there’s a computer error. Can’t be anything wrong. How could we ever doubt our stupendously effective secret Parliamentary committee and the incy-wincy Inspector-General resources?
But wait, perhaps, just perhaps, the tax-payer funded secret-secret services are not as entirely impartial and unbiased as we believe? Is it possible that they are still doing what they were found out to be doing under Menzies and being entirely political about who they give security clearances to? [those darn lefty-communist ratbags] Hell, we can’t forget that time because it was probably the first (and last) time that public service staff organisations have ever been known to support the introduction of freedom of information laws. A great moment, even if it was just to stop their secret service colleagues from interfering with their job prospects with deceitful political meddling. Of course, they couldn’t possibly be doing that now, because now we have administrative law and they have to give reasons for what they do (what an innovation that was). And they couldn’t simply be doing a ‘go slow’ or ‘bottom drawer’ on particular individuals for politically partisan, or perhaps even personal, reasons to get around this? Nooo, this is Australia. We don’t do that here. We’re like the Brits, we’re as white as Whitehall and as bribe-free as BAE. And how could we think anything else when the lovely David Irvine tells us that he has a very nice organisation with terribly nice ethical staff that have just been horribly misunderstood by that nasty biased judge. Clearly, this man knows whats going on, we’ve nothing to fear, we’re in good hands.

]]>